fJMTAWie
■ ;■> ■•'■si }^
".'O'^ '•
No. 1
ONTARIO
%tQi^Mmt of Ontario
Betiatcsf
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Wednesday, November 22, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
'■((
til
'■'(
If
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 22, 1961
Speech from the Throne, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor 3
Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1960, bill to confirm, Mr. Robarts, first reading S
Eulogies to deceased members, James A. Maloney (Renfrew South),
Harry C. Nixon (Brant), Albert Wren (Kenora) S
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 11
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, November 22, 1961, being the first day of the Third Session of the
Twenty-Sixth ParHament of the Province of Ontario, for the despatch of business pursuant
to a proclamation of the Honourable J. Keiller Mackay, Lieutenant-Governor of the province.
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
The Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor,
having entered the House and, being seated
upon the Throne, was then pleased to open
the Session with the following gracious
speech.
Hon. J. Keiller Mackay (Lieutenant-
Governor): Mr. Speaker and members of the
legislative assembly of Ontario:
It is a great pleasure for me to welcome
you to the Third Session of this Twenty-
sixth Legislature. In extending to you this
welcome I know that you would wish me to
take cognizance of the retirement of the
former Prime Minister who has given able
and distinguished leadership to this House
for the past 12 years and whose conscientious
and unflagging efforts have made such a
notable contribution to the economic well-
being and development of this great province
and its people. At the same time, I know you
would wish to join in extending to the new
Prime Minister and his associates our best
wishes and prayers that they be guided in
wisdom and righteousness in carrying out the
heavy responsibilities they have assumed.
For the second consecutive year, the Legis-
lature is commencing its session in the
autumn in conformity with the pattern of
last year. Hon. members will have ample
opportunity to study, consider and discuss the
government's financial and economic pro-
gram, including the budget, the estimates
of each department, new legislation and
numerous other matters calculated to pro-
mote the growth and development of our
province and the prosperity of our people.
As in past years, the government's pro-
gram has been designed to achieve an
economic climate conducive to industrial ex-
pansion and employment. The year 1961 has
witnessed a strong resurgence of economic
growth. The pace of economic activity has
accelerated. One by one the major economic
indicators have advanced to higher levels.
Wednesday, November 22, 1961
Ontario's gross provincial product has risen
to an annual rate of $16 billion. The rate of
unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis
has declined since last February. Ontario's
ratio of unemployment is well below the
national average and substantially less than
it has been in the last two years.
The manufacturing industries, which exer-
cise such an important effect upon the health
of the whole provincial, and, indeed, the
national economy are now operating at record
production levels. Despite the declining out-
put of uranium and iron ore, the entire value
of Ontario's mineral production will again
approximate 1960's record of almost $1
billion. The output of our forest industries
has increased. Despite a number of diflBcul-
ties, housing construction is running well
above that of last year. Agricultural output
has risen. Exports have ben increasing. An
encouraging aspect of our economy is that
public confidence has been well maintained,
and that the broad economic picture suggests
a continuance of growth and expansion
throughout the coming year.
We cannot be complacent, however. The
possible entry of the United Kingdom and
other countries into the European economic
community will introduce new stresses and
strains. The price of progress must be un-
ceasing attention to ways and means of
improving quality and cutting costs.
The legislative, financial and economic pro-
gram that will be presented to this House is
the most comprehensive in our history.
Among many other measures designed to pro-
mote the progress and economic well-being of
our province, this program will include:
1. New methods to promote co-operation
between industry, labour and government,
and to increase production and employment;
2. New measures to expand agricultural
and industrial research facilities;
3. A major increase in the province's assist-
ance to education. Not only will grants to
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
local school boards be increased, but larger
contributions will be made to universities. Of
great importance too will be the continued
operation of the $200 million federal-provin-
cial-municipal program to provide trade and
technical school education for our growing
industrial economy;
4. New measures to conserve and develop
our natural resources;
5. An accelerated program of highways,
parks and economic development in northern
Ontario;
6. Measures to strengthen individual and
family security;
7. Additional advances in mental health
care and hospital services;
8. Action to improve the Emergency
Measures Organization;
9. New federal-provincial tax-sharing ar-
rangements.
A comprehensive plan is being evolved
to assist the economy in achieving a satis-
factory rate of economic growth. My govern-
ment is aware that there is no easy solution
to our difficulties, or that it can provide
some magic formula which, if taken in suffi-
cient doses, would cause them to disappear.
Since the task ahead requires the co-opera-
tion of all major groups in the economy, an
advisory committee for economic develop-
ment has been established, composed of men
of wide experience in industry, labour and
government. Among the sub-committees to
be established under the new advisory com-
mittee will be one to study the special prob-
lems of northern Ontario.
In addition, legislation will be introduced
to merge The Department of Economics and
The Department of Commerce and Develop-
ment under the title of The Department of
Economics and Development. This will per-
mit a closer integration of the work of The
Department of Economics, which studies
economic conditions and trends, with the
work of The Department of Commerce and
Development, which places special emphasis
upon industrial promotion. Increased em-
phasis is to be placed upon industrial
research, with the result tliat the work of
tlie Ontario Research Foundation will be
expanded.
Plans for the development of additional
supplies of power and energy in all parts of
the province will be placed before you. The
100,000 kilowatt thermal generating unit at
the Thunder Bay station in Fort William
is to be brought into service early in 1962.
Progress is being made on the Lakeview ther-
mal generating station, which is designed
to supply 1,800,000 kilowatts of power.
Hydro-electric power stations which have a
total dependable capacity of 500,000 kilo-
watts are under construction, or are planned
in the James Bay watershed. The capacity
of these new power stations is sufficient to
meet the electric power requirements of
nearly all of Ontario's 1,650,000 homes. Of
the two nuclear power stations now under
constniction, the plant at Rolphton, near Des
Joachims, will be brought into service ne.xt
spring.
You will be asked to consider legislation
providing for the consolidation of the north-
ern Ontario hydro-electric power system,
commonly known as the "northern Ontario
properties," with the southern Ontario sys-
tem. This will provide for the financial
integration of all systems and permit a more
economical development and operation of
electric power plants throughout the whole
province. The residents of northern Ontario
will be ensured greater stability of supplies
of power at a reasonable cost.
The Department of Energy Resources,
with the full co-operation of industry, has
been preparing a comprehensive set of
rules and regulations for the guidance of all
who are concerned with energy production
and distribution. This work is nearing com-
pletion and the regulations will shortly be
implemented. The Department has devel-
oped an expanded program to survey all
provincial energy resources. During the
coming year, a review of all fuel resources
within the province will be undertaken. An
examination into natural gas storage capacity
is being made. Codes and regulations gov-
erning the natural gas industry will be re-
viewed to ensure that they are adequate and
effective.
Legislation will be introduced to set up
an Agricultural Research Institute to co-
ordinate agricultural research in Ontario.
Administrative changes to produce greater
efficiency and economy will be introduced
in connection with the Ontario Agricultural
College, the Ontario Veterinary College and
the MacDonald Institute at Guelph. The
Co-operative Association Act will be intro-
duced to provide means to assist agricultural
co-operatives in the fields of marketing and
transportation. You will be asked to amend
The Livestock Products Act to provide for
the making of regulations to permit bonding
of livestock dealers. To simplify the proce-
dures in connection with drainage, your
approval will be sought for the consolida-
tion of five related Acts.
The Department of Lands and Forests will
NOVEMBER 22, 1961
expand its program of forest management,
preservation of wild life and the mainte-
nance and development of additional park
areas. In addition to the growing number
of provincially assisted parks in conservation
areas, the provincial parks system now con-
sists of 79 provincial parks. Seventeen new
parks were brought into operation last year
and many others are now under develop-
ment or are being planned. More wilderness
areas will be added to the 35 already estab-
lished. You will be asked to provide
increased funds for research in forest man-
agement, fish and wild life. The conser-
vation functions of The Department of
Commerce and Development are being trans-
ferred to Thie Department of Lands and
Forests, so that the main conservation efforts
of this government and its municipalities will
be concentrated in one department.
In the field of mining, the province has
entered into a number of joint projects with
the government of Canada to provide air-
borne geophysical surveys for the mapping
of the whole province. Paralleling this devel-
opment will be an expansion of The Depart-
ment of Mines' geological work to provide for
increased field work and for more geological
reports and maps. These surveys will provide
additional information for prospectors and
result in further mineral developments.
The program of matching grants to region-
ally-based organizations as an incentive to the
development and promotion of local tourist
attractions, which commenced in 1961, will
be continued. The Department of Travel and
Publicity will continue its program of estab-
lishing new and relocating old reception
centres as new bridges and highways are con-
structed. It is intended to continue the
search for some early Huron villages and to
carry out excavations at historic sites, as well
as to continue the program of commemorating
historic events and places by means of
plaques.
You will be asked to provide a substantial
increase in assistance for education. The
growth in the enrolment in our elementary
and secondary schools continues to impose a
heavy strain upon our resources, both financial
and physical. Some indication of the dimen-
sions of this problem may be obtained from
last year's increase of more than 100,000
pupil places, constructed at a cost of $100
million. As the growth in enrolment shows
no signs of abatement, expansion must con-
tinue.
Revisions of courses of study are under way
in many subjects for both elementary and
secondary schools. The major undertaking for
next year is the development of new courses
for kindergarten and grades one to six. New
text-books in history, geography and science
have been prepared.
Staffing the Ontario school system is requir-
ing herculean efforts, but tiie results are
gratifying. The number of teachers graduating
from the provincial teachers* colleges is more
than double that of just five years ago. None
of this would have been possible without the
expansion in our teachers' colleges. The sixth
of the new buildings provided for teachers'
colleges during the last six years is now under
construction in Windsor. The other five
recently built are located in Toronto, Hamil-
ton, London, New Toronto and Port Arthur.
The extension of facilities has gone hand-in-
hand with the program to raise the standards
of admission to these institutions.
The growing industrialization of our prov-
ince and the need for special skills and greater
adaptability in industry and business has
pointed up the value of the institutes of tech-
nology and other trade and vocational schools.
Under the new federal-provincial technical
and vocational training agreement, the two
senior levels of government assume the capi-
tal cost of the schools. As a result, a large
number of local school boards are providing
increased accommodation for the teaching of
technical and business courses. New trade
schools will be established in Toronto,
Ottawa, London and Sault Ste. Marie, and a
new institute of technology is planned for
Kirkland Lake. A new institute of technology
building will replace the present rented quar-
ters in Ottawa. The Ryerson Institute of
Technology will be completed to accommo-
date a total enrolment of about 4,000 pupils.
Amendments will be introduced to The
Department of Education Act, The Schools
Administration Act, The Secondary Schools
and Boards of Education Act, The Public
Schools Act, The Separate Schools Act, and
The Public Libraries Act.
Mental and public health services and pro-
cedures are constantly being revised in
keeping with scientific and professional pro-
gress. You will be asked to approve plans
and vote monies for improvement to our
mental hospitals. A unit of the Ontario hos-
pital school at Orillia that has been demol-
ished will be rebuilt. Two other wings will
be replaced in the future. Residential wings
will be set up in all Ontario hospitals as well
as in the three new hospitals at Goderich,
Owen Sound and Palmerston, Increased em-
hasis will be placed upon rehabilitation. A
new rehabilitation branch has been established
to provide in-hospital and post-hospital train-
ing and local vocational training for patients
successfully treated in our mental and TB
6
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hospitals. The work of the new radiation
protection laboratory, the first established by
any province, will be accelerated. Efforts
will continue to be made to encourage young
men and women to enter the medical and
nursing professions.
Enrolment in the Ontario Hospital Services
Plan is continuing to rise. More than 5.8
milHon Ontario residents— more than 95 per
cent of the population— are now free from
worry over the financial hazards of hos-
pitalization. This is an increase of 5.3 per
cent over membership in the plan a year ago.
The report of the departmental committee
set up to study physical fitness in this province
will be made available to the hon. members
during the course of the session. The physical
fitness of our people, including not only our
youth, but our post-school age population, is
a matter of great concern to your govern-
ment and the committee's report will be use-
ful in setting out a basis for our future
activities in this field. Action will be taken
to make full use of the recent federal pro-
posals.
My government welcomes the establish-
ment by the federal government of the Royal
Commission on Health Insurance. We will
make technical assistance available and co-
operate fully with the commission in the
conduct of its enquiry.
In the field of welfare, the committee
appointed to review Ontario's child welfare
program will report upon the completion of
its work. Legislation will be introduced to
serve children who reside in charitable in-
stitutions operated by private organizations.
Under new concepts of care and treatment,
children with emotional problems will be able
to receive the type of residential care and
specialized attention that they require. Con-
sideration will be given to the establishment
of community children's \allages to serve
pre-delinquent children. A bill will be intro-
duced to replace the present Charitable
Institutions Act with respect to the care of
adults. The rehabilitation program for handi-
capped persons is being widened to include
those on the welfare roles who need re-
habilitation services.
The construction of new highways, the
improvement of existing facilities and the
provision of financial assistance to the muni-
cipalities for road and street construction will
continue. The Department of Highways,
working in close co-operation with other de-
partments, is conducting extensive research
into the means of financing highway and road
construction. Municipal traffic studies will
be encouraged by provincial technical assist-
ance and grants of 75 per cent of the cost.
Plans are underway to construct new roads
linking major airports to adjacent com-
munities. The Rainy Lake causeway is
scheduled for completion in 1962, and con-
struction is proceeding at both ends of the
Fort Frances-Atikokan highway. Additional
work will be done on the trans-Canada high-
way and on new roads in northern Ontario.
As part of the federal-provincial roads to
resources program, forestry roads of a new
type will be constructed by The Department
of Highways in northern Ontario.
Additional appropriations will be required
for 401 highway which is scheduled for com-
pletion in 1963. Rapid progress is being made
on the construction of 403 highway, the
Hamilton by-pass. Work will continue on
the new controlled access 405 highway be-
tween the Homer Skyway and the new inter-
national bridge at Queenston, providing a
more direct link between the Queen Eliza-
beth Way and New York State Thruway.
Legislation will also be introduced to increase
from 80 to 90 per cent the contribution of
the province towards bridges and culverts on
any connecting link in towns and villages
having a population of more than 2,500, other
than separated towns.
The Department of Transport will con-
tinue the development and implementation of
policies and procedures to ensure the safe
and orderly movement of highway trafiBc and
to improve driving performance. The policy
of re-examining selected driver groups will
be expanded. Amendments to The Highway
Traffic Act will be proposed to keep pace
with new concepts of traffic demands and to
further the cause of safety. An analysis of
the two-year experience with the demerit
point system indicates that it has been an
outstanding success and has done much to
encourage and improve proper driving atti-
tudes. Legislation will be advanced to further
increase its effectiveness and to eliminate
apparent inequities in the present system.
The successful operation of vehicle inspection
lanes in the Metropolitan Toronto area has
emphasized the significance of this safety
activity and it is proposed to expand this
service by making available mobile inspection
units to provide inspection facilities in support
of community safety programs throughout the
province.
This problem of highway safety has also
continued to receive attention from the other
departments concerned and a Cabinet com-
mittee, consisting of the Attorney-General
NOVEMBER 22, 1961
(Hon. Mr. Roberts), and the Ministers of
Highways (Hon. Mr. Goodfellow) and Trans-
port (Hon. Mr. Rowntree), has been set up to
provide for greater co-ordination of govern-
ment activities in this field. A constant re-
view is being made of the situation and
studies are continually being carried out to
eflFect improvements, by way of greater police
protection on our highways, improved road
construction, and more effective highway
usage.
It is expected that a report of the select
committee on automobile insurance will be
submitted to the Legislature shortly. The
committee set up to study expropriation pro-
cedures has nearly completed its work and
it is expected that a report will be presented
before the close of the session.
The Royal Commission on Industrial Safety
has now presented its report and it has been
made available to the hon. members of the
Legislature and to the public. This report is
under active study in The Department of
Labour. Legislation will be introduced at
this session in reference to many of the rec-
ommendations contained in the report.
Action is being taken to resolve manage-
ment and labour problems in the construction
industry. During the past year, a special
Construction Industry Arbitration Board was
appointed to adjudicate upon grievances
arising in connection with the construction
industry in Toronto. A Royal commissioner
has also been appointed to report upon prob-
lems in the industry with a view to creating
greater harmony and stability. It is anti-
cipated that the commissioner's report will
be completed and made available before the
end of this session. The Department of
Labour is also carrying on investigations and
providing assistance wherever required.
Action will be taken to strengthen the
government's legislation and administration
in support of the maintenance of human
rights irrespective of race, language, sex,
colour or creed.
Hon. members have received copies of
the Second Report of the Ontario Committee
on Portable Pensions and a suggested draft of
The Pension Benefits Act. The portable
pensions committee is, at present, reviewing
the draft bill and drafting regulations pur-
suant to it. You will be given an opportunity
to study and review progress on this impor-
tant matter.
The Department of the Provincial Secretary
and Citizenship will require additional funds
to conduct seminars for ethnic and community
leaders. The Department has co-operated
with The Department of Education in training
teachers to teach English to newcomers.
The province's liquor legislation, including
education, research, and control, is under
review. Various bills relating to municipal
affairs will be introduced in the Legislature,
including amendments to The Assessment Act,
The Local Improvement Act, The Municipal
Act, The Ontario Municipal Board Act, and
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
Act. To accelerate the construction of the
subway in Metropolitan Toronto and to
increase employment, you will be asked to
approve a $60 million loan to Metropolitan
Toronto.
Continuing improvements will be made to
the province's reform program. A new train-
ing school for girls at Lindsay will soon be in
operation. A new training school for boys
is under construction at Simcoe.
The state of international relations justifies
the strengthening of our Emergency Measures
Organization and the development of plans
to co-ordinate and organize facilities and
services in case of war. The details of the
action to be taken will be outlined to you.
The province's Emergency Measures Organi-
zation is being transferred to The Attorney-
General's Department.
In the administration of justice, constant
efforts are being made to meet changing situa-
tions. The government will introduce legisla-
tion providing for the creation of an Ontario
Police Commission vested with comprehensive
powers relating to the maintenance of law
and order in Ontario.
A report recently prepared on county and
district court jurisdiction and related matters
will be tabled and will be the basis of a plan
to provide better utilization of our judicial
services at the county and district court levels.
Plans are being drawn to make our civil
courts more readily available to the public
who have occasion to seek justice there.
Appropriate legislation will be introduced to
give effect to a number of the recommenda-
tions in the report.
You will be requested to approve legisla-
tion to enable the government to enter into
the new tax-sharing arrangements which have
been negotiated with the federal government
to replace the existing arrangements due to
expire on March 31, 1962. The new arrange-
ments, under which tlie province will be free
to impose, adjust and alter its tax rates in the
major fields of direct taxation in accordance
with its financial requirements, will provide
a much greater measure of flexibility in the
raising of provincial revenue. Not only will
increased revenues accrue to the province
8
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
from the individual income tax field without a
corresponding increase in the burden of taxa-
tion, but the province will be afforded the
opportunity of entering into a tax collection
agreement under which the federal govern-
ment will collect the tax.
Legislation amending The Corporations Act
will be introduced to codify the Common Law
with respect to the power of corporations to
grant mortgages on property, and also to
provide reciprocal legislation to make it pos-
sible for a corporation, incorporated under
another jurisdiction in Canada, to amalgamate
with an Ontario corporation. It is proposed
to amend The Corporations' Information Act
to provide the public with more up-to-date
information with respect to changes in the
affairs of corporations as they occur.
Plans will be presented to establish a com-
mittee of the Legislature to deal with the
matter of redistribution. It is the intention of
my government, through this procedure, to
provide our people with complete and effec-
tive representation, based on the changes
in our population pattern of the last few
years.
The legislative and financial program that
will be placed before you this session is
designed to promote expansion and develop-
ment and to improve the scope and efficiency
of the province's social, welfare and economic
services. It embraces all the departments
and agencies of the government. It has been
formulated with regard to both the needs
of our province and its financial capacity to
support the program.
I am confident that the hon. members will
give their conscientious attention to the con-
sideration of this program.
May Divine Providence guide you in your
deliberations.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
was then pleased to retire from the chamber.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House
that to prevent mistakes, I have secured a
copy of His Honour's speech, which I will
now read.
(Reading dispensed with.)
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE REVISED STATUTES OF
ONTARIO, 1960
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to Confirm the Revised
Statutes of Ontario, 1960".
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon.
Attorney-General, that the speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor to this
House be taken into consideration tomorrow.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House
that I have received during the recess of the
House notification of vacancies which have
occurred in the membership of the House
by the reason of the death of James Anthony
Maloney, member for the electoral district of
Renfrew South; the death of Harry Corwin
Nixon, member for the electoral district of
Brant; and the death of Albert Wren, mem-
ber for the electoral district of Kenora.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, in con-
nection with this report I would like to refer
to the members who have passed away since
the end of the last session. They will all be
very greatly missed by us in the course of our
deliberations over the next few months.
I would like first to recall tliat during the
last session of this Legislature two of our
members died: the Hon. Dr. WilHam J.
Dunlop, who was my predecessor in The
Department of Education, which he served
with great honour and distinction, and Mr.
W. H. Collings who was liquor commissioner
for the past several years and faithfully
carried out the duties of that office.
James Anthony Maloney was first elected
to the Legislature in a by-election in 1956 in
Renfrew South. He had lived his whole life-
time in the historic county of Renfrew and
came from a family with a political back-
ground on both sides of the house. Before
being elected to the Legislature he played a
large part in the public and professional life
of his community. Upon entering the Legis-
lature he took a keen interest in its affairs and
played an influential part in the work of a
number of its committees, notably the labour
committee which presented its report several
years ago. He became Minister of Mines in
1958 and did much to strengthen the work of
this important department. As well as being
assiduous in the work of his department, his
advice was always sought in the Cabinet. He
"'as a warm and colourful personality and had
a wide circle of friends. Though an aggres-
sive debater he was admired and liked by
members of all parties. His passing has left
a gap which will not be easy to fill.
The House has also to mourn the passing
of a former Prime Minister of Ontario, Harry
Corwin Nixon. Mr. Nixon had represented
Brant County continuously in the Legislature
NOVEMBER 22, 1961
for 42 years, having first been elected in
1919. In that period of time he was asso-
ciated with three pohtical parties, the United
Farmers of Ontario, the Progressives and the
Liberals, and his riding gave him continuous
support. The length of his service in the
Legislature is without parallel in the history
of Ontario and it is very doubtful if it has
been equalled in any Legislature in Canada.
During his long years of service both in the
Opposition and on the government side, he
served this province ably and well. Although
he held the Premiership for only three
months he was Provincial Secretary both in
the United Farmers of Ontario administra-
tion in 1919 and in the Liberal administra-
tion following 1934. In the last number of
years he had given valued service in the
Opposition and his comments were always
listened to with keen attention both by his
own party and by the government side of
the House. Mr. Nixon was in many ways a
quiet and almost self-effacing person but he
did not lack warmth and feeling and among
his attributes may be given those very im-
portant ones of a quiet sense of humour and
balanced common-sense. He will be greatly
missed by all hon. members of this House.
Most recently the House has heard of the
death of Albert Wren, the Liberal Labour
member for the riding of Kenora. He was
first elected to the Legislature ten years ago
in 1951. Since that time he has been a valued
member of the Opposition and served as
labour critic. He was always a keen critic
in matters pertaining to this and other fields
of legislative activity. He was always fore-
most where the interests of his riding were
concerned and he was well liked by hon.
members of all parties. Mr. Wren had a
fine record of service in this community as
well as in this House which will not be the
same without him.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all hon.
members of this Legislature will join in
expressions of sympathy to the families of
these three great and worthy public serv-
ants who have in their various ways played
such great parts in the affairs of this prov-
ince.
Mr. Speaker, before the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) and the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald)
speak, and before I move the adjournment
of the House, and with your permission, I
would like to express our deep appreciation
to the former Prime Minister (Hon. L. M.
Frost). His legislative career covers a long
span of years, for he became a member of
this Legislature in 1937 and subsequently in
1943 was appointed to the Cabinet.
He became Prime Minister on the 4th of
May, 1949, in which position he served
until the 8th of November, 1961. In that
high office for over 12 years the government
of this province was under his capable
leadership. On the firm foundation he estab-
lished we will build in the people's inter-
ests a superstructure in keeping with the
growth and development which our expand-
ing economy will require.
The Hon. Mr. Frost's common touch, his
human quality, his love of people and his
distinctive generosity will always be remem-
bered by the people of Ontario who will
cherish him and his wife in their hearts with
aflFection that the passing of the years will
not diminish.
Applause.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is my oppor-
tunity to join the hon. Prime Minister (Hon.
Mr. Robarts) and to express the regrets of
the hon. members of this side of the House
in the loss that we have all experienced in
the time that has elapsed since we last met.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime Minister has
made reference to the fact that there are
five vacancies, all caused by death in the
course of the last several months. Two of
the five died during our last session, and I
would like now to refer to the passing of
Mr^ Maloney and Mr. Nixon and Mr. Wren.
Mr. Speaker, personal sacrifice is the cost
of political life and progress is measured by
sacrifice. These men were among us and
were one of us. We are assembled in a
parliamentary Legislature but there are cer-
tain opportunities when non-partisan respect
can be eulogized and I think that this is
one such occasion. I think we join in the
common humanity that we feel in the pass-
ing of these three men. They were all three
known to us intimately. They laboured here
in this House. They worked with us, and
eflFectively.
We know in Jim Maloney, Mr. Speaker,
a man who loved life and who lived it zest-
fully. Life to Mr. Maloney was politics.
Who can forget and who will ever forget the
dramatic contribution that Mr. Maloney
made incessantly and continually to this
House and to its debates in the course of the
last several years. Certainly, on my behalf
and on behalf of those in this side of the
House, we offer our sympathy to his family.
And then, Mr. Speaker, I would refer to
10
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Wren. Albert Wren was a big man. He
represented the biggest riding in Ontario
stretching for I suppose for one-third of the
area across northern Ontario. And all of us
know the passion with which he served that
area. He seemed to have a continual
romance with northern Ontario and to be a
spokesman for its people and its interests and
its hopes and its expectations. And I think
he served that purpose dramatically and I
am sure you would want to join with me in
expressions of sympathy to his family.
What to say of Harry Nixon? Mr. Speaker,
the hon. Prime Minister has eulogized Mr.
Nixon very effectively and very well. He
was a member of this House longer than any
other person. I beheve that he served in
this House longer than any other man in
Canada excepting Sir John A. Macdonald
and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Harry Nixon was a man among men. He
had a sense of integrity and honesty and
purpose, and I would mention particularly
loyalty, because in our democratic parlia-
mentary system loyalty too is an extraordinary
virtue. These things he demonstrated in an
extraordinary fashion and certainly here again
you would join with me in expression of
sympathy to his family.
Mr. Speaker, if I may turn to a more
pleasant task that has been afforded by the
introduction of the hon. Prime Minister to
the subject and to the person of the hon.
member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Frost).
Mr. Speaker, sitting as I do on this side of
the House, it is an extraordinary thing to see
and be present in the House when the hon.
member for Victoria is not in charge of the
House as such. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this
formal occasion will permit me, maybe in
an unguarded moment, to pay my compli-
ments to this distinguished gentleman.
For 18 years the hon. member for Victoria
has sat on the treasury benches. For 12 years
he has led the House, a consummate political
artist who liked to disguise himself as a
country lawyer from Lindsay. The disguise
was understandable but not misinterpreted.
We felt, on this side of the House, that the
hon. member exercised his extraordinary
ability in a very effective way.
And surely on this occasion I would say
that it is a pleasure for all of us and I am
sure for all people in all parts of Ontario to
know that the hon. member will continue
in this House for some indefinite period. It
will be for the hon. member himself to say
for how long.
And then I would want to pay, on my be-
half and on behalf of all, a tribute to his
wife who has sat here constantly, in the
years I have served, as a helper to him. He
often made reference to his wife as his
leader of the Opposition. We will under-
stand together, Mrs. Frost, some of the prob-
lems of a leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, one other opportunity and I
do it enthusiastically, is provided to me to
congratulate the new Prime Minister. At a
young age he is assuming great responsibility.
He is to be congratulated for accepting this
responsibility and shouldering the burden that
it entails.
I must be guarded again, Mr. Speaker, in
my congratulations, but I certainly say that
it is a pleasure to ha\e Mr. Robarts assume
this responsibility and to congratulate him^
and to tell him that we all hope and we all
expect that wisdom and courage will be with
him and stay with him in the guidance of his
party and in this House, and in that we wish
him well. I do so personally and on behalf
of all hon. members on this side of the
House.
Applause.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, this is a particularly sad occasion in
one respect. Periodically we have had occa-
sion as members of this House to pause and
mourn the passing of one of our colleagues,
but I think very seldom has it been our mis-
fortime to have to mourn the passing of three
within such a short period as the few months
since last this Legislature was sitting, par-
ticularly when they were three such men as
have now passed on.
Jim Maloney, above everything else, was a
gallant fighter, and I \enture to suggest that
we on this side of the House are going to
miss him even more than on the government
side of the House. It will be a duller place
without him.
As for Harry Nixon, I think it is perhaps a
unique occasion, because as the hon. Prime
Minister (Hon. Mr. Robarts) has indicated,
this is the passing of a man who had a tenure
of office in this Legislature longer than at any
time throughout its whole history. He was
a man of quiet dignity as befits a person who
has held an oflBce, the highest office in this
province, and who maintained the confidence
of his people back home throughout all of
these 42 years. But I think all of us, in
whichever section of the House we sit, will
miss him as a personal friend.
As for Albert Wren, if there ever was a
man who was a true son of the north I
NOVEMBER 22, 1961
11
think Albert Wren was that person. He was
attuned to its atmosphere and a vigorous
spokesman for its problems and aspirations;
certainly for all of us, it is a rather sobering
thing to pause and take note of the fact that
a man in his early 40's, as physically strong
as Albert Wren, should suddenly be cut down
in this fashion. It makes us all reflect on the
course of this earthly life, its purpose and to
what extent we are fulfilling it.
We shall miss all of these who have passed
on and I would like to join with the hon.
Prime Minister and the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) in extending
our sympathy to the bereaved members of
the families.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very pleasant thing to
be able to change now and to offer a eulogy
to a man who is living and I have no illusions
that he is still very much alive.
I am not going to be unguarded in this
moment, Mr. Speaker. I have sat in this
House now for some six years and I will con-
fess to you that I have found myself one half
of the time fascinated and enthralled by the
expert practices of the art of politics which
the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Frost)
has given us down through those years. It
it is my considered view he is in a class in
Canadian politics with Sir John A. Macdonald
and McKenzie King in that respect. It is
rather a select group.
The other half of the time, Mr. Speaker,
I have sat over here frustrated with trying
to puncture the image that this country lawyer
from Victoria has presented to the public and
all the things behind it that we wanted
revealed, but I would confess to him now that
I and all the rest of us have failed, failed
rather lamentably, as perhaps the election
results are the best proof.
However, we will forget that; that is a
closed chapter, and I would like to join with
the hon. leader of the Opposition and the
hon. Prime Minister in wishing the hon. mem-
ber and his wife a very pleasant time in their
years of relative retirement freed from some
of the tensions that he has borne down
through the years. What we have failed in
achieving with him we shall now pick up with
his successor.
However, Mr. Speaker, that again lies in
the future and for the moment I would just
like to say to the new hon. Prime Minister
that we congratulate him for attaining this
very high office and certainly I, as a fellow
graduate of the Navy, welcome the fact that
the senior service is achieving these high
posts in this honoured Legislature.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ex-
tend to the hon. Prime Minister my con-
gratulations, but to tell him that I do so
conscious of the fact that events have thrust
upon me something that I never expected.
I suddenly realized a couple of weeks ago
that these events have now placed me in
the position of being the senior in point of
years and in point of tenure of leadership
of the three leaders in the House.
I have wondered whether I should not
powder my wig each morning, befitting
such years. I assure the hon. Prime Minis-
ter I shall try to live up to them and at the
same time fulfil the role of an Opposition
critic.
Applause.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moved the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 2
ONTARIO
Hegisilature of (j^ntario
Bebatesi
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty'Sixth Legislature
Thursday, November 23, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 23, 1961
Reading and receiving petitions 15
Motion for provision for printing reports, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 15
Motion to appoint standing committees, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 16
Motion to appoint select committee re standing committees, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 19
Motion to appoint Mr. K. Brown as chairman of the committee of the whole, Mr.
Robarts, agreed to 19
Consolidation of all works and systems of die Hydro-Electric Power Commission of
Ontario, bill to eflFect, Mr. Macaulay, first reading 20
Power Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Macaulay, first reading 20
Presenting committee report on gambling, Mr. Roberts 23
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 28
IS
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, November 23, 1961
The House met at 3:05 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to our Legislature and today we are
honoured to have with us as visitors four
members of the Manitoba Legislature who
are here on the work of a select committee.
The members of the Manitoba Legislature
are in the Speaker's gallery— Harry Shewman,
Douglas Watt, George Johnson and Stanley
Roberts.
Presenting petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the corporation of Greater Oshawa's
Community Chest, praying that an Act may
pass authorizing it to give notice of meetings
by publishing such notice in the newspaper.
Of the corporation of the village of Erie
Beach praying that an Act may pass allowing
it to be represented on the county council of
the county of Kent.
Of the corporation of the city of Belleville,
praying that an Act may pass amending The
City of Belleville Act, 1948 to permit monies
held by the Board of Governors of the Belle-
ville General Hospital to be kept in a
company registered under The Loan and
Trust Corporations Act as well as in a
chartered bank.
Of the corporation of the Queen Elizabeth
Hospital for Incurables, Toronto, praying that
an Act may pass changing its name to the
Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Toronto.
Of the corporation of the town of Hearst
praying that an Act be passed vesting certain
lands to one Joseph David Levack.
Of the corporation of the town of Orillia
praying that an Act may pass enabling it
and the Orillia Water, Light and Power Com-
mission to require owners of lots in sub-
divisions to assume and pay their respective
equitable share of the costs of such improve-
ments before being entitled to the benefit
thereof or obtaining a permit to construct a
building thereon.
Of the corporation of the village of Mark-
ham praying that an Act may pass confirming
an agreement for the construction of a
community centre building and arena, con-
firming a by-law relating thereto and authoriz-
ing the issue of debentures therefor.
Of the corporation of the county of Halton
praying that an Act may pass authorizing it
to receive from persons or for the credit of
persons admitted to homes for the aged, etc.,
real and personal property and to administer
such property.
Of the Metropolitan United Church,.
Toronto, praying that an Act may pass
enlarging a trust to enable it to engage an
organist who is a graduate of a Canadian
institution entitled to grant degrees in music
and who holds a fellowship in the Royal
Canadian College of Organists.
Of the corporation of the city of St. Cath-
arines praying that an Act may pass estab-
lishing St. Catharines Transit Commission,
and for other purposes.
Of the corporation of Ontario Co-opera-
tive Credit Society praying that an Act may-
pass impeaching the authorized capital of the
society.
Of the corporation of the township of
Nepean praying that an Act may pass
confirming debenture by-laws for school con-
struction. Also the petition of Nepean town-
ship High School District Board, and Col-
legiate Institute Board of Ottawa, praying
that an Act may pass confirming an agree-
ment for the erection in the township of
Nepean by the said township board of sec-
ondary schools to be operated by the said.
Ottawa Board.
Of the corporation of the city of Toronfo
praying that an Act may pass authorizing
insurance for members of the city council
travelling on business for the corporation and
for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I move during the present session
of the legislative assembly that provision
be made for the taking and printing of re-
ports, debates and speeches, and to that
16
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
end, Mr. Speaker be authorized to employ
an editor of debates and speeches and the
necessary stenographers, at such rates of
compensation as may be agreed to by him.
Also that Mr. Speaker be authorized to ar-
range for the printing of the reports in the
amount of 1,600 copies daily, copies of such
printed reports to be supplied to the Honour-
able the Lieutenant-Governor, Mr. Speaker,
Clerk of the legislative assembly, to the legis-
lative library, to each hon. member of the as-
sembly, to the reference libraries of the
province, the press gallery, to the news-
papers of the province as approved by Mr.
Speaker, and the balance to be distributed
by the Clerk of the assembly as directed by
Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, that is the
usual motion, providing for Hansard, which
has been followed in the last few years and
I do not think there is any objection to it.
Mr. Speaker, I move that standing com-
mittees of this House for the present session
be appointed for the following purposes:
1. Agriculture;
2. Conservation;
3. Education;
4. Energy;
5. Game and fish;
6. Government commissions;
7. Health and welfare;
8. On highways and highway safety;
9. Labour;
10. Lands and forests;
11. Legal bills;
12. Mining;
13. Municipal law;
14. Printing;
15. Private bills;
16. Privileges and elections;
17. Public accounts;
18. Standing orders;
19. Travel and publicity.
Which said committees shall severally be
empowered to examine and inquire into all
such matters and things as shall be referred
to them by the House and to report from
time to time their observations and opinions
thereon with power to send for persons,
papers and records.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): You will recall that last year we
had some considerable discussion about the
re-organization of the committees. My rec-
ollection Is that at that time it was agreed
that we would continue with the numbers of
standing committees, Mr. Speaker, you have
just read out to us.
But there was an understanding, I believe,
that certain re-organization of the several
committees would be required in the future.
And subsequent to that discussion in this
House my recollection is that the hon.
Minister of Refonn Institutions (Mr. Haskett)
headed a committee that considered the
advisability of changing the terms of refer-
ence of the pubhc accounts committee.
Mr. Speaker, my recollection of that latter
meeting was that it was a very worthwhile
meeting. The suggestion was made that the
public accounts committee should be
authorized to undertake more expansive in-
vestigation of the public accounts of the
province than is permitted at the present
time.
My observation at this time is simply this:
if we agree to the motion in its current form,
we are doing nothing more than perpetuating
what we agreed last year was a system that
had certain shortcomings, and I think that
now is the opportune time to correct those
shortcomings. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest that before we put this motion
that we give the House a full opportunity to
\'oice some observations.
I think there is a genuine opinion on all
sides of the House that a substantial improve-
ment can be made in the formulation and
organization of the committee. In particular
I would hope that there would be hon.
members of the House, including the hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions who I thought
spoke very intelligibly about the subject of
the committee a year ago, to again offer the
House observations made at that time.
My recollection of his observations, in a
nutshell, is simply this— that he suggested that
the public accounts committee be formed in
the nature of a continuing committee, maybe
a small committee, that would have wide
powers to investigate the public accounts of
the province.
We are all cognizant of the fact that under
the present arrangement public accounts
meets only when a specific problem is re-
ferred to that committee. It does not initiate
any activity of its own authority. This I
think is a serious shortcoming.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would
ask you to invite the observations of the
House. There will be others in the House
who will want to make observations and
NOVEMBER 23, X961
1?
maybe our several thoughts and observations
will result in the hope and expectation that
we had a year ago, that we could revise and
re-organize the standing committee into a
more effective vehicle to undertake the busi-
ness of the House.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, may I just add one comment along
the general line that the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) has advanced.
I agree with him, but I do not think a great
deal of discussion is necessary; what is
needed is a decision by the government.
We have had, to put it very frankly, a
degree of ambivalence in the government
approach to the public accounts committee in
the past. It has been regarded as a scandal
committee on one hand, and then we move
tentatively towards using this committee in
somewhat the same way as it is used in other
jurisdictions— to make a running survey of the
accounts of various departments.
Last year I thought we had reached the
point where we were going to adopt the latter
practice but the comment of the then Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost) suggested that we per-
haps had not solidly reached that decision.
The result was— I do not know if this neces-
sarily follows— that the committee did not
get into operation until the latter stages of
the session and could not certainly do the
job along that line.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the question is a
pure and simple one. Does the government
now feel that the public accounts committee
is a committee that should do serious jobs
beyond just investigating scandals when they
are raised; and if the government does believe
that such is the function of this public
accounts committee, will it give assurance
that the committee will get into operation
forthwith rather than waiting till the middle
of February or March 1?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the diffi-
culty in this motion raised by both the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
and the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) seems to concern the public
accounts committee only. I would be happy
to delete the public accounts committee from
this motion, which would permit us to get
on with the organization of the other com-
mittees of the House.
I will look at this report, with which I am
not completely familiar— the committee which
the hon. leader of the Opposition says was
chaired by the hon. Minister of Reform Insti-
tutions (Mr. Haskett) during the last session—
and I will bring back a motion to establish
a public accounts committee at a later time—
at which time any comment they might like
to make can be made.
There are certain matters to do with the
procedural arrangements of these committees
which I think might be looked at. Last year,
if you will remember, we reserved Wednesday
for committee work. I do not know if that
was completely successful in effect but I
intend to look at the organization of the
committee work and perhaps, with a little
closer time-tabling, to ensure that the over-
lapping that has occurred in the past with
hon. members sitting on several committees
and being called to attend at several com-
mittees at the same time. ... I intend to look
at that. But I would be happy to delete the
public accounts committee from this motion.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I personally
would be willing to entertain the idea of the
deletion on one condition— that the hon.
Prime Minister gives us the assurance that
this issue is going to be brought back to the
House at the earliest possible date. Otherwise
the net effect of his deletion is to frustrate
the objective we have in mind— because he
may not bring it back until the middle of
February.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the
thought crossed my mind that this point might
be raised as I made my suggestion, but I did
not think the hon. member would really
think I would use this means of deferring the
matter until some time next March. I can
assure the hon. member that it will be
brought back at the earUest possible moment,
but I would like the time to look at it before
I do so.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, having listened to the remarks of
the hon. Prime Minister, I do not think our
leader wanted to limit himself only to the
public accounts committee. As I listened to
his remarks I do not think he did.
There has been substantial criticism about
the committee on commissions: the way it is
operated, its ability to call witnesses, who will
give answers, what answers they will give and
in what form they will be given. :•
There has been substantial criticism in the
House and in committees about the size of
these committees— some of the committees
running to 50 members— what sort of things
come before the committee, efforts by various
committees to inquire into departmental
matters which do not come before the com-
mittees. And on a few occasions, Mr. Speaker,
there have been unanimous decisions made in
18
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
these committees which the government has
ignored.
Surely the time is long overdue when a
complete re-organization of the committee
system by which this House operates should
be undertaken. What more appropriate
time than when we have a new Prime
Minister?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, when I
made my comments at the outset I envis-
aged a substantial discussion by hon. mem-
bers opposite, because frankly my reference
was not intended to be limited to public
accounts.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my intention at this
time is not to frustrate the motion or any-
thing of that sort. My intention is to bring
out what I thought was a conviction in the
minds of many hon. members of the House
that the time is opportune to consider a
re-organization of our committee set-up.
To emphasize my point my recollection is
that the very committee I spoke about a
few moments ago discussed the advisabil-
ity of whether we should incorporate some
of the features of the American system,
reduce the membership of the committees,
determine the authority of the committees,
their power to investigate and to call wit-
nesses, and the like.
But specifically, Mr. Speaker, the point
has been made by the hon. member for
York Centre (Mr. Singer) that we have been
frustrated in conjunction with the commit-
tee on commissions. There, constantly, very
important matters did come before the com-
mittee at inopportune times— times when
other committees were meeting or times
during which the full attention of the com-
mittee could not be given to the serious
inatter before it.
I think particularly of the reports of
Hydro. My recollection is that the then
chairman of Hydro came before the com-
mittee of commissions — and to his credit
he was prepared to give us all the time we
wanted— but it simply happened that the
committee could only afford two hours and
his preparation was the sort of preparation
that would require more than two hours*
presentation.
The result was that the committee on
commissions did not have an effective, or
any, opportunity to examine him, or to ask
questions.
This was a frustration last year. We were
prepared to put up with it, we were pre-
pared to acknowledge it. But I thought
there was a conviction that this year some
considerable thought would be given to
remedy that shortcoming and, Mr. Speaker,
I must say that I would like some furdier
discussion of this problem at this time. I
am concerned that all we will do is pass
the motion in an amended form and then
we will go on to the next order of business
and this matter will not be brought before
the House until a year hence.
Now is the opportunity to do something
about it. I do not think that anybody feels
dogmatic about this subject or feels that
there is only one answer.
It may well be that the hon. member for
Victoria (Mr. Frost) will want to make some
observation. I am very serious about this.
I ask the assistance, Mr. Speaker, of the
hon. members opposite. They have all ex-
pressed thoughts publicly on this subject
and surely now is the time to come together
and co-ordinate these thoughts.
I will co-operate with any reasonable
course that the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) wishes to pursue in respect to the
motion, but I am going to insist that we
be given the assurance now that we know
the direction in which we are going to go
and that there will be an effective oppor-
tunity to re-organize the committee set-up.
There is no point in passing the motion
setting in motion the same procedure we
have followed for years gone by in the
knowledge that that procedure had real short-
comings. For the world of me I can see no
point in proceeding to move the motion and
pass the motion without the assurance that
the shortcomings will be corrected.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, if I may,
just before we vote on this. I have already
said there are certain procedural questions I
would like to look at concerning these com-
mittees and I would Uke to point out also
that the procedure followed by the commit-
tees has been altered on many occasions in
the 10 years I have been in the House.
There has been a constant effort to make
the committees more effective and to make
the work of the committees easier for the
members who sit on them. So I really can-
not subscribe to the point of view that we
are doing the same old thing year after year
because this of course is absolutely not so.
I am as interested as the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) is in having
effective results come out of these committees
and I can assure him I will take steps to see
that procedure is looked at with a view to
making it more eflBcient, and in making par-
ticipation by hon. members of the House
NOVEMBER 23, 1961
19
easier. J can assure him there will be an
opportunity given both for him to express his
opinions and the other hon. members of this
House who would like to do so; but in the
meantime if we are to get on with the busi-
ness of the House I think this motion should
carry and we will adjust these things as we
go along.
I have already said that there is some
doubt in my mind personally as to whether
the Wednesday was sufficient— when we had
no sittings of the House on Wednesday—
whether this actually accomplished what we
set out to accomplish. All these things will be
looked at and the whole matter will be con-
sidered. I will give the House my assurance
on that point.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I hope that the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) when he is considering this ques-
tion, will also consider the possibility of
reducing the number of members on each
and every committee. When I remember
last year and in yeafs previous various com-
mittees of the House that had 50, and as
many as 60, members on them and then in
order to get a quorum of eight or 10 people
the Conservative whips had to chase around
the building so that we could carry on the
business.
I do not see any sense or reason to this at
all. I strongly suggest that the hon. Prime
Minister when looking into this question look
over the possibility of reducing the number
of members, at least cutting them in half,
because there are too many, they are com-
pletely unwieldy. As a matter of fact I have
found that the committees are so unwieldy
that they have the appearance of being spoon
fed by the government opposite. I feel that
we could get a great deal more satisfaction
and the committees would do much better
work if the numbers were drastically reduced.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the
House the mover of the motion be allowed to
hold for the time being the appointment of
committee No. 17 on public accounts?
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: I presume now that commit-
tee No. 17 will be standing orders, and 18 on
travel and publicity moved along and tacked
on the end of this particular committee.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I move that a select
committee of 14 hon. members be appointed
to prepare and report with all convenient dis-
patch, lists of the hon. members to compose
the standing committees ordered by the
House. Such committee to be composed as
follows:
Mr. Allan, Chairman; Messrs. Carruthers,
Cowling, Edwards (Perth), Gordon, Guindon,
Hall, Lawrence, Morin, Simonett, Thomas,
Whicher, White and Whitney. A quorum of
the said committee to consist of four
members.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I move that
tomorrow and each succeeding Friday for the
present session this House will meet at 10:30
o'clock a.m. and that Rule 2 of the assembly
be suspended so far as it might apply to this
motion.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
is it the intention of the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) to continue the adjournment at
1 o'clock— from 10:30 to 1 o'clock?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, the
practice in the past has been that 1 o'clock is
the target but it is not set out in the motion
that the House must adjourn at 1 o'clock.
We will proceed as we have in the past.
Being one of the members to whom this
has been a great boon over the years in my
travelling back and forth to where I live, I
know how convenient this motion is as far
as many hon. members of the House are
concerned. It will be our target to finish by
1 o'clock but we will not be tied down to
that because there may be certain circum-
stances on certain occasions.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the hon. member
for Peterborough (Mr. Brown) be appointed
as chairman of the committee of the whole
House for the present session.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that Mr, Speaker
do now leave the Chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of the whole.
House in committee of the whole; Mr. K.
Brown in the chair.
Mr. K. Brown (Peterborough): Hon. mem-
bers of the House, at this time I would like
to take this opportunity to express my sincere
thanks to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) and the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Wintermeyer) and indeed all the
hon. members of the House for placing their
confidence in me and appointing me as
Deputy Speaker of this House.
20
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It is indeed a great honour for me to be
the Deputy Speaker for this session and I
would ask all the hon. members to give me
their full co-operation. I assure you that I
will endeavour to carry out my duties to the
best of my ability. Thank you.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee
rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of the whole
House begs to report progress and asks for
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
AN ACT TO EFFECT THE
CONSOLIDATION OF ALL WORKS
AND SYSTEMS OF THE HYDRO-
ELECTRIC POWER COMMISSION
OF ONTARIO
Hon. Mr. Macaulay moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to Effect the Consoli-
dation of all Works and Systems of The
Hydro-Electric Power Commission of
Ontario.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Speaker, in explanation of
this bill, it is related to the second bill that
I want to introduce and if I may, I will give
the explanation of both of these bills at the
same time.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE POWER
COMMISSION ACT
Hon. Mr. Macaulay moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to Amend The Power
Commission Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Speaker, much of
these two bills-all of the first bill and most
of the second bill-^which I have presented for
the first reading deals with the consolidation
financially of the three systems of Ontario
Hy4rp. There are, however, two separate
clauses in the second bill which do not deal
with this matter and I would make reference
to them first, if I may.
One is a procedural amendment only.
There is some confusion, or there seems to be
some confusion, as to the meaning of the
word "building" in Section 1 of The Power
Commission Act and this Act simply elabo-
rates upon the meaning of that word to
clarify ft.
The second provision of the Act which
deals with matters other than the financial
consolidation of the three systems of Ontario
Hydro, deals with the form of the appoint-
ment or election of Hydro commissioners in
cities whose population exceeds 60,000
people. In townships the commissions are
created and then under The Public UtiUties
Act the commissioners are elected regardless
of the size of the township which has the
commission. In the case of cities, however,
there is a dividing line at 60,000. For cities
of less than 60,000 the commissioners are
elected; for cities over 60,000— imless there
is a private bill affecting them— the commis-
sioners are and have been appointed.
A problem is created when at the start of
the year a municipahty has less than 60,000
when they elect their commissioners and by
the end of the year they have exceeded
60,000 in population. They should have, for
the balance of the year presumably, been
appointed. And since there might be some
doubt as to the legahty of the actions of the
commission during the period when the
population exceeded 60,000, this is an amend-
ment to permit any city with a population
in excess of 60,000 to either elect or appoint
a commissioner.
£)ealing however with the major wei^t of
both these bills, Mr. Speaker, they are re-
lated to the financial consolidation of Ontario
Hydro. Ontario Hydro is divided financially
into three areas; for northwestern Ontario,
for northeastern Ontario and southern Ontario
systems.
Northwestern Ontario includes for purposes
of convenience for this House the four ridings
of Kenora, Rainy River, Fort William and
Port Arthur. The area known as north-
eastern Ontario, for the puiposes of Ontario
Hydro, is all of northeastern Ontario north
of a line carried westerly from Mattawa on
the Ottawa River to Georgian Bay. The
southern Ontario system is the balance of
the province of Ontario. These three areas
are the three financial areas which now re-
main and are administered by Ontario Hydro.
I have spoken in the House on a number
of occasions and have presented to the House
the explanation of how Hydro was bom in
1906, how it is established legally and how
in southern Ontario it is composed of approxi-
mately 350 municipalities and how part of
southern Ontario which is not in oiie of these
350 municipalities is in an area called rural
Ontario. But this whole area in southern
NOVEMBER 23, 1961
Zl
Ontario is financially administered as one area
and its equity is owned by the municipalities
and the townships which form a part of it.
However, in the balance of the province of
Ontario, which is north of the line drawn
between Mattawa and the point on Georgian
Bay, this is not so. In northern Ontario there
are a number of municipalities, approximately
a dozen or more, and they share the equity
or ownership of the Hydro system north of
this line and the balance of it is owned by
the province of Ontario, this Legislature. But
the whole of the area north of the line is
administered by Ontario Hydro in trust for
the municipahties in northern Ontario or the
province of Ontario, as the case may be.
In the three areas of the province— and I
have set this out in a memorandum which I
prepared some months ago in anticipation of
the fact that this matter might come before
the House. I hope that the gentlemen of the
House, Mr. Speaker, will take the time to read
it, if they are concerned with this problem,
because it is an important matter. I have tried
to set out in this memorandum a little of the
back history of Ontario Hydro, how its gen-
eration came about, how we transfer power
generated in Niagara Falls and may carry it
all the way into the area of the Ottawa Valley,
and I suggested in the memorandum the
problems that this involved in terms of
accounting.
Fundamentally, the issue involved in these
matters is this. The province has the three
main areas, northwestern Ontario, north-
eastern Ontario and southern Ontario, which
is the whole bottom of the province. The
books are kept separately for each one of
these three areas— that is to say, the costs of
generation, of distribution, of transmission,
sale and so forth are kept separate for each
one of these three areas. This means, for
example, in northwestern Ontario, where total
consumption is something in the neighbour-
hood of 400,000 kilowatts, that if one or two
paper machines— each of which uses about
30,000 kilowatts— goes out of operation, if
two of them were to go out, this would be
60,000 kilowatts. More than 10 per cent of
the consumption in the whole area!
This can have a very drastic effect upon
the rate and the finances of northwestern
Ontario, which I am citing as an example.
So that I may put it again, northwestern
Ontario finances on its own. Its rates are
determined by the, cost of generation, distribu-
tion, transmission and so forth in northwestern
Ontario only. Therefore, if in northwestern
Ontario, for example, we were to have a situa-
tion where there was very little rainfall—
which is quite possible— we will then have to
provide power in northwestern Ontario in
one of two ways. If there is no water in the
river, power would have to be purchased
either from bordering states or provinces
such as Manitoba, or alternatively coal would
have to be burned in the thermal plant. It
may well be in the rest of the province— in
northeastern Ontario and in southern Ontario
—that there is plenty of water, plenty of
water indeed, for all the power needs of the
northwest, the northeast and the south. But
the northwest and the northeast are not con-
nected by a physical interconnection.
This memorandum which I have prepared
—and also one which I sent, as I recall, some
months ago, to every hon. member in the
House— explains the financial problems of
physically connecting the northwest and the
northeast. I explained in these memoranda
why it has not been done, how much it would
cost, the limitations of the movement of power
and the prospects of doing this in the future.
However, in relation to the northwest, just
as an example, hon. members can see from
what I have said that the northwest, being a
very small system, is isolated. It has 400,000
kilowatt consumption approximately as op-
posed to the whole system of Ontario, which
is over six million. Therefore, it is far less
than 10 per cent of the whole system and if
one small thing goes wrong it can aflFect very
seriously the finances of the whole area of
northwestern Ontario and can force an
increase in rates simply because of the
vulnerability of the system to the influences
of the economics of the country or the fall
of rain or other causes such as machines
breaking down and going out of operation.
Therefore, the simple advantages to north-
western Ontario in this bill in the event of
this whole system being one financially are,
some of them, referred to in this memorandum
on page 14. I have pointed out; quite apart
from the vulnerability of the northwestern
system, which is very vulnerable; I pointed
out there are a number of inequities possible
in creating power in one area, transmitting it
for use into another and then moving it back
again into the first area at a period when
they may be short and the other area has
more than it needs.
An example of this was at Des Joachims
on the Ottawa River. This was a case of the
water being or belonging to northeastern
Ontario. Nevertheless, the plant was built
and paid for by the southern Ontario sys-
tem—using water in the north. It transports
its power into the south and yet on occa-
sion buys the power back again in the
22
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
north simply because the power that it is
transmitting into the south may not always
be needed and it can be sold back to the
north.
The problems involved in attributing
the cost element in these transfers of power
is immense and they become arbitrary and
they become arguable. They become, per-
haps, inequitable, so this is an additional
problem involved. I would say to hon.
members as I have on page 14 of this
memorandum, that the advantages of amal-
gamating the systems financially into one
system are these:
There will be a more just allocation of
costs and benefits as between the present
three systems; a lower rate in the future
for all three systems, if possible, resulting
from a more economic development of
energy resources; a better balanced system
more able to withstand economic swings
and fluctuations of nature.
There will be a larger set of reserves for
contingencies when the three systems are
all put into one; there will be a more stable
and predictable long range set of rates,
which is a very important thing in terms of
development of this province; and there
will be an easier cost system to administer,
coupled with economies which will follow
from doing away with duplications.
It has been said, I have noticed, that this
is going to involve the consumers of elec-
tricity in the province of Ontario in higher
rates. This is not so. In fact the amount
by which the rate or the costs will go down
in the north, my recollection is that the
estimate is somewhat in the neighbourhood
of $5 in the northwest and around $2 in the
northeast. This is a reduction of a factor in
the cost of producing electricity which will
be possible from the amalgamation of these
systems.
Now this, hon. members, is perhaps not
too clear an explanation, Anticipating my
inabilities in this regard I prepared a memor-
andum and I have had it put on the desks of
the hon. members. These bills will now be
sent to the energy committee where we will
call on oflBcials from Hydro and all of the
people from any area of this province who
would like to make any comments on these
bills, it being the intention of the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) that this matter should
be fully discussed and fully understood. Like
many things on which perhaps the facts are
not known.
This is a simple matter which will con-
tribute great benefits to the development of
northern Ontario, and, in fact, f6r ail of
Ontario because it will make it possible to
have more stable rates, to give longer term
contracts to our large industrial customers
and to avoid increases in rates in the future
which could be avoided as a result of doing
away with duplication arising in these
systems. I would say to the hon. members of
this House that when this has gone through
the committee and comes back into the
House to be discussed on second reading, I
will go into the facts and figures and have
some maps before the hon. members so that
it will be a little easier to follow.
Mr. Wintermeyer: In view of the elabo-
rate explanation that has been made— and I
can appreciate it— on this occasion I am sure
the hon. Minister of Energy Resources (Mr.
Macaulay) will permit me to encroach on
the normal rules and ask a question about this
particular bill. My question, Mr. Speaker, is
simply this:
The hon. Minister has suggested that the
new legislation will assist bookkeeping and
the scientific evaluation of rates. Am I correct
when I suggest that at the present time the
northwestern system is under the jurisdiction
of the Legislature, the immediate jurisdiction
of the Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, the hon. leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) is not
correct in saying that. This was the point
that I made originally that the north, north of
the line between Mattawa and Georgian
Bay, is jointly owned either: (A) by Ontario
Hydro; or (B) by the municipality itself— in
which case they are not under the juris-
diction of the Legislature. The rural part of
the area in the northern Ontario properties,
which are not owned by the municipalities,
are in effect under the legislative jurisdiction
of this Legislature. But the whole of the
Hydro system is to a very large degree imder
the Legislature's jurisdiction for this reason,
that if one looks at The Power Commission
Act one can see the very extensive control
this Legislature has over Ontario Hydro, in
relation to certain powers, if it wishes to
exercise an Order-in-Council.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
(Mr. Macaulay) one or two questions.
The first thing, after the elaborate prepara-
tion he has made discussing this subject and
endeavouring to sell it to the assembly, I
would like to ask him if it is so good now,
why was it not done previously? I cannot
understand why—
NOVEMBER 23, 1961
28V
Hon. Mr. Macaulay; Could I answer the
•question? The reason that it has not been
done previously is that it has never needed
to be done until now. This whole saving
•will accrue as a result of plants which we are
now about to build on the Mattagami river
in the north with a capacity of some 1,200,000
Icilowatts and in conjunction with several
plants that we are building at Lakeview and
in conjunction with the two nuclear plants
which are about to come into operation. But
I would say to my hon. friend so it is per-
fectly clear, this is not the time to debate
why this has not been done before. There is
a perfectly simple answer which I gave while
you were— •
Mr. E. Sopha (Sudbury): It is all right for
you to make such an elaborate and long
winded statement on first reading.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the
House f.iC motion carry?
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I had a ques-
tion I am sure the hon. Minister would
answer.
Mr. Speaker: Actually, the time to ask the
questions is on second reading and in com-
mittee, when the bill is before the House.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I agree with
that too but in as much as the hon. Minister
in his wisdom has decided that it would be
a good thing to have steady costs for all the
province of Ontario, has he given any con-
sideration to the possibility of having
equalized rates for all the customers of
Ontario Hydro? As I understand it here, he
is going to give equalized rates to the three
systems. Surely this could be carried on; and
perhaps equalized rates could be given to all
the people of the province?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member has
misunderstood this bill if he thinks that this
bill is a bill designed to deal with equaliza-
tion of rates. This is not what this bill deals
with. Perhaps it would be as well, before the
hon. member asks any more questions, if he
read the memorandum which I put on his
desk. I would be most happy to discuss it
with him, and I will in the House when we
come back.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): I
beg leave to present a copy of a report,
together with a copy of the appendices and
supplementary material of the Attorney-
General's committee on enforcement of the
law relating to gambling.
Mr. Speaker, I will give a very short
explanatory statement on this report, as 1 '
imagine the House would like to have that.
The committee was appointed on July 5,
1961 and consisted of Professor J. D. Morton,
chairman, of Osgoode Hall, Rolf Eng and
counsel for the committee was Mr. M. L.
Friedland. The committee was directed to
consider the problems in enforcement of the
law relating to gambling with reference to the
problems in certain other jurisdictions.
When this report was requested by me it
was with a view to getting as much informa-
tion as possible, and I feel that the committee
has done an excellent job in this regard.
It was made clear— the practice was obvious
—that the law relating to gambling is con-
tained in the federal statutes and of course
any change in the law itself would have to be
made by the federal authorities. It was felt,
however, that a report at this time would be
beneficial and would be of considerable aid
in the event of discussions taking place with
the federal authority on this subject.
I would refer to the set-up at the beginning.
It is composed of several parts. Title No. 1,
which is mostly historical and comparative,
deals with foreign jurisdiction— the English
experience, experience in Norway, Sweden
and Ireland, experience in the state of New
York, and conclusions drawn from experience
in other jurisdictions.
Title 2 contains several chapters dealing
particularly with our own province— the
pattern of gambling in Ontario, illegal betting
on horse races, illegal betting on other sport-
ing events, gaming houses or gambling clubs,
pool betting on sports, bingo and lotteries, the
financial aspects of illegal gambling, and con-
clusions. Then there are a number of
appendices and supplementary material
attached.
The committee was concerned to discover
whether gambling had ever been effectively
prohibited or regulated, and if so at what
price. In particular, they concentrated upon
the results of ineffective attempts to regulate
and control gambling. The committee was
unable to point to any successful attempt,
past or present, to completely prohibit all
forms of gambling.
An examination of the experience in Great
Britain, Republic of Ireland, Norway and
Sweden, and the state of New York led the
committee to conclude that it had not proved
possible to enforce anti-gambling laws which
appear to the public at large to involve unfair
24
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
distinctions. In Great Britain and the Euro-
pean countries the committee found the
tendency has been to legalize more and more
forms of gambling under strict controls, in an
attempt to produce a fair system which would
cgmmand public support.
Some ten years ago when a committee was
sitting there, out of which arose an Act last
year in Great Britain, it found that a third
of the adult population of Britain was
involved in football pools, and that no less
than some 7 million were using the coupon
method, and some 4 million were betting off
the track.
The committee felt that a clear distinction
would be drawn between the experience in
the United States and that in the European
jurisdictions mentioned. In the European
jurisdictions it did not appear that book-
makers, for example, were generally regarded
as criminals. The committee points out that
this is no doubt due to the fact that book-
makers in those jurisdictions were always
permitted to carry on certain legal gambling
activities.
In North America, on the other hand, it was
found that bookmaking in all its forms has
been illegal for many years. The evil of
illegal gambling in North America appears
in the committee's view to be the concentra-
tion of vast sums of money in the hands of
criminals. In the United States it appears to
the committee that this money is used to
finance operations of a general criminal
nature.
On the basis of the study of law in these
other countries the committee concluded that
regulation on a pattern similar to that of the
criminal code has not proved workable else-
where. While the committee did not investi-
gate detailed gambling operations in Ontario,
and makes no report of the exact extent to
which illegal gambling flourishes, it concludes
that there is considerable illegal gambling
within the province.
It was of the opinion that enforcement of
the exact law is extremely di£Bcult if not
impossible. It further noted the present law
is based upon what may appear to be
unfair distinctions between various types of
gambling.
With these considerations in mind, and
with the intention of avoiding very grave
problems which have arisen in the United
States, the committee has examined the
existing law in Ontario with an eye to its
fairness and enforceability. With a view to
achieving that measure of fairness which
would command the necessary public support
for enforcement, the committee has recoin-
mended an extension in the legal outlets for
gambling.
The suggested extensions include an off-
track pari-mutuel betting system and a
reshaping of the laws relating to some types
of social clubs, some lotteries, and the opera-
tion of bingo games. And I repeat again, of
course, that this is all within the criminal
code provisions and therefore is a matter
which must ultimately be dealt with by the.
federal authorities.
The conmiittee says that where an exten-
sion of gambling is recommended— and this
again would involve changes in the criminal
code— strict control of such legal gambling
might be maintained by what it terms a new
provincial gambling control board. Bingo
operators, for example, would be required to
obtain a permit, and carnival operators a
licence. There is, of course, at the local level
a certain amount of this being done at the
present time.
In order that an increase in legal betting
on horse races shall not result in any dramatic
increase in profits by the racing associations,
the committee proposes that each particular
association take be fixed by a public board.
With reference to the remaining gambling
operations, the committee recommends strict
enforcement and makes the following particu-
lar proposals, which 1 quote:
Realizing that the telephone is essential
to a successful bookmaking operation, it
proposes that the telephone company be
authorized to discontinue or refuse service
to a subscriber upon notification by the
Attorney-General that he reasonably
believes such telephone is being used for
an unlawful purpose.
In view of the difiBculties of detecting the
physical whereabouts of back ends the com-
mittee recommends that the criminal code
be amended to authorize the attachment of
a device to a suspected subscriber's tele-
phone on a warrant of the provincial
Attorney-General. This device would not
listen to or record conversations but would
merely report the numbers dialed by the
particular subscriber. Before automation
this information might have been obtained
from the records of the Bell Telephone
Company by an ordinary search warrant.
A number of other proposals relating to
enforcements are made. For example, the
committee recommends the imposition of
much heavier sentences on those convicted
of illegal gambling. "'
NOVEMBER 23, 1961
25
Finally the committee is of the opinion
that the problems involved in illegal gambling
demand not the temporary scrutiny of an
ad hoc Royal commission but continuous
scrutiny by an independent body of a perma-
nent nature.
The function of such a body, the committee
stresses, would be to observe and investigate
crime and law enforcement in Canada. It
should, in the committee's view, form part of
the machinery of the Dominion government;
it should have power neither of administrative
control or prosecution; it should operate by
way of inquiry and public report, leaving it
to those at present charged with the responsi-
bility for legislation and law enforcement to
withstand such impartial scrutiny.
I congratulate Professor Morton, who is in
the wings today, and his associates for the
businesslike, efficient manner in which they
tackled this job and in a relatively short period
of time came up with some definite views as
contained in the comprehensive report which
has today been tabled in the Legislature. A
copy of this report will be well worth the
study of anyone interested in the problems
involved.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to ask one question of
the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts). Will
a copy of this report be made available
individually to the hon. members?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I will be very glad to
see that a certain number of copies are put
in the hands of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Wintermeyer) and in the hands of
the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. R. C.
Edwards), and he can distribute them.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): This is a disgrace. The press
has had this report for two and a half
hours and the hon. Attorney-General (Hon.
Mr. Roberts) sat there and briefed them,
and now he suggests that this responsible
body, that we, will have but two or three
copies?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I did not say two or
three copies. I will be glad to put in the
hands of the hon. leader of the Opposition
whatever number of copies he wants.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Every hon. member is
entitled to a copy and we are entitled to
an opportunity to debate this. Mr. Speaker,
the simple fact is that this is one of the
most serious things that has ever come be-
fore this Legislature and the hon. Attorney-
General (Hon. Mr. Roberts) is suggesting
that this report does not suggest organized
crime in Ontario? Why, it demonstrates
that the very tie-in between New York and
Ontario is— it comes right out of the pages.
This report was designed and intended to
talk about enforcement which is the hon.
Minister's responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that the hon. Attorney-General
owes it to this very Legislature now to tell
us what he thinks about this report.
He has had it for two weeks. He has
had an opportunity to think about it and
he certainly must have opinions. Is this
report acceptable? Does he believe and
does he think that legalized gambling is
the answer to this problem in Ontario?
Does he think that a Dominion bureau
can do the job that constitutionally is re-
quired to be done by the province of On-
tario? Does he think that this does the job
of the New York State Crime Commission
that constantly has the opportunity to in-
vestigate these problems? These are the
things we want to know. And this brief
statement certainly is not going to be ac-
cepted.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, this report is tabled on the second
day the House has been in session, to pro-
vide information for the benefit of the hon.
members of the House. It is here for all
the hon. members to see. It is not per-
mitted for debate today as the hon. Attor-
ney-General (Mr. Roberts) has simply given
an explanation to the hon. members of what
the report contains so the hon. members
may make up their own minds as to
whether they wish to pursue any further
study of it.
As far as debating the report is concerned,
the first point is of course that it is a report
which was submitted by an independent body
to the hon. Attorney-General and is not a
document of this House, such as is a report
of a select committee of the House. On the
other hand, if you refer to the Speech from
the Throne you will find that we do propose
to introduce certain legislation dealing with
the maintenance of law and order and at
that time there will be an opportunity to
debate the matters contained in this report.
In the meantime the report is available for
study by any hon. members of the House
who wish to look at it.
If necessary, I would be prepared to con-
sider the possibility of putting the report on
the order paper to be debated, if this is
what the House would wish. But it does
26
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
seem to me that there will be other oppor-
tunities to debate these things during this
session, and this report is submitted so that
in those debates any hon. member taking
part will be fully informed with all the
information that we have been able to
gather on this subject through the means of
this committee.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I am rather surprised to hear the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) say that
it is not a document of the House. After all,
this commission was set up by a Cabinet
Minister, costs of the commission undoubt-
edly were paid by the province of Ontario.
The government has seen fit to release this
report to the press— and it was released to the
press, I would presume, from reading one of
the daily papers early in the day, because
there is a story on the front page of one of
the daily papers that says: Betting I*robe
Asks New Teeth.
To read that story you presume the gentle-
man who wrote the article had some knowl-
edge of what was in the report. It seems
rather strange to me that a report, as impor-
tant to the welfare of this province as this
report seems to be, as the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) has indicated it might
be, should be placed in the hands of the
press and not in the hands of the hon.
members; and that the hon. Attorney-General
gratuitously said he "will make a few copies
available to the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion and the hon. member for Wentworth."
Surely it is a document that should be
placed in the hands of every hon. member
just as soon as possible. And surely it is a
document that has the utmost importance in
all of its aspects. And surely it is a document
that should be fully and thoroughly discussed.
It is not an answer, Mr. Speaker, I suggest,
to put a few words in the Speech from the
Throne or to have the hon. Attorney-General
say— being quoted in the paper today— that
the commission (that is the commission re-
ferred to in the Throne Speech) will be able
to meet any situation like the current
gambling and crime controversy. The papers
have been quoting the hon. Attorney-General
correctly over the months: there is not any
real controversy, there is not any real issue,
there is nothing there.
Now, Mr. Speaker, surely this is something
that has to be fully discussed; and the
mechanics of it, the machinery to do it,
starts with this report. It is completely
ridiculous for the hon. Attorney-General to
say he will make a couple of copies available.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, in handling this kind of a report
I am particularly complaining about the
fact that some hon. members of the House
walked into this House with copies of the
report and had it in advance of the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) making his
statement.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: It was a request made
by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer).
Mr. MacDonald: Okay, only one. That
is okay, Mr. Speaker. If there is only one
my point is made and I shall deal with that
point. If the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) is going to give copies of the re-
port to the press, and other hon. members
of the House are going to come in here
with copies of that report in advance, I
think there is an obhgation on the hon.
Attorney-General — if he wants to keep it
confidential for the period it is in the hands
of the press until he makes his statement
in the House— that he place a copy confi-
dentially in the hands of each of the leaders
of the parties in the Opposition. He did not
do that.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) would just
let me say what I did do; I said it was for
release after tabling in the Legislature on
Thursday afternoon, November 23, so far
as the press is concerned.
Mr. MacDonald: That is not the point I
am raising. The point I am raising is that
if the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
released it to the press and other hon. mem-
bers of the House came in here with a
copy— I am not criticizing the press, I am
not criticizing the other hon. members— I
am criticizing the hon. Attorney-General.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am used to it.
Mr. MacDonald: I know the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) is used to it and he will
have to get used to it a great deal more-
Mr. Speaker: Order.
I would ask the hon. members of the
Legislature to address the Speaker in
their remarks and not directly across the
Chamber as has been done.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have
made my point and I hope that as a general
proposition this can be considered in the
future, not just with reference to the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts). If reports
NOVEMBER 23, 1961
2T
are going to be given out confidentially, if
the hon. Minister does not want to distribute
them and broadcast to all the hon. members
of the House, I think each of the parties in
the Opposition is entitled to equality of dis-
tribution, at least at the leadership level,
until it becomes generally distributed.
My second point, Mr. Speaker, is this: I
think it is ludicrous that it should be sug-
gested we have only a few copies to distribute
around, because there should be a copy to
every hon, member of the House. Everybody
should have an opportunity to study this
because the net effect of this report is to
pull the rug out from under the hon.
Attorney-General on the basis of all his pro-
nouncements for the last year.
He is talking out of both sides of his
mouth, Mr. Speaker, and I will talk to you
on this. He is saying to the people of this
province— and he continues to say it in his
inimitable way— there is no organized crime;
whereas (a) he brings in a report which
documents the existence of organized crime,
and (b) he brings in announcements through
the Throne Speech that there is going to be
a bill to set up a police commission in this
province to cope with organized crime.
When we have this sort of hugger-mugger
approach on the part of the hon. Attorney-
General, I think that everybody should have
a copy of this. I even would suggest to the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) that maybe
it is better that we take this issue as an
issue by itself and put it on the order paper
and have a debate on it. Otherwise it is
going to be running through all of the other
debates in the Throne Speech.
I think it might be the tidiest procedure to
have a debate dealing with this as quickly
as possible and perhaps then the pent-up
feelings of a lot of people in this province
as well as this House, because of the pro-
cedure in this House of the hon. Attorney-
General, can be coped with.
Mr. E. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, may
I raise with you, sir, a point relating to the
privileges of this House. I speak as an hon.
member of this House sent here to represent
some 40,000 people.
It is not my intent to criticize the press.
I feel a great many of us or most of us
would hesitate very much before doing so.
But I ask you, sir, as an hon. member of
this House, for at least equal treatment with
members of the press.
Some of us were about the government's
business, or our participation in it, around
nine o'clock this morning. I was in the
corridor, sir, and it early became apparent
that there was a big meeting of the press in
the office of the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts). One would not need to be excited
by much curiosity to make some inquiries
what it was about. We were told, Mr.
Speaker, that the hon. Attorney-General,,
along with Professor Morton and his com-
mittee, were going to brief the press on the
contents of what will be known in a day or
so as the Morton report. One of the per-
sonnel of the office of the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer), sir, was dis-
patched at a reasonable time, around 11
o'clock, to inquire at the office of the hon.
Attorney-General whether a copy of the
report might be made available to us. He
was refused. He was refused, sir.
At about 11.45 a.m. there was a great
exodus of the members of the fourth estate
proceeding in an easterly direction along the
corridor, each one of them, sir, having a
copy of the Morton report. The hon. Attor-
ney-General, sir, did not deign to make
available a copy of the report to the office
of the hon. leader of the Opposition until
approximately 2 o'clock.
Having made that preamble, let me again
assert that it is not my desire to criticize the
hon. members of the fourth estate who are
friendly to all of us, but I ask, sir, that at least
we get equal treatment. That is all.
I do not know what Professor Morton, if
his language— and he is a very able and well
respected academic person in the field of law,
and I assume that he writes with the most
articulate of English— I do not know if his
report is in good prose using the best of the
Queen's English. I do not know in the first
place why it is necessary for Professor Morton
to be asked to give the time to make further
explanations to the members of the press.
But, sir, I do not complain about that. All I
ask is that if Professor Morton is asked to
make explanations about his report to the
members of the press, then perhaps the meet-
ing could be arranged so that members of the
Opposition party could also attend and have
the benefit of explanation, dissertation, exposi-
tion, by the able Professor Morton. Perhaps
in the future that can be done.
But, sir, I say, and I measure my words
carefully, that I have always had the impres-
sion in the two years that I have sat in this
House that the least important person in the
House is the hon. member of the Opposition
and many times I have, though I do not
criticize them, I have envied the members of
the fourth estate for the treament they are
given by this government. I say these words
today, sir, when we have the era of a new
28
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
broom on the other side, that these things
that give us cause to complain may with the
emergence of the new hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) be swept away so that we have
no longer any source or need for rancour in
our hearts. That we may go forward into the
new era in a spirit of co-operation, and may
I say, sir, and I do not exaggerate too much,
a spirit of brotherly love.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if you would
permit me to add one further word in the light
of the information that has now been given to
the House, I would just like to underline in
specific terms my general comments. The
hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) is pre-
sumably responsible for dispensing justice
and other things impartially. And what he
did now, we discover, is to deliver a report
to the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer) at 2 o'clock and we have none
in connection with the New Democrats of
this House, we have not one as yet.
Now, I know it is difficult in view of his
past practices for the hon. Attorney-General
to be impartial, but I would ask you to use
your good offices to try to persuade him to
treat not only us on this side of the House
fairly along with the members of the fourth
estate, but the parties on an equal basis
too.
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day, I wish to take the hon. members of
the House into confidence. I wish to make
a statement to the House respecting the pro-
vision of services to the travelling public
on 401 Highway.
The government has decided as a matter
of policy to establish service facilities on
Highway 401 which now extends continu-
ously for 240 miles from London to 14
miles east of Belleville. While the details
of this policy are still being worked on,
plans are being prepared to establish serv-
ice areas at six or seven selected points so
that motorists can obtain tlie essential serv-
vices required for their comfort and safety.
The constniction of these areas will be pro-
ceeded with as soon as possible and during
the construction period it is planned to have
temporary facilities available to provide the
motorist with essential requirements.
The question of service areas has over
the past year or so been receiving careful
consideration by the government and The
Department of Highways has been conduct-
ing studies to consider the many problems
which had to be solved before an intelligent
and satisfactory policy could be established.
For instance, it has been necessary to con-
sider the present and anticipated traffic
volume from patterns to arrive at a con-
clusion which will provide the maximum
service to the motoring public with the
minimum e£Fect on established business.
I feel that we now have the solution to
most of these problems. Up until this year
the lack of services on 401 has not been
considered serious, but with the closing of
the gap between constructed sections it is
now felt that a start should be made on the
establishment of these areas.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): In re-
gard to this statement the hon. Minister
of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow) has just
made, according to an item which appeared
in the London Free Press, The Department
of Highways has recently established tem-
porary safety patrols on this highway that
takes care of this neglect on the part of
The Department when the highways were
originally planned. Would the hon. Min-
ister tell us how many such patrols are be-
ing effected at the present time, where they
are being effected and the approximate cost
of those patrols?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I would be very
pleased, Mr. Speaker, to secure the informa-
tion for the hon. member.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow)
a question arising out of his remarks. Are
these services going to be owned by the
province of Ontario or are they going to be
private?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: That is just a
matter of detail that is being worked out.
Mr. Singer: Would the hon. Minister be
prepared to announce how the detail is go-
ing to be worked out, because I think this
is most important, and I think, Mr. Speaker,
that we should have a full statement on
this.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, this now
concludes the business of the House for
today. Tomorrow will be taken up with
routine proceedings. I believe there are some
more bills that will be introduced and possibly
a report of the striking committee and on
Monday we will proceed with the moving and
seconding of the motion for an address in
reply to the Speech from tlie Throne.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moved the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4:35 o'clock, p.m.
No. 3
ONTARIO
legisflature of Ontario
Betiateg
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty'Sixth Legislature
Friday, November 24, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, November 24, 1961
Reading and receiving petitions 31
Legislative Assembly Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bryden, first reading 31
Department of Economics and The Department of Federal and Provincial Relations
and The Department of Commerce and Development, bill to amalgamate, Mr.
Macaulay, first reading 31
Ontario Parks Integration Board Act, bill to amend, Mr. Macaulay, first reading 31
Conservation Authorities Act, bill to amend, Mr. Macaulay, first reading 3i
Parks Assistance Act, bill to amend, Mr. Macaulay, first reading 3S
Provincial Parks Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, first reading 3S
Forest Fires Prevention Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, first reading 3S
Forestry Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, first reading 38
Fish Inspection Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, first reading 38
Presenting report, Mr. Yaremko 33
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 33
;S
31
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, November 24, 1961
The House met at 10:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests in the east gallery and in
the west gallery the students from Peter-
borough teachers college.
I have been asked to announce that the
striking committee will now meet at 12 noon
on Monday and the amended notices will be
on the desks of the members of that com-
mittee this morning.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the corporation of the town of Oakville
and the corporation of the township of
Trafalgar praying that an Act may pass
defining an area, in the new municipality
created by the amalgamation of the township
and the town, comprising all that part of the
said new municipality lying south of the
upper Middle Road; and for related purposes.
Of the corporation of the city of Windsor
praying that an Act may pass authorizing the
inclusion on the board of governors of the
Metropolitan General Hospital of a member
appointed by the Essex County Council; and
for other purposes.
Of the board of trustees of the Roman
Catholic Separate Schools for the city of
Ottawa praying that an Act may pass raising
the membership of the board from nine to
ten.
Of the corporations of the county of Essex,
the town of Leamington and the Public
Utilities Commission of the town of Leaming-
ton praying that an Act may pass to confirm
an agreement for the supply of water and the
furnishing of fire protection to the Sun Parlour
Home for Senior Citizens.
Of the corporation of the Young Men's-
Young Women's Christian Association of
Cornwall praying that an Act may pass
exempting its real property from municipal
taxation except for local improvements.
Of the corporation of the township of
Wicksteed authorizing certain school con-
struction and debentures therefor.
Of the corporation of the town of Richmond
Hill praying that an Act may pass re-constitut-
ing the council.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act to Amend
The Legislative Assembly Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have four bills
related to the same general matter and I
would like to introduce them now if I may
and if there are any questions I could speak
to them all when I have finished with the
fourth.
AN ACT TO AMALGAMATE THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF FEDERAL
AND PROVINCIAL RELATIONS AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Mr. Macaulay moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to Amalgamate The
Department of Economics and The Depart-
ment of Federal and Provincial Relations and
The Department of Commerce and Develop-
ment.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE ONTARIO PARKS INTEGRATION
BOARD ACT
Hon. Mr. Macaulay moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to Amend The Ontario
Parks Integration Board Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
32
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES
ACT
Hon. Mr. Macaulay moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to Amend The Conserva-
tion Authorities Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE PARKS ASSISTANCE ACT
Hon. Mr. Macaulay moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to Amend The Parks
Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Speaker, the first
bill I introduced was a bill which I think
even from its title is self-explanatory. We at
the moment have a department which is
usually called or referred to as The Depart-
ment of Economics. Its full name actually
is The Department of Economics and Federal
and Provincial Relations and, as hon. mem-
bers are aware, there is a second department
entitled The Department of Commerce and
Development. Both of these departments are
going to be amalgamated by this one bill
and the undertakings of each integrated into
the one department.
Attached or connected to this main bill are
three others, and there may be several others,
wherein in the past the Minister in charge of
the department has been named as the
Minister of Commerce and Development,
such as in The Ontario Parks Integration
Board Act, The Parks Assistance Act and
The Conservation Authorities Act.
In the case of The Ontario Parks Integra-
tion Board Act we have simply substituted
the name of the Minister of Economics and
Development in place of the Minister of Com-
merce and Development; and in the case of
The Conservation Authorities Act and The
Parks Assistance Act, we simply provide that
instead of a named Minister, tlie Minister
shall be the member of the Executive Coun-
cil designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-
in-Council to administer the Act.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, be-
fore the orders of the day—
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, I have some bills.
THE PROVINCIAL PARKS ACT
Hon. Mr. Spooner moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to Amend The Provin-
cial Parks Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, I might
say the purpose of this bill is to add con-
servation officers to those persons who are
presently entitled to the same authority as
a member of the Ontario Provincial Police
force while in a provincial park.
THE FOREST FIRES PREVENTION ACT
Hon. Mr. Spooner moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to Amend The Forest
Fires Prevention Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of this bill is to permit the department
to enter into agreement for forest fire pro-
tection and prevention and control with
agencies represented by the government of
Canada and other Crown agencies.
THE FORESTRY ACT
Hon. Mr. Spooner moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to Amend The Forestry
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: The purpose of this bill
is to still further explain the meaning of the
term "owner" within the Act at the present
time.
THE FISH INSPECTION ACT
Hon. Mr. Spooner moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to Amend The Fish In-
spection Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of this amendment will authorize the
making of regulations respecting the market-
ing of uninspected and sub-standard fish, and
this is really legislation which is comple-
mentary to the work of the federal agricul-
tural department with respect to the handling
and inspection of fish.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I had
risen before because I understood you to
call the orders of the day, so with apologies
NOVEMBER 24, 1961
33
to the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
(Mr. Spooner) I have a question to direct to
the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan).
The question is— and he has already been
provided with copies of that question— if, as
reported in the press, the hon. Provincial
Treasurer is to make some changes in the
forms issued to the retail vendors in this
province, would he seriously consider direct-
ing that these be printed in both French and
English, realizing as he does that in north-
eastern Ontario, the Ottawa valley, and the
border regions, there is a large percentage of
the citizens resident in those areas who speak
the French language and thus a great majority
of the retail merchants are French-speaking?
I presume that in the administration of
this retail sales branch that the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer wants as little acrimony as
possible among the merchants and in my own
section of northeastern Ontario, certainly the
Ottawa valley and those regions that I spoke
of, most of the merchants speak the French
language.
I am sure some of these forms are rather
difficult to comprehend even to those who
understand English.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the member
finished his question?
Mr. Troy: Well, I think some amplifica-
tion-
Mr. Speaker: No, just the question.
Mr. Troy: Yes.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to the question asked by
the hon. member for Nipissing, I may say
in regard to the first part that the forms
issued by the sales tax branch will be under
constant review, as are all department forms,
so that at the time of reprinting any improve-
ments can be incorporated therein. I might
indicate that while the use of modern busi-
ness machinery is extremely helpful, it some-
times also restricts flexibility.
With regard to the second part of his
question, that too will be kept in mind and
as a matter of fact has been kept in mind.
Some members of the present staflF are bi-
lingual and as additional stafiF— for instance,
audit staflE— is appointed, some of these cer-
tainly will be bilingual.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, I have not asked
that second question yet.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just like to
point out since we are in the first part of
the session, that when the members submit
a question to the Speaker, they should give
the question as submitted to the Speaker
without any amplification.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, may not the ques-
tioner have an opportunity to present his
question to the House? I have not asked this
second part of the question yet, sir. The
question was: Will he also see to it that he
includes as soon as possible in the personnel
of the field staffs in northern Ontario, those
who have the qualification of being bilingual?
In the North Bay region there is not one, and
the bulk of the merchants in those smaller
communities speak the French language.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
The 53rd Annual Report of The Hydro-
Electric Power Commission of Ontario for
the year ended December 31, 1960.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Speaker, if I may be per-
mitted to say in relation to the report that the
hon. Minister is now tabling, I believe this
report has been distributed during the
year to all hon. members, but I have sent
for additional copies and I had hoped they
would be here by now. If not they will be
put on the hon. members' desks today and
they will have them to look at if they care
to do so.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, that concludes the business of the
House for today. On Monday we will com-
mence the Throne Speech debate.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:00 o'clock a.m.
I
No. 4
ONTARIO
JLtMatuvt of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty'Sixth Legislature
Monday, November 27, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis^ Q*C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS ,
Monday, November 27, 1961
Reading and receiving petitions 39
Farm Products Marketing Act, hill to amend, Mr. MacDonald, first reading 41
Statement re fluoridation committee report, Mr. Dymond 41
Presenting report, Mr. Grossman 43
Motion of thanks for Speech from the Throne, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Hamilton 44
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Wintermeyer, agreed to 57
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 57
37
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, November 27, 1961
The House met at 3:05 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests in the east gallery mem-
bers of the Women's Liberal Association,
Stouffville.
Hon. J. P. Roberts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I have here a message from the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor signed
by his own hand.
Mr. Speaker: The Honourable, the Lieu-
tenant-Governor transmits estimates of certain
sums required for the audit office. The
Department of Insurance, the office of the
Lieutenant-Governor, the office of the Prime
Minister and The Department of Travel and
Publicity for the year ending March 31,
1963, and recommends them to the legisla-
tive assembly. Toronto, November 27, 1961.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, by way of
explanation this is a procedure for tabling the
estimates of these departments. This was
done last year. It will now go on the order
paper and can be called in the normal course
of business.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, 1 was going to ask
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
whether this referred to supplementary esti-
mates or estimates for the ensuing year, and
I understand it refers to estimates for the
ensuing year.
I am sure you will recall, Mr. Speaker,
that last year there was considerable dis-
cussion about this very matter. At that time
several hon. members of the Opposition— I
think both Opposition parties— took the
position that we would agree, if you will, to
the consideration of certain estimates before
the budget presentation on condition that
this would not become a fixed procedure
in subsequent years.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last year
we were feeling our way with respect to a
fall session, and, understandably, certain
things were undertaken and done by way of
experimentation. But I think the period of
experimentation is over and I would suggest
that it becomes obvious now that it is not a
good thing to consider estimates of varying
departments before the entire budget is before
the House.
You will recall that last year we were
consistently faced with this type of position;
we had the estimates of a given department
before us and observations were made in the
light of those limited estimates with no
knowledge of the overall picture. My recol-
lection is that on several occasions we were
reprimanded for not objecting, if you will,
to the expenditures of certain sums of money
in specific form when we criticized the budget
in general at a later date.
Mr. Speaker, I must say for myself and
for my party I certainly take objection to this
procedure. 1 think it is faulty, I think it
is going to create a terrible precedent. I think
it violates common sense and I think that for
the good order and conduct of this House it
must be set aside. I recognize, as a result
of the fact that fall sessions have now, I
think, become an established thing, that it
may be necessary to consider the advisability
of speeding up the budget presentation in
advance of its usual presentation in late
February. Be that as it may, we are talking
now about a procedure which is funda-
mentally illogical, that lacks common sense
and that invariably is going to lead this
House into certain errors. It is bound to, Mr.
Speaker.
Now this is the observation I want to make
at this juncture; and I make it in the most
emphatic language I can because I think
that it is erroneous, it is harmful to the good
conduct of the House.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, as
I remember the discussion on this point last
year, it did not revolve around this particular
procedure. As a matter of fact, the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
said last year that he understood and had no
objection to it.
He states the debate last year upon this
point revolved around the question of over-
lapping of debates. The situation simply is
this: we have a fall session and I want to
38
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
deal with as many as possible of what might
be termed routine matters, between now and
the time we adjourn. If hon. members will
notice, these departments to be dealt with
are audit, insurance, Lieutenant-Governor,
the Prime Minister and travel and publicity.
In other words, they are not the large-
spending departments of government, nor do
they have— if I may put it this way— the
importance that some of the larger depart-
ments have.
It appears to me as being in the interest
of the efficiency of the House to introduce
these now and to table them, so that they may
be looked at and they will be introduced and
dealt with in the ordinary course of business.
Then, when we do get down to the budget
and the major business of the government,
these departments will be out of the way.
I do not think this caused any distress la.st
year. I do not remember any particular dis-
cussion on the point after it was done. We
have three weeks or so in which to get
through as much of the business of the House
as is possible and in order to be able to do
that I wanted these items on the order paper.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, if I may
speak again, I disagree with the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) when he says that last
year I consented. I consented on a certain
condition and the condition was essential to
the consent. The condition simply was the
realization that we were undertaking fall
sessions for the first time and necessarily we
would have to do some experimenting.
But the apparent logic and common sense
of what the hon. Prime Minister is now say-
ing is pricked, Mr. Speaker, when I remind
you that last year we started in this relatively
unobjectionable fashion but it was not long
before we were considering major depart-
ments and my recollection is that we con-
sidered many major departments before the
budget was actually presented.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the concern I
have today. Surely, it seems to meet with
fairness, if you will, of accommodation, to say,
in effect, we are only going to consider several
departments which are non-controversial in
nature and why not hear the representation
with respect to the budget of those several
departments. But it will not be long before
we will consider more important departments
and then we will be told that this was all
discussed at the beginning of the session and
approval granted.
I want to make it emphatically clear that
my objection last year was founded in the
realization that we had to give and take be-
cause we were undertaking a new experi-
ment in this House. That is not the case now.
Secondly, hon. members recall that last
year there was much discussion about the fact
that Ottawa, and what Ottawa might or might
not do, would be relevant to this budgetary
presentation. That is not the case now and
I simply appeal, Mr. Speaker, for orderliness
in this respect. Sure we have the business of
this House, but why not proceed with the
business that this House was called to under-
take, the Throne Speech? The Speech from
the Throne, the replies, and Mr. Speaker,
there will be a good deal of legislation that
can be conducted. I appeal directly to the
hon. Prime Minister for the sake of order
and the avoidance of a bad precedent.
The hon. Prime Minister will know as a
lawyer that it is the precedent that causes
bad law. By giving in now, we are going to
be precluded, I am confident, from taking
objection later on or next year. This is not
a good procedure, it cannot be sound in logic
or common sense. And because it cannot,
because it fails those tests, I suggest that we
should defer this particular motion at this
time.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say to that this whole
thing is foreign.
Take, for instance . . . yes, foreign, to
the operation of any governmental body at
all. In the instance of a local town council
or city, what happens is that they file the
entire budget first so members can look it
over. After that they discuss each of the de-
partments.
Now it was clear, it was understood by
every hon. member of the House, that one of
the reasons that the government wanted to
deal with this thing in a piecemeal fashion
a year ago was because the hon. Prime Minis-
ter (Mr. Frost) at that time felt he was going
to get something extraordinary from Ottawa.
As a matter of fact what he wound up with
is not even worth talking about. At that time
it seemed to be a very important point. In-
stead of getting anything from Ottawa, what
we wound up with actually was the establish-
ment in this province of the sales tax.
I think the whole thing is wrong and I
think we ought to go back to the old way
of doing it.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know to what extent this
debate is going to continue and I must
confess that I cannot get particularly ex-
cited about it.
NOVEMBER 27, 1961
39
I think we have a couple of problems
here; we may have a problem inherent to
the programme of last year, namely that
there was an undue delay of the budget
which resulted in us moving from depart-
ments not seriously affected by the budget
to other bigger departments. This is where
I think we got into the diflBculty that the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) quite rightly underlines. But if we
are going to have the budget, as I hope it
will be, very early in the new year, then
it seems to me that there is no serious vio-
lation of the procedures and the rights of
the Legislature to deal with these smaller
departments, these smaller estimates, in the
fall session.
However, I would just like to add in this
connection one other thing, Mr. Speaker,
One of the things I believe in the mind of
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) is
that he wants to get something done in the
fall session. Well, (a) I think we should
proceed without delay to the Throne De-
bate and clear the thing off as much as
possible, particularly if there is a hope that
we are going to get the budget immediately
upon the resumption of the House in the
new year; and (b) I think it is time that
this House should give some prior consid-
eration to bills and resolutions on the order
paper in the names of private hon. mem-
bers instead of treating them in the wholly
derogatory fashion that they normally have
been treated in the past.
I am sorry the hon. member for Vic-
toria (Mr. Frost) looks at me so reprimand-
ingly— but what usually happened is that
they came in between the hours of 10 and
12 on the last week of the session, with a
few exceptions that prove the general rule.
It seems to me that in the orderly consid-
eration of the business of the House, we
could have some of this in the fall session
and have some of them voted on instead
of dying on the order paper.
I must confess, to come back again, that
if the hon. Prime Minister Is going to bring
the budget in, or see that the budget is
brought in, early in the new year so that
we do not move from the small departments
into the big departments, then I cannot
get excited about considering the estimates
of two or three of the smaller departments
in the fall.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
think that I can bring this debate to some
degree of conclusion. The simple fact is,
Mr. Speaker, and you will know better
than I, that the Honourable the Lieutenant-
Governor has now presented these esti-
mates and there is not a thing we can do
if we want to. But I take objection in prin-
ciple.
Mr. Speaker: I fully realize what the hon.
member has said, and the hon. member has
spoken three times on this subject. I was
about to rise and say that this matter would
be better dealt with when the motion is before
the House, "that the House move into com-
mittee of supply."
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the corporation of the Sudbury High
School District Board praying that an Act
may pass authorizing the execution of an
agreement with the Neelon-Garson and Fal-
conbridge District High School Board relative
to the operation and maintenance of schools
outside the jurisdiction of the Sudbury Board;
and for related purposes.
Of the corporation of the city of Hamilton
praying that an Act may pass respecting
charges for laying and repairing water service
pipes from the main pipe to owners' premises.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by commit-
tees.
Motions.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer)
moves that this House will tomorrow resolve
itself into the committee of supply.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, of course
this is the motion that you made reference to
just a few moments ago and I realize that I
have had the opportunity now to speak on
several different occasions.
I simply re-emphasize, Mr. Speaker, what
I have said here before, that I think this
procedure is wrong in principle and I think
that there is ample opportunity to consider
other business of the House between now and
the time that we adjourn in the middle of
December or whenever it be. I am confident
that there is on the order paper now or will
be within a matter of a very few days, suflBci-
ent business to occupy our full attention and
therefore, Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate
and underscore what I have said and I hope
that other hon. members will have the oppor-
tunity now to speak to this motion.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): I should
like to ask a question of either the hon.
40
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Prime Minister (Mr. Roberts) or the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) with respect
to this matter.
My question is, can either of these two
hon. Ministers advise this House whether or
not there is to be any change in the allot-
ment of funds which will be expended in
the forthcoming year? It seems to me that if
there is to be a change either upward or
downward in the allocation of funds that it
very well could have an eflFect on the budgets
which we are going to be asked to approve
in the estimates which were suggested by the
hon. Prime Minister.
It seems to me, sir, that it is absurd to con-
sider, no matter how small, any of these
estimates without some overall knowledge of
the amount of money which is going to be
expended by this government in the forth-
coming year. I am sure that there is not
any group of directors or shareholders which
would approve expenditures of any depart-
ment of any reasonable business without some
realization of the overall money which is
available to be expended. I would s*uggest
to you, sir, that this thing is totally absurd,
that it is almost an insult to the hon. mem-
bers of the Opposition to be asked to again
approve these various estimates in piecemeal
without any idea of what the overall pro-
gram is to be.
It might very well be that there might be
a cut-back, perhaps this government might
even decide to repeal its sales tax, I do not
know. If this were to happen, Mr. Speaker,
how in the name of reason can we go ahead
and approve the individual estimates without
any idea whatsoever of the overall program?
I think it is ridiculous, I think it is wrong
and I am very much opposed to this sug-
gestion at this time.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there have
been several points raised in this debate— both
in the part of it that is in order and the part
that was out of order— but I can assure the
hon. members of the House that the budget
will be brought in at the earliest possible
moment. It would be my wish that it be in
just as early as we can conceivably get it
ready when we meet after the Christmas and
New Year's recess.
Secondly, I can only reiterate that the
estimates being tabled here this afternoon
are for departments that will not have a large
ejffect on the overall financial picture of the
government. That is why we have chosen
these departments rather than the larger
departments, because while theoretically the
last comment might have some validity, prac-
tically the estimates of these departments will
have very litde, if any, effect on the overall
financial picture of the government.
I will attempt to have a full picture before
the House before the estimates of the major
departments are brought in, because I under-
stand exactly what the hon. members are
speaking about and I will be snire they have
that information before we discuss the esti-
mates of the departments that are really go-
ing to have a large effect on the overall
financial picture.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Will the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) give us his
word that he will not call any other depart-
ments, other than the ones that have been
mentioned today? Because from our experi-
ence of last year it went from three to four
and then kept on going. I think perhaps we
could accept them at face value if he said
just these four departments were going to
be called, but—
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is
preaching what the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Wintermeyer) has just said.
Mr. Whicher: No, but if he gives his word
that he will not call any more, it might help
us out a bit.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask a question. Why
is it necessary to proceed under this pattern
when for years and years we were able to
proceed imder the old system? I would like
to know the reason.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the House will to-
morrow resolve itself into committee on ways
and means.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I quite
reahze what is happening, that we are now
on another motion. The first motion, I am
sure, was left in abeyance to the extent that
there were several here who wished to speak
on it. I am not going to complain of that.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am going to advise you
right now that we feel sufficiently strongly
about this to demonstrate our objection to it,
and the only way we can do so is to vote
against that, and we are doing that formally
right now.
Mr. MacDonald: Much ado about nothing.
NOVEMBER 27, 1961
41
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the
motion will please say "aye".
All those opposed will please say "nay".
I declare the "ayes" and have it.
Call in the members.
The motion was carried on the following
division:
YEAS
NAYS
Allan (Haldimand-
Belanger
Norfolk)
Bukator
Allen (Middlesex
Chappie
South)
Edwards
Auld
( Wentworth )
Beckett
Gordon
Boyer
Gould
Brown
Innes
Bryden
Manley
Carruthers
Newman
Cass
Oliver
Cathcart
Reaume
Cecile
Singer
Connell
Spence
Cowling
Thompson
Daley
Trotter
Davison
Troy
Dymond
Whicher
Edwards
Wintermeyer
(Perth)
Worton
Evans
-19.
Frost
Fullerton
Gisborn
Goodfellow
Grossman
Guindon
Hall
Hamilton
Hanna
Haskett
Hoffman
Janes
Johnston
( Carleton )
Lavergne
Lawrence
Lewis
Lyons
Macaulay
MacDonald
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morningstar
McNeil
Nickle
Noden
Parry
Price
Robarts
Rollins
YEAS
Root
Rowntree
Sandercock
Simonett
Spooner
Stewart
Sutton
Thomas
Wardrope
Warrender
Whitney
Yaremko
-59.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING
ACT
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South) moves
first reading of bill intituled. An Act to
Amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day
I would like to draw your attention and
through you the attention of the hon. mem-
bers of this House, to a statement which
appears in paragraph 178, page 81, of the
"Report of the committee appointed to
inquire into and report upon the fluoridation
of municipal water supplies". This reads as
follows :
Although one witness, a qualified dentist
and physician, stated that, 'We don't need
to fill deciduous teeth', this seems to us to
be contrary to good dental practice since
a 'clean mouth' implies cared-for teeth.
The witness, who claims to have good
reason to believe he is the one referred to*
in this paragraph, approached me after the
close of the last session of the Legislature,
asking that this be corrected publicly in
such manner as to show that this statement
in the report did not even convey the meaning
of the statement he gave in evidence. His
evidence, which is to be found on page 2213,
lines 4, 5 and 6 of the transcribed evidence,
shows very clearly that what he actually said
differs greatly from the statement reported.
The transcript of evidence reads as follows:
I would like to go on record as saying
that it is not necessary to fill with fillings
of durable nature deciduous teeth.
42
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The witness is Dr. Samuel W. Leslie of
Toronto— physician, surgeon and dental sur-
geon. I am quite sure this hon. House would
have me bring this to public attention and
express our regret that the report of Dr.
Leslie's statement did not convey the same
information he gave in his testimony.
At the time that this report was tabled,
Dr. Leslie was in Europe, and as soon as
he came back and read the report he con-
tacted my office. I spoke to the chairman
of the committee, the late Mr. Justice
Morden, who expressed very great regret on
his own behalf that the meaning of the
doctor's testimony was not fully brought
out in the report. Unfortunately, Mr. Justice
Morden died before he contacted Dr. Leslie,
as was his intention.
Dr. Leslie is very much concerned about
this because this reE>orted testimony of his
has been very much misunderstood by his
professional colleagues.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question to direct to the hon. Minister
of Agriculture ( Mr. Stewart ) , copies of which
have already been forwarded to you and to
him. Incidence of loss of livestock from rabies
still prevails in Nipissing.
Press reports indicate that 32 residents of
the eastern district of the riding— that is the
area of Eau Claire— who have had contacts
with affected animals, have been given injec-
tions of serum.
As the hon. Minister has had, no doubt,
representations from other districts, partic-
ularly Parry Sound, will the hon. Minister
urge the Cabinet and council to restore to
farmers who have lost stock through rabies
since September 28, 1961, the compensation
which was revoked by order-in-council as of
that date?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture ) : Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question
of the hon. member, for the advance notice
of which I thank liim, our department is
examining the loss sustained by hvestock
producers in the province of Ontario, and
when that information is compiled a matter of
compensation for livestock lost to date through
rabies will be presented to the Cabinet council
for their decision.
Mr. Troy: May I ask a supplementary
question? Does the hon. Minister not know
that the federal government has agreed that
there will be no cut-off date whatever for
compensation as far as they are concerned?
Apparently they consider that rabies, like
death and taxes, is with us and will be with
us ad infinitum.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, we are
aware that the federal government has not
revoked the order-in-council under which
compensation for rabies was paid. However,
I think it is only fair to say that the action
which was taken by The Department of
Agriculture here in the province of Ontario
was based on the fact that the experience in
previous outbreaks of rabies throughout the
proNince in years gone by has shown that
rabies has not been something that carried
on for very long. There has been a wave of
it, it has come in cycles and then it has gone.
This was what was anticipated to be the case
at this time.
I think we all realize the fact that the
wildlife iX)puIation of this province has in-
creased greatly in the matter of carriers of
rabies. I <un thinking about foxes, skunks
and raccoons that have been known to be
rabies carriers. This is true in southwestern
Ontario particularly; we hardly see a fox any
more. Before the outbreak of rabies there
was quite a considerable number of foxes.
Rabies is something that is apparently starting
again in the north.
The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Troy)
has brought this to my attention privately.
We have discussed it and I suggested to him
then that we are looking at this thing from
the standpoint that perhaps with the in-
creased number of wildlife we have in the
province that we are going to have to look
at this matter on somewhat of a permanent
basis.
I can assure the hon. member my sympathy
lies entirely with the fanners who have
sustained loss through rabies because it is
one of those things the farmer really caimot
protect liimself against. I would feel as the
federal government has not counteracted their
order-in-council dealing with this legislation
that we will have to look at it in somewhat
the same light. Until the facts are known this
is the stand that we are taking.
Mr. Troy: This is directed to the hon.
Minister of Economics and Development (Mr.
Macaulay).
Since tlie people of Ontario as well as the
hon. members of this Legislature are anxious
to ascertain if the Ontario Northland Railway
terminal at Moosonee is feasible as a sea
port, when will the hon. Minister release to
this House the report of the hydrographic
survey of the harbour at Moosonee which
was prepared by the federal Department of
NOVEMBER 27, 1961
43
Mines and Technical Surveys several months
ago?
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Eco-
nomics and Development): I would say to
the hon. member who asked the question— I
thank him for giving me notice— that when
I did receive notice of his question this
morning I prepared a short memorandum in
connection with this and I thought he might
be interested in it.
The purpose of the investigation to which
the hon. member referred— and there is a
report, which I have here— the purpose of the
investigation was to provide data for a study
of tlie feasibility of constructing a harbour
near Moosonee with deep-sea shipping facili-
ties.
The study was requested by the hon.
Minister of Planning and Development in
1959, of the federal government on the
recommendation of the northern economic
development committee. The federal Depart-
ment of Public Works and not The Depart-
ment of Mines as the hon. member has
referred to it, set up the study methods and
co-ordinated the work of the other federal
departments participating. The following
field surveys were conducted in 1959 and
1960— hydrographic, topographic, hydrometric
and soil. The report was submitted to the hon.
Minister of Commerce and Development on
August 28, by the federal hon. Minister of
Public Works.
Dredging and dyking requirements for two
harbour sites were proposed, one at Moosonee
and one six miles downstream at Sandy
Island. The report states that the site at
Sandy Island would be less costly to con-
struct. Ninety-one thousand, two hundred
dollars was spent of which the province of
Ontario contributed $50,000.
The federal government agreed to complete
at their own expense this year additional
studies to confirm the existence of a new
channel four to five feet deeper than the
one now being used. This hydrographic study
is expected to cost between $10,000 and
$15,000. I spoke to the deputy Minister of
Mines in Ottawa this morning, who advised
me that this report has not yet been handed
in to The Department of Public Works in
Ottawa and until it has been— and it is now
being worked on— there can be really no final
report from the federal Department of Public
Works in connection with it, because the
Moose river has been found to be breaking
through a new channel which, we believe,
will be four to five feet deeper than its old
channel, which will save a great deal of
dredging.
In relation to die report to which the hon.
member directed the House's attention: there
are only ten copies of the report and of the
books and charts that go with it, which we
have received from The Department of Pubhc
Works. Copies were sent to the hon. Prime
Minister's office, the Ontario Northland Rail-
way, and The Department of Commerce and
Development. Actually this report was not
requested by this Legislature, nor was it
initiated at its request and, therefore, this is
not a report which would be tabled in this
House. On the other hand, the report is
available in my office and if the hon. mem-
ber for Nipissing (Mr. Troy), or any of the
other hon. members of the House, would like
to have a look at it I would be more than
happy to make it available to them.
That is the state up to the moment. The
next point is, what is now required? Follow-
ing from this and the completion of the
report which I hope to get from Ottawa
within a short time— although they were
unable to say exactly when it would be
available— the next thing that will follow is
an economic feasibility study of establishing:
a deep-sea harbour facility in the Moosonee
area. Also, as an alternative or in addition
to it, an approximate cost of establishing
limited harbour facilities at one of two sites
recommended in this report and on which
there will be further data coming forward
in the second report. This feasibility study,
I should think, would take somewhere in the
neighbourhood of tliree months to prepare and
now that this report is available and as soon
as I have the other report, I anticipate
presenting it to the council for its decision
as to whether a feasibility study would
proceed and I should think that this likely
would meet with its support.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio) begs leave to present the annual report
of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario for
the year ending March 31, 1961.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day I wonder if I might ask
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) a
question with regard to the business of the
House. It is in reference to two tag ends of
the preliminary debate on the Morton report.
One, there was considerable discussion as
to the availability of the report and I must
say that since the debate, the wide range of
interest that I have found to be the case has
raised in my mind whether or not it would
not be wise to have this report printed. This
44
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House has had reports of much less impor-
tance printed in the past and I would think
that this is the kind of thing that should be
available in su£Bcient quantities for every-
body who wants it.
However, secondly, and more important to
the business of the House, Mr. Speaker, is
that we decide— and the hon. Prime Minister
himself raised the question— whether or not
this report will be put on the order paper to
be dealt with in a specific debate, or whether
it is going to be dealt with in bits and pieces
throughout the Throne Speech debate. I
wonder if the hon. Prime Minister has come
to a conclusion as to which procedure he
proposes to follow.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in the first
instance, the report, I believe, has been
printed. I asked for enough copies to be
made available for all the hon. members of the
House. There may not have been— I know
that at the time we discussed this, I believe
that was on Thursday last, there were a rela-
tively small number of copies of the report
when you take into consideration there are
98 required here. But I asked for enough
to be printed and if there is any demand for
them we will produce them.
Secondly, I can only say what I said last
Thursday, that this report really should only
be tabled in the House for information as it
is not a product of the House but is a product
of a department of government. On the
other hand, I did say that I felt there would
be places where the implications of it can be
discussed in legislation which will be before
the House.
Now, if it proves that tliis is not a sufficient
vehicle or form to have a free debate on tlie
contents of the report in the House, then I
would be happy to consider by motion of
the whole House, I suppose, putting it on
the order paper as an item of business and
having it discussed, if this appears to be
necessary. But it is my own opinion at this
stage that it will not be necessary. If it is,
I will arrange to do it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day I would like the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) to take something
under advisement.
I had prepared earlier today a question
that I intended to ask of the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) and I have learned now
that he is absent and will be absent for some
time. Therefore I am going to direct the
question to the hon. Prime Minister in the
knowledge before I ask it that—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. Attorney-
General will be here tomorrow.
Mr. Wintermeyer: If the hon. Prime Min-
ister is not in a position to answer the question
I would ask him to take it under advisement.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out that
the hon. member was advised that the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) would be in
the House tomorrow. He is unavoidably away
today and the usual procedure has been to
hold such questions until the hon. Minister
is actually in the House. Now perhaps we
can follow with this procedure which has
been established.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, this
matter is of real urgency at this particular
time. I would appeal directly to the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) simply to take
this imder advisement. That is all I am ask-
ing, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The relative urgency of the
question is the decision of the Speaker, and
I do not like to cause a precedent by getting
away from procedure which we have fairly
well established.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, on this
occasion I am going to bow to your will, but
I assure, Mr. Speaker, that there are occasions
when I think an hon. member, any hon.
member, has the right to draw a matter to
public attention. The hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts) is not here today and I can see
no objection whatsoever to the procedure I
suggested. However, in view of your in-
struction and direction I will concur in your
instruction on this occasion.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Glerk of the House: First order, considera-
tion of the speech of the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor at the opening of the
session.
Applause.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Hamilton
(Renfrew North), that a humble address be
presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant-
Governor as follows:
To the Honourable J. Keiller Mackay,
D.S.O., V.D., Q.C., D.C.L., LL.D..
Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of
Ontario.
NOVEMBER 27, 1961
45
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal
subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the
Province of Ontario, now assembled, beg
leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious
Speech Your Honour has addressed to us.
Mr, Speaker, I am sure that the first thing
that everyone does when they are honoured
by being asked to move the traditional
motion I have just made, is to reach for the
volumes containing the speeches given on
similar occasions in previous years. I am no
exception. I have closely studied the
formalized oratory and tradition-bound
phrases used from time immemorial by the
movers of the address in reply to the Speech
from tlie Throne. That I do not intend to
copy my predecessors will not, I hope, be
taken as any reflection on the worth of their
words, but instead as an admission of my
own inabilities.
I have never in my life been able to make
a formal speech, repeating verbatim, phrases
which already exist in logical form in a pre-
released text and I am not going to start the
practice today. This, therefore, is an apology
in advance to you, Mr. Speaker, for a
rambling effort, and a warning to any mem-
bers of the press, who may hope to follow
what has been prepared for them.
Of course the main duty of everyone in my
position is to congratulate everyone else on
the high position they have achieved, either
since the last session of the House, or seem-
ingly in the last 40 years of their life. I do
not want to show disrespect for tradition,
but my theme today will dwell on the changes
and challenges which now confront us.
With a brand new administration guiding
the affairs of the province, if I followed the
usual format and individually dwelt, for at
least 10 minutes, on the accomplishments,
real or imagined, of every hon. member
whose position or responsibility has altered
because of the overall changes, we would be
here well into a night session. Besides, I
want to emphasize that because of these
changes and challenges my feeling is that
matters will have to be handled differently
now, and how better can I emphasize this
than by attempting to make a different-from-
usual speech on this occasion?
Therefore, sir, I hope it will be under-
stood by all, if I merely congratulate the
new hon. Ministers of Labour (Mr. Warren-
der). Agriculture (Mr. Stewart), Municipal
Affairs (Mr. Cass), Highways (Mr. Good-
fellow), Mines (Mr. Wardrope), and Economics
and Development (Mr. Macaulay) on their
assumption or change of portfolios. I hope
I have not missed anybody there.
I am more than pleased on the elevation
to the cabinet, of the new hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions (Mr. Haskett), and of my
good friend, the hon. member for Huron (Mr.
MacNaughton).
We are all sorry to see good friends de-
part from the inner circle, but when we note
the cessation of active departmental duties of
the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle)
and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Daley),
we want them to know that we are com-
forted in the realization that their long life-
time of sacrifice and public service promises
to continue, although perhaps in less onerous
positions.
The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin
(Mr. Root), whom I have known for years be-
fore he entered this House, takes on extremely
important duties as a member of the Water
Resources Commission, a body second in
importance in my opinion only to Ontario
Hydro. We all admire the appointment as a
solidly good one.
Every year, we gather in this historic
chamber, 98 of us who have been chosen to
represent our people, and every year our
ranks are thinned by the passing of some of
our colleagues. It is a sobering thought when
we realize that during the life of the adminis-
tration headed by the hon. member for Vic-
toria (Mr. Frost), it has been necessary to
hold 24 by-elections— with five others now
pending— nearly all by reason of the deaths
of sitting hon. members. No one should claim
that the life of an Ontario politician is an
easy one.
With the sudden death of the hon. Minis-
ter of Mines (Mr. Maloney), this House lost
a friend who was a favourite of all. Jim
Maloney had eloquence, Irish wit and a
booming voice. I had always thought, as that
crashing voice boomed out across this cham-
ber, hurling verbal grapeshot against the
ears of everyone opposite, that one of the
advantages of being a back-bencher was that
one sat behind, rather than in front of, Jim
Maloney. He is already missed.
Harry Nixon's career established a rec-
ord—42 years as the representative of the
riding of Brant without a defeat even
though he represented various political
labels in this House. This record, awarded
by the people who knew him best and
trusted him, speaks more eloquently of the
life, times, and character of this man than
can any words of mine. He leaves behind
an object lesson from which we can all
46
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
learn, and something for which we can all
strive.
Albert Wren is also with us no more.
Here was a man of strong views who was
a caustic critic whenever and wherever he
deemed criticism to be deserved, and he
did not confine it to his opponents. On
occasion he was the stormy petrel of his
own party when his sense of fair play and
democracy was outraged. Mr. Speaker, we
need more of that type.
My colleagues of all parties will join me,
I know, in extending our condolences to the
families and survivors of these three fine
men. Their vacant places are a reminder
of the fleeting nature of our existence and
the need to give our best in the service of
this province while there is yet time.
In offering to you, Mr. Speaker, my con-
gratulations that you are again presiding
over our deliberations, I would like to
appeal to the other hon. members, and I
include myself in this admonition, to make
your official life here easier than we have
done in the past. We have had scenes of
rowdiness and rudeness in this chamber
which have not been conducive to sensible
deliberation of our province's affairs, nor
have they added to the good reputation
of any of us with those citizens who have
taken the time to watch us in action.
In extending to you, Mr. Speaker, the
greetings and good wishes from all my col-
leagues in the House, it is in the sure
knowledge that your firmness and fairness
and unfailing courtesy vdll quench the urg-
ings in some of us to make more noise than
sense, and that under your control and
guidance, we will once more do credit to
the traditions and rules of this House and
the purposes for which we are here.
We are all also pleased and gratified that
the jovial hon. member for Peterborough
(Mr. Brown) was chosen to be the deputy
Speaker and Chairman of the committee
of the whole House.
As my motion involves our Sovereign's
representative, I would be remiss if I
neglected to mention this province's affec-
tion for our Royal family.
The time-worn and tradition-laden phrase
"Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal sub-
jects" is always used in these matters. I
find those words totally inadequate as they
do not express, to me at any rate, the warm,
affectionate, and almost maternal feeling
our people have when they see or speak
about our Queen, and the Royal family. I
hope that no further expression of loyalty
and warm pride in our Queen and her family
would be needed than our oft-repeated
prayer of "God Save Our Queen."
In much the same spirit, I change now
to speak of another ruler who is also re-
garded with affection, but perhaps not the
same degree of loyalty is evident, at least,
not from the hon. members opposite.
When the hon. member for Victoria (Mr.
Frost)— I am still not used to that phrase-
announced that he was retiring from the
premiership of this province, the news was
received with a sense of shock by the people
of Ontario.
This man has led them, and governed
them— as their undoubted choice, and with
tlieir complete trust— with astuteness, with
moderation, and with unselfish sacrifice, for
12% years.
Twelve and a half years ago, Mr. Speaker,
I was barely old enough to vote so that I
can hardly conceive that this man, so siire,
so steady, so right, was shouldering at that
time— in the same sure, steadfast, and right-
ful way — the awesome and physically
destroying responsibihties he was still
shouldering just a few weeks ago.
It has been said that a man's life can
sometimes be judged by the manner in
which he takes leave of it. I don't think
we can yet appreciate the toil and thou^t
which must have gone into the transition
to a new administration so that an orderly
take-over by the new government would
cause little disruption and no inconvenience
to the public.
But aside from that aspect, contemplate
with me the picture of a man, still perhaps
at the height of his physical, mental, and
pohtical power, voluntarily and with no
thought of higher position, stepping down
from the limelight and the work which he
enjoys and in which he so obviously thrives.
It is an almost unique picture, Mr. Speaker,
and could happen only with such a man, and
only in a democracy, and even then, rarely.
We can only conclude that in taking this
irrevocable and historic step, this man is show-
ing that skill and judgment proved over the
years, with the overriding and characteristic
belief that he is acting in the best interests
of the people of his loved province.
In the uncertain years that lie ahead I
join, I hope, with every other hon. member
of this House of every political affiliation, in
hoping that his abilities and experience will
not be lost to further public service.
On October 23-24-25 last, it was my pleas-
ure and privilege— and an education in itself—
to participate in the greatest political conven-
tion ever held in Ontario, when a new leader
NOVEMBER 27, 1961
47-
for the Ontario Progressive Conservative
Party was democratically chosen by represen-
tatives of all segments of our economic life
and all geographic areas of our province.
There is always a real rivalry for the top post
in a healthy and growing concern, and this
was no exception. I hope I never see the day
when there is an acclamation for the leader
of this party.
Seven candidates, all of them members of
this honourable House, offered their services
before the 7,000 persons who crowded into
Varsity arena.
I do not need to relate the details which
are fresh in the minds of all of us— although
fresher to some of us, perhaps, than others.
I hope that it is sufficient for me only to say
once more, that I offer my sincere congratula-
tions to the hon. member for London North
(Mr. Robarts), who, on the eighth day of
November last, became the Prime Minister of
Ontario.
My belief is, that this relatively young man
brings to this high office the qualities of
mind and heart and soul and body which will
establish him as one of the great Prime Min-
isters of this province. He is young enough
to have the body, old enough to have the
experience, capable enough to have the wis-
dom, and public spirited enough to know the
sacrffices he, and his family, must make.
The fact that he comes from outside
Toronto probably helps a lot too. The citi-
zens of Ontario will be well served with
the Robarts administration.
They will have to be. The changes form
a mighty challenge to the future, and demand
nothing else but our energetic best, no matter
how insignificant our role in that future may
be.
I have been speaking of change— change in
this House, change in this government. These
changes are but froth in the fermenting
growth of the province, the nation, and the
world around us.
This 1961 has been a census year in Can-
ada. The figures will show what we all
know; that there has been a great shift in
population between rural regions and the
urban communities. It will show the
changed patterns of Ontario's life. The
passing of time has changed Ontario, like
the metamorphosis of an insect, into a great
industrial community. We can yet deter-
mine, by our actions, whether we will turn
into a colourful, active butterfly, or into a
grey, grubby moth.
The 1961 census analysis has not yet been
completed, but so dramatic has been the
growth of Ontario since world war II that the
special census of 1956 gave us the signposts
of our development. Back in 1911, the dis-
tribution of Ontario's population was pretty
well evenly balanced: about 1,200,000 rural,
with about 1,300,000 urban. "Urban" in this
context means everyone living in an organized
city, town, or village, and "rural" means
everyone else.
The peak of rural population came in 1941,
with a rural census figure of about 1.5 mil-
lions. The urban figure had grown to 2^
millions.
By 1956 the rural population had slowly
declined to 1% millions, while the urban
figure had exploded to over 4 millions.
We can rely too heavily on statistics, but
there can be no doubt that figures such as
these, soon to be supported in the 1961
census returns, reflect the dynamic change
that cuts across the entire range of needs and
demands, and challenges public policy as it
stems from this parliament, the Legislature
of Ontario.
The fact we must realize is that the Ontario
individual of the second half of the 20th
century will be, in general, a city dweller,
whether we like it or not, this must force a
change in politics, a change in social con-
cepts, and a change in virtually every facet
of government.
I personally welcome this trend and also
our population increase. I feel it is our very
real hope for the future in every way. Even
though Canada is growing by about 400,000
persons every year I feel that this is one
country in the world that could stand a real
explosion of population. We should aim, as
a matter of national policy, for a rate double
that of the present growth, both by immigra-
tion and by qualifying for family allowances.
What a difference it would make right now,
what a strong sane force we could be in world
affairs, what a built-in market we would have,
and what a more balanced nation we would
be, if there were about half a billion of us.
There is no doubt in my mind that we
some day will reach our goal, but the problem
and challenges are already with us. Even
in this stage of our development we have
not met the practical problems of the clogging
of our atmosphere with foul gases, the pollu-
tion of our streams with the sewage and offal
from our factories and homes and streets,
and the destruction of nature's greenery with
the unimaginative substitution of asphalt
parking lots.
We have not coped with these problems
today: what will it be like in 20 years when
Toronto is double the population it is now?
48
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The challenge before the Legislature, now,
not a few years from now, is to make plans
for the complete remaking of our cities to
establish urban living in terms of human
dignity and good taste. Unfortunately, it is
apparent that this requires government action
to set the standards.
Our immediate problems also include a
realization of these immense changes, and the
challenge demands of us to put purpose, for
example, in the lives of some of our older
people who have retired into these massive
concrete apartment houses 18 stories high,
but who, with people all around them, really
live in communal isolation.
They are fed, they are housed, they are
clothed, yes. But they are dead, because our
crowded busy cities roar away 18 floors
beneath them.
The challenges confronting our handling of
the younger people in the cities are even
more pressing, because our modem day pace
is destroying the souls and tastes of those who
are our only potential. A system of govern-
ment and representation and legislation geared
to a far-off and never-to-retum system of an
agricultural province does not and will not
fit today's needs.
Perhaps as both a lawyer and a poUtician
I am overly aware of the challenges facing us
because of our antiquated constitution. We
forever pay tribute to the fathers of con-
federation, and, of course, because everyone
does it, it must be right. But how could Sir
John A. have foreseen the emergence of the
welfare state, the unbelievable costs of de-
fence, the swollen expenditures of education,
and indeed the whole expanded role which
the state plays today in the economy of the
nation, the life of its citizens, and— more
unbelievable to that man and the others with
him in those days— even the use of its lands?
We pay tribute to our constitution, forgetting
that its obscurities and omissions have made
our domestic politics into a continuing dog-
fight that we call dominion-provincial rela-
tions, and too often have resulted in "passing
the buck" so that a frustrated citizenry sees
inaction replacing a logical apportionment of
necessary responsibilities. It took us 80 years
to make up our minds that we could interpret
our own constitution, and only now, labori-
ously and slowly, are we evolving a plan for
amending it.
Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion, we are
taking too long to do it. The time is over-ripe
for a constitutional convention to completely
revise the jurisdictions of our three, not just
two, levels of government, and to more
equitably divide the tax fields so that the
government providing the service can itself
pay for it.
A further challenge to us is the Common-
wealth, a world system we helped to invent,
and which we have neglected for a quarter
of a century. It is now a multi-racial, multi-
lingual group of countries in every stage of
development and with almost every type of
government. Social and political thinking in
the majority of them now diflFer widely from
our own. Any ideal we may have that parlia-
mentary democracy, as we try to practise it,
will be universal throughout the Common-
wealth should unfortimately be discarded.
They almost all are in need of our aid and
assistance and whether we can afiFord it or
not, to be a member in good standing and
to make the Commonwealth mean something,
will mean that we have to enlarge our help.
This should not be the concern of the federal
government alone. As well as being the right
thing to do, I feel it would also be good busi-
ness.
I do not want to be c-ounted among those
who feel that Britain's entry into the Euro-
pean common market will be an economic dis-
aster for Canada. Firstly, we should recog-
nize that to sTirvive, Britain has to enter. This
appears so inevitable to me that to argue
against it is wasting both breath and time.
Certainly this entry will cause changes,
and these challenges will hit us here in
Ontario more than in any other area of
Canada, I believe, because it could hit our
secondary manufacturing, and Ontario has
about 50 per cent of Canada's manufacturing
total. But Britain cannot possibly enter at
least until January, 1963. We have over a
year to plan and change and take up the
challenge. Some of the bleatings and breast-
poundings of our manufacturers for years
have been that we could not produce for
Europe because there was no single market
large enough, and this, coupled with Canada's
own small domestic market forbade our pro-
ducing and competing with American goods,
or with the highly subsidized European goods.
Already, in the last 12 months, Canada has
increased her trade with the Inner Six group
by about 41 per cent. Surely Britain's entry
could mean an expansion of a single market
for our secondary manufacturers' products,
not a diminished demand.
We must always bear in mind, of course,
that in most of the European market we will
be competing with industries that are hi^ily
subsidized, especially by certain tax incentive
plans that are unknown here. It may be that,
for a few years at least, we will have to fight
NOVEMBER 27, 1961
49
fire with fire. But as a nation we can and
must do it, and if Ottawa fails to see the
light, or takes a pessimistic attitude, this
Legislature must never forget that we, too,
levy tax on corporations, both directly and
indirectly, and bold, newer plans may be
called for.
It is an anomaly to me that while economic
conditions improve, as they have been over
the past year in this province, labour condi-
tions have been deteriorating.
We saw a particularly violent strike last
spring in the construction industry, now be-
ing probed by a Royal commission, which
we all trust will come up with some solutions
for the unique problems of that industry.
At the moment as well, the strike against
the C.P.R. and the Royal York hotel is getting
more bitter with every passing day. I wish
to go on record, Mr. Speaker, as being in
sympathy with the position of the strikers,
particularly in regard to the job security
issue, which I understand, was and is even
more so now, the main issue in the dispute.
I believe that the hotel management atti-
tude is almost like reading a history of the
typical management attitude of 30 or 40
years ago, and I am sorry to see this type of
conduct and attitude in what I thought was
an enlightened day.
I must say however, that the tactics of
the union executive have been nothing short
of idiotic. I simply do not understand why
they called a strike against one of our most
entrenched and largest corporations, at a
time of the year when unemployment is
always at its greatest and consequently new
help easy to obtain for a majority of jobs
which are unskilled and do not need too
much in the way of training. Certainly the
strike has been almost broken, but that un-
fortunate result would not have happened, in
my opinion, if the union had waited, say,
until the third or fourth week of August to
walk out.
In any event, they are out, and my pur-
pose in even mentioning the strike here and
now is to call "a pox on both their houses".
I represent part of the city of Toronto,
and it is the people of the whole of the
metro area who are now being hurt by the
bull-headed attitude of both sides.
The convention business here in Toronto
is extremely big business. It reaches into
every aspect of the service industries and
aflFects indirectly, thousands of incomes in
this area and across this province. Sirice the
Royal York strike began last spring, I am
told that at least 18 large sized conventions
have held their meetings elsewhere than that
hotel. And these are only groups who already
were booked into the place. There is no
reliable estimate of business that has been
driven either out of the hotel itself or out
of Toronto and the province and the country
which was not previously booked into the
Royal York, or into Toronto as a whole.
But that has to do only with the past. The
future is more worrisome, as some of these
really large conventions make their plans for
five and six years hence. If this strike con-
tinues very much longer, the reputation will
be made and we will have a hard time ever
living it down, especially in regard to the
very large, and very lucrative, labour and
service club conventions.
The Royal York management should reaUze
that that hotel is the mainstay of the conven-
tion business for this whole province. Very
few corporations have ever been as publicly
assisted by Canada's and Ontario's taxpayers
as has the C.P.R. and as a matter of fact,
thanks to the discriminatory generosity of this
Legislature, the people of Toronto, still assist
that particular hotel through tax concessions
unavailable to any other Toronto hotel.
Perhaps merely waiting for both sides
voluntarily to get together is unrealistic. Per-
haps, although regrettably, because the public
is now being hurt more than the participants,
compulsion is necessary.
These are only some of the changes and
the resulting challenges in this rapidly
changing province.
I feel that matters from here on in demand
different methods, different solutions. For
these reasons I am particularly glad to wel-
come a new administration under a man for
whom I have every regard and respect.
St. George riding is honoured that its
representative has been given this position
and this place to make its voice and his
opinions heard.
Applause.
Mr. M. Hamilton (Renfrew North): I
appreciate greatly the opportunity of second-
ing the motion of the hon. member for Toronto
St. George (Mr. Lawrence) for tlie adoption
of the address graciously presented by His
Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.
It is an honour to me personally and to the
people of Renfrew North whom I have the
privilege to represent in this House.
Firstly, Mr. Speaker, may I express to
you my thanks for the courtesy you have
extended to my colleagues and me during the
50
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
last session of this assembly. You were always
able to draw from your long experience in
this House and from the example of your
distinguished predecessors to enable you to
guide our deliberations with firmness and
eflSciency.
In these dangerous and trying times which
afflict the troubled world, the members of
our democratic parliament espouse many
causes, they advance many remedies.
In many instances the hon. members
opposed to the government of the day are
not averse to advancing their views with an
energy which creates an atmosphere in
which your impartial rulings are necessary to
bring decorum to this honourable body. You
will, I know, continue to guide our delibera-
tions with firmness and impartiality.
I should like to associate myself with the
remarks of the hon. member for Toronto
St. George in expressing my regrets at the
passing of a number of our colleagues.
During the last session of this House we
were saddened by the loss of Dr. William
Dunlop and William Collings. Both were
members who had served our province with
distinction in important posts. They have
left their mark in our history.
In recent weeks the uncertainties of life
have been brought home to me through the
sudden death of my good friend and neigh-
bour James A. Maloney. As you know, the
late Minister of Mines represented the riding
of Renfrew South, hence he was not only a
colleague of this House but an immediate
neighbour of mine. On many occasions we
co-operated in matters affecting the people of
both North and South Renfrew. I shall miss
him greatly indeed.
In his profession no one was better known
or more highly regarded throughout eastern
Ontario than was James Maloney. He was
the most able counsellor with a profound
knowledge of the law and of court procedure.
As you can judge, his gifts of oratory were
not lost on the many juries to whom he
appealed in the course of his legal career.
As has been mentioned by the hon. member
for Toronto St. George, he brought to his
House his Irish wit, his skill in debate, and
a great deal of courage. As an administrator
of an important department he saw Ontario's
mineral production pass the billion dollar
mark per year. In tiiis field and in the field
of labour relations his work was outstanding
and it indeed typifies his great ability. Again
I say his genial presence will be greatly
missed.
In my brief period of service in this
assembly I came to know and respect the hon.
member for Brant, the late Harry Nixon. Our
late friend became more than a member of
this assembly, he was a fixture, yes, an
institution. He entered this assembly in 1919
as has been said earlier, before some of us
were bom. The people of his riding elected
him in one contest after another so that
altogether he served in this House for 42 years
as a member of the Legislature. He ser\'ed
in opposition as a Minister and very briefly
as a Prime Minister. His very sudden and
tragic death was a shock to all of us. It was
doubly a shock, I am sure, to his veteran
c"olleagues, the hon. member for Grey South
(Mr. Oliver) and the hon. member for
Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Downer), who had for
so many years served with our departed
friend.
I refer also with much respect to the
passing of Albert Wren who represented the
great northern riding of Kenora. Our friend
was a young man who one would have
thought would have had many years of life
and service ahead of him. He served
honourably in world war II. He was a
warm advocate especially of the claims and
the aspirations of the north. He was a strong
critic on occasion of the administration, and
indeed of his own party when he found
reasons to disagree.
The ];>assing of these distinguished members
is a loss to this House. My colleagues, as
has been stated by the hon. member for
Toronto St. George, will wish to join with me
in expressing our sorrow and our sympathies
to the famihes who have realized this great
sorrow.
The hon. member for Toronto St. George
has already expressed in well chosen words
our assurances of loyalty to the Crown and
our devotion to our British heritage of de-
mocracy. We rejoice in the birth of a son
and heir to the Earl of Snowdon, Viscount
Linley of Nymanf and Her Royal Highness
Princess Margaret. We are happy at the suc-
cess of the visit of Her Majesty Queen Eliza-
beth II and her distinguished husband^
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, to the
Republic of Ghana. There were great fears
as to the safety of Her Majesty in visiting
this member of the Commonwealth; fears
which happily were ill-founded. The great
African continent enters into its era of self-
government. It is important to the western
world that we do everything possible to fos-
ter friendly relations with its huge popula-
tion. It is most desirable that they enter
and remain as one more bulwark of the forces
of freedom.
NOVEMBER 27, 1961
51
As this House assembled to receive the
address of His Honour the Lieutenant-
Governor of Ontario we were once more
vividly reminded that we are living in an
era of change. World conditions have
changed, unhappily often for the worse.
Conditions have changed in the federal
sphere and like other democratic nations we
have had to build a huge military, naval
and air establishment. Here in Ontario the
growth factor has been nothing short of
phenomenal in the last couple of decades,
and in this assembly change is all about us.
I have already referred to the passing of a
number of familiar faces. Today it is with
an effort that I find myself referring to the
hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost) when
for so long we referred to him as the hon.
Prime Minister. My colleague from Toronto
St. George has already referred to this
hon. member and his long record of un-
excelled service. The hon. member for
Victoria has served altogether a period of
some 24 years as a member of this assembly.
For 18 years he has held Cabinet posts and
for 12 V2 years he has occupied the high post
of Prime Minister. His decision to pass along
the heavy burdens of office to other hands
came as a shock to this House and to the
people of Ontario. Our newspapers from
coast to coast, and indeed in the United
States, referred in glowing terms to his great
record of accomplishment and with regret as
to his departure.
At the recent leadership convention of the
Progressive Conservative Party which has
already been mentioned this afternoon, it was
a privilege and an honour to the hon. mem-
ber for Glengarry (Mr. Guindon) to introduce
the retiring Prime Minister of Ontario to a
gathering of, it has been said, more than
7,000 party members who crowded Varsity
arena. I cannot in a few words do credit to
the record of accomplishment left by the
hon. member for Victoria. That record will
be permanently inscribed in the history books
of Ontario long after all of us have passed
on.
The sound management of provincial afiFairs
has been an important factor in attracting
50 per cent of Canada's immigrants to this
province. We have had a population increase
of 1.5 million persons in this last decade. This
has involved a tremendous responsibility in
the provisions of facilities, housing, hospitals,
hydro power, highways, schools, indeed every
possible facility that could be imagined. Here
the problems have been met, not always as
completely as we might have liked— yet solu-
tions are always in sight.
We have seen eastern Canada transformed
from a rather neglected hinterland into what
is becoming rightfully called the golden
triangle of this province. Our water powers
on the Ottawa have been developed, the St.
Lawrence project is in full operation— and
please remember, given cheap and adequate
power, given adequate natural resources and
given a suitable labour force, then you have a
setting in which industry will expand and
will flourish. And that is the setting which
we have in eastern Ontario today, thanks
largely to tlie vision and drive of him to
whom we now refer as the hon. member for
Victoria.
The trans-Ontario highway is nearing its
completion. The trans-Canada highway is
open for traffic all across our province.
Highway 17, that great artery starting at the
Quebec border, and running through the
Ottawa valley and thence to Sault Ste. Marie,
is either rebuilt or in the process of renova-
tion. Great international and interprovincial
bridges are spanning our rivers. New schools,
new universities, are dotting our landscape.
A great plan of hospital insurance covers 95
per cent of our people. It protects them from
the distress, the crushing financial burdens,
the penalties associated with prolonged ill-
ness.
The list is a long one, far too long for me
to recite. As the hon. member for Glen-
garry remarked the other day in respect to
the career of the hon. member for Victoria,
if you require a monument look about you.
I do not know what the plans for the hon.
member may be, but I am well assured that
he will continue his life of service in this
province. Already he has been honoured by
his appointment as a member of the board of
governors of the University of Toronto. The
management of that great institution of
higher learning will benefit from his broad
experience and his sage advice.
Perhaps the university authorities will find
in him an exceptionally able ambassador on
approaching this government for additional
funds to enable them to pursue their work.
I am sure that the hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Allan) would give such an ambassador
a respectful hearing. I say, Mr. Speaker, I
wish the hon. member for Victoria all happi-
ness, all prosperity, good health, long life
and every blessing, as he moves into another
sphere of service.
As has been previously remarked, our re-
cent leadership convention saw assembled a
democratic body of 1,780 delegates, their
primary task to choose a new leader for the
52
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Progressive Conservative Party of this prov-
ince. The proceedings were observed by
many, many more guests and well-wishers,
surely an outstanding gathering of its kind
in Ontario history.
I congratulate once again the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) on his success at the
convention I have mentioned. He won high
office in a clean and honest contest. Today
he serves as Prime Minister of Canada's
greatest province, backed by those who
battled it out for high honours in such recent
days. He has the united support of those of
us who sit with him, Mr. Speaker, and I be-
lieve that he has the good will of all of the
people of Ontario.
His career as a student, as a lawyer, as a
municipal councillor, as a private member of
this Legislature, as a member of the Ontario
Water Resources Commission, and latterly as
Minister of Education has been a steady
upward climb. In world war II it was the
same; he joined the Royal Canadian Navy
as an ordinary seaman, he soon won com-
missioned rank and had the honour of being
mentioned in despatches. If his career to
this date is any index to the future he will
fulfill the duties of his high office with hon-
our, efficiency and distinction.
It is plain from even the most cursory
glance at the address from His Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario that we are
faced with an extremely important pro-
gram. The address of His Honour comprises
not only a tremendous record of accomplish-
ment, it indicates also a carefully designed
and far-seeing approach to the problems of
the future. I cannot pretend to speak of the
details of this historic document but there
are a few points which I should like to stress.
The operation of hydro-electric enterprise
is of special interest to those of us in
eastern Ontario. As I have mentioned, the
water powers on the Ottawa River have
been developed by Hydro during the life
of this government. The same apphes to
the St. Lawrence. Back in the days of an-
other government, the then head of the
Hydro enterprise said he looked for a de-
crease in the consumption of electricity,
then a steady modest increase.
Also back in those distant days an hon.
Minister in another government made a nine-
hour speech in this chamber, detailing the
woes of Hydro and begging the people to
tell him what to do with unwanted power.
Let us see what happened.
In 1943 in round figures Hydro's depend-
able peak capacity was 2,470,000 horse-
power; in 1950 it had risen to 3,660.000
horsepower; by 1960 it had risen to 8,750,-
000 horsepower. At the end of 1961 the
figures will be 9,400,000 horsepower. Tak-
ing into account new development coming
into production, such as that at Fort Wil-
liam, the Lakeview development west of
Toronto and the automatic-electric plant at
Kincardine; it is already seen that this gov-
ernment has had to plan to increase Hydro's
capacity five or six times.
About 95 per cent of Ontario's farm and
hamlet dwellers now have hydro power and
there is no more useful utiUty around the
farm, I may assure hon. members.
Again, Hydro is reaching out in more
sparsely settled areas by concessions made
in recent years whereby fewer customers
per mile are necessary than formerly were
rcfiuired. The magnitude of some of these
developments is nothing short of astonish-
ing. The St. Lawrence development feeds
1,100,000 horsepower into the Hydro sys-
tem. The Lakeview station will supply
1,350,000 horsepower. Up on the St. James
Bay watershed plants are in progress for
construction to develop 375,000 horsepower.
Early next spring we shall see in produc-
tion the Rolphton atomic-electric plant, a
pilot plant to produce around 20,000 kilo-
watts. The use of atomic-electric power
will, however, go on a commercial basis
when the Douglas Point plant is completed
a few years hence. This will produce 150,-
000 horsepower and will rate as one of the
great Canadian experiments in the atomic-
electric field.
It should be recorded that the change-
over to 60-cycle current in Ontario has been
fully completed without dislocation to in-
dustry and very Uttle inconvenience to our
householders.
Again, the Hydro experiments in the
transmission of power over very long dis-
tances and at extremely high voltages are
breaking new ground and point to the de-
velopment of water power located in the
very far north.
Altogether the management of the Hydro
system reflects a great credit on this gov-
ernment. A very large measure of praise
is due to the first Vice-Chairman and hon.
Minister of Energy Resources (Mr. Macau-
lay). His work in a highly technical field
has been one of the utmost value and his
numerous writings on the subject of energy
in its manifold forms has done much to
enlighten us all on subjects which ordinar-
ily have not been presented in a way the
layman understands.
NOVEMBER 27, 1961
53
In the part of Ontario which I have the
honour to represent the subject of highways
is always a live one, along with the develop-
ment of parks and tourists areas, more notably
in Algonquin Park. We have some very valu-
able timberland along with tourist possibilities
in the northwest section of Algonquin Park in
the Ignace Lake, Grand Lake region. Some
work has been done by The Department of
Lands and Forests to provide adequate access
to this area and about 18 miles of road are to
be put into shape here by The Department
of Highways on behalf of The Department
of Lands and Forests— nine miles of this
distance will be undertaken this year.
Highway 17 has been rebuilt from Haley
station to Meach station about 10 miles east
of our town of Pembroke; again in the Pem-
broke-Point Alexander district a continuous
37 mile distance has been reconstructed. I
should also mention the Ottawa thruway is
now open in part, which is a new and most
important link on Highway 17. Highway 62,
for 15 miles south Combermere to Barry's
Bay is a fine new road of much local impor-
tance featured by a modern bridge over the
Madawaska at Combermere. A 10-mile road
from Barry's Bay to Wilno on Highway 60 has
also been completed. Highway 60, previously
ending in the village of Eganville in my
riding, has now been extended for 18 miles to
Northcote at Highway 17 via the village of
Douglas— a much needed local improvement.
Along the Ottawa River, 14 miles of muni-
cipal road are being treated as a municipal
development road and will be brought up to
a modern standard. This road, now in poor
condition, runs from Sand Point in McNab
township to MacKenzie's Mill in Horton town-
ship in the riding of Renfrew South. It runs
through a highly scenic territory with excel-
lent tourist possibilities and may one day be
incorporated as a part of Highway 29.
In 1962, a section of Highway 60 Wilno
to Killaloe will be rebuilt, a distance of 12
miles. This will give a first-class thruway
from Eganville to Combermere crossing three
municipalities.
In the northwest section of my riding, ex-
penditures of approximately $275,000 a year
are being made by The Department of Lands
and Forests on park improvements. The
general effect is, as I have said, to open up
tourist and camping areas hitherto almost in-
accessible in Ontario's greatest provincial
park.
As His Honour remarked in his address to
this assembly, we now have 79 provincial
parks and camping areas fully serviced as in
contrast with about six of a few years ago.
More and more, our own people, along with
thousands of tourists, are making the fullest
use of camping areas. They acquire a taste
for outdoor life, they learn to rough it a bit
and their vacation funds must go much
further. Muskoka, Parry Sound, the far
northwest, long have become not only well
established but often overcrowded as vaca-
tion spots. In the Ottawa valley there is still
plenty of scope for an expanded tourist trade
in all its branches and we appreciate the
efforts of this government to see that this
part of Ontario comes into its own.
One of Canada's most important military
centres is at Petawawa camp. Here we have
about 6,000 members of the Canadian armed
forces with some 3,700 women, wives and
dependants of the members of the military
staff. Some of the men are there for train-
ing, others are members of the permanent
staff. Here is a closely knit, orderly com-
munity of fine young men and women of
whom we can all be proud.
Again, we have at Deep River a community
of almost 7,000, mostly made up of young
people, very many of them preoccupied with
problems related to the vast field of atomic
research. In the main, it is their work that
makes possible the construction of such large
enterprises as the new atomic energy plant
now coming into being at Douglas Point.
Both the communities I have mentioned
are interested in or are beneficiaries of the
vast JFacilities provided by the province or
with provincial aid. The people here are
interested in education, hospitalization, high-
ways, public works of all types. Their work
is specialized, but none the less they are
bright and ambitious young citizens of my
community intensely interested in their res-
pective tasks and constituting communities
of which every Canadian should be proud.
Education is a subject well to the fore
wherever we go around Ontario. In an earlier
day, education was, may I say, desirable. To-
day it is a stern necessity. I could say a word
about universities— just four in number when
this government took office, but 12 as they
exist today. I should like to talk about the
magnificent work of the Ryerson institute in
Toronto with its 2,500 students. Most have
noted, I think, that this great college is now
being housed in new and modem quarters in
keeping with the fine work it is doing.
However, it is with our public and
secondary schools that most of us are per-
sonally and intimately concerned. There our
children get their start. To support them the
tax collector digs deep into our pockets.
54
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, just where would we be without the
aid which is extended by this government?
Comparisons quickly lose their meaning in
these days, for in the last 20 years we have
achieved, shall I say, a normal century's pro-
gress. However, this comparison is worth
noting. Back in 1944, that is 17 years ago,
provincial education grants for Renfrew
North were in round figures $88,000. Last
year, 1960, they were over $l,600,000-in a
word, we have here an 18-fold increase and
the story is the same all across Ontario. This
government today is pouring over a quarter
billion dollars a year into education and the
amount increases year by year. The most
any previous government ever expended in
any year in this cause was $13 million; such
figures speak for themselves.
As the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer) travels across the province he
proposes new universities. He proposes to
have the province take over nearly all of the
costs of primary and secondary education.
It would mean of course the abolition of
local boards or reducing them to a state of
helplessness.
But there is one side of the question that
the hon. leader of the Opposition does not
touch and that is: where will he get the
money? He will never have a better chance
than right here in this assembly to spell out
his plans in detail.
It is all very well for members on the other
side of the House to complain about treat-
ment of the municipalities. Let me say, that
since this government took ofiice provincial
grants to municipalities have increased by
20 times and they are still going up. I do
not think the senior government is doing too
badly when it paid out about 50 per cent of
all its revenues to assist our local municipal
governments.
His Honour in his address instanced that
places had to be found for an extra 100,000
pupils in Ontario schools last year and the
trend will continue in the same direction.
New construction to provide school space
costs $100 million— a smn equal to the whole
provincial budget of a few years ago. Revision
of study courses is under way, new text
books are in preparation, progress is a depart-
mental watchword imder the able direction
of the hon. Minister of Education (Mr.
Robarts).
As His Honour pointed out, the output of
qualified teachers from our teachers' colleges
is double that of five years ago. Teachers'
colleges have been expanded and five have
recently been built or located respectively in
Toronto, Hamilton, London, New Toronto
and Port Arthur, and another is under way
presently at Windsor. In a word, teacher
shortage has become something of the past.
The launching of new trade schools is a
\'ast forward step in this age of technology
and automation. These schools, as was
pointed out by His Honour, will be located
at Toronto, Ottawa, London and Sault Ste.
Marie; Kirkland Lake will be the site of a
new institute of technology, a similar build-
ing will be erected in Ottawa to replace the
present rented quarters.
Of special interest to my riding is a new
vocational school at Pembroke. This will
also serve, I am sure, the high school district
of Eganville, Cobden and Deep River. In
the east we now have Carleton University and
the University of Ottawa. Here in Toronto,
York University is successfully launched.
It will among other things take off the
pressure that is now presently existing on the
University of Toronto. We have another
university located at Sudbury, another in
Windsor, another at Waterloo and I believe
another to be located at the Lakehead. We
shall await the story of education with
interest, as the hon. Minister details his
proposals to this assembly.
My congratulations go to the hon. Minister
of Health (Mr. Dymond) for his great and
forward looking programs in many fields.
Eastern Ontario has not been neglected as
was often the case in bygone years. Vast
improvements and extensions have been made
at the mental hospital establishments at
Kingston and at Brockville. The hospital and
school at Smiths Falls cares for some 2,500
mentally defective patients in quarters which
are a credit to Ontario. This project was
launched, it is interesting to recall, by the
Conservative government of 30 years ago.
The project was abandoned when another
government took office and it was revived
immediately the Conservative government
once again was elected to this Legislature.
We have another similar institution at
Cedar Springs near Chatham. This week it
will house about 1,200 patients, mostly of the
mentally defective type. Older sections of
the great hospital and school at Orillia are
being demolished to make way for larger,
more modem accommodation.
Of course, I must give the former govern-
ment at least some credit for providing care
for the mental defectives. They actually built
a frame cottage at Orillia to house 60 patients
to meet a waiting list of more than 2,500.
There the cottage stands today beside High-
way No. 11, a monument to a government
NOVEMBER 27, 1961
55
long since passed away and never noted for
its humanitarian practices.
It is good to know that in erecting new
mental hospitals at Goderich, Owen Sound
and Palmerston, humanitarian practices will
prevail in that conventional institutional plans
will give way to modem comfort. Rehabilita-
tion will be the watchword along with modern
scientific care. The rehabilitation plans to
which His Honour referred will be watched,
I am sure, with interest.
Of very special interest to many of my con-
stituents is the establishment of a new radia-
tion protection laboratory, the first of its kind
to be established in any province. Very many
of the people with whom I am associated are
engaged in work related to the development
of atomic energy.
Turning for a moment to the subject of
agriculture, I am sure that plans to integrate
more closely that fine work of the Ontario
Agricultural College, the Ontario Veterinary
College and MacDonald Institute will meet
with the general approval of all of our farm
people.
I must congratulate my hon. friend the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr, Stewart) on his
recent appointment to a most important Cab-
inet post. He entered this House by way of
a by-election, again receiving the approval of
his constituents in the general election of
1959. He was not long in establishing him-
self as a well-informed member of this
assembly, nor was he long in attaining Cabinet
rank as an hon. Minister without Portfolio.
His career as a successful farmer, his long
connection with various farm bodies and his
participation in municipal affairs, especially
in the educational field, all told well for his
success in one of the most important depart-
ments of this government.
While I am on the subject I should also like
to extend my good wishes to the hon. member
for Huron (Mr. MacNaughton). He too is
familiar with the agricultural community of
Ontario and indeed all across Canada. He, as
hon. members know, dealt in very high quality
seed products which gave him a very close
connection with the farmers of this province.
His elevation to the post of hon. Minister
without Portfolio, I am sure, points to his
being allotted even greater responsibility
within the foreseeable future.
For a good many years the important
tobacco industry was fairly well confined to
the Lake Erie district. Tobacco growing has
spread into Oxford and Brant, up to Owen
Sound and down to Northumberland, to men-
tion only a few areas participating in this
$100 million a year crop. Now one of our
local farmers near Beachburg, Ontario, in my
riding, is successfully growing tobacco. He
is launching a branch of agriculture new to
us, but which I am sure has interesting future
possibilities in Renfrew County.
Reverting again for a moment to the sub-
ject of highways, Mr. Speaker, I should
like to say that we in Renfrew County are
not unmindful of what has been done for
us. Back in 1943, which is about 18 years
ago, there was spent on King's highways
in Renfrew North, $183,000 as a total. In
1959 the sum was $2,1 million and again in
1960 $1,704,000 were spent in my riding.
Municipal roads subsidies jumped from
$57,000 in 1943 to $419,000 in 1959 and
$542,000 in 1960.
Such figures not only speak for them-
selves, but the vast improvements in our
highways and municipal roads speak in an
even more convincing voice.
The adjacent riding, Renfrew South, is
to the credit of my late friend, Jim Maloney.
In that area expenditures were made on
King's highways in 1959, to a total of $1,-
476,000; and again in 1960 it rose to $2.5
million.
Subsidies to the municipalities rose in the
same comparison. This means more roads,
better roads and the local tax bill, Mr.
Speaker, fell within more moderate bounds.
We have had two distinguished hon. Min-
isters of Highways from eastern Ontario;
the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr.
Cass) gave unexcelled leadership in this
great and vast department. He now takes
over the responsible post of hon. Minister
of Municipal Affairs. Here his knowledge
of the province, his experience gained in the
past few years as an hon. Minister of the
Crown, guarantees for him a further oppor-
tunity for outstanding service.
The new hon. Minister of Highways (Mr.
Goodfellow) whom I catalogue as an east-
ern rather than a western man, needs no
recommendation from me. He has enjoyed
a wide experience, a real apprenticeship in
the municipal field, as hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs and hon. Minister of Pub-
lic Welfare, coupled in latter years with his
experience as hon. Minister of Agriculture.
He has gained a vast experience into the
inner workings of government. His patience,
his affability and his courtesy are known to
all of us and I am sure that we wish him
well in the performance of a new duty.
It is a pleasure to congratulate the hon.
member for Toronto St. Andrew (Mr. Gross-
man) on a promotion into a high and re-
sponsible and sometimes trying position. As
56
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
chief commissioner of the Liquor Control
Board of Ontario he will add to the record
established by the late WiUiam H. Collings,
to whom I have already referred. He
always has sound opinions and the ability
to express them.
I shall add a word as to the hon. Minis-
ter of Labour (Mr. Warrender). In the
municipal field in his native city and as
hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs he ac-
quired a reputation for hard work plus native
ability. He too has our good wishes in
approaching his tavsk.
I have already spoken briefly of the hon.
Minister of Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay)
who is also the first Vice Chairman of the
Hydro-Electric Power Commission and who
now will also head the new Department of
Economics and Development. This latter
department merges the work of The Depart-
ment of Commerce and Development, De-
partment of Economics and Federal and
Provincial Relations and has been mentioned
earlier this afternoon by the hon. member
for Toronto St. George (Mr. Lawrence).
Naturally, as an easterner I regret the
pending departure of the hon. member for
Kingston (Mr. Nickle). I am glad, however,
that he will be with us for the remainder of
this term of parliament; also that his sound
advice and counsel will be available to the
government and that he remains as an hon.
Minister without Portfolio.
Nothing but good wishes will go to the
hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Daley) in
giving up his heaxy duties as hon. Minister
of Labour after a total of 18 years as head
of a difficult department. It is good that he
too is remaining as an hon. Minister without
Portfolio. His affable presence is something
we should not like to miss and I think there
will be general agreement that he has done
an excellent job for Ontario in his many years
of heavy responsibility.
Our good and genial friend, the hon. mem-
ber for Port Arthur (Mr. Wardrope) will find
himself at home in the Mines portfolio. His
administrative ability and his warm humani-
tarian principles have left a mark on The
Department of Reform Institutions which
will not soon be erased.
In the formation of his Cabinet the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) has honoured
eastern Ontario by the appointment of the
hon. member for Ottawa South, the now
Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr. Haskett).
The hon. Minister is well known to us for
his modesty, his quiet efficiency, and his
success in his own business. He will carry on,
I am sure, in the best traditions of his pre-
decessors.
While the hon. member for Wellington-
Dufferin (Mr. Root) relinquishes his portfolio,
he takes up, as the hon. member for St.
George (Mr. Lawrence) has pointed out,
specific duties with the Ontario Water Re-
sources Commission and will continue to be
of tremendous service to the people of
Ontario.
In this great province we have experienced
a boom. We have likewise passed through
some trying post-boom days with little dam-
age to our ecx)nomy. As His Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor remarked in his address,
our gross provincial product has now passed
an astonishing $60 billion per year. Such an
impressive figure is, shall I say, incompre-
hensible to the ordinary mind.
Our population has passed the 6.5 million
mark. Our unemployment ratio is below the
national average. Our secondary industries,
the great backbone of the employment vSittia-
tion, are in healthy condition.
Our forest industries, likewise, are healthy
and expanding. Provision is being made for
the expansion of industrial research.
Our stock markets, rightly, or wrongly,
continue to predict a great era of prosperity,
expansion and development.
Agricultural research is to be consolidated.
Advance legislation to rural co-operatives has
been promised.
Much attention will be given to the
development of parks, wilderness areas, pro-
tection and propagation of fish and wildlife
and all other facets of the problems of the
north. Transfer of conservation responsibility
to The Department of Lands and Forests is,
in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a most logical
step.
It will be remembered that a provincial
ptilice commission is proposed to be estab-
lished; also that attention will be given to
highway traffic laws with special reference
to legislation related to the demerit point
system.
Mr. Speaker, we are now to address our-
selves to two important tasks: first, we shall
have the opportunity to review a record of
what I consider excellent government;
secondly, we shall devote our efi^orts to
dealing with an advanced program of pro-
posed legislation. These tasks I am sure we
shall approach with our thoughts directed to
the task of making this a still better province
in which to live.
We are free from the oppressions of dic-
tatorship, we have an abundance of the great
NOVEMBER 27, 1961
57
things of life, we have governments which
are concerned primarily with the welfare of
the people rather than the individual with a
lust for power. Let us preserve our great
heritage of freedom and democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I second the motion of the
hon. member for St. George for the adoption
of the address graciously presented to us by
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of
Ontario.
Applause.
Mr. Wintermeyer moves the adjournment
of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, in moving
the adjournment of the House, tomorrow we
will go on with the second readings on the
order paper. There will be introduction of
certain legislation, but we will take it in the
order it presently stands. There will be no
estimates called. On Wednesday we will go
on with the debate on the Speech from the
Throne.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5:10 o'clock, p.m.
I
No. 5
ONTARIO
legisilature of (J^ntario
debates;
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Tuesday, November 28, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 28, 1961
Reading and receiving petitions T 61
Report of select committee re standing committees, Mr. Rollins 61
Motion to appoint standing committee on public accounts, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 6S
Bailiffs Act, 1960-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 68
Coroners Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 67
Crown Attorneys Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 67
Devolution of Estates Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading ff7
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading (ft
Fire Marshals Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 67
Jurors Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 6|^
Legitimacy Act, 1961-1962, bill intituled, Mr. Roberts, first reading 66
Master and Servant Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 6B
Mechanics' Lien Act, bill lo amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading OS
Police Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 68
Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first
reading 69
Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1960, bill to confirm, Mr. Roberts, first reading 09
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 09
Trustee Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 09
Dentistry Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 70
Sanatoria for Consumptives Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 70
Air Pollution Control Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 70
Cancer Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 70
Department of Education Act, bill to amend, Mr. Robarts, first reading 70
Schools Administration Act, bill to amend, Mr. Robarts, first reading 70
Ontaiio Parks Integration Board Act, bill to amend, Mr. Macaulay, second reading 76
Conservation Authorities Act, bill to amend, Mr. Macaulay, second reading 76
Parks Assistance Act, bill to amend, Mr. Macaulay, second reading 76
Provincial Parks Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, second reading 76
Forest Fires Prevention Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, second reading 76
Forestry Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, second reading 76
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 76
61
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, November 28, 1961
The House met at 3:10 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests students from Walsh
Public School, Simcoe and Lynedoch Public
School, Delhi, in the west gallery. We also
have with us today, sitting on the floor to
the Speaker's left, the Hon. John Pickersgill
and the Hon. Paul Hellyer. Also, on the
right, Mr. Clayton Hodgson, M.P. for Victoria.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the corporation of the city of London
praying that an Act may pass refunding
certain taxes on the premises of London Little
Theatre; and for other purposes.
Of the Ontario Registered Music Teachers'
Association praying that an Act may pass
providing for a head office for the association
and increasing the council to not more than
fifteen.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Mr. C. T. Rollins, from the select com-
mittee appointed to prepare the lists of hon.
members to compose the standing committees
of the House, presented the committee's first
report which was read as follows and adopted:
Your committee recommends that the
standing committees ordered by the House
be composed as follows:
Committee on agriculture— Messrs. Allen
(Middlesex South), Auld, Boyer, Brown,
Brunelle, Carruthers, Chappie, Connell, Davis,
Davison, Downer, Edwards (Perth), Edwards
(Wentworth), Evans, Fullerton, Gisbom,
Gomme, Guindon, Hall, Hamilton, Hanna,
Hoffrtian, Innes, Janes, Johnston (Carleton),
LaVergne, Letherby, MacDonald, Mackenzie,
MacNaughton, Manley, Morningstar, Myers,
McNeil, Noden, Oliver, Parry, Reaume,
Rollins, Root, Sandercock, Simonett, Spence,
Stewart, Sutton, Troy, Whicher, Whitney,
Wintermeyer, Worton— 50.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Committee on conservation— Messrs. Allen
(Middlesex South), Brunelle, Bryden, Bukator,
Carruthers, Davis, Evans, Gisbom, Gordon,
Hall, Innes, Janes, Johnston (Carleton),
Lawrence, Letherby, Lewis, MacDonald,
Mackenzie, MacNaughton, Manley, Morin,
McNeil, Newman, Oliver, Parry, Reaume,
Root, Rowntree, Sandercock, Simonett,
Spence, Stewart, Sutton, Troy, White— 35.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Committee on education— Messrs. Auld,
Beckett, Belanger, Belisle, Boyer, Brown,
Brunelle, Bryden, Carruthers, Chappie Cowl-
ing, Davis, Davison, Downer, Edwards
(Perth), Evans, Gould, Guindon, Hamilton,
Janes, Johnston (Carleton), Lavergne, Law-
rence, Letherby, Lewis, MacDonald, Mac-
Naughton, Morin, Morningstar, Morrow,
Myers, McNeil, Newman, Parry, Phillips,
Price, Rollins, Root, Sandercock, Simonett,
Singer, Spence, Stewart, Sutton, Thompson,
Trotter, Troy, Whicher, White, Wintermeyer
-50.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Committee on energy— Messrs. Brunelle,
Bryden, Bukator, Carruthers, Chappie, Davis,
Gomme, Guindon, Hamilton, Haskett, Janes,
Johnston (Parry Sound), Johnston (Carleton),
Lavergne, Lawrence, Letherby, Lewis, Mac-
Donald, MacNaughton, Myers, McNeil,
Oliver, Phillips, Reaume, Rollins, Root,
Simonett, Singer, Sopha, Stewart, Thomas,
Whicher, Whitney, Wintermeyer, Worton— 35.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Committee on game and fish— Messrs. Allen
(Middlesex South), Beckett, Boyer, Brown,
Brunelle, Chappie, Cowling, Davis, Davison,
Evans, Fullerton, Gisbom, Gordon, Guindon,
Hamilton, Hoffman, Innes, Janes, Johnston
(Parry Sound), Johnston (Carleton), Lavergne,
Lawrence, Letherby, Lewis, Lyons, Mac-
Donald, Mackenzie, MacNaughton, Manley,
Morningstar, Morrow, Myers, McNeil, New-
I
62
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
man, Noden, Oliver, Parry, Price, Rollins,
Root, Simonett, Sopha, Spence, Stewart,
Sutton, Troy, Whicher, White, Whitney,
Wintermeyer— 50.
The quorum of the said conmiittee to con-
sist of seven members.
Committee on government conmiissions—
Messrs. Auld, Beckett, Belanger, Brunelle,
Bryden, Davis, Downer, Edwards (Perth),
Guindon, Janes, Johnston (Parry Sound),
Johnston (Carleton), Lawrence, Lewis, Mac-
Donald, MacNaughton, Momingstar, Morrow,
McNeil, OUver, Parry, Phillips, Price,
Reaume, Root, Sandercoclc, Singer, Sopha,
Sutton, Thomas, Trotter, Troy, Whicher,
Whitney, Wintermeyer— 35.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Committee on health and welfare— Messrs.
Auld, Belisle, Boyer, Brunelle, Brown, Buka-
tor, Carruthers, Chappie, Cowling, Davis,
Davison, Downer, Edwards (Perth), Edwards
(Wentworth), Evans, Gomme, Guindon, Janes,
Johnston (Parry Soimd), Johnston (Carleton),
Lavergne, Lawrence, Letherby, Lewis, Mac-
Donald, Mackenzie, MacNaughton, Morin,
Momingstar, Morrow, McNeil, Newman,
Noden, Oliver, Parry, Phillips, Price, Rollins,
Root, Sandercock, Simonett, Spence, Stewart,
Sutton, Thomas, Thompson, Trotter, Troy,
Wintermeyer, Worton— 50.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Committee on highways and highway
safety— Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Auld,
Beckett, Belanger, Belisle, Boyer, Brown,
Brunelle, Carruthers, Cowling, Davis,
Edwards (Perth), Edwards (Wentworth),
FuUerton, Gisbom, Gomme, Gordon, Gross-
man, Guindon, Hall, Hamilton, Hanna, Innes,
Janes, Johnston (Parry Sound), Johnston
(Carleton), Lavergne, Letherby, Lewis, Mac-
Donald, Macken2de, MacNaughton, Manley,
Morrow, McNeil, Newman, Noden, Price,
Reaume, Rollins, Root, Simonett, Singer,
Stewart, Sutton, Thomas, Thompson, White,
Wintermeyer, Worton— 50.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Committee on labour— Messrs. Auld, Bel-
anger, Belisle, Carruthers, Cass, Daley, Davis,
Davison, Downer, Edwards (Wentworth),
Gisbom, Gomme, Grossman, Hamilton,
Hanna, Haskett, Lavergne, Lawrence, Mac-
Donald, MacNaughton, Momingstar, Myers,
Newman, Parry, Reaume, Rowntree, Simonett,
Singer, Sopha, Trotter, Wardrope, Whicher,
White, Worton, Yaremko-35.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Committee on lands and forests— Messrs.
Allen (Middlesex South), Auld, Belanger,
Belisle, Boyer, Brown, Bmnelle, Bukator,
Chappie, Davison, Downer, Evans, Fullerton,
Gisbom, Gomme, Gordon, Guindon, Hamil-
ton, Haskett, Hoffman, Innes, Johnston (Carle-
ton), Johnston (Parry Sound), Lavergne, Law-
rence, Letherby, Lyons, MacDonald, Mac-
kenzie, MacNaughton, Momingstar, Morrow,
Myers, McNeil, Noden, Phillips, Price,
Rollins, Root, Sandercock, Simonett, Sopha,
Spence, Sutton, Thompson, Troy, Wardrope,
Whicher, White, Wintermeyer— 50.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Committee on legal bills— Messrs. Beckett,
Br>'den, Cass, Davis, Downer, Edwards
(Perth), Gould, Grossman, Hall, Hanna,
Haskett, Lawrence, Macaulay, MacDonald,
Myers, Nickle, Noden, Parry, Price, Rown-
tree, Singer, Sopha, Trotter, Wintermeyer,
Yaremko— 25.
The quomm of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Committee on mining— Messrs. Belisle,
Boyer, Bmnelle, Bryden, Chappie, Davis,
Evans, Fullerton, Gisbom, Gomme, Gordon,
Grossman, Hoffman, Janes, Johnston (Parry
Sound), Johnston (Carleton), Lavergne, Mac-
Donald, Mackenzie, Manley, Morin, Morrow,
Newman, Noden, Price, Rollins, Root, Rown-
tree, Sandercock, Sopha, Thompson, Troy,
Wardrope, Wintermeyer, Worton— 35.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Committee on municipal law— Messrs. Auld,
Beckett, Belanger, Belisle, Bmnelle, Bryden,
Bukator, Carmthers, CowUng, Davis, Downer,
Edwards (Perth), Edwards (Wentworth),
Evans, Fullerton, Gomme, Guindon, Hall,
Hamilton, Haskett, Janes, Johnston (Carle-
ton), Lavergne, Lawrence, Lewis, MacDonald,
Mackenzie, MacNaughton, Manley, Morin,
Myers, McNeil, Newman, Nickle, Oliver,
Parry, Price, Reaume, Root, Rowntree, San-
dercock, Singer, Sopha, Stewart, Sutton,
Thomas, Whicher, Whitney, Worton, Yaremko
-50.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Committee on printing— Messrs. Auld, Bel-
anger, Belisle, Boyer, Brown, Bmnelle, Car-
mthers, Cowling, Evans, Fullerton, Gisbom,
Gomme, Gordon, Hamilton, Haskett, Janes,
Johnston (Carleton), MacDonald, Mackenzie,
NOVEMBER 28, 1961
63
Manley, Morin, Parry, Whitney, Wintermeyer,
Worton-25.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Committee on private bills— Messrs. Allen
(Middlesex South), Auld, Beckett, Belanger,
Belisle, Boyer, Brown, Brunelle, Bryden, Car-
ruthers. Chappie, Cowling, Davis, Edwards
(Perth), Evans, FuUerton, Gisborn, Gomme,
Gordon, Gould, Grossman, Guindon, Hall,
Hamilton, Hanna, Haskett, Innes, Janes, John-
ston (Parry Sound), Johnston (Carleton),
Lavergne, Lawrence, Lewis, MacDonald,
Mackenzie, MacNaughton, Manley, Morning-
star, Morrow, Myers, McNeil, Newman,
Nickle, Oliver, Parry, Price, Reaume, Rollins,
Root, Sandercock, Simonett, Singer, Sopha,
Stewart, Sutton, Thomas, Trotter, Troy,
Whicher, Whitney-60.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Committee on privileges and elections-
Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Belisle,
Boyer, Brunelle, Davis, Gomme, Grossman,
Lavergne, Lawrence, Letherby, MacDonald,
Morrow, Oliver, Trotter, Wintermeyer— 15.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Committee on standing orders— Messrs.
Allen (Middlesex South), Auld, Belisle, Fuller-
ton, Gordon, Hall, Hanna, Hoffman, Janes,
Lavergne, Lyons, MacDonald, Mackenzie,
MacNaughton, Manley, McNeil, Newman,
Noden, Parry, Sandercock, Sutton, Thomas,
Troy, White, Wintermeyer— 25.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Committee on travel and publicity— Messrs.
Allen (Middlesex Soutli), Auld, Beckett,
Belanger, Belisle, Boyer, Brown, Brunelle,
Bukator, Carruthers, Chappie Cowling, Davis,
Davison, Downer, Edwards (Perth), FuUerton,
Gisborn, Gomme, Gordon, Grossman, Guin-
don, Hamilton, Haskett, Janes, Johnston
(Parry Sound), Lavergne, Lawrence, Letherby,
Lewis, Lyons, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mac-
Naughton, Morin, Newman, Noden, Parry,
Reaume, Rollins, Root, Sandercock, Simonett,
Thompson, Trotter, Troy, Wardrope, Whicher,
Whitney, Wintermeyer— 50.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Your committee recommends that the prac-
tice of the last two sessions of devoting Wed-
nesday afternoons to the work of committees
when necessary, be continued.
Your committee also recommends that the
standing committees on conservation, game
arid fish, and lands and forests be combined
and that your committee meet again to con-
solidate these three committees into one, of
not more than fifty members.
Hon. J. P. Roberts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, in regard to the first recommenda-
tion of the committee providing for a sit-
ting on Wednesday afternoons, that is per-
fectly agreeable. It has worked in previous
years and so we will follow that procedure
this year.
I have spoken to the hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests (Mr. Spooner) concerning
the recommendation that the committee on
lands and forests and the committee on con-
servation and the committee on game and
fish are to be combined. He suggests to
me that the game and fish committee might
be kept separate because of the number of
delegations which come in, particularly to
deal with that one subject, and the great
number of organizations they represent
throughout the province.
I am going to suggest that the lands and
forests and conservation committees be
combined, but that at least for this year we
leave the game and fish committee separate
to deal with the many delegations that come
to see it and see it alone. Perhaps another
year— if it appears it can be combined with
ease— we can do so.
In connection with the general organiza-
tion of these committees, Mr. Speaker, to-
morrow morning— I believe there is a notice
on all the hon. members' desks— we will have
a meeting of all the hon. members of the
House and we will organize all these com-
mittees in one session, so to speak. This is
simply a small innovation in order to get this
organizational work done a little more
quickly.
Instead of calling the individual commit-
tees to meet at individual times, throughout
the day, all will assemble in one place at
the same time. The committee members
who are on individual committees will be
there and we can deal with the appoint-
ment of chairmen, and the organization of
the committees all at one time. That should
be cleared up very quickly.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): What time?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Just a moment. I
have not seen the notice myself.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Would the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Roberts) permit a question
while this information is being accumulated?
64
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is it my understanding
that committee meetings will take up all of
tomorrow and we will not have a formal ses-
sion of the Legislature in the afternoon?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, Mr. Speaker. We
have made arrangements to go on with the
Throne Speech debate tomorrow afternoon
and we will proceed at 3.00 o'clock. In
previous years we have not given up our
Wednesday to committee meetings until
such time as we had the business of the
House organized. There was a flow of work
going in to these committees and, of course,
there will be no work for the committees to
do tomorrow because we have very few bills
ready for consideration. Therefore, when
the work of the House is flowing to the point
where these committees can function and
have work to do then we will dispense with
the Wednesday sittings here. This can be
settled probably the beginning of next week
when we will see how the flow of business
is.
The committee members will meet tomor-
row morning at ten o'clock in committee
room No. 1, but there will be notices on the
desks of the hon. members later this after-
noon.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, I would like to request
that a meeting of the standing committee on
agriculture be convened for 10.00 a.m. on
Thursday, December 7, for the purpose of
hearing recommendations of the Ontario
Federation of Agriculture, and any others
who may be interested, relative to an agricul-
tural machinery Act in the province of
Ontario. I am pleased to advise the hon.
members of the House through you, Mr.
Speaker, that I met with the president and
executive members of the Ontario Federation
of Agriculture on the afternoon of Thursday,
November 16 and at that time they made
certain representations to me regarding an
agricultural machinery Act. For the infonna-
tion of this House I might say that the
following principles were suggested by the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture as ones
which might be considered for such an Act.
First, to provide for the availability of
repair parts and service to purchasers of farm
machinery in Ontario. Second, to provide for
the control and sale of farm machinery and
parts in Ontario. Third, to provide for test-
ing of farm machinery offered for sale in
the province of Ontario. Fourth, to provide
for the publishings of reports of tests con-
ducted on farm machinery offered for sale
in Ontario, including new machines that may
be offered for sale some time in the future.
And fifth, to provide for an inspection service
to carry out the purpose and intent of an
agricultural machinery Act. Sixth, to provide
for an agricultural machinery board.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this may be
a slight departure from normal procedure, to
invite our committee to do this at the moment,
but it is felt that it would be in the best
interests of Ontario agriculture to allow the
members of the standing committee to give
the fullest possible consideration to the
problems of farm machinery sales and service
in the province of Ontario that are facing our
farmers— because of the increasing mechaniza-
tion that we have in the province today.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I
wonder if I might ask the hon. Minister (Mr.
Stewart ) a question? If he is getting witnesses
to come before the committee, has he thought
of getting one to come down from Saskatch-
ewan where such an Act has been in effect
for about 14 years? They would have quite
a backlog of experience that would be a
useful guide.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
the hon. Minister (Mr. Stewart) whether it
is the government's intention to introduce
any legislation this session in connection with
this proposal?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would
say that we feel that this is such an important
matter that we would like to deal with it
before the standing committee on agriculture,
that we might explore all the possibilities of
this Act. If the standing conunittee on agri-
cultiu*e sees fit that this is something essential
to the farm people of the province, we would
be guided in drafting an Act that would meet
the needs of the farmers today.
Mr. MacDonald: The government will not
take the lead?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, witli regard
to this point, it seems to me that this would
be a good place to have this matter discussed
and to see as a result of the deliberations of
this committee and hon. members of the
House what might be done.
It might very well be that a bill could be
introduced; or what I also had in the back of
my mind was if it proved to be a matter of
some complication and was going to require
a good deal of study, out of the meetings of
the standing committee of this House could
very well come a select committee of the
NOVEMBER 28, 1961
65
Legislature to study the whole proposition
and see whether and what form any proposed
legislation might take.
This is precisely what we intend to do with
this problem. It seems to me it would provide
a very effective way of studying tlie whole
question and coming up with the right answer.
Mr. Speaker: Are the members in agree-
ment with the Prime Minister's amendment,
as it were, to keep the game and fish com-
mittee separate from the main lands and
forests committee? Are the members in
agreement on that?
Mr. C. T. Rollins (Hastings East) moves
the adoption of the report.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Reports.
Motions.
Hon. Mr.. Robarts moved that a standing
committee on public accounts be appointed
for the present session, which said committee
shall be empowered to examine and inquire
into all such matters and things as shall be
referred to it by the House and to report from
time to time its observations and opinions
thereon, with power to send for persons,
papers and records.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: This motion arises out
of a discussion we had here last Thursday
afternoon. On checking into the matter I
find, and perhaps my face is a little red in
this because I happen to be a member of this
committee but I had forgotten just how far
we had gone with it, that there is a select
committee concerning the problems of govern-
ment which is reviewing the Gordon report
on the organization of government.
In the proceedings of that committee we
have dealt with the question of the public
accounts committee quite fully, but there
were certain points that were being discussed
there. I remember the discussion, for instance,
when Mr. Watson Sellar the former Auditor
General, came down from Ottawa. The hon.
member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver) was
there at the time, as was the hon. leader of
the New Party group (Mr. MacDonald) and
at that point the question was debated and
argued as to who the chairman should be,
the idea being advanced that he might be a
member of the Opposition. The question was
also discussed as to whether it might be wise
for Ontario to follow the procedure that is
followed in England where all proceedings of
this committee are held in camera to prevent
the possibility of any use of this committee,
shall we say, for political purposes, and in
order to ensure that the committee would
function as a true body of examination of the
functions of government.
The point I am making simply is that all
these points were considered by this select
committee and as yet no final recommendation
has been made to the House. I noticed that
in April of last year when the public accounts
committee met, a motion was passed that the
problem be referred back to that select com-
mittee and that no action would be taken
until the select committee brought in its
report.
In order to expedite the work of the
select committee I propose to move another
motion as soon as this one has been carried
permitting that select committee to sit during
the Christmas recess. I hope that if the com-
mittee sits after we rise for the Christmas
recess we might get a final report from the
committee by the time we reconvene. Then
we would be able to adjust this committee
according to the results that come out of the
select committee.
In the meantime, I would propose to set
up the public accounts committee so that it
can function as it has in the past if anything
is referred to it from here, with the idea that
when we do have the final conclusions of the
select committee we would be in a position
to make what changes the House deems
necessary in the public accounts committee.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, with the
observations that the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) has made I do not think many of us
are going to find a whole lot of fault. We
are all cognizant of the fact that tliere has
been preliminary discussion about using the
public accounts committee for something
other than what it has been used for in the
past.
However, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker,
that the government give consideration to the
advisability of following the procedures he
has suggested that a member of the Opposi-
tion act as chairman for the time being; and
secondly, I would ask the hon. Prime Minister
and this government to give consideration to
the possibility of permitting the public
accounts committee to sit even now, starting
immediately, at a time when the House is not
as busy as it will be in a few weeks, and
start on consideration of some of the subjects
that were discussed last April. I think it was
April when we discussed the terms of refer-
ence, if you will, of the so-called public ac-
counts committee.
66
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
My recollection is that there was at that
time a genuine interest in certain things as
interest charges and debenture issues and the
like, all of which were very cx)mplicated, but
such things as the hon. members of the com-
mittee felt would be beneficial to all hon.
members in the consideration of the overall
financial picture of the province. I would
recommend seriously, Mr. Speaker, that the
hon. Prime Minister consider the advisability
of bringing before that committee, the public
accounts committee, at an early date, those
officials of The Treasury Department who it
was intended should appear before that com-
mittee last year, if the opportunity had been
given by the extension of time and facilit\',
and who did not appear and give the informa-
tion that was originally intended.
I think that this committee could serve a
real purpose in helping to organize itself, in
helping to find a purpose for itself by starting
with just such a problem as was discussed by
the committee last year.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
be very happy to do that. As a matter of fact
that is what I had in mind in establishing the
committee this year in the form it was in last
year so that we could carry out those plans
that were made last year. But I think we
are all now envisaging a broader function for
this committee than even tl\at and this will
arise out of the report of the select committee.
I realize that there is a great desire on the
part of the Opposition to have the chairman
of this committee appointed from the Oi5iX)si-
tion. I am, frankly, personally much more
interested to see what the reaction will be to
having this committee meet in camera. I do
not think it really matters, personally I do not
think it matters, who the chairman is as long
as he is a good one. But I do think the com-
mittee would function a lot better and we will
get certainly a great deal more value from
this committee if it meets in camera so that
nobody is going to be pilloried and everybody
can keep to the point. Howexer, these are
just matters that I mention.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the select
committee on administrative and executive
problems of government be authorized to sit
during the Christmas-New Year adjournment
of this session and that the same allowances
for expenses to the chairman and members
thereof be payable for such meetings as are
provided by Section 65 of The Legislative
Assembly Act, R.S.O. 1960, Chapter 208, for
meetings held during the interval between
sessions.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before you
carry that! May I ask with regard to die
work of this committee that if there are going
to be meetings held, that the date for these
meetings be set at the earliest possible occa-
sion? I need not inform the House that there
is a matter of considerable preoccupation once
this House adjourns until January 18, and
some of us may find it di£Bcult to be in two
places at the same time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) in view of his state-
ments in reference to the committee; is it
essential in his judgment that the committee
finalize its work before the Legislature meets
again in January?
Personally, I always felt that there was lots
of work that this committee could still do,
Ncry effective work. If it is the feeling of the
goN emnient that this committee should finalize
its work, I think a lot of what it could do will
not be done. I can understand my hon.
friend's thought when he says that it should
be finalized, that part of the committee's work
that deals with the public accounts committee,
but I would hate to go away with the idea
that we are obligated to finish in its entirety
the committee's work before the session
resiunes.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, no.
I would leave it to the good sense of the
chairman and the committee. I realize there
is a lot of territory for that committee to
cover in addition to the question of the public
accoimts committee. Perhaps the committee
might decide in its wisdom to bring in an
interim report covering the public accounts
aimmittee only. All I am trying to do is set
up the machinery to deal with this one item
as quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE BAILIFFS ACT, 1960-61
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General)
moves first reading of bill intituled An Act
to Amend The Bailiffs Act 1960-61.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, will the hon. Attorney-General ex-
plain this and the other bills that he has—
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): I
will follow the practice that is more or less
NOVEMBER 28, 1961
67
accepted here of making a short explanation
of each of these bills, even though the general
principle, of course, does not get discussed
until second reading.
This bill is an attempt to clarify the word-
ing, as there appears to have been some mis-
understanding amongst the bailiffs as to
wording of Section 4 of The Bailiffs Act
which was enacted last year. It really con-
tains no change in principle. The amendment
removes any possibility that the creditors
referred to include those of the guarantor of
a bond and it allows the refunding of a
guarantor of a bond that has been realized
paid by the guarantor.
THE CORONERS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Coroners
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill
merely provides that in addition to the fee
for a post-mortem examination by a patholo-
gist, if he employs an assistant an additional
fee of $10 may be paid.
THE CROWN ATTORNEYS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Crown
Attorneys Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill
brings an amendment to section 3 of The
Crown Attorneys Act and is applicable to
metropolitan Toronto and county of York. The
effect of the amendment is that there will be
a Crown Attorney, a deputy Crown Attorney
and such assistant Crown Attorneys as may
from time to time be required.
At the present time in the county of York
and metropolitan Toronto there is a Crown
Attorney and all otiiers are assistant Crown
Attorneys. There are quite a large number of
them as the staff grows with the growth of
population. This will give to the second-in-
command the status of a deputy Crown
Attorney.
THE DEVOLUTION OF ESTATES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Devolu-
tion of Estates Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill is
complementary to one that I will introduce in
a moment, but as I have them alphabetically
arranged this one happened to come firet. It
transfers section 6 of The Legitimation Act to
The Devolution of Estates Act, as the section
deals with the devolution of property, not
legitimacy. That will be a little more apparent
vi'hen I introduce the other bill.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Division
Courts Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this pro-
posed amendment is the product of some
experience in dealing with consolidation orders
in the division courts since they were first
introduced in 1950. Consolidation orders by
which a debtor may apply to the judge of a
court for the consolidation of unsatisfied
judgments are an advantage to deserving
debtors but have in some cases been abused
as a means of delaying garnishees and en-
couraging further debt. Recommendations
contained in these amendments are made to
protect the deserving debtor, yet make it
difficult for the debtor who has no intention of
paying his debts to hide behind the consol-
idation order. Two main points are that
consolidation order procedures will only apply
where there are more than two unsatisfied
judgments instead of where there are two or
more as at present, and the effect of the
amendment is to abolish ex parte consolidation
applications for consolidation orders.
THE FIRE MARSHALS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Fire
Marshals Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, hon.
members will recall that last year the bill
was passed to give certain authority to police
under The Police Act in relation to emer-
gencies. This now is a bill authorizing
appropriate steps to be taken for the effi-
cient functioning of municipal fire depart-
ments in the event of an emergency as
defined. It is in line with the EMO opera-
tions and work that is going on in the event
of a major emergency developing.
68
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE JURORS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Jurors
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill
provides for larger panels being selected of
jurors than is presently the case. The pur-
pose of the amendment is in part because
of growth, and in part also because of the
desire to encourage women to serve as
jurors recognizing at the same time that they
can, of their own volition, be excused at
their own request, that therefore the num-
ber available for the panels should be sufiB-
cient to allow for these contingencies. In
the county of York at the present time the
total number is 625; this amendment will
raise it to 800. In the county of Wentworth
at the present time the total number is 270;
this would raise it to 350. In other counties
the total number is 180, that is the maxi-
mum number, and this would raise it to
225. It is felt that these maximums will
allow for ample numbers of jurors.
THE LEGITIMACY ACT, 1961-1962
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled The Legitimacy Act, 1961-
1962.
Motion agreed to: first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill
is based on the model uniform Act recom-
mended by the conference of commissioners
on uniformity of legislation in Canada and
has already been enacted in British Colum-
bia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. It will re-
place the present Legitimacy Act.
In the main it is a study by experts who
have produced the document, the experts
being headed by the dean of Osgoode law
school and a sub-committee. It fills, I think,
a very necessary position in our welfare leg-
islation at the present time. It provides
for devolution of property in relation to this
problem, the position and status of a child
bom of a voidable marriage, and the posi-
tion and status of a child bom of a void
marripge.
THE MASTER AND SERVANT ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Master
and Servant Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of this bill is to strengtlien tlie Act by
providing a more effective means of prC'
venting employers leaving an area without
first paying off their workmen. It applies to
areas where itinerant labour is used and
sometimes itinerant employers come in at
harvest time and so forth on a sub-contract
basis. These people can be summoned to
police court, but in some cases they can get
across the line and be away from the author-
ities altogether by the time of the hearing.
This permits arrest in certain cases where
that type of escape is anticipated.
THE MECHANICS' LIEN ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The
Mechanics' Lien Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this is a
recommendation by the senior master to ex-
pedite the payment of money out of court
and the surrender of bonds for such money
as has been paid into or bonds deposited
in court under The Mechanics' Lien Act.
THE POLICE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
hill intit>iled An Act to Amend The Police
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill
makes provision for the establishment of an
Ontario Police Commission composed of three
persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council. It is the intention to make this
commission as strong, as impartial and as
(jualified for its work as possible.
As stated in the Speech from the Throne,
the expanding growth and economy of the
province has brought many attendant prob-
lems in the administration of justice and law
enforcement. With the anticipated continuing
growth and e.xpansion such a commission
should play a very important role.
There have been indications that organized
crime may be infiltrating into some parts of
Canada from the United States, where they
have been plagued with it for a long time.
Every effort should be made to prevent any
attempt to develop that sort of thing in this
country and particularly in the fair pro\ince
of Ontario. This bill should help substantially
to meet any offensive of that nature.
NOVEMBER 28, 1961
There has been a very considerable en-
largement and growth in the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police both in personnel and in duties
in recent years and the end is certainly not
yet in sight. The imposition at the top of our
police organization in the province of an
Ontario Police Commission such as is con-
templated by this bill will, I am sure,
constantly improve the ways and means of
dealing with all tlie problems of law enforce-
ment and the suppression of crime.
I look to this commission to initiate studies
and plans to keep our police always in the
forefront of this work. I have used the term
braintrust. Certainly I think it will bring to
bear on the subject a keenness of intellect,
knowledge of the problems and alertness to
deal with them which will be in keeping
with the times in which we live.
This bill gives to the Ontario Police Com-
mission wide powers to investigate, inquire
into, and report upon any matter relating to
the maintenance of law and order in Ontario.
It will have all the powers and authority that
may be conferred upon a person appointed
under The Public Inquiries Act.
In addition to those very wide powers, it
will also have general supervisory powers
within tlie limits of the bill in connection
with the administration of any police force,
the police needs of any municipality, and
the conduct of any member of the police
in Ontario. In particular it will have the
direction and control of the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police Force; and the commissioner
of the Ontario Provincial Police Force will,
subject to the direction of the Ontario Police
Commission, have the general control and
administration of the force and the employees
connected therewith.
Where a municipality may request assist-
ance of the provincial police, the commis-
sioner may, with the approval of the Ontario
Police Commission, provide such assistance
as he deems necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I consider this bill an ex-
tremely important one. On second reading,
it will be debated and I will have more to say
at that time.
THE RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT
OF MAINTENANCE ORDERS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Re-
ciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, these
amendments will remove the difficulties that
now exist in some cases as to what is, and
what is not, a court of superior jurisdiction
and will enable the appropriate court in
Ontario to be chosen in each case. This will
facilitate the processing in Ontario of main-
tenance orders made by court in jurisdictions
with which Ontario has reciprocal arrange-
ments.
REGULATIONS OF ONTARIO, 1960
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Confirm The Revised
Regulations of Ontario, 1960.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon» Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill
confirms revised regulations of Ontario, 1960.
The regulations and amendments made while
the revised regulations were being prepared
were also revised and republished in a special
issue of the Ontario Gazette. These regula-
tions are confirmed also.
THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Summary
Convictions Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this amend-
ment will provide for the time of service of
a re-issued summons being changed from
15 days to 21 days.
THE TRUSTEE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled An Act to Amend The Trustee
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, at present
a trustee is not chargeable for breach of trust
by reason only of lending on insufficient
security where the amount of the loan does
not exceed 60 per cent of the value of the
property. This percentage of the value of the
property is increased to two-thirds of the
value.
Subsection 2 provides that a trustee is not
chargeable with breach of trust only by
10
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reason of lending on mortgage security in-
sured under The National Housing Act even
though the amount of the loan exceeds two-
thirds of the vaKie of the property.
THE DENTISTRY ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves first reading of bill intituled An Act
to Amend The Dentistry Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment
is to correct two printers' errors.
THE SANATORIA FOR CONSUMPTIVES
ACT
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Sanatoria
for Consumptives Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The purpose of this
amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to clarify the
authority of the department to maintain and
operate clinics in sanatoria for consumptives.
THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves first reading of
bil intituled An Act to Amend The Air Pollu-
tion Control Act.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, this
amendment will provide for the appointment
of a committee to be known as the air pollu-
tion advisory committee. Its duty and func-
tion will be to consider and report upon air
pollution matters to the Minister.
THE CANCER ACT
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Cancer
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of this amendment is to add two mem-
bers to the board of the Cancer Institute. It
is provided in the Act that a member from
each of the teaching hospitals must sit on
this board, and, since Wellesley Hospital has
now become an independent hospital and a
teaching hospital, this will provide for the
appointment of a member on the institute
board to represent Wellesley Hospital. The
second will be an additional member to repre-
sent the University of Toronto.
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ACT
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Depart-
ment of Education Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, this bill
provides for the registration and inspection of
private schools in the province.
THE SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The Schools
Administration Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, this bill
contains several amendments which I will go
through. The first defines a county judge
for the purposes of The Public School Act
and The Separate School Act. The present
definition applies only to The Secondary
Schools and Boards of Education Acts.
The second is an amendment to one of the
sections of the present Act which provides,
where a child has been ordered to attend
school, that he goes back to school five days
after so ordered by a judge. We are removing
the fi\e days, so that he goes back immedi-
ately.
The third deals with when a child is con-
\icted of truancy. Under the present section
of the Act he must be charged under The
Training Schools Act which has a fixed
penalty of two years in a training school. This
is a very rigid penalty, and it is so rigid that
the judges sometimes fail to enforce it. What
we are doing is giving to the judges in this
case tlie benefit of the provisions of The
Juvenile Delinquents Act, which contains a
much greater variety of action which the
judge may take in order to help the child
rather than to just punish him.
The next section provides for the appoint-
ment of a school administrator by school
boards where the average daily attendance is
1,(XX) or more.
The next section deals with the date upon
which first meetings of newly elected boards
are to be held.
The final section is a small section which
was omitted at the time of the reprint of
the statutes in 1960.
NOVEMBER 28, 1961
7i
Mi*. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day I have a question for the
lion. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts), a ques-
tion which I hope the Attorney-General has
received. I sent it in yesterday in his absence.
The question relates simply to the problem
of organized crime. In specific language, I
asked yesterday whether or not the hon.
Attorney-General will reconsider his position
in respect to the appointment of a Royal
commission to investigate organized crime in
Ontario in view of the brutal murder in New
York state two days ago of Mr. Alberto
Agueci.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I take it
the question is in Hansard already?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, no.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The question, as I have
it here is in substance what the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) has just
said. Perhaps I had better read it though.
In view of the gangland murder in New
York of a Canadian citizen by the name
of Agueci, is the Attorney-General prepared
now to recommend a Royal commission on
the investigation of organized crime in
Ontario?
That was the question as sent over to me.
My answer: where a crime of this nature
is committed the first thing to be done is to
obtain the facts and endeavour to solve it.
When the facts are available— well, nobody
better than some of my hon. friends across
there know that there is a great distinction
between suspicion and fact. . . .
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: Tempers are pretty short
this year.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon.
members that it is almost useless to ask a
question of an hon. Minister and then not
give the hon. Minister or any other member
of the House a chance to reply.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not worry too much about these people.
When the facts are available then the authori-
ties in the jurisdiction where the crime was
said to have taken place no doubt will take
appropriate action. In this case, if any in-
quiry is needed at all in our jurisdiction it
would have to be in view of the international
aspect at the national level. If it has to do
with narcotics no doubt the R.C.M.P. will
be looking closely into all angles, and my
answer is, No.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
a supplementary question? Is the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) cognizant of
the fact that the administration of justice by
virtue of our Constitution is the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Attorney-General?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I do not think, Mr.
Speaker, that I need to get into a school
lesson at this time. The hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) has surely got
a better question than that by way of supple-
ment.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I would like to
rise on a question of personal privilege
arising out of an intemperate personal attack
launched upon me as an individual, and to
a lesser extent on my group, by the hon.
member for Toronto St. George (Mr. Law-
rence ) in a speech given last night.
I may say that a report of his speech
appears in substantially the same terms in
the Globe and Mail of this morning and in
the Toronto Daily Star of this afternoon.
An account of it also appears in the Toronto
Telegram but the specific canards directed
towards me were not included in the Toronto
Telegram story.
I think it should be noted, Mr. Speaker,
that the hon. gentleman made quite an ex-
tensive speech in this House yesterday. He
did not see fit to mention in this House,
where he could be called to account, any
of the matters which he raised or is reported
to have raised in his speech last night. In-
stead he ran out to a spot where it was more
difficult to keep track of him.
My first impulse, on reading the account
of his speech, was to pay no attention to it
because of its obvious irresponsibility. How-
ever, there are contained within it certain
specific allegations which it seems to me, if
not answered by myself, might be construed
as having been assented to. I therefore wish
to have the record straight on at least some
of the more important points.
First of all, the hon. gentleman alleged that
my campaign in the last election was paid
for and that therefore I am beholden to
"certain monied and vested interests"— as
he called them— which he describes under the
very vague heading of "union bosses." Mr.
Speaker, I think that it is appropriate and in
order for me to put on the record just what
did happen with regard to the financing of
my election campaign in Woodbine.
72
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
.In that constituency in my campaign,
slightly more than $2,000 was spent on my
behalf, of which $400 was contributed to our
provincial organization and the balance spent
in the constituency.
The hon. gentleman, if he had been inter-
ested in facts, could have discovered these
facts quite easily. Tlie only contribution in
excess of $100 to that campaign was one made
by myself in the amount of $300.
There was one contribution from the poli-
tical education committee of the Toronto and
District Labour Council in the amount of
$100. All other contributions were made by
individuals, and the vast majority of tliem
were in the range of $5 to $25.
If there is any doubt in the mind of any
hon. member about any of the facts that I
have cited, I would suggest that the commit-
tee on privileges and elections be called
together and that I be permitted to have
the treasurer of my association, who was also
my ojfficial agent, bring the books of the
association before that committee and be
examined under oath with regard to those
books and all related matters. And if this
procedure is to be adopted, Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest that perhaps the hon. member
for St. George (Mr. Lawrence) might see fit
to do the same thing with respect to his own
campaign.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it was alleged-
Mr. MacDonald: Of course, this is a laugh-
ing matter to the hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: For a gentleman who spent
$60,000 on a leadership campaign-
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the mem-
ber if it is a point of privilege to state his
point of privilege.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Speaker, it would
seem it is impossible for me to make myself
clearer when specific allegations which are
downright lies are made with respect to me.
If that is not a question of privilege then I
fail to understand the term.
The report goes on at great length. I will
not by any means deal with all of it, but there
is one other point in it that I would like to
deal with and that is the—
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary and
Minister of Citizenship): Are you admitting
the rest is true?
Mr. Bryden: The rest of it is beneath con-
tempt; I would suggest that the kind of gutter
language used by the hon. gentleman could
not be used in this House, and I presume
that is why he sneaked out of this House in
order to use it.
The other point that I wish to refer to is
the allegation that I and my associates should
resign becau.se the Co-operative Common-
wealth Federation under whose banner we ran
in the last election has now been merged into
a larger party called the New Democratic
Party and that we now carry on imder that
banner.
Mr. Speaker, this suggestion comes most in-
appropriately from a gentleman who belongs
to a party which in the last 25 years has been
known successively as the Liberal Con.serva-
tive Party, The National Conservative Party,
and the Progressive Conservati\'c Party. If
he has any precedents, as he claims, to back
up his fatuous proposition he will perhaps be
prepared to submit them for consideration to
this House.
However, I will advise the hon. member
that the people of my con.stituency— and this
no doubt may come as a surprise to him as
he considers his own personal situation— but
in my constituency the people are fully in-
formed as to what I stand for and what my
position is on issues as they arise. I make it
my business to make sure of that both through
communications I send to them and by per-
sonal calls upon them.
I object, and I submit that, notwitlistand-
ing the levity .shown by hon. members on the
other .side of the House who apparently have
no conception of decency, .such expressions
as "the craven and cringing attitude" of an
hon. member are most inappropriate for one
hon. member to use with respect to another
member in this House, especially when they
are ba.sed on no facts whatsoever but on
only his own feverish imagination.
This resort to unfounded personal vilifi-
cation is an indication of the growing sense
of desperation of the Tory party in this
province.
Mr. Speaker: Since this is one of the first
points of privilege this session, I would point
out to the hon. members that I have allowed
a lot of latitude in this particular case but
will not do so in the future. The hon mem-
ber states his case and sits down and does it
as briefly as possible.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): Mr.
Speaker, may I merely say that I was speak-
ing to the hon. member for York South,
(Mr. MacDonald) the leader of the party
of the hon. member for Woodbine (Mr.
Bryden), at great length this morning. I was
over .speaking to give the hon. member himself
NOVEMBER 28, 1961
73
an opportunity to speak to me, just before
the session opened; nothing was forthcoming
about the matter that he has now brought
before the House-
Mr. Bryden: I am not afraid to speak in
this House as the hon. member is.
Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, one of the
points in my speech last night was the lack
of courtesy of these hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: On a question of order,
Mr, Speaker.
Mr. Lawrence: May I merely say that it
is usual, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. MacDonald: On a question of order,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Lawrence: —it is usual in these mat-
ters-
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would point out
to the hon. member that we see here a
result of lengthy explanations. The hon.
member merely had to state that the alle-
gations were untrue and so on, and resume
his speech, and not to make a speech of a
vitriolic nature, because we cannot settle
points of order that way.
I have stated that on points of privilege
we be as brief as possible. We will now
pass on to the next order.
Mt. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): I shall
try riot to make it lengthy, Mr. Speaker.
Before the orders of the day, I should like
to direct a question to the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. Cass), notice of which
he has already been given.
My question, sir, is this: is the hon. Min-
ister aiware of the failure of the Ontario
Municipal Board to reach and render a deci-
sion in the dispute which has been referred
to the board in the matter of transportation
of 11 school children attending the Stirling
School in Hamilton? These children have
been absent from classes since the beginning
of the present term and the dispute will not
be settled by the parents and the board of
education for the city of Hamilton until this
decision is forthcoming. Would the hon.
Minister give his assurance that he will order
the board to make an immediate decision in
order that these children will not suffer from
the lack of instructions due to their absence
from classes?
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Well, Mr. Speaker, I do wish to
thank the hon. member for giving me notice,
affording me that courtesy which has always
been his practice in the past. I would like
to say in answer to his first question that I
was not, until I received this question,
aware of the situation he mentions, and I am
still, after careful investigation, not aware of
any such circumstances as he points out. I
would also say that I, in my short time as a
Minister of the Crown, have found that
there was neither desire nor authority in a
Minister of the Crown to order an autonomous
body set up to administer the laws and
regulations of this province. I do not propose
to exercise such authority and I do not believe
that I have it.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, for the information
of the hon. member that on or about Septem-
ber 8 of this year a petition was sent to the
Municipal Board from certain persons in this
area asking that some action be taken. It was
not a proper or formal application to the
board, but the board did send one of its
members over to investigate the circumstances
and on his return on or about November 13
a letter was written to the people who had
preferred the petition asking whether they
wished to prefer a formal application to the
board which could perhaps be acted upon by
the board. As yet there has been no answer
to that.
So my answer also to the first question, Mr,
Speaker, must be that there is no application
pending before the board with respect to
these matters.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, would
the hon. Minister permit a supplementary
question? Does this matter differ from the
ruling of the Ontario Municipal Board in an
earlier case with the Hamilton Board of Edu-
cation where a member of the board did order
transportation for the students there?
Hon. Mr. Cass: Mr. Speaker, I might say
that the original order in that case was made
following supplementary application on the
annexation order which was made. The
annexation order in question here was made
in 1959.
We have had the records searched and
nothing was said at that time with respect to
this particular matter. And apart from what
the Municipal Board may say, if it is properly
brought before them, I doubt very much the
propriety of any board or tribunal requiring
local authorities, two years after an annexa-
tion, to deal with such matters as these—
^4
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which are obviously the responsibility of the
local educational authorities and the local
council.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day I would like to address a
question to the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) a copy of which he has had for a
couple of days now.
In quashing the Fromovitz divorce recently,
as reported in the papers of November 22,
Mr. Justice Spence stated he believed that
private investigators Jack Antura and Lucas
Adelhard had given perjured evidence. In
view of His Honour's observations and the
hon. Attorney-General's vigour in seeking to
put a stop to rigged divorce evidence, will
the hon. Attorney-General indicate to the
House whether his department is contem-
plating perjury action against the private
investigators?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I was
almost going to say the way that question
was couched it would look as if my hon.
friend expected me to give him a favourable
answer. In any event, I will put the answer
very factually.
A transcript of the evidence has been
ordered. Mr. Elliot Pepper, Q.C., participated
as Queen's Proctor in the second trial at the
invitation of the trial judge, and his full report
together with the transcripts of both trials, will
be forwarded to the Crown Attorney of the
county of York to consider the laying of
charges.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day, I would like to direct a question
to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. War-
render), a copy of which has been provided
to you and him, sir, in the following form:
In view of the death yesterday of Luigi
Trevisiol in a fall on a construction job,
being the latest of a series of deaths
occurring on construction work in Metro
Toronto during the past year, will the hon.
Minister indicate when adequate regula-
tions will be adopted and enforced to
ensure safe working conditions on construc-
tion work in Ontario?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, on receiving notice of
this question I did look into the matter and
I have here a report of Mr. R. F. French,
who is the inspector for the Toronto Depart-
ment of Buildings. I think I should read this
because it is very illuminating.
The location of the tragedy, the accident,
was 199 Roehampton Avenue. The super-
intendent was one Peter Friberg, the brick
foreman Feareno Orsoleni, and the deceased
Luigi Trevisiol. The inspector says:
I have made an inspection of the above
property. A permit was issued under the
above file number— that is 64888— to build
an 11-storey apartment building. On Mon-
day, November 27, 1961, at approximately
3:30 p.m., a bricklayer fell to his death
from the ninth floor of the building.
This man, Luigi Trevisiol, was engaged
in laying brick in the southwest comer of
the building near a projecting balcony
approximately five feet by 15 feet in size.
Guard rails and kick planks were in evi-
dence here prior to this accident. However^
the above foreman, Feareno Orsoleni has
informed me that the short kick plank and
guard rail on the balcony at the east end
were removed in order to string a line in
preparation for the first course of brick
work east of the balcony doorway. Luigi
Trevisiol walked backward in setting this
line and fell nine storeys to his death.
This job has ample protection throughout
the building as guard rails and kick planks
and steel cables are in evidence on all
floors that are not enclosed in masonry.
The brick work is being carried on by
the O. and M. Construction Company.
In addition, I looked into the background
of the deceased, the late Mr. Trevisiol, and
I find that he was employed by the O. and
M. Construction Company at $3.05 an hour
as a bricklayer. One of his employers, a
Merio Minetell, reports that the deceased was
a good bricklayer. He had been employed
with this company for eight months and he
had worked on this particular job since the
bricklaying started.
It is interesting to note that he fell from
the ninth floor and he had worked on all the
lower floors under identical circumstances.
No reason can be given for the accident, I
am told. It was put down as a sheer accident,
a misadventure. To answer the latter part of
the hon. member's question, may I say that
it is going to be extremely difiBcult to draw
adequate regulations to cover such situations
as these where men, who are apparently
competent in their chosen trade, walk back-
ward off a balcony. On the other hand, every
effort will be made, I assure him, to draw
regulations— if we can so do— and statutes to
cover these situations.
I have talked to experts in this field and
they tell me it is extremely difficult, as it is
with many situations in our society, to draw
regulations and statutes to cover every
NOVEMBER 28, 1961
75
eventuality. However, arising out of the Mc-
Andrew report we shall do our best to devise
something which we hope will adequately
cover the situation.
Mr. Bryden: Just a supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. I would like to mention that
the death of Mr. Trevisiol was by no means
the only one that has occurred on construc-
tion in this city. Whether this was a sheer
accident I am not prepared to say, but many
of the others were certainly not. Under those
circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask the hon. Minister (Mr. Warrender) if he
does riot think that with human life at stake
a greater sense of urgency is required than
he has indicated in his previous answer.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I will answer the
question at a later time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, with regard to the question, I know
that the hon. Minister (Mr. Warrender) must
feel very deeply about the number of acci-
dents that have happened, particularly in
construction work. Apart from drawing up
regulations has he plans, as a new hon. Minis-
ter, to see that these regulations not only will
be enforced but will be interpreted to the
men on the job?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: That is a pretty
broad question, Mr. Speaker. I hope to be
able to devise some regulations which will
be adequate. So far as having them en-
forced and having someone enforcing them, I
cannot say. The fact is, if one examines these
many thousands of situations across the prov-
ince, one will realize that in order to have
these perfectly supervised we would have to
have an inspector for probably every work-
man who was on the job.
However, I am concerned about these
losses of life in the construction industry and
in other parts of the industry in Ontario, and
we shall try to do the best we can to devise
something which will help to meet the situa-
tion.
Mr. Thompson: May I ask a supplementary
question to that? Has the hon. Minister (Mr.
Warrender) read the report on safety, and
has he read the part that says:
The commission recommends that with
the large influx of employees not conver-
sant with English, it is desirable that
brochures describing the legislation ad-
ministered and services provided by the
department be printed in French, Italian
and Ukrainian.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I have read the whole
McAndrew report several times, Mr. Speaker,
and I am quite ...
Mr. Thompson: And has he made up his
mind to follow through on this?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I have made up my
mind about several things which will be pre-
sented to the House in due course.
Mr. Thompson: That is an improvement.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Thanks very much.
I knew the hon. member's question was
loaded.
Mr. Thompson: It was not loaded.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
may I be permitted in the House this after-
noon to take note of the death, quite un-
expectedly, of a young Ontario man, who
had made a great name for himself in music
internationally— James Milligan, who at 33
years of age died suddenly yesterday in
Switzerland.
Jim Milligan, who was a bass-baritone
singer, studied at the Royal Conservatory of
Music of Toronto and in 1955 won the Grand
Award at the International Musical Festival
at Geneva. He was the first Canadian ever
to do so and in that year he was in competi-
tion with 343 other singers.
Following this outstanding achievement he
was given a civic reception and dinner in the
town of Huntsville where he lived, in the
District of Muskoka, and at that time mem-
bers of this House came to that dinner to
extend to him the best wishes of the govern-
ment and people of Ontario on his accom-
plishments.
Subsequently Mr. Milligan sang with the
Glynbourne Opera Company in England. He
gave recitals over the British Broadcasting
Corporation networks and had taken a leading
part in the opera company at Covent Garden.
He had also sung as soloist with the Toronto
Mendelssohn Choir and the Toronto Sym-
phony Orchestra, his last appearance in
Toronto having been last year.
Mr. Speaker, since this young man came
from Muskoka, the son of the late Rev. Frank
Milligan, who was a great friend of mine, and
of Mrs. Milligan who also subsequently died,
I would express to Mrs. Jim Milligan and
their little son, to his brother Frank Milligan,
of Ottawa, and the sisters of Jim Milligan,
the sympathy of the members of this House
76
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on the sudden and unexpected passing of this
very noted man from Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE ONTARIO PARKS INTEGRATION
BOARD ACT
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources) moves second reading of Bill No. 6,
An Act to Amend The Ontario Parks Integra-
tion Board Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES
ACT
Hon. Mr. Macaulay moves second reading
of Bill No. 7, An Act to Amend The Con-
servation Authorities Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PARKS ASSISTANCE ACT
Hon. Mr. Macaulay moves second reading
of Bill No. 8, An Act to Amend The Parks
Assistance Act.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Speaker, the reason we are
not presenting Bill No. 5 today is because
it has not yet come down from the printer
and these Bills No. 6, 7 and 8 are all part of
it. But I would move second reading of Bill
No. 8 and we will move second reading of
Bill No. 5 and have some discussion on it I
hope on Thursday, or as soon as it is here.
Motion agreed to; second reading of tlie
biU.
THE PROVINCIAL PARKS ACT
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves second reading of Bill No. 9,
An Act to Amend The Provincial Parks Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE FOREST FIRES PREVENTION ACT
Hon. Mr. Spooner moves second reading of
Bill No. 10, An Act to Amend The Forest
Fires Prevention Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE FORESTRY ACT
Hon. Mr, Spooner nwves second reading of
Bill No. 11, An Act to Amend The Forestry
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): It had
been my intention as the hon. Minister from
Riverdale (Mr. Macaulay) has said, to go on
with the debate on the second reading of
Bill No. 5, but unfortimately that bill has not
come back from the printer and that com-
pletes the business that we have on the order
paper.
In moving adjournment of the House, we
will resume the Throne Debate tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.50 o'clock, p.m.
I
No, 6
ONTARIO
Hesisslature of (J^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty'Sixth Legislature
Wednesday, November 29, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $2.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 29, 1961
Reading and receiving petition 79
Statement re Niagara River water levels, Mr. Macaulay 79
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Wintermeyer 83
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Wintermeyer, agreed to Ill
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to Ill
79
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests students from the Bridge
View Public School, Welland Junction, in
the west gallery.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petition
has been received:
Of the corporation of the city of Ottawa
praying that an Act may pass authorizing the
necessary action for a re-development pro-
posal for part of the city of Ottawa; and for
other purposes.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day, I would like to make a statement to
the House relating to a matter affecting my
Department of Energy Resources and con-
cerning something which I think is of great
importance, particularly to those who live in
the Niagara peninsula.
There has been a great deal of concern
expressed by citizens, interested groups and
newspapers in this province over the water
levels in the Niagara River. I therefore wish
to make a statement of government policy
affecting it.
Mr. Speaker, it is the view of this govern-
ment that the beauty of Niagara Falls is of
great importance and that this government
will not allow any of its agencies to undertake
any action that would be detrimental to the
Niagara Falls area.
With all regard for the vital importance of
power to homes and industries, municipal and
co-operative organizations; the beauty of the
Niagara Falls, and area, comes first. This
has long been a matter of great concern to
Wednesday, November 29, 1961
this government and Ontario Hydro, and this
has been the policy that they have followed
in the past and follow today.
For the benefit of the hon. members, I
would like to briefly capitulate the history of
the Niagara Falls diversions.
The first Niagara Falls diversion was au-
thorized by the Boundary Water Treaty of
1909. This treaty provided for the procedures
to be used in settling boundary water disputes
including the formation of an international
joint commission.
Article V of this treaty authorized and
permitted the following diversion of water for
power at Niagara: Canada 36,000 cubic feet
a second; United States 20,000 cubic feet
a second.
Despite the apparent disparity, the benefits
to each country were almost equal as blocks
of power at that time were exported to the
U.S.
In 1926 a special board was formed by
Canada and the United States to study the
Niagara Falls. Both governments and the
province of Ontario, and Ontario Hydro were
concerned with the recession of the falls
through erosion and the need for additional
low cost power.
The board after a thorough study reported
in 1929 and recommended the construction
of certain remedial works, weirs and excava-
tions near the crest of the falls to spread
the water to the flanks, and also the con-
struction of a submerged weir in the Grass
Island pool.
As a result of these works and in con-
junction with them, the board felt that greater
amounts of water could be diverted for the
generation of power.
In 1940, by an exchange of notes between
the U.S. and Canada, Ontario Hydro was
allowed to divert an additional 5,000 cubic
feet a second at Niagara as a result of the
Longlac and Ogoki diversions.
These were rivers and lakes north of what
hon. members would call the divide, north of
Lake Superior, which normally ran north to
the Albany and other rivers into Hudson
Bay. They were in effect dammed at the far
end and rather than running north into Hud-
son Bay were diverted so that they flowed
80
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
back into Lake Superior. The total amount
of water which flowed back south instead of
flowing north by nature, amounted to about
5,000 cubic feet per second and therefore the
Canadian authorities were enabled to with-
draw the first 5,000 cubic feet per second at
the Niagara Falls diversion and the balance
was divided in half.
The Longlac and Ogoki diversions, I
would remind hon. members, are but one
example of the great many efforts made by
Ontario Hydro to maintain the water levels
of our Great Lakes system.
During the war emergency, additional tem-
porary diversions were authorized through an
exchange of notes between the U.S. and
Ganadian governments.
In conjunction with the above temporary
increase in diversion it was agreed that con-
struction of the remedial works recommended
by the special board in 1929 be undertaken.
Gonstruction started in 1942, was completed
in 1944 by Ontario Hydro.
A treaty was concluded between Ganada
and the United States in 1950 concerning
the diversion of the Niagara River. The
objectives of the treaty were to preserve and
enhance the falls and at the same time to
make most efficient use of the waters of the
river for power generation. It was recognized
that a knowledge of the diversion to be
permitted was necessary before redevelop-
ment of Niagara could take place.
The 1950 treaty superseded the 1909
Boundary Waters Treaty insofar as diversions
at Niagara for power purposes were con-
cerned. The additional diversions were con-
tingent upon the construction of remedial
works in accordance with the objectives of the
1929 special board report and of the nature
and design as recommended by the inter-
national joint commission and as approved
by the two governments. The treaty per-
petuated the additional 5,000 cubic feet per
second for Ganada from the Longlac-Ogoki
diversion, by indicating in article III that
this water would continue to be governed by
the earlier exchange of notes and would not
be included in the allocations of the treaty.
Rather than stipulating allowable diversion
for power purposes, the 1950 treaty stipulated
minimum flows over the falls in prescribed
periods, the remainder being available for
power purposes.
In this regard the treaty provides:
During the non-tourist season, that is from
November 1 to March 31, 50,000 cubic feet
per second must flow over the falls;
During the tourist season from April 1 to
September 15, from 8.00 in the morning to
10.00 at night there must be 100,000 cubic
feet per second and from 10.00 at night till
8.00 the next morning 50,000 cubic feet per
second;
From September 16 to October 31 from
8.00 in the morning Hll 8.00 at night 100,000
cubic feet must flow over the falls and from
8.00 at night till 8.00 the next morning
50,000 cubic feet per second must flow over
the falls.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): May I ask the
hon. Minister (Mr. Macaulay) if he would
write a letter and send that all to us so we
can hear the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer) this afternoon?
On a matter of privilege, if the intention
is to prevent the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion from reaching the afternoon newspapers,
then the hon. Minister is doing it very effec-
ti\ely, in contempt of our rights on this side
of the House. As a private member I ob-
ject most strenuously to his conduct. He
could send all that to us. We would all be
very interested in it and we could read it
at our leisure.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say to the
hon. member who has spoken (Mr. Sopha),
I would say to the Speaker and thus to the
hon. member who has spoken, that this is
a matter of very great concern to the i)eople
affected by it and that I intend to continue
because they have pressed for a statement
of government policy on this matter and
this is the first occasion I have had the op-
portunity of assembling this material.
As the hon. members will recall, the pres-
ent regulations regarding the flow over the
falls were drawn up in 1950 and were based
to a considerable extent on a report dated
1929. Since then notable improvements
have been effected in recent years by the
remedial works.
The demands for power production and
the demands for viewing the falls are not
incompatible. During the winter season the
power requirements are highest, while rela-
tively few persons are on hand to view the
falls. Gonversely, during the summer vaca-
tion period, power loads are at a low ebb
and visitors to Niagara Falls are numerous.
Similar situations exist on weekends and
statutory holidays. There appears to be an
opportunity to enhance power production
during periods when few persons are view-
ing the falls.
The two power entities have made an
application to the international joint com-
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
81
mission for revisions to the 1950 treaty, re-
questing that the present 100,000 cubic feet
per second flow requirements be reduced to
about 70,000 cubic feet per second, and that
the time requirements for this higher flow
be reduced.
It is again emphasized, however, that these
changes should be made only if they in no
way detract from the scenic beauty of the
falls as a tourist attraction. The additional
water made available to Ontario Hydro would
effect large savings in power production costs,
and at the same time increase water rentals
to the province. It is estimated that the sav-
ings to Ontario Hydro, on the basis as outlined
herein, will be of the order of $3 million per
year, using existing power generating facilities,
and that the water rentals payable to the prov-
ince would be increased by approximately
$200,000 per year.
If subsequent studies indicated that the
expansion of existing generating facilities at
Queenston could be economic, the savings
to Ontario Hydro would be two to three times
as much, and there would be a corresponding
increase in water rentals.
Recently much agitation has arisen on both
sides of the river at Niagara Falls because
of the levels of the water above and below
the falls.
There are three factors affecting the levels
of the water at this time:
The natural flow of the Niagara River is
lower now than it was this time last year, and
therefore obviously the roar of the falls is
diminished and the level of the water is down;
Now for the first time, the New York Power
Authority is beginning to take its full share of
the water under the 1950 treaty and this
affects the level of the waters;
The waters which the New York Power
Authority are now taking from above the falls
they are not dumping into the Maid of the
Mist Pool but instead are dumping below the
whirlpool at Queenston and therefore the
Maid of the Mist Pool is considerably more
reduced than it would have been under the
old American method of taking the water from
above the falls and dumping it into the Maid
of the Mist Pool.
Th flow in the Niagara River is a tremen-
dous variable ranging from less than 100,000
cubic feet a second to over 300,000 cubic
feet a second and there have been occasions
when no water has gone over the falls at all.
This is due to a number of factors the most
important of which is the depth of lake area.
It is shaped like a shallow saucer and when
there is barometric pressure at one end
stronger than at another, the water may be
pushed to the westerly end of the lake, thus
leaving the easterly end almost or in fact
dry. The water can on occasion rise at the
westerly end over ten feet with a large drop
at the easterly end.
The policy of the government of Ontario in
relation to Niagara Falls remains steadfast.
Niagara Falls is one of the modern wonders
of the world, and its beauty is renowned.
Now I would say to the hon. members
opposite they may not be interested in this,
but Hansard is going to read very interestingly
when they are finished heckhng the govern-
ment's opportunities and policy in this matter.
The surrounding municipalities and resi-
dents have spent hundreds of millions of
dollars developing the Niagara area centred
around the falls and its beauty. The govern-
ment of Ontario, through its Niagara parks
commission. Department of Highways and
Department of Travel and Publicity and other
agencies have spent millions of dollars relating
to the beauty of the falls.
The beauty of the falls cannot be re-created
anywhere else and can only be maintained
if there is sufficient water. Electrical energy,
on the other hand, can be created elsewhere,
and therefore the government is determined
to see that the relative interests in these mat-
ters are properly in balance and that nothing
is done to the extent that it is possible on
behalf of this government to mar the beauty
of the falls and the area surrounding it.
I would conclude by reiterating that the
government of Ontario considers pure water
and the conservation of our water resources
and availability to them, to be a matter of
the greatest concern as a provincial policy,
and it will continue as our policy that the
beauty of the Niagara Falls be not impaired.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
a question that I would like to submit to the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts), which I
have cleared with all the requirements that
are asked.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would ask the
members of this House to pay attention to
the members as they rise to their feet and
speak. It is not only showing disrespect to
the member speaking but it shows disrespect
to the entire House when the House is dis-
orderly.
Mr. Belanger: Mr. Speaker, the question I
have submitted is this: In the Windsor Star
issue of Friday, November 24, there is a
82
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
story concerning the new secondary school
programme announced earlier this year by
the hon. Prime Minister.
Dr. Harry Pullen, deputy business admin-
istrator for the Ottawa Collegiate Institute
Board told delegates to the Ontario conference
on education who were meeting in the city
of Windsor, that the new programme was
"hastily conceived and prematurely an-
nounced," and that "those who had to live
with the plan had nothing to do with its
conception."
I have four questions to ask the hon. Prime
Minister, who is also the hon. Minister of
Education: were tlie superintendents, directors
of education, head masters or teachers' con-
federation consulted before the adoption of
the programme?
Secondly, if so, what groups were consulted?
Third, what provision has The Department
of Education made to staff these new technical
training schools and fourth, how many boards
of education have made application to estab-
lish and increase their technical classes?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister and
Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, first
of all I would say in regard to this question
that whenever anything new is introduced,
particularly in the field of education, it is
bound to attract a certain amount of criticism.
I think we are all aware of this and with
this we have to Hve.
In answer to the specific questions, I would
say that I can give the hon. member a
chronological history of what has been done
as far as consultation is concerned.
In the first place a meeting of the directors
of education for the province of Ontario was
held at the Ryerson Institute of Technology
on June 2, 1961. At this meeting Dr. S. D.
Rendall, who is the Superintendent of
Secondary Education in the Department,
gave a forecast of the general re-organization
which was under consideration at that time.
Secondly, a Secondary School Inspectors*
conference was held at Ryerson Institute of
Technology, to which Mr. S. G. B. Robinson,
general secretary of the Ontario Secondary
School Teachers' Federation, was invited— and
this was held on June 13, 14 and 15, 1961.
This conference discussed the means of im-
plementing the re-organization in secondary
schools in the light of the federal-provincial
agreements.
The federal-provincial agreement was
signed on June 26, 1961, and a directive from
the Premier of the province that the necessary
arrangements for implementation of the agree-
ment should be made was issued at that time.
On August 18, 1961, Dr. Rendall spoke to
the Ontario secondary school headmasters at
their meeting in Kingston, concerning this
class.
A secondary school inspectors* conference
was held at Ryerson Institute of Technology,
at which superintendents of secondary schools
in all municipahties were invited to discuss
and make suggestions regarding the new plan
and these meetings were held on August 28,
29, 30, 31, 1961. That was a four-day con-
ference.
At that time. Dr. Rendall emphasized that
tliis plan was not so much a new departure
in secondary education as a shift in emphasis
—greater emphasis upon commercial and
technical training for employment— and that
only one new feature had not been tried
experimentally in schools in Ontario, namely,
the four-year programme in the arts and
science branch.
On September 13 Dr. Rendall met with
representatives of the Registered Nurses'
Association and executive of home and school
associations of the province.
The Minister of Education's provincial
advisory committee, representative of the
leaders in business, industry and labour met
on September 21, 1961, to advise the Minister
of Education regarding implementation of the
federal -provincial agreement.
Two meetings with the communications
committee of the Ontario Secondary School
Teachers' Federation were held on October
12 and November 7, 1961 and a third meet-
ing with this committee is expected before
the Christmas vacation.
During October and the first week of
November, conferences and discussions were
held between university officials and repre-
sentatives of The Department of Education
at the University of Toronto, the University
of Western Ontario, McM aster University, the
University of Waterloo, Waterloo University
College, the Ontario Agricultural College, the
Ontario Veterinary College, and Macdonald
Institute at Guelph, Assumption University of
Windsor, the University of Ottawa, Carleton
University, and York University.
A discussion of the plan at the meeting of
municipal superintendents of secondary
schools took place at Vineland on November
3, 1961.
A meeting was held with the executive of
the Cathohc Parent-Teachers Association on
November 6, 1961.
The plan was discussed at a conference of
the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on
November 7, 1961.
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
83
At each of these meetings and conferences
which I have mentioned, the revised pro-
grammes in secondary education were ex-
plained, questions were answered, comments
were invited in oral form or in written sub-
mission to the department.
Full consultation with the teachers of the
province and the Ontario Secondary School
Teachers' Federation was initiated in Septem-
ber as soon as the teachers were available for
discussion and it is still being carried on.
Useful comments and suggestions will be
welcomed in the Department from any group
or organization familiar with the operation
of secondary schools until the end of Decem-
ber, when tentative courses and plans must be
mimeographed for issue to the schools on an
experimental basis.
That answers the first part of the question
of the hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich
(Mr. Belanger), in detailing who was con-
sulted. I might say just before I leave that
portion of the question that the programme
is a five-year programme and at the present
time we are working only on the first year of
that programme. Therefore, we will develop
the programme as it becomes necessary.
There is no reason for us now, for instance,
to settle finally what is going to happen in a
course which will not be taken for two or
three years. Thus as time goes along we will
consult with all interested parties as I have
indicated here in order that we may have
their views and their views may be expressed
upon what we are doing.
The third part of the question is what
provision has been made to staff the new
technical training schools. Well, what we
have done there: it was necessary to take
people out of industry in order to train
them as teachers to teach in these schools.
This means that we had to appeal to a
different group than normally goes into
teaching, i.e., these were people who were
established in their own communities, had
jobs and homes and families and so on.
So what have we done: we instituted a
one-year course and we undertook to pay the
tuition fee for this group and pay them a
$30 a week living allowance while they were
at the Ontario College of Education. Un-
fortunately, I do not have the exact number
that we attracted into this course, but I can
tell hon. members that we ended up by
refusing admission to certain applicants be-
cause we had more than were required for
what we considered to be the immediate
needs of the school system.
The final question is, how many boards of
education have made application to establish
or increase their technical classes. Well, the
procedure by which a school board takes
advantage of the scheme which we have
established is that they submit their plans to
us in the department, we process them in
the normal course of events and then we
send them in to Ottawa for approval as to
whether Ottawa will approve them for grants.
To date we have received appHcations from
approximately 175 school boards to create
greater or lesser facilities for teaching of
technical subjects. Of the 175, 118 are at the
sketch plan stage and submitted to Ottawa,
then they have to come back here and the
sketch plans drawn and final approval is given
in the department here.
Mr. Belanger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, just
one short question. Does the hon. Minister of
Education (Mr. Robarts) think he has
answered that first question? Because the plan
was in operation and they never told the
teachers what they were going to do, when
it was announced in the press.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this
debate, I wish to pay my respects to you as
the guardian of the rights of the hon. mem-
bers of this chamber. You are the custodian of
a tradition that is the foundation of parlia-
mentary government; namely, the right of the
Opposition to be heard in criticism of the
government of the day. It is this right to
criticize without being treasonable that gives
democratic government the strength to endure
and the flexibility to progress. I am confi-
dent that you will bring distinction to your
oJBBce again this session.
I want also at this time to say a few words
about the new hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) and his government. I say a few
words deliberately despite the numbers
on the treasury benches opposite. An in-
dividual salute would take altogether too
much time on this occasion, and there will
be an opportunity as the session progresses
to greet each of the hon. Ministers with
affection and thoroughness when they come
before us with their estimates.
I had the opportunity to greet the new hon.
Prime Minister at the opening and I extend
my felicitations to him again. I want also to
say a word of greeting to the new hon. mem-
bers of the government. I congratulate the
84
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hon. member for Middlesex North (Mr.
Stewart) on his promotion to the portfoHo of
Agriculture. Being a farmer, he might have
been excused for declining a position that
is surrounded by so many problems. It is
to his credit that knowing what is ahead of
him he has accepted such an onerous task.
I also want to extend my best wishes to
the hon. member for Ottawa South (Mr.
Haskett) who only lately moved from the
government rump to the treasury benches
to assume the task of reforming our reform
institutions.
Congratulations are also in order for the
hon. member for Huron (Mr. MacNaughton),
whose abilities have been recognized and
whose talents will undoubtedly be employed
more specifically in the future.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the
hon. member for St. Andrew (Mr. Grossman)
and congratulate him on his appointment to
one of the better patronized agencies of this
government. Many of us assumed that his
good spirits in this chamber were 100 per
cent eflFervescent but it seems now we will
have to accept controlled reading of 70 per
cent proof.
To the hon. members for Kingston (Mr.
Nickle) and for Lincoln (Mr. Daley) let me
say that it is a pleasure to see them in their
places opposite. I must be careful here, Mr.
Speaker, because while they put aside some
of the burdens and cares of office, they still
look too fomnidable for flattery.
I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the remain-
ing hon. members opposite will not be too
disappointed if I omit them today from my
catalogue of reference. As I said earlier, I
shall be pleased to bring them greetings on
another day.
Mr. Speaker, the mover and the seconder
of the Speech from the Throne, the hon.
member for St. George (Mr. Lawrence) and
the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr.
Hamilton) did well. In the normal course of
events I would be expected to point out the
narrowness of their approach and the errors
of their judgment on the matters contained in
His Honour's address. Today I do not pro-
pose to do so in traditional fashion.
Today I intend to devote my remarks to the
existence of organized crime in Ontario, a
fact which makes it imperative that this
government establish a Royal commission to
expose all aspects of organized criminal
activity in our province so that those involved
may be brought to justice.
I shall demonstrate that organized crime
does exist in Ontario, that it is widespread in
Ontario, that it has international connections,
and that it has contaminated law enforcement
and is a clear and present danger to our
society.
I also intend to demonstrate that an un-
restricted Royal commission headed by a
Supreme Court Justice, supported by a
vigorous and determined counsel and a staflF
of trained investigators is the only adequate
way to meet the threat posed by organized
crime.
I should explain at this point two things.
Firstly, I shall not discuss tliis afternoon a
number of important matters that relate to
the welfare of Ontario's schools, farms, muni-
cipalities, labour-management relations and
financial problems. I recognize their impor-
tance and will deal with all of them in later
debates. Today, however, I am going to
concentrate on the subject of organized crime
l^ecause I believe it to be of great impor-
tance and little understood.
Secondly, at the conclusion of my si)eech,
I shall move the traditional want-of-confi-
dence motion, and this motion will encompass
many issues which will be discussed by other
members of my party as the debate pro-
gresses.
I do not intend, however, to include in this
want-of-confidence motion a clause dealing
with the appointment of a Royal commission.
I am leaving it out deliberately because a
want-of-confidence motion requires that the
government supporters defeat it or cause the
government to he dissohed. I do not wish to
put any technical block in the establishment
of a Royal commission by forcing the govern-
ment to rely on technicalities.
I intend this speech, Mr. Speaker, to be
a direct appeal to the new hon. Prime Minis-
ter and to the new government to appoint a
Royal commission. It is a direct appeal
stripped of all technical artifice and made
directly to the common sense and conscience
of the hon. gentlemen opposite.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by outlining
what is meant by organized crime, how it
operates, what are its characteristics, its ex-
tent in Ontario and the scope of the threat
it poses to the people of Ontario.
To begin, Mr. Speaker, we can do no better
than to refer to the report of the New York
Commission of Investigation which was pub-
lished last February imder the title "Syndi-
cated Gambling in New York State." That
report was but a summary for the informa-
tion of the public of a most intensive investi-
gation begun by the commission as a result
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
85
of its intitial hearings on the now famous
gathering of the underworld at Apalachin,
New York, on November 14, 1957.
Over 25,000 pages of report and docu-
mentary materials were amassed during the
investigation. Many raids and arrests were
made. Thousands of pages of testimony
were recorded in public and private hear-
ings in a number of centres. Widespread
corruption and lax law enforcement was
uncovered. Specific remedial legislation was
proposed, and perhaps most important of
all in the commission's view, there was as-
sembled and distributed to the appropriate
authorities a tremendous volume of detailed
criminal intelligence. In all, some 2,150
references to gamblers or gambling opera-
tions were transmitted to 54 of New York's
62 counties, and confidential mailings were
sent to 206 cities, towns and villages within
54 counties.
The New York State commission, Mr.
Speaker, was a creature of the state Legis-
lature and had no national responsibility.
It did, nevertheless, produce clear-cut evi-
dence that crime is national and interna-
tional in its scope.
On page 82 of its report the Commission
said:
Simply stated organized crime is what
the term implies. It is the activity of a
group of persons working together with
the express purpose of more effectively
accomplishing criminal acts against soci-
ety. By organizing, criminals are able
to secure greater immunity from the law,
a wider field of operations, a monopolis-
tic control over specific types of criminal,
and, of course, greater profits.
And I continue to quote:
The emergence and development dur-
ing the past 20 years of criminal syndi-
cates extending through our entire coun-
try is recognized by criminologists as the
most prominent and the most threaten-
ing and the least understood of our na-
tional crime problem.
How does organized crime operate?
The New York State commission found,
Mr. Speaker, organized crime and syndi-
cated gambling to be synonymous. The
report states, and I quote:
Gambling is the heartbeat of organized
crime both on a local and national scale.
The main font of organized criminal
power today flows from three sources:
professional gambling, labour racketeering
and narcotics. Easily the most profitable
to the underworld, and the most corrupt-
ing of the three and thus the most danger-
ous to society, is professional gambling.
The commission describes the mechanics
of professional gambling in considerable de-
tail, and it may be helpful to the House
to have a summary of the main points. Basic-
ally there are four stages to the operation:
the handbook, the bookmaker, the book-
maker's bookmaker or lay-off, and the syn-
dicate.
The handbook is the street agent or run-
ner of the bookmaker. He is in direct con-
tact with the bettor. He is paid on a com-
mission basis ranging from 25 to 50 per
cent of the bettor's losses. He is the man
most often arrested and charged for illegal
gambling and it is part of his job to accept
arrest to protect his superiors, who in tiun
provide bail, pay legal fees and other ex-
penses.
The bookmaker is the street runner's boss.
He also deals with customers on the telephone.
He requires an established location, usually
a small business such as a cigar store, restau-
rant, pool hall or dry cleaning plant which
serves as a cover or front for his illegal
activities. He is thus known as the front end
of professional gambling. In larger centres
the bookmaker tends to take up his business
in an apartment or other private place, where
he can maintain a battery of telephones,
usually in fictitious names and nominee ac-
counts, a shortwave radio and personnel to
record bets and results.
The bookmaker's bookmaker or lay-off man
does not deal with the general public. He
deals with bookmakers and in large amounts
of money. He is the bookmaker's banker as
well as his insurance agent, supplying him
with capital and credit, accepting bets which
the bookmaker cannot handle, and placing
lay-off bets for bookmakers whose own books
have become unbalanced. He is thus known
as the back-end in professional gambling.
The syndicate is the central clearing house
for the lay-off points. It is to the syndicate
that the lay-off men all over the continent
turn when their own books threaten to become
unbalanced. The syndicate operates on the
same margin as the handbook except that its
tremendous volume increases its profits ac-
cordingly.
The syndicate is vital to the whole system.
It is the means whereby professional gamblers
make a profit regardless of the outcome of
any particular event on which bets are placed.
Suppose, for example, there is a horse run-
ning at New Woodbine at odds of 60 to 1
86
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and a bookmaker in San Francisco finds he
has some $25,000 bet on that horse. Few
bookmakers handle enough daily action to
pay up $1,500,000 if the horse wins and still
retain a profit from bets on losing horses. To
ensure a profit, Mr. Speaker, the bookmaker
limits the odds at which he will pay oflF and
he himself bets with his lay-oflF men such
amounts as may be necessary to keep his
book in balance and show a profit.
The lay-off man is in precisely the same
position as the bookmaker. He must balance
his book to show a profit and he does this
by placing balancing bets with the syndicate.
The syndicate then turns to the race track
itself.
A syndicate agent entrusted with huge
amounts of money is stationed at the principal
race tracks. He is in constant touch, either
by open telephone line or other means, with
syndicate headquarters. Before each impor-
tant race he is given instructions. If the com-
bine has received what it regards as excessive
bets on a particular horse the agent will be
directed to put through the pari-mutuel
machines enough money on the horse to lower
the odds suflBciently to protect the syndicate
edge. That is why there is frequently such a
radical change in track odds just before post
time. Thus it is that ironically those who
bet with professional gamblers end up by
betting against themselves.
The New York State commission declared,
and I quote:
No bookmaker works alone. He has to
traflBc with his fellow bookmakers. Thus
there is an unbroken chain of communica-
tion from the first to the last bookmaker.
The professional gambler's profit depends
on the odds he himself sets and, secondly,
on the fact he does not have to pay any
state percentage tax or deduction from his
handle.
The commission found that part of every
$2.00 bet with a bookie is likely to end up
in the pockets of the syndicate and therefore
in the pockets of a criminal.
On page 49 of its report it states, and I
quote:
An upstate farmer living ten miles from
the nearest village is hkely to place a bet
on a football game in California, a hockey
game in Canada, or perhaps a boxing match
in Europe and the money with which the
farmer pays off his losses may ix)ssibly wind
up in the pockets of a Florida combine.
Such is the geographical character of book-
making in the United States today.
On page 20 of the report the commission
said:
New York State crime commission found
2,000 people in an area of 5 million people
or one bookmaker for every 2,500 people.
The average bookmaking establishment
employed ten people.
On page 21 it said:
The total gross volume of bookmaking in
central New York State during 1959 could
be said to have reached $500 million with
a net profit to the bookmaking operations
of not less than $50 million.
Throughout the United States in I960, it
was estimated by Milton Wessel, a special
counsel for federal rackets inquiry, that $45
bilhon was bet through boolanakers in the
syndicate, or more than the total amount
spent for defence and more than three times
as much as was spent for education in the
United States. Profits to the syndicate were
$9 billion.
A King county jury in New York in
February, 1959, said:
Actually if you scratch the professional
operator of gambling ventures you will find
the narcotic i>edlar, the loan shark, the
dice game operator, the white slaver, and
even the murderer.
The commission found that the appetite
of organized crime for money is insatiable.
The lengths to which organized crime will go
to pyramid its profits are endless.
The report stated:
Organized crime invests its gambling
profits in other criminal ventures. In this
fashion the underworld protects itself
against any shift in approach towards
gambling causing a stoppage of all income.
Gambling revenues are used to pay for
murders and other acts of violence, to
underwrite labour racketeers, to corrupt
the public o£Bcial, to erect the still, to
obtain fire arms unlawfully, to purchase
contraband dnigs, to pave the way for the
introduction of prostitution, to finance the
Shylock.
On page 52, the report continues and I
continue to quote:
Both big and Uttle bookmakers diligently
attempt to corrupt the police oflBcer, other
public officials and the pohtician, in an
effort to protect their gains and align them-
selves with the respectable elements in
society. In every way bookmakers seek to
enlarge and extend their illegitimate busi-
ness, their power and their infiueoce.
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
87
On page 95, tlie report said:
The really successful gambling operation,
ever anxious to guard a good thing, does
not content itself with merely enlisting the
co-operation of the patrolman, the gambhng
squad and the precinct captain. Where
possible the gambler will reach into the
very highest levels of government to secure
protection against all possible contingencies.
To the gambler bribe money is as much a
part of the overhead as the electric bill.
On page 111, the report reads:
If bribery should fail the hoodlum and
racketeer will revert to such traditional
methods as extortion, beating and even
killing. So large are the profits of illegal
gambling that a substantial portion can be
siphoned off into legitimate business.
Senator Estes Kefauver, chairman of the
U.S. Senate crime commission has said, and
I quote:
Evidence was shown of criminal influence
invading about fifty fields of endeavour,
including advertising, amusements, auto-
mobile industry, banking, professional
sports, communication industry, food, the
garment industry, the hotel, insurance, and
liquor industry, news services, newspapers,
radio, television stations, steel, transporta-
tion and many, many others.
This then is the dreadful reality of
organized crime.
The New York State report continued:
We can no longer afford the luxury of
ignoring the menace of professional
gambling. Without drastic changes in
attitude and activity, organized crime may
eventually undermine the structure of large
segments of society.
Senator John Kennedy, now President
Kennedy, has said:
In the modern criminal underworld we
face a nation-wide, highly organized and
highly effective enemy.
Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York
State in the message to the Legislature in
1960 said:
Illegal gambling is a serious cancer in
our society. It is unquestionably a prin-
cipal source of revenue for organized
crime.
Some leading Canadians have agreed with
Governor Rockefeller and President Kennedy.
In October of 1961 the Honourable Davie
Fulton, Minister of Justice, told the Inter-
national Association of Police Chiefs in Mont-
real:
There are a number of organized crime
syndicates operating in Canada.
Commissioner Harvison of the R.C.M.P. in
his last annual report declared:
Canada is presenting an increasingly
attractive target for organized crime.
The Commissioner stated his position more
fully in a recent Toronto speech in which he
said:
The American syndicates are showing an
increasing interest in Canada and are mov-
ing to take over direct control of the exist-
ing crime organizations and to expand
their criminal activities.
But the hon. Attorney-General of Ontario
(Mr. Roberts) has steadfastly insisted over a
long period that there is no organized crime
in this province. On April 17, 1961, the hon.
Attorney-General was reported by the Toronto
Daily Star—
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): I
wonder if the hon. member (Mr. Winter-
meyer) would allow me to interrupt him a
moment. He is quoting from a report and I
would just like to read a sentence from it.
An hon. member: Make some notes.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, on April
17, 1961, the hon. Attorney-General was re-
ported by the Toronto Daily Star as saying
it would be "perfectly silly for a single prov-
ince to undertake a major investigation of
crime."
On April 18, the same newspaper reported
him saying in a speech at Windsor that while
he was not taking reports of criminal infiltra-
tion lightly:
I do not think an organized element
has appeared or will appear. It is humorous
to talk about the Mafia.
On April 20, the hon. Attorney-General was
in Belleville and said, according to the text
of his speech, that linking the Mafia with
crime in Ontario is ignorance and loose talk
and that Canada is comparatively free of
organized gangsterism.
On May 5, the hon. Attorney-General
attended a closed-door discussion of the
Ontario Magistrates Association in Toronto
and later reported to the Toronto Globe &
Mail, that the meeting had strengthened his
view that Ontario, and I quote.
Is in very good condition as far as crime
is concerned.
88
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On May 8 the Telegram quoted him as say-
ing, and I quote,
I do not think my remarks have been
what you call complacent. There is no
organized crime in Ontario, but men in
the criminal element are always trying to
organize it.
The Toronto Daily Star reported him as
adding:
We are fortunate that so far we have been
able to crack down on them before they
got organized and throw them in gaol.
Once it gets beyond a shadow it appears
to be organized and I am firmly convinced
it is not.
On May 11 the hon. Attorney-General
addressed a political meeting in Toronto and
according to his text said:
Of course there is a certain amount of
bookmaking and betting in pools, with
some link-ups to know instantaneously the
results of certain races, but there is no
suggestion from my sources that there is
any undue or extensively unmolested
organized crime effective in this province
at this time in any way comparable to
some of the conditions that have been
exposed in some of the states to the south
of us.
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize the char-
acteristics of organized crime as revealed by
the New York State crime commission.
The commission found organized crime and
syndicated gambling to be synonymous. It
noted that many other investigations had come
to the same conclusion. The commission
found that syndicated gambling is an inte-
grated, highly organized, interlocking con-
spiracy traversing local, provincial and
national boundaries. It found that the com-
mon handicap, the lay-off system and rapid
means of communication, are the vital me-
chanics of syndicated gambling. It found that
syndicated gambling to operate successfully
must have pohce protection and that the
professional gambler will reach into the very
highest levels of government to secure pro-
tection against all possible contingencies.
It found there is an inter-relationship be-
tween professional gambling and other illegal
activities, especially drug trafficking. It found
that gaming and gambling revenues are used
to compete with legitimate business.
Mr. Speaker, I shall demonstrate that in
Ontario today there is all the evidence needed
to show the presence and activity of organized
crime. I think this evidence with the descrip-
tion of organized crime made available in the
New York State crime commission's report
will convince any reasonable mind that we
are faced with a matter of such seriousness
that a government responsive to its duties to
guard public welfare will be persuaded to
launch an all-out investigation that will ex-
pose and bring to justice the criminal element
that threatens all of us.
I propose to ask and to answer five ques-
tions. What evidence is there of syndicated
gambling in Ontario? What evidence is there
that syndicated gambling in Ontario is an
integrated, highly organized, interlocking con-
spiracy? What evidence is there that profes-
sional gamblers have had and may still have
protection from police and public authorities?
What evidence is there of a connection be-
tween professional gambling in Ontario and
other illegal or criminal activity? What
evidence is there that gambling revenues
in Ontario are used to compete with legitimate
business?
Mr. Speaker, on the first question one might
argue that the New York State crime com-
mission's report alone is evidence enough of
syndicated gambhng in Ontario. On page 48
there is reproduced a schedule of out-of-state
contacts by bookmakers of Niagara Falls, New
York. These contacts include bookmakers in
Guelph, in Hamilton and in Toronto. On page
51 there is a schedule of contacts by book-
makers at Buffalo, and these contacts include
bookmakers in Guelph and in Toronto. On
page 45 the commission states:
Below the combine level bookmakers tend
to operate on a regional basis. Thus the
small bookmakers in the central New York
State area lay-off primarily with contacts
in their own immediate geographical sec-
tion. Larger bookmakers would in turn
lay off mainly with their counterparts in
Canada and the immediately siurounding
state. There is an extremely close relation-
ship between major bookmakers in Canada
and those in Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Roches-
ter, Syracuse and Albany area. Many of
these bookmakers in Canada are trans-
plants from New York City who periodi-
cally shift their operations from one city
to another.
And that, Mr. Speaker, I quote directly.
On page 21 the commission refers to evi-
dence at its public hearings in New York
City in April of 1960 concerning a Canadian
bookmaking operation engaged in accepting
lay-offs from up-state bookmakers which
netted $500,000 during two months of the
baseball season.
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
89
On page 26 the commission describes the
syndicate in these words:
Today the combines and syndicates enjoy
almost complete immunity from law en-
forcement.
On page 83 the report states:
Several bookmaking operators arrested by
the commission and the state police during
- 1959, were found to have made contact
with guests of Joseph Barbara Senior
around the time of the Apalachin meeting.
One New York State bookmaker, for the
purpose of purchasing $22 million worth
of smuggled Cuban pesos, had formed a
partnership with a Canadian gambler who
was a business associate of an Apalachin
delegate.
On page 88 the commission cites a state-
ment it received early last year from Attorney-
General Edward J. McCormick of Massachu-
setts:
His office found evidence that a meeting
of over 100 leaders of organized crime had
recently taken place in Worcester, Massa-
chusetts, at which the main topic of dis-
cussion had been syndicated gambling.
Those present at this meeting had con-
nections with gamblers in such places as
Albany, Kingston, Schenectady, and New
York City in that state; Providence and
Johnstown in Rhode Island; New Haven
and Hartford in Connecticut; Philadelphia
and Pottsville in Pennsylvania; Miami in
Florida; Covington in Kentucky; Wilming-
ton in Delaware; and Toronto, Canada.
On page 90 the report declares:
The international character of organized
crime is also manifest in the professional
gambling field. Lay-off centres are estab-
lished and maintained in several cities in
Canada and until recently in Havana,
Cuba.
And it then goes on to make further refer-
ence to the Canadian gambling operations
which made a half a million dollars profit
on baseball betting, by saying the same
operation also won $150,000 in a two-week
period from a Buffalo bookmaking operation.
But I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of
relying only on the New York State crime
commission and what it found out about
syndicated gambling in Ontario.
Between 1957 and the middle of this year,
Mr, Speaker, that is a period of four and
a half years, 31 so-called social clubs lost their
charters as a result of illegal gambling in
Metropolitan Toronto. Yet at the end of this
period there were still 24 clubs in Metro area
suspected of illegal gambling by the police.
I am informed that of the 31 cancellations,
23 resulted from court convictions for either
gaming or betting, and eight from police
representations to the hon. Provincial Secre-
tary ( Mr. Yaremko ) and that he exercised his
discretionary power to cancel when there is
good reason to beheve the charter is being
used for illegal gaming.
A Globe and Mail story on May 25, 1961,
written by Albert Warson provides further
evidence of the extent of organized gambUng.
His report said:
On May 19, 1961, the police of BuflFalo
and Niagara Falls, New York, produced a
pile of nearly 70 telephone numbers linking
bookmakers in their area to their contem-
poraries in Toronto, Hamilton, Guelph,
London, Niagara Falls, St. Catharines,
Thorold, Welland, Fort Erie, Port Credit
and such places as Rosemount.
On May 13, 1961, the Toronto Daily Star
quoted Magistrate Bick, Chairman of the
Metropolitan Police Commission, as saying:
Toronto does have organized crime and
the big question is what links it may have
with the United States. Certainly there is
organized crime in Metro Toronto. There
has been organized crime in Toronto for
many, many years.
As recently as November 9, 1961, the
Toronto Telegram reports a raid on a Betty
Anne Drive, Willowdale, home that netted
five men who were held on 21 charges. This
raid uncovered Bell telephone records of calls
from that house costing $1,312 in one 35-
day period. The calls included calls to
Hamilton, Montreal, Preston, Norfolk, Cleve-
land, Chicago, Detroit and Miami.
Last April 20, 1961, the Toronto Daily Star
reported the conviction of two men by
Magistrate Wolfe of operating a bookmaking
business which police estimated was a $2.5
million a year operation. The men were
convicted of operating a common gaming
house on Eglinton Avenue and another on
Christie Street. In the Eglinton Avenue
apartment police found betting slips for April
30, 1960, recording $17,034. Police claimed
the average daily take was $8,772. The
convicted men's defence counsel, David
Humphrey, and I quote, "contended that
the two men were not the big men of the
business but salaried employees."
In December of 1960, when confessed
gambler Max Bluestein was convicted of
operating the Lakeview club on Eglinton
Avenue, the convicting magistrate estimated
90
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that the club did an annual business exceed-
ing $13 million, with a profit in excess of
$1 million. After the raid on the Centre
Road veterans club the police found lists of
gamblers totalling 1,464 persons. Of these
1,098 were members of the veterans club
and 336 were members of the Jordan club,
a downtown Toronto club run by Feeley and
McDermott and against which a conviction
was entered.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would just like to—
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Do not
interrupt.
An hon. member: We are loaded around
here. Sit down.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am not going to sit
down!
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member can rise
on a point of privilege if tliere is some real
misstatement.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The prixilege is just
this— will the hon. leader of the Opposition
sit down for a moment, please?
Mr. Wintermeyer: What is the privilege?
Mr. Speaker: The member can rise and
state his point.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The names of two
people Feeley and McDermott were just
mentioned. These two men are accused
and at the present time there is a case be-
fore the court of appeal awaiting hearing
in connection with gambling which puts
anything relating to them and to their case
in the position of suh judice. Surely my
hon. friend knows that and I am bringing
it to his attention now to make it clear
because the rules of the House are very
clear concerning that.
An hon. member: What is the rule?
Mr. Wintermeyer: What rule is the hon.
Minister quoting? Mr. Speaker, we are
going to fight this one out. No speech
have I ever given more thought to, more
determination; nor is there any speech have
I ever made in this House am I going to
fight more to present.
This is a defensive move by the hon.
Attorney-General. Most of what I am going
to say relates to that trial and I say, Mr.
Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Then the hon. leader
of the Opposition has no-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, there is a
rule which says an hon. member may not
comment on any cases before the courts;
but I say, Mr. Speaker, that surely that rule
can not be used to preclude any reference
to any case in our courts.
Mr. Sixjaker, think of this: that particular
case to which the hon. Attorney-General makes
reference is currently in the Court of Appeal.
Now surely I caimot influence the Court of
Appeal, and common sense, Mr. Speaker,
dictates that this supreme Legislature should
have the opportunity to bring to the atten-
tion of this House and the people of On-
tario matters of significance and not be
diverted by a tactic that would suggest that
I am going to undermine the judicial sys-
tem at the Court of Appeal level by mak-
ing comment.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, if the
hon. member intends to persist I will say at
once that if he intends to persist along those
lines I will ask you to rule and I will ask
the House.
An hon. member: Well, what is the hon.
Minister hiding for? Get out from behind
that screen. No wonder he did not win.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I am informed and I
have every reason to believe that the hon.
Attorney-General knows, or should know as
I do, that in a raid on a back-end in a
Toronto apartment in 1957 the Toronto police
seized a list of 600 names and upon study
these proved to be the names of not just
bettors or customers, but of bookmakers and
gamblers. Mr. Speaker, there has been
evidence in the courts and reference in this
House on previous occasions concerning three
of the largest gambling clubs in the province
in the past 10 years— the Roseland club in
Windsor, the Frontier club in Fort Erie, the
Centre Road veterans club in Cooksville. I
am informed that two notorious gamblers,
Joseph McDermott of Port Credit and
Vincent Feeley, had substantial interests in
all these operations—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I arise to object that
these men's names, who are charged before
the court with charges pending as well as
the case-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am
the leader of the Opposition and I am
prepared, Mr. Speaker, to tell you now that
1 will vacate any privilege I have. No speech
was more important than the speech I am
going to make. I am prepared to waive any
privilege I have in this House, I am prepared
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
91
to do anything that is reasonable to give me
the opportunity to make the comments that
I think in conscience have to be made for the
people of Ontario at this time.
Applause.
Interjections by several hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Speaker will
rule when he thinks a rule is necessary.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, there has
been evidence in the courts and reference in
this House on previous occasions concerning
—sorry Mr. Speaker, I have already read that
portion, let me continue.
There has been evidence in court concern-
ing the Ramsey club in Niagara Falls. Mr.
Speaker, the relations between this club and
the Frontier club in Fort Erie were most in-
timate and most intriguing and I shall relate
them to the House later on. SufiBce it to say
at this point, there has been testimony in
court to indicate that from the latter part of
1959, Joseph McDermott and Vincent Feeley
had a substantial interest in the Ramsey club
and were therein associated with various
American gamblers led by one Benjamin
Niccolitti.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am
afraid-
Mr. Reaume: The hon. Minister is afraid
all right, he is afraid-
Interjections by several hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would point out to the
hon. member that I have responsibilities just
as he has and in connection with the rule, it
is a general rule not of my institution by any
means, but a general rule that when cases
are before the courts they should not be dis-
cussed in this House. Now my hon. friend
was talking about the very evidence that was
produced in these cases.
Mr. Reaume: Is the hon. Minister's face
red?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, that
evidence has been presented at the trial
level. This is not pohtics.
There was testimony to indicate that two
brothers named lannuzeli of Niagara Falls,
New York, who preceded Feeley and Mc-
Dermott as the Canadian bosses of the Ram-
sey club, were members of the Mafia.
There has been testimony to the eflFect that
as recently as the early part of 1960, an
American by the name of Magardino, who
was identified as the brother of a hoodlum
called Magardino the Undertaker, had visited
Feeley and McDermott to discuss sources of
information in the anti-gambhng branch of
the Ontario Provincial PoHce.
There has been reference in court to a
James Bay hunting trip which Joseph Mc-
Dermott was supposed to have made with
two or three racketeers from the United
States. On September 30, 1958 McDermott,
Feeley and six other men arrived at Moosonee,
Ontario, and were taken to the James Bay
goose club. They departed by air on October
4, with the exception of one man to whom
I shall refer later.
The other members of the party were all
from Detroit and all are, assimiing them to be
still alive, reputed leaders of the Mafia in
Detroit. The five men were:
William Tocco of 581 Middlesex Road,
Grosse Point Park, Michigan. This man has a
Detroit police record from the prohibition
days, being arrested several times but never
convicted. He is apparently very wealthy,
owning interests in a produce business, a beer
distributorship, a bus line and a bakery in
Detroit. He is reported to be the judge and
peacemaker within the gambling syndicate in
Detroit.
Anthony Tocco of 552 Middlesex Road,
Grosse Point Park is the son of WiUiam
Tocco, and is married to Carmelia Profaci
the daughter of Joseph Profaci of Brooklyn,
who is regarded as the leader of the syndicate
in the eastern United States.
Jack W. Tocco of 560 Middlesex Road,
Grosse Point Park, Michigan is the son of
William Tocco and is married to the daughter
of Angelo Meli, a czar of the prohibition era,
who is said to have a controlling interest in
gambling in the Detroit area. Jack Tocco is
a large shareholder in the Hazel Park racing
association, which owns a race track in
Detroit and operates Wheehng Downs in
West Virginia.
Vincent Meli, 1683 New Castle Ave., Grosse
Point Woods, Michigan. He is the son of
Angelo Meli, to whom I have just referred.
Dominic Corrado, 701 Middlesex Road,
Grosse Point Park. He is a cousin of Jack and
Anthony Tocco and the son of the late Peter
Corrado, a czar of Detroit bootlegging and
gambling. Dominic Corrado was arrested on
a gaming charge in 1952 but released.
These then, Mr. Speaker, were the men
with whom Joseph McDermott and Vincent
Feeley went hunting at a luxurious lodge in
James Bay some three years ago. I do not
92
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
pretend to know what they talked about. I
can tell the House that the Detroit men were
McDermott's guests. At least he is known to
have paid $2,000.00 in cash for water trans-
portation and supplies when the party left.
I can also tell the House that the James
Bay goose club is owned by Eric Cradock
and Joseph B. Ryan and that shortly before
McDermott and his party arrived at the club,
Ryan sent a telegram from Toronto to the
club manager which stated in part:
Joe McDermott party eighteen fourth
week cancelled. purple gang in trouble
STOP.
Laughter.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, Feeley and
McDermott were big-time gamblers who
operated on a big-time scale. To get about in
tlieir gambling operations tliey had a private
airplane at their disposal and were both
licensed pilots.
The aircraft, of course, was not registered
in their name. The plane I am referring to
was a float-equipped Cessna 180A aircraft,
insignia CFJQQ. This plane was based at
Toronto Island airport and was registered to
one George Reid, a gambUng associate of
Feeley and McDermott, in the care of D. G.
Humphrey, 12 Richmond Street East, Toronto,
a legal advisor to several Feeley and Mc-
Dermott enterprises.
McDermott was at the controls of this
airplane when it crashed into the Toronto
harbour on September 3, 1958. He was
returning from Fort Erie, the location of the
Frontier club. This airplane was replaced
by a similar one, insignia CFKRN. It too
was registered to George Reid, in care of
D. G. Humphrey.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. leader of the
Opposition appears to be reading from some
evidence. Would he indicate what—
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
Attorney-General was on top of his depart-
ment he would know where I got this
information.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am asking-
Several Opposition members: No, no, no!
Mr. Speaker: Order! Hon. members can
ask questions of those who are speaking and
have the floor. They can ask questions with
permission. However, the hon. member
speaking has the right to refuse to answer
the question at any time.
Mr. Wintermeyer: In the early winter of
1959, Mr. Speaker, this aircraft left Toronto
Island airport and did not return for many
weeks. It was flown by a hired pilot to
Florida where Feeley and McDermott had
gone south by a commercial airliner, and
used it for private flights in Florida and the
Caribbean area. The airplane made at least
one flight to Cuba, where the pilot was jailed
for illegal entry.
It would be very interesting for a Royal
commission to investigate whether there was
any connection between this flight to Cuba
and the report to the New York State crime
commission of a deal involving a Canadian
and New York gambler to buy $22 million
worth of smuggled Cuban pesos.
Since September 21, 1960, Mr. Speaker, the
Cessna KRN aircraft has been registered in
the name of a respectable Toronto architect.
All the log books pertaining to the aircraft
were turned over to this gentleman at the time
of sale with the exception of the journey log.
The journey log is the one and only record
of where the aircraft ha.s been. It must be
kept afterwards, because it may be inspected
by The Department of Transi>ort at any time.
Any inaccuracies or omissions can result in
the cancellation of the registration.
The House may be interested to know that
the police blotter for September, 1960, records
the report of a theft from George Reid.
According to Reid, he was on his way to the
architect's home to deliver the journey log
and had decided to stop in Chinatown for
dinner. When he returned he found his car
had been broken into and a briefcase con-
taining the journey log had been stolen. I
hardly need add, Mr. Speaker, that there has
never been any recovery.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I tmn to my second
question. What evidence is there that syndi-
cated gambling in Ontario is an integrated,
highly organized, interlocking conspiracy? On
April 25 of this year the Bellevue bridge and
social club and a number of other places were
raided. Nine men were charged with con-
spiracy to operate several betting houses.
Since their names and histories are instructive,
I shall give them to the House:
Freddie Gabourie, of Bathurst Street; Jack
Weaver of Chelwood Road; Harry Ikeman of
Eglinton Avenue; Max Silver of Crawford
Street; Arthur Larder of Spadina Avenue;
Tim Buckley of Royal York Road; Mr. Golden-
berg of Arlington Avenue; Alex Robinson of
Tyndall Avenue and Hugh O'Gara of Eglin-
ton Avenue.
Of Mr. Gabourie and Mr. Weaver I shall
have more to say later on. For the present—
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
93
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask a question?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Not at this juncture. I
anticipate the question and it may be vahd
a httle later but not right now.
For the present I wish only to draw the
attention of the House to the fact that Jack
Weaver of 41 Chelwood Road, Toronto, is on
record with the department of the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary (Mr. Yaremko) as being a
director of the Divion club from early 1959
until the club lost its charter in October of
1960 as a result of police representations.
Here is but one example, Mr. Speaker, of
the difBculties faced by the police in supress-
ing illegal gambling. Having finally got the
Divion club closed, they find Mr. Weaver
busily at work elsewhere.
Unless the hon. Attorney-General draws
some satisfaction from the fact that at least
the Divion club was closed, let me point
out to him that the file in the department
of the hon. Provincial Secretary on this club
shows its location to have been 2 Tyndall
Avenue, Toronto. But that the Toronto police
knew it to be 1284 Queen Street West and
that in the injunction proceedings to which
I have referred the address of 9A McNab
Street, Hamilton, was also stated. There is
no reference of either address in the club
file, and no record that the hon. Provincial
Secretary consented to a change of premises
from 2 Tyndall Avenue, as the law requires.
If the hon. Provincial Secretary should
reply that they cannot possibly police the
files of all these club charters, I suggest to
him that we are surely entitled to expect a
better performance than occurred in this case
where the Divion club charter was dissolved
on November 12, 1960, but his officials were
still writing Mr. Weaver on November 30,
1960, to complain that the club's annual
return had not been filed.
I turn now, Mr. Speaker, to Harry Eisen
and Arthur Larder. Eisen w^s from 1955 to
1958 a director of the Somerset club in North
York, a club suspected by the police of illegal
gambling. After 1958 he was a director of
the Bellevue club. The file on the Bellevue
club does not show an Arthur Larder,
L-a-r-d-e-r, but it does show an Arthur
Larter, L-a-r-t-e-r of 397 Spadina Avenue, as
a director in 1960. And it would appear they
are one and the same man.
Tim Buckley, another of the men arrested
April 25 on the charge of conspiracy to
operate several betting houses appears in the
file of the Columbia bridge club of Toronto
as a director in 1959. The Columbia club's
charter was dissolved for cause a year before
Mr. Buckley was arrested on the conspiracy
charge. Phinias Goldenberg of Arhngton
Avenue is I presume either the same or a
close relative of Percy Goldenberg of 243
Arlington Avenue, Toronto, who is identified
in the Bellevue club file as a club director
from 1958 to 1961. Alex Robinson of Tyndall
Avenue was a director of the West End bridge
and social club, Toronto, from 1953 until the
club was convicted for illegal gambhng in
1960. From 1954 to 1956 he was a director
of the Club Bernard, a club still operating
and suspected of illegal gambling by the
Toronto police.
On April 24, 1961— and I would point out
to the House this is only a day before he
was picked up in the raid— Alex Robinson
was sentenced to three months in jail and
fined $3,000 for operating a back-end book-
making establishment. An identical punish-
ment was meted out on the same day for
the same offence to Hugh O'Gara, the last
of the nine men arrested on April 25 and
charged with conspiracy to operate several
betting houses.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the pattern is obvious.
Here are nine men, all arrested on the same
day and charged with the same conspiracy
offence and most of them, it develops, proved
to have associations with other illegal and
conspicuous gambling operations. Clearly this
indicates the highly organized interlocking
nature of professional gambling. The hon.
Attorney-General may say, how can he be
expected to know that? I ask the hon.
Attorney-General, does he not know that the
provincial police seized a list of 1,464 names
showing the membership of the Centre Road
veterans club at Cooksville and the Jordan
club in downtown Toronto when the police
raided the home of George Reid, the trusted
lieutenant of Vincent Feeley and Joseph
McDermott? Has he not examined that list?
Does the hon. Attorney-General not also
have records of illegal gambling convictions
both in respect of individuals and chartered
clubs? Has he not received both from the
provincial police and the Metropolitan Toronto
police lists of clubs suspected of gaming or
betting?
And has he not the records on these clubs
examined either by his own or the department
of the hon. Provincial Secretary? And has
he not had a comparison made of all these
lists and records?
Perhaps the hon. Attorney-General will say
he has been too busy travelling about the
province, convincing people that there is no
94
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
organized crime in Ontario. I will tell the
House what such an examination and com-
parison shows. It shows beyond any reason-
able doubt a pattern of interlocking member-
ships, directorships and associations in
chartered clubs by professional gamblers. I
have aheady cited several names, names
which have already appeared in the press. I
shall have occasion to cite a few more because
their disclosure will be necessary. But I am
not going to disclose all the names because I
do not believe they should be disclosed un-
necessarily. Suffice it to say I have compiled
over 30 names of persons who are part of
the pattern I have described.
In every case the organization involved
has been convicted or suspected by the police
of illegal gambling and I would point out to
the House that it is well established that these
persons are frequently just the fronts for the
big-time gamblers. Max Bluestein, for ex-
ample, was convicted of keeping at the Lake-
view club in Toronto but his name appears
nowhere in the Provincial Secretary's file on
that club. The examination and comparison
of the Provincial Secretary's public records
also shows beyond any reasonable doubt that
there has been and is a heavy trafficking in
the charters of so-called clubs and that pro-
fessional gamblers have received valuable
legal assistance from certain legal firms.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it prop-
er to cite all the things involved because I
realize a lawyer can easily be fooled in a
matter of this sort. However, I shall cite
two notorious examples, and again I remind
the House that every club I shall name has
been closed down or is suspected by the police
of illegal gambling.
Sol Gebirtig, a Toronto lawyer, has acted
for the Lakeview club, the Garment Centre
recreation club, the Jordan club, the Belle-
vue club, the Colonial club, he was the sole
defence witness in the 1957 trial of the
notorious Finnish club of New Toronto, and
his testimony at that trial can only be des-
cribed as fantastic. The same man was a
member of the Jordan club and has been
identified in evidence in court as a close
companion of Vincent Feeley and Joseph
McDermott.
The Toronto law firm of Herman, Moses
& Rose has acted for the Union Jack club,
the West End club, the Columbia club, the
Greek Canadian club, the Showmen's League
of America, the Frontier Veterans Association
of Fort Erie, the Roseland club in Windsor,
and the Centre Road veterans club of Cooks-
ville. There is good reason to believe, Mr.
Speaker, that Walton C. Rose, a member of
this firm, represented himself to provincial
police officers at Windsor as a shirt salesman
in an efi^ort to discover what evidence they
had against the Roseland club.
In view of this traffic in social club charters,
and in view of the organizational pattern I
have described with respect to these clubs,
I now propose, Mr. Speaker, to examine in
some detail how this charter system works
and how it has been used by criminals to
exploit the laws of Ontario and circumvent
the laws in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I want to deal now with the
gaming clubs in Ontario masquerading under
the guise of social clubs incorporated under
the laws of Ontario. In dealing with char-
tered social clubs that have become gaming
clubs I will discuss the following topics: (1)
What is the difFerence between gambling and
gaming? (2) What is the law relating to
chartered social clubs? (3) What is the advan-
tage for professional gamblers to operate be-
hind the guise of a chartered social club? (4)
What is the policy of the Conservative
government towards chartered social clubs
suspected of being gaming houses? (5) How
have the Attorney-General's department and
the Provincial Secretary's department en-
forced the laws and carried out government
pohcy with respect to chartered social clubs
and illegal gambling?
Let me deal with the first question: What
is the difference between gambling and gam-
ing? Gambling of itself is not illegal in
Canada but professional gambUng is illegal.
Professional gambling, Mr. Speaker, is gam-
ing. The professional gambler is a man who
operates a gaming house or a gambling game
for his own profit.
The Criminal Code, section 176, provides
that everyone who keeps a conmion gaming
or betting house is guilty of an indictable
offence and Uable to two years imprisonment.
Persons found in such houses are guilty of an
offence punishable on summary conviction.
Under the Criminal Code bookmaking is an
indictable offence liable to two years im-
prisonment. A common gaming house is de-
fined as a place that is kept for gain to
which persons resort for the purpose of play-
ing games.
What is the law relating to chartered
social clubs? The power to incorporate a
social club is held by The Corporations Act
to be discretionary with the Lieutenant-
Governor who may issue a charter by letters
patent to not less than three persons con-
stituting them a corporation. The power to
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
95
incorporate may be exercised by the Provin-
cial Secretary. In order to qualify for in-
corporation it is specifically provided that
the corporation may have objects that are of
a patriotic, religious, philanthropic, charit-
able, educational, agricultural, scientific,
artistic, social, professional, fraternal, sport-
ing or athletic nature, or that are of any
other useful purpose. But a corporation with
such objects shall not be carried on for the
purpose of profit or gain.
The Criminal Code provides, however,
that in the case of an incorporated bona
fide social club or a branch thereof such
club or branch shall not be deemed to be
a gaming house if no fee in excess of ten
cents an hour or 50 cents a day is charged
to the players. The law provides that the
onus of proving an incorporated social club
is bona fide is on the club. It is this ex-
ception which makes a social club charter
so valuable to professional gamblers. It
permits gamblers to occupy a premises that
can be frequented openly and daily by a
large of number of people. It permits
gamblers in the guise of a club to have
gambling equipment such as playing cards,
dice, poker chips and other paraphernalia
on the premises. It permits installation of a
teletype system that provides sporting infor-
mation on which gambling can take place.
Mr. Speaker, professional gamblers regard
a social club charter as a certain road to
fortune. It provides the front for their
illegal operations. A gaming house with a
club charter can delay entry by posting
look-outs, by having doors with knobs or
handles, by having a steward beside the
door who only opens to persons he knows.
Gaming houses with charters excuse these
wilful obstructions on the ground that as
a club they have a restricted membership
and have to take precautions against in-
truders. As it takes as little as one minute
to clear evidence of gaming even a sHght
delay frustrates poHce in their efforts to
secure evidence.
Mr. Speaker, the existence of a social club
charter provides protection for the keepers
of gaming houses and for those who are
found-in on police raids, because it is very
diflficult for police to obtain conclusive proof
of the operation of gaming when all the
paraphemaha can be removed or concealed
in less than one minute or explained away
as legitimate recreational equipment.
Because the power to incorporate resides
in the Crown the power to cancel a charter
also rests in the Crown. The power of can-
cellation, however, has certain limits. A
charter can be cancelled if sufficient cause
is shown. The only statutory provision con-
cerning cancellation is set out in The Cor-
porations Information Act which permits
cancellation if the corporation has defaulted
for three years in fihng its annual returns.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, however, in
the case of Border Cities press club v. the
Attorney-General of Ontario, affirmed that
the Provincial Secretary may decide what
constitutes sufficient cause, provided the
persons affected are first given notice and the
opportunity to appear before the Provincial
Secretary and show why an order for cancella-
tion should not be made.
The significance of this ruling, Mr. Speaker,
is that the Provincial Secretary can initiate
an action for cancellation of a social charter.
The Crown, in addition to the powers to
create a corporation by letters patent, has
the power to make regulations governing the
manner in which the corporation shall carry
out its objects. Such regulations have been
drawn up governing the operation of chart-
ered social clubs. They provide that the letters
patent of a social club, other than a service
club, shall limit the location of the club's
activities, clubhouse or premises. Since 1960
this restriction has been set out in law. This
section forbids a social club to change the
location of any of its premises without the
written permission of the Provincial Secretary.
The regulations also provide that the letters
patent of all social clubs must contain two
clauses, the first stating that the exemption
for legal rake-off provided by the Criminal
Code will not prevent cancellation of a club
charter if it is shown to the satisfaction of the
Provincial Secretary that the club is being
used as a common gaming house. The second
clause provides that the Provincial Secretary
may cancel the letters patent if it is shown
to his satisfaction that the club's premises are
guarded, equipped or otherwise constructed
or operated so as to hinder lawful access and
inspection by police or fire officers, or are
found to have any means for betting or
gaming or any device for concealing or de-
stroying such means. Another regulation
requires that veterans must constitute at least
95 per cent of the membership of any vet-
erans' club. The Corporations Information
Act of Ontario provides that every Ontario
corporation and every corporation carrying
on business in Ontario shall file with the
Provincial Secretary by June 1 of each year
an annual return setting out its name^
directors and officers as of the preceding
March 31. Fines are provided for failure to
comply.
96
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the poUcy of
the Conservative government towards chart-
ered social clubs suspected of being gaming
houses? The answer to that question is con-
tained in a statement made by the hon.
Attorney-General in this Legislature on
February 23, 1959, and I quote certain
portions of that passage:
The policy as established, and still in
effect, is to limit the location of the activi-
ties to the particular street address named
in the letters patent. The letters patent
themselves carry special clauses.
The first provision was to take away the
overhead right to the point that the Pro-
vincial Secretary could recommend the
cancellation and the Lieutenant-Governor
in council actually cancel, in his discretion,
such a charter even if they were not
charging any more than what was permitted
by the Criminal Code for overhead.
The second point was that, if the prem-
ises were equipped or guarded or otherwise
constructed to hinder or prevent lawful
access and ready inspection, or if found to
be fitted with any means or contrivance for
playing any game of chance, then the letters
patent could be cancelled in the same
discretion.
This, in the words of the hon. Attorney-
General, is the interpretation of the statutes
and regulations I have just quoted. And then
he goes on:
When an application is received it is the
practice of the Provincial Secretary's
department and has been ever since 1949 to
refer the matter to the local police and
also in all cases to the Ontario Provincial
Police, and in some cases to the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police before granting
incorporation. The practice is not to grant
a charter if the police have legitimate objec-
tions. Also, precautions are taken to make
sure that the applicants for an incorpora-
tion must continue to be the members, in
other words, genuine members of the organ-
ization must be the applicants and they
must remain in office. In this way, a check
on the membership is made easier.
I am informed that since this pohcy was
adopted conditions have greatly improved,
and it is only on very rare occasions that
—at the insistence of the police or other-
wise—this type of charge requires action
although such a step as cancellation has
taken place on occasion. ...
By and large, the procedures used by the
Provincial Secretary's department in these
social club activities proved very satisfac-
tory, and wherever there is misuse I feel
certain that I can give the assurance, both
on behalf of my own department and on
behalf of the hon. Provincial Secretary that
the police can count on co-operation and
every effort will be made to stamp out
offences.
Mr. Speaker, that in summary is the policy
of the government. Now how have the depart-
ment of the hon. Attorney-General and the
department of the hon. Provincial Secretary
enforced the laws and carried out government
policy with respect to chartered social clubs
and illegal gambling? An examination of the
records will demonstrate there have been
flagrant violations of all points of the law
in all aspects of policy, not just once, but on
frequent occasions. The hon. Attorney-
General's statement of p)olicy declared that it
is the practice of the hon. Provincial Secre-
tary's department and has been since 1949 to
refer all applications for social club charters
to local police and to the Ontario Provincial
Police. Mr. Speaker, all social club charters
were not investigated by the police. The
following were not investigated:
1. Chipper Sales and Advertising Club, 1
Howard Park Avenue.
2. Showmen's League of America, 1 How-
ard Park Avenue.
3. The Portuguese-Canadian Association of
Toronto, 274 College Street, Toronto.
4. The Centre Road Veterans Association,
sometimes called the Vets club, Toronto
Township. I shall have more to say about
this later.
5. The Roseland Veterans Association,
Windsor.
6. The Frontier Veterans Association, Fort
Erie.
I am sure that those last three clubs are
no strangers to the hon. Attorney-General.
Perhaps he will recall that on July 19, 1957,
he issued a press release in which he com-
plained that the then federal Minister of
Justice had declined to restrict the federal
charters to these clubs in the same way that
provincial charters were restricted by the
policy I have just outhned.
In that press release the hon. Attorney-
General did not explain that the Minister of
Justice had very Uttle power to restrict the
clubs, since they were but branches of the
army, navy and air force veterans associa-
tions of Canada, an organization created many
years ago by a private bill passed by Parlia-
ment. Nor did the hon. Attorney-General
mention in that press release that the
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
97
Dominion command of the army, navy and
airforce veterans association was about to
take some action after many representations
from the poHce.
What the hon. Attorney-General did say,
however, was that despite the Minister of
Justice, the leaders of the three clubs were
wilUng to submit themselves to provincial
jurisdiction with all the limitations that in-
volved, just to show they were bona -fide
social clubs. Let us look therefore at these
three clubs, Mr. Speaker.
The records of the department of the hon.
Provincial Secretary do indeed show that
they were all incorporated on July 5, 1957,
14 days before the hon. Attorney-General's
press release. They all had, as I have said, the
said solicitors, Herman, Moses and Rose.
They all escaped, as I have said, prior police
referral. Another fact which the hon.
Attorney-General forgot to mention in his
press release.
The Roseland club at Windsor lost its
provincial charter on March 8, 1958 as a re-
sult of a court conviction two months before
of two men. Curly Gardner and Leo Finni-
gan, on charges of keeping a common gam-
ing house. Well, the hon. Attorney-General
may say we finally got them. Mr. Speaker,
that conviction was obtained despite the hon.
Attorney-General, not because of him.
The Roseland club had been raided and
raided again and again by the pohce. And
because of its charter club set-up and for the
reasons I shall explain later on, no evidence
to support the laying of charges could be
found. That was why I suggest Mr. Walton
C. Rose was so anxious to know the evidence
the police had when the charges were laid.
The police evidence, Mr. Speaker, was
dramatically revealed in court by the appear-
ance of one Raymond Atwood of Detroit as
a Crown witness. Mr. Atwood's brother Earl
had been found murdered in Michigan a few
weeks before after winning a very large
amount of money at the Roseland club. Earl
Atwood was reported to be carrying $40,000
when slain. Raymond Atwood was prepared
to testify about the Roseland club's opera-
tions, but he never got the chance. The
moment he appeared defence counsel asked
for a recess and when the court resumed the
accused changed their pleas from not guilty
to guilty.
John "Curly" Gardner, Mr. Speaker, was
sentenced to one year in jail. On April 23,
1958, he was released on ticket-of-leave,
having served some four months of his
twelve-month sentence. Parole was granted
on the prerogative of mercy after Lewis
Herman, of Herman, Moses and Rose wrote
The Department of Reform Institutions that
Gardner was seriously ill. A medical examin-
ation also reported that he had diabetes and
a heart condition and fiurther imprisonment
would endanger his life. Mr. Gardner is
still very much alive, Mr. Speaker, and he is
running a small bookmaking operation.
The Frontier Veterans Association at Fort
Erie was incorporated, according to records
in the hon. Provincial Secretary's department,
by Henry Damore and Frank Muscato of
Niagara Falls, and Allen Sydney Ross of Wel-
land. The letters patent stipulated the loca-
tion of the club to be Concession 3, Bertie
Township, Welland county, and nowhere else.
However, both in 1959 and 1960 the annual
returns for the club showed its location to
be Rural Route No. 2, Garrison Road, Fort
Erie. These are two different addresses and
there is no record that the letters patent were
amended or that the hon. Provincial Secretary
consented to the change of address as re-
quired by law.
The charter is still in good standing despite
this fact, and despite the fact that in 1958
Bertie Township formed its own police force
and the club was raided so often that busi-
ness fell away and the operators were obliged
to close down.
Now let us examine the Ramsey club in
Niagara Falls. The House will recall I have
said that Vincent Feeley and Joseph Mc-
Dermott obtained interests in the Ramsey
club in the latter part of 1959. The Ramsey
club has a federal charter and its annual
returns show two names appearing as club
directors in 1960 for the first time. Those
names are Henry Damore and Frank Mus-
cato, two of the directors of the closed-
down Frontier club. There has also been
evidence in court that the steward of the
Ramsey club after Feeley and McDermott
moved in was Syd Ross, apparently the same
man who was the third director of the
Frontier club. It may also interest the House
to know that the Ramsey club's federal
charter has not been cancelled.
The records of the hon. Provincial Secre-
tary's department show that the directors of
the Centre Road Veterans Association in 1958
and 1959 were Wilham Laffrade, John
Pleschuk and Angelo Laffradi. There has
been evidence in court that Pleschuk and
Laffradi were oflBcers in the Finnish social
club at Timmins. I will not go into the
history of the Finnish club, Mr. Speaker,
except to say that it has two locations in New
Toronto— one of them being the address at the
98
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
time of Vincent Feeley— and that it gave
the police a great deal of trouble for several
years before a conviction of illegal gambling
was obtained in 1960.
Despite this record of Pleschuk and Laf-
fradi, and despite the fact that Lincoln
Turner, one of the incorporators of the Centre
Road club was in 1957 the secretary-treasurer
of the notorious Jordan club in downtown
Toronto, it was not until February of 1960
that the hon. Provincial Secretary agreed to
hold hearings on police representations that
the Centre Road club was a gaming house.
And it was not until June 24, 1960, that
Robert J. Wright was arrested and the Centre
Road club was dissolved.
These, then, Mr. Speaker, were the three
social clubs for whom the hon. Attorney-
General set aside the policy of police investi-
gation when the government granted charters
in 1957. The hon. Attorney-General in his
policy statement also said it is not the
practice of the hon. Provincial Secretary to
grant a charter if the police have legitimate
objection.
Mr, Speaker, I am going to read to this
House the names of several social clubs which
were granted charters and letters patent or
supplementary letters patent despite the fact
that there was an adverse police report on
the clubs following police investigation. The
clubs which the police investigated and
reported upon adversely were:
( 1 ) The Bathurst-Sheppard social and ath-
letic club, North York. The police reported
adversely on this applicant on September 30,
1959. The club was incorix)rated on Novem-
ber 20, 1959. Tliis club is suspected by the
Metro police as a gaming house.
(2) The Chinese Business Men's Cultural
Society, Toronto. The Metro police reported
adversely on this applicant in May of 1959.
Letters patent were issued on July 8, 1959.
A second adverse police report on this club
was made on September 15, 1959. Dr. H. W.
Lore, one of the incorporators, ran or helped
to run the Chee Kung Tong club which was
dissolved November 22, 1958, because of a
conviction.
(3) The Apter Friendly Society, Toronto.
The Metro police reported adversely on this
club on January 17, 1960, and a charter was
granted on March 28, 1960.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Attorney-General in
his statement said it was the policy of the
government as well as a requirement of law
to limit the location of tlie activities of a
social club to a particular street address named
in the letters patent. A change of address was
to take place only after written permission for
the change had been secured from the hon.
Provincial Secretary. I want to cite several
instances in which this p)olicy was not pursued
and in which the law was contravened.
The Chipper Sales and Advertising club was.
restricted by its letters patent to No. 1
Howard Park Avenue which is the address
of Price's Vita-Crisp Potato Chips and Mixed
Nuts. Joseph R. Price, 301 Park Lawn Road,
the leading officer of the club, wrote the Hon.
Provincial Secretary on January 11, 1961,
that the club was not active. At that time
the club appeared on the Metro police suspect
list as a gaming club. Mr. Price's name can
be found in the membership list of the
Centre Road Veterans club, the Feeley and
McDermott operation in Toronto Township.
Mr. Price's business stationery which is in
the public file on this club lists the telephone
number as Lakeside 5711, an exchange listing
that was discontinued several years ago.
Tlie Showmen's League of America, in-
corporated on August 6, 1959, by Toronto
barrister Louis Herman, without a prior police
investigation, also gives 1 Howard Park
Avenue as its address. The club's address in
the 1960 return is not shown as 1 Howard
Park Avenue, but as 1 Wellington Street
West, an address which appears in the
Toronto city directory as the Royal Canadian
Yacht club. There is no record in the file of
permission from the hon. Provincial Secretary
to change the address. The telephone direc-
tory continues to hst the Showmen's League-
as 1 Howard Park Avenue and this club is
also suspected by the Metropolitan Toronto
police as a gaming house.
The Frontier club, Niagara Falls, was
restricted by its charter at 1292 Ferry Street,
Niagara Falls. In recent returns its address
is given as 1528 Louis Avenue. No consent
for a change of address appears to have
been obtained from the hon. Provincial Sec-
retary.
The New Canadian Social club, Toronto,
obtained letters patent on Jime 15, 1955, and
its premises were stated to be 360 to 362.
Queen Street East. However, the first re-
turn gave the address as 52 Wyatt Avenue.
In 1956 the address of the club was changed
to 364 Queen Street East, with no evidence
to suggest the change was approved by the
hon. Provincial Secretary. A further change
of address was given as 372 Queen Street
East in the club's 1960 retium. The hon.
Provincial Secretary's department advised the
club that a change of address could not
be approved without the hon. Provincial
Secretary's consent and the club requested.
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
99
supplementary letters patent. The police
filed a report disapproving of the club.
Before the hon. Provincial Secretary could
act the police closed the club down with a
Taid on December 28, 1960.
The Somerset club moved to 4140 Bath-
-urst Street, North York, in 1959. There is
no record that the hon. Provincial Secretary
approved of the move although the depart-
ment was aware of it as is shown by a
letter advising the club that such a move
had to be approved by a vote of the mem-
"bership because the new location was out-
side the limits of the city of Toronto. On
June 30, 1960, the provincial police sub-
mitted an adverse report concerning the
issuance of supplementary letters patent.
The club is also suspected by the Metro
police as a common gaming or betting house.
Despite these three objections no steps
were apparently taken by the hon. Provin-
cial Secretary to enforce the prohibition
against the club's change of address without
permission.
The Spadina card and social club is an-
other case at point. It was incorporated on
April 24, 1947. On August 5, 1957, it ap-
plied for supplementary letters patent to
move its location from 163% Spadina to
560 King Street West. In September, 1957,
the Ontario Provincial Police reported ad-
versely on the proposed change. On Novem-
ber 8, 1957, the club's solicitors wrote to
the hon. Provincial Secretary complaining
that the police investigation was taking too
long. The club asked for consent to make
the change without a police clearance. On
December 2, 1957, the hon. Provincial Sec-
retary wrote that the application for change
had been refused.
On December 19, 1957, however, the sup-
plementary letters patent were granted by
the hon. Provincial Secretary. No reason for
the change in policy can be found in the
file. The club was convicted of being a
common gaming house in 1960 and then the
charter was cancelled.
The Sun Sun social club, Toronto, wished
to move from 92 Elizabeth Street to 121
Dundas West. On March 27, 1961, the
Ontario Provincial PoHce reported adversely
on the granting of supplemenatry letters
patent. The club apparently had the new
address when the application was made, it
still has 121 Dundas Street West, and it is
suspected by the Metro police to be a com-
mon gaming house.
A recent case is that of the 25 Club, Port
Credit, which applied for a charter on Sep-
tember 20, 1960. The application was sub-
mitted to the Port Credit Police, the Ontario
Provincial PoUce and the Royal Canadian
Mounted Pofice. On November 17, 1960,
the Ontario Provincial Police submitted an
adverse report. On January 31, 1961, a solic-
itor in the hon. Provincial Secretary's office
wrote the club's solicitor that his only objec-
tion appeared to be that the location, which
was in fact the home of one of the applicants,
violated a Port Credit zoning by-law. It was
suggested that this objection might be over-
come if the club did not maintain a clubhouse.
Apparently the Ontaro Provincial Police
report was ignored as letters patent were
issued on March 28, 1961, with no mention
of an address for a clubhouse and stipulating
that the head office had only to be in Toronto
Township.
Mr. Speaker, I could cite other violations
of the declared policy of the government and
of the law as it relates to social clubs, but
from the ones I have cited several conclusions
are obvious.
Firstly, police have demonstrated they know
of 55 chartered clubs in Metro which have
been convicted or suspected of gaming within
recent dates. I do not suggest this is an all-
inclusive figure, but by itself it indicates tliat
widespread gaming is a fact in Metropolitan
Toronto.
Secondly, that despite the declared policy
of the government and the requirements of
the law, these clubs have been able to operate
with relative impunity for long periods of
time.
Thirdly, the action of the hon. Provincial
Secretary's Department in granting charters
to clubs in the face of police objection and
the subsequent convictions of many clubs for
gaming, leads one to conclude that the grant-
ing of charters was in fact a temporary licence
to game. The failure of the hon. Attorney-
General's Department to act against these
clubs in the face of adverse police reports,
indicates at least a complete lack of liaison
between the hon. Attorney-General and the
hon. Provincial Secretary. At worst, it could
be said that negligence of the two depart-
ments permitted the operation of gaming
houses.
Mr. Speaker, there are three other aspects
of the problem presented with the social
club charters that I would like to raise, and
they are these:
1. The problem created by the failure of
the government to make retroactive its regula-
tions governing the change of address of a
social club.
100
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
2. The interlocking nature of gaming clubs
as revealed by a study of the solicitors em-
ployed to charter the clubs and to defend
known gamblers.
3. The interlocking nature of gambling
clubs as revealed by the presence of certain
individuals, many of them convicted gamblers
or convicted found-ins of gaming houses as
officers, directors or members of many differ-
ent social clubs.
Mr. Speaker, the first point deals with the
government policy towards social club charters
issued before 1949. The hon. Attorney-
General's policy declaration outlines the gov-
ernment's policy from 1949 onward. The
conditions relating to permission to change
the address of a club and so fortli, apparently
were not to be applied to charters granted
before 1949. I ask why these charters were
not subjected to the same conditions and
subject to the same regulations?
Failure to make the regulations retroactive,
Mr. Speaker, suddenly gave a great potential
value to many long dormant charters. As
one charter was put out of business the
operator of the gaming clubs simply activated
an old charter and continued in business,
very often on the very same site.
There is the case of 1289 Bloor Street West.
In 1959 this was the Toronto branch of the
Montcalm amateur athletic association, an
Ottawa club that was closed up when the
Ottawa headquarters was convicted of gam-
ing. After cancellation of the Montcalm
charter the Greek Canadian social club, which
was organized in Ottawa in 1915 opened at
the same address.
The public file makes it clear that this club
had been dormant for many years and its
records lost. The Toronto law firm of
Herman, Moses and Rose and McReath and
Lamar sought to produce substitute records,
but the charter was cancelled on January 30,
1960, as a result of police representations.
Let us now look at 111% King Street West.
Until early 1959 this was the location of the
Dorchester club of Picton which was incor-
porated in 1947. The charter was dissolved
on May 14, 1959, as the result of a court
conviction. The premises are currently
occupied by the Community social club which
was incorporated in 1934 and which is a
suspected gaming house. The police know
it to be at this address, but the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary's records give the location
of the Comunity social club as 1335 Dundas
Street West.
Let us look at 1601 Dundas Street West.
This address was the home of a Union Jack
social club wliich was dissolved on September
25, 1959, as a result of a court conviction.
The same address was then used by the
Nottawa community club until its charter was
cancelled on March 28, 1960, as the result
of police representations.
Lest tl)e authorities take satisfaction from
this, let me point out that the Nottawa club
was incorporated originally in 1919, and the
hon. ProNincial Secretary's records will reveal
a letter from the widow of one of the
original directors stating that the club had
l^een out of existence for 30 years. No returns
for the club had been filed with the hon.
Provincial Secretary' from 1927 to 1958. A
letter from the hon. Provincial Secretary's
office written in 1958 to the last directors on
record asked for returns for the period 1927
to 1958 prior to cancellation of the charter.
Following this letter a Toronto law firm
revived the charter and a new set of directors
was appointed and the club was moved from
Nottawa to Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, I could cite much more
evidence of trafficking in social club
charters; long dormant charters being sud-
denly reviNcd, moxement of club locations
from one part of Ontario to another, failure
to file returns with the hon. Provincial Secre-
tary and operation of a succession of dubious
and suspicious charters at the same addresses
at which clubs had been closed because of
court convictions.
This e\idence raises two questions: why
have the landlords of these illegal gambling
clubs not been prosecuted under the available
sections of the Criminal Code and why have
not pro\incial government departments con-
cerned not maintained their records so that
chartered clubs can be policed with respect
to application, transfers, charges, changes in
control and so on?
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the provincial
government departments involved in grant-
ing social club charters and enforcing the
legal prohibitions against gaming ever com-
piled such a list and employed it when con-
sidering new applications for charters, trans-
fers of old charters or in taking the initiative
to cancel suspected clubs? The least that
can be said for their failure to take reason-
able and normal precautions against the long-
term perpetuation of gaming houses in the
guise of social clubs is tliat the departments
concerned and their hon. Ministers were
grossly negligent in their duties and utterly
careless of their responsibilities.
Applause.
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
101
An hon. member: Grossly negligent. We
need a new Provincial Secretary as well as an
Attorney-General.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I think it is obvious, Mr.
Speaker, that a full scale, wide-ranging Royal
commission is required to investigate the true
nature and extent of the gaming and gam-
bling being conducted under the guise of social
clubs. I think it is necessary for such Royal
commission to investigate and report upon
the negligence and carelessness of the hon.
Attomey-General's department and the hon.
Provincial Secretary's department and to
ascertain the reasons why these departments
have failed to enforce the law with respect
to the issuance of social club charters.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to my third
question. What evidence is there that pro-
fessional gambling has had and still has pro-
tection from the police and law enforcement
agencies? Here again there is considerable
evidence on the public record available to
anyone who wishes to ferret it out. There
has been evidence in court that Kenneth
Lamorie and Carmen Lawrence, two members
of the anti-gambling squad of the Ontario
Provincial Police who were suspended and
resigned in June of 1960, were warning
gamblers in St. Catharines, Fort Erie,
Thorold, Niagara Falls, Toronto, Cooksville—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member is
now quoting from evidence in connection
with a case which is in front of the courts
at the present time and—
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I know of
no decision that you will ever make—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I ask you
to rule that he be careful about what he says
about those people.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I am prepared, Mr.
Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
I am presuming that the learned hon.
member, being a learned hon. member of
the House, knows full well what he is speak-
ing about and will assume full responsibility
for every word he says-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! Should the hon.
member make a mistake he will be judged,
as has been mentioned in this House before,
by the court of public opinion.
An hon. member: That is right.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and I will accept your direction. I will be
responsible for everything that I have said
and that I say from here on, and I vacate
any privilege I have as a member of this
House.
There has been evidence in court that
Kenneth Lamorie and Carmen Lawrence, two
members of the anti-gambling squad of the
Ontario Provincial Police were suspended and
resigned in June of 1960 for warning gamblers
in St. Catharines, Fort Erie, Thorold, Niagara
Falls, Toronto and Cooksville of impending
raids by the police, and for this th«y received
$500 a month.
There has been evidence that in respect of
the Niagara Falls operation the information
was sold to one Sammie Balsam, a notorious
bookmaker in that area, who, in turn, sold
it to bookmakers as protection against being
raided. There has been evidence that Kenneth
Lawrence, while he was on the force, was
operating a gaming house in Toronto called
the Alpine hunting and fishing club.
There has been evidence that Robert J.
Wright, a former member of the anti-gambling
squad was protecting a gambling club in
Windsor while he was a police officer and for
this he received $1,000 per month.
There has been evidence that Wright until
his arrest on May 28, 1960, was in league
with Joseph McDermott and Vincent Feeley
and supplied them with tip-off information
over a long period of time.
There has been evidence that Joseph
McDermott, when warned on May 5, 1960,
of an impending police raid on the Ramsey
club in Niagara Falls, replied that he already
knew about it and that he had been told
by James Bartlett the Deputy Commissioner
of the Ontario Provincial Police. There has
been evidence that Deputy Commissioner
Bartlett received $2,000 from Joseph
McDermott for informing him of the signing
of search warrants before clubs were raided.
There has been evidence that Inspector Allan
Stringer, in charge of the Peterborough Dis-
trict of the Ontario Provincial Police tele-
phoned McDermott and others to warn that
the anti-gambling branch had planted an
undercover man in gambling operations in
Hamilton and that raids were about to take
place.
There has been evidence that the anti-
gambling branch received from Inspector
Stringer an unsigned, undated brief on how
to convict the old Ramsey club in Niagara
102
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Falls and that this brief was actually prepared
by Robert Wright and David Humphrey, the
Toronto lawyer to whom I have already
referred. There has been evidence that prior
to the receipt of this brief Vincent Feeley
gave the same information orally in several
telephone calls to W. J. Shrubb, then a
member of the anti-gambling squad and now
deputy chief of pohce at Peterborough. There
has been evidence that Mr. Shrubb became
deputy chief at Peterborough because the
gamblers wanted him out of the anti-gambling
squad, and accomplished this by bribing some
members of the selection committee which
chose Mr. Shrubb for the job.
There bas been evidence that one J. F.
Cronin, a former sergeant in the anti-gambling
squad, supplied protection to Feeley and
McDermott for some ten or 12 years, that
he had the heart of a lion in his devotion
to their interests and that by the time he
was caught and discharged he had made
$100,000. There has been evidence that Don
Scott, the assistant Crown attorney at Niagara
Falls, was a pal of Feeley and McDermott,
and that they hoped to get him appointed
Crown attorney instead of the present en-
cumbent, who from their point of view was
much harder to get along with.
There has been evidence that Don Scott
and an unidentified member of Parhament in
the Niagara peninsula received some money
to take the pressure off the club in Niagara
Falls and the Niagara Falls area.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said there has
been evidence given in court on all these
matters I have listed. The hon. Attorney-
General and others may say it is hearsay
evidence. I agree with him, and I will deal
with that point in a moment. Before I do,
however, I wish to give the House some
information which has not been given in
court.
As most hon. members may know, most of
the matters I have just enumerated rasult
from an undercover investigation by Con-
stable George Scott of tlie anti-gambling
squad of the Ontario Provincial Police, who
was instructed by his superiors to accept a
proposition from Robert J. Wright that he
supply warnings about raids and other infor-
mation on the activities of the anti-gambUng
squad to certain gamblers, who were later
identified as Vincent Feeley and Joseph
McDermott.
Constable Scott, as is customary, kept an
official diary of that undercover investigation
and also supplied progress reports, directly to
Assistant Commissioner Kennedy and Com-
missioner W. H. Clark who we may assume
kept the hon. Attorney-General informed.
Constable Scott's diary was not submitted in
evidence at the trial of Wright, Feeley and
McDermott, but because it formed the basis
of the Crown's case, copies were supplied
to the three defense counsel. Mr. Speaker,
most of the entries in the diary came out in
court, but some did not. I shall read the
relevant items which were left out, omitting
the names of the individuals concerned.
An entry on February 29, 1960, reported
that Wright told Scott and I quote:
"Said the fix was in at Queen's Park, re
cancellation of the Vets Club charter."
An entry concerning a phone call on May
14, 1960, reported that McDermott told Scott:
"May have inspector bribed at St. Kitts,"
and "Intimated— (and here the name of a
senior official of the department of the hon.
Attorney-General)— on payroll. Said to ask—
(and again the name of the official)— some-
thing and I'll tell you what he has said the
next day."
The entry for this date further reported
when McDermott "Talked alx)ut the branch
being stopped from using hammers at Cooks-
ville and being told to time the door." An-
other entry dated May 16, 1960, said:
"Bartlett received money from McDermott
for telling when warrants were signed. Re-
ceived $2,000 once at a party with—
And then a member of a previous govern-
ment is named.
An entry concerning a meeting of Scott,
Wright and Lawrence on May 17, 1961
reported that Lawrence said senior official of
the hon. Attorney-General's department was
recei\ ing $800 a month from the gamblers.
Mr. Speaker, why were these entries in
Constable Scott's diary not introduced in
evidence? No doubt the hon. Attorney-
General may say it was all hearsay evidence,
but not the sort of thing to be read in court
without the support of other evidence. Why
then, Mr. Speaker, were many of the matters
which I have given to this House read into
evidence? Most of them, the references to
Lawrence, to Lamorie, to Cronin, to Bartlett,
and so on, were on the same legal footing as
the references which were not disclosed. The
references to Stringer and to Wright were
substantiated by other evidence but the
remainder were not. Why then were some
put in and others not?
I suggest the answer is very clear. Con-
stable Scott's investigation lasted nearly four
months, from February to May of 1960, his
purpose was to ingratiate himself with the
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
103
gamblers, gain their confidence and to eventu-
ally deal with them on a face-to-face basis,
so that incontrovertible evidence could be
secured. The provincial police no doubt set
great store by this investigation. Here were
big-time gamblers who had evaded conviction
for years; finally the police had succeeded in
planting an undercover agent in their midst.
The information Constable Scott gathered
during those four months was undoubtedly
valuable but obviously the police felt he had
by no means exhausted all the possibilities
especially the possibility of face-to-face
contact with the gamblers. Mr. Speaker, there
has been absolutely no suggestion that Con-
stable Scott's true purpose was discovered by
the gamblers. That being the case, and
recognizing that the police themselves would
want the investigation to continue, what
conclusion is possible but that it was stopped
on the orders of the hon. Attorney-General?
The reference to the member of the previous
government—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would just like to say
that that is an absolute and completely false
conclusion.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I have
taken great precautions, I am much con-
cerned about this matter. I will give the hon.
Attorney-General every opportunity. All I
ask is that he give the public of the province
the opportunity of an impartial investigation.
Mr. Reaume: And that is exactly what he
does not want.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now these entries, Mr.
Speaker, were recorded on May 14, May 16
and May 17, 1960. Robert Wright was
arrested on May 27, 1960, a short two weeks
later. Some time between those dates the
investigation was terminated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to
present some additional information touching
on this whole matter.
I have mentioned the name of J. F. Cronin,
the lion-hearted helpmate of the gamblers
while he was in charge of the anti-gambling
squad of the Ontario Provincial Police. Mr.
Speaker, it is a matter of record that this man
is in some way involved with Vincent Feeley
and probably with Joseph McDermott in a
drug business. There has been evidence in
court that the two gamblers were interested
in a drug firm. I am informed the product
involved is called Dewsbury's ointment and
it has been registered as a patent medicine
with the federal Department of Health since
1936. I have not found any drug store or
druggist who knows anything about Dews-
bury's ointment or its ingredients nor are its
ingredients a matter of public information
because the federal requirements governing
publication have been waived at the request
of the licensee on the ground that it is a
secret preparation. The records of the federal
Department of Health show the head of the
firm to be Vincent Feeley and the address of
the manufacturer to be 1508 Kenneth Drive,
Port Credit. Mr. Speaker, that address is the
residence of J. F. Cronin and is only a
stone's throw away from the Rometown Drive
home of Joseph McDermott.
Perhaps the hon. Attorney-General would
be good enough to tell the House, Mr. Speaker,
what the gamblers and their friend Mr.
Cronin were doing with a licence to manu-
facture a drug preparation which cannot be
found in the marketplace. Or is this another
matter which could not be pursued because
of the untimely termination of Constable
Scott's investigation?
I have had occasion to mention W. J.
Shrubb, new deputy chief at Peterborough.
The gamblers wanted Mr. Shrubb off the
anti-gambling squad and the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police because they could not buy him.
In May of 1955 Mr. Shrubb had a conversa-
tion with J. F. Cronin, in which Cronin
admitted he had a share in the Cooksville
veterans club. Cronin also told Shrubb the
gamblers would be opening other clubs which
could mean a lot of money to Mr. Shrubb
if he fell in with them. Cronin also hinted to
Shrubb that he knew an inspector of the
O.P.P. at Peterborough who would endorse
this proposition.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Shrubb sent a confidential
report on this conversation to the then Com-
missioner of the Ontario Provincial Police. He
was to find out later during conversations with
Vincent Feeley that the gamblers knew of this
report and its contents. Some time after his
talk with Cronin, Mr. Shrubb was approached
out of channels by Inspector Allan Stringer
of the Peterborough District of the O.P.P.
with an offer of a sergeant's post in his dis-
trict, a job which would have meant a promo-
tion and a salary increase. I am informed
that Inspector Stringer made similar offers ta
members of the anti-gambling squad who
had spurned bribes by the gamblers.
After Mr. Shrubb turned this proposition
down he was telephoned on a number of
occasions by Vincent Feeley who insisted on
seeing him on a matter of legitimate business.
It turned out that Feeley 's proposal was that
104
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
he and Shrubb go into the service station
business because Feeley had been reliably
informed that four service stations were to
be erected on Highway 400 and that through
his political friends he was assured of one of
these locations.
Deputy Chief Shrubb was a witness at the
trial of Feeley, McDermott and Wright. He
testified as to phone calls he received from
Feeley in May of 1958 in which Feeley gave
him detailed advice on how to close up the
old Ramsey club in Niagara Falls. The House
will recall that it was in August of 1958 that
the anti-gambling squad received an undated,
unsigned brief to the same effect.
I do not intend to recount what Mr. Shrubb
said in evidence, Mr. Speaker. I intend to
tell you what he did not say and what I sug-
gest he was not permitted to say.
During one of those telephone calls from
Feeley a break in the connection occurred
and Mr. Shrubb on receiving the operator was
able to determine the niunber from which
Feeley had been calling. It was a Port
Credit number and it turned out to be listed
to another name, but Mr. Shnibb was able
to execute search on telephone company
records and determine what long distance calls
had been made from the number. He found
in May and June of 1958 that calls were made
from the Port Credit number, CR. 8-2538, to
the following numbers:
Peterborough, RI. 5-6310, with the toll slip
noting the name Stringer; Niagara Falls,
Ontario, EL. 4-5071, with tlie notation Jolli;
Niagara Falls, Ontario, EL. 4-4874, with the
notation Berelli, the representative of Feeley
and McDermott in the Niagara Falls area;
Windsor, CL. 2-8645, with the notation
Gardner, who is Curly Gardner, manager of
the Roseland club; Scarborough, PL. 9-3007,
R. J. Wright, 117 Gooderham. Calls to the
home telephone number of a senior official of
the Ontario Attorney-General's department,
whose name was also noted.
I should point out to the House that the
official referred to here is not the same as the
official referred to previously.
A call to the home telephone number
together with the name of the member of
this government to which I have already re-
ferred. Ridgeway 5-11J12, Fred House, the
then Reeve of Bertie township, site of the
Frontier club. Fort Erie 5-57, Lloyd Wilhams,
Fort Erie councillor. Fort Erie 9-84, Michael's
Restaurant, 179 Garrison Road, and the busi-
ness phone of Mike Tartaglia, then the Reeve
of Fort Erie.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Shrubb could have testi-
fied as to these phone calls at the trial of
Feeley, McDermott and Wright, and he
could have produced photostatic copies of the
telephone toll slips to show that the phone
calls took place. Such evidence would have
gone a long way, I suggest, in proving the
conspiracy in which Feeley, McDermott and
Wright were charged.
But that was not all that Mr. Shrubb could
have said. He could have testified in much
greater detail concerning Feeley's advice on
how the ix)lice could close up the old Ram-
sey club. He could have testified that Feeley
told him such a police effort would not back-
fire like the time the police took everybody
to Brampton; that Feeley said he could
promise from the hon. Attomey-Generars
office that he would not roar down on the
police; that Feeley said he could guarantee
the hon. Attorney-General's office would not
take a dim view of the plan.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the meaning
of these curious statements? The meaning
is clear once certain facts are understood.
The House will recall tliat Feeley and Mc-
Dermott wanted to set up operations in
Niagara Falls, because after Bertie township
took over its own policing in January of
1958 they were subjected to constant police
harassment of their Frontier club near Fort
Erie. However, the old Ramsey club was
getting all the action at Niagara Falls.
Feeley and McDermott therefore decided
they would have to take over the Ramsey
club and they determined they could do this
by first setting the police to close up the
club.
This would demonstrate to the American
owners involved that their Canadian col-
leagues in the old Ramsey club at that time
did not have the police protection and influ-
ence that they claimed to have; that Feeley
and McDermott were the people to deal
with; and having demonstrated that, Feeley
and McDermott would be in a iwsition to
make a deal with the Americans and re-open
the club under joint auspices.
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what hap-
pened. The police were supplied with de-
tailed information on how the old Ramsey
club operated and how it could be convicted.
The club was raided and closed up, although
after a most undue delay the magistrate dis-
missed the charges. The key fact, however,
is that when the Ramsey club re-opened at
the new premises Feeley and McDermott
were the Canadian associates of the Ameri-
can owners.
The information supplied to the police both
in the form of Feeley's telephone conversa-
tions with Mr. Shrubb and later in the form
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
105
of a brief from Inspector Stringer dealt in
some detail with Section 174 of the Criminal
Code. Under this section persons found in
a suspected gaming or betting premises
may be brought before a justice of the peace
for an examination under oath and in camera.
The gamblers were obviously most anxious
that this section should be invoked by the
police in raiding the old Ramsey club.
It is clear, however, that they regarded this
section of the Criminal Code as a deadly
weapon in the hands of the police when
Tised against their own gambling clubs.
■Constable Scott, the undercover agent, tes-
tified that in the telephone conversation
with Joseph McDermott on May 13, 1960,
McDermott told him that the section of the
Code dealing with the powers of the police
to take people found in a gaming house ofiE
for examination under oath was what closed
the clubs up if it was used. He added that
McDermott told him not to repeat this to
anyone.
There was also testimony by Constable
Scott on another point, that the police
executed a search warrant in the Cooksville
veterans club in November of 1954 and all
the occupants of the club were taken to
the court house at Brampton to be examined
under oath. It is in this context that I ask
the House to consider Feeley's remarks to
Mr. Shrubb, that he could promise the hon.
Attorney-General's office would not roar down
on the police if they used Section 174 of the
Criminal Code to close up the old Ramsey
ckib.
Now, Mr. Speaker, tlie provincial police
did raid the Centre Road veterans club at
Cooksville on November 24, 1954, and seven
of the 34 found-ins were held overnight
at Brampton and brought under oath and in
camera the next morning by Crown Attorney
Davis before Magistrate Blain. Legal counsel
for the club was present and allowed to cross-
examine. During these proceedings, Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Davis received a message to
call the hon. Attorney-General's office. He
did so and was instructed to—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Would the hon. leader
•of the Opposition just give the date?
Mr. Wintermeyer: November 24, 1954.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That is the one he
brought up previously.
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is right. No ques-
tion. What I am trying to point out is simply
to explain the significance of the comment
of Mr. Feeley.
During these proceedings, Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Davis received a message to call— I am
sorry.
What an irony it is then, Mr. Speaker, to
read the Morton report and to see how it
dismisses this whole question of chartered
clubs as a red herring with the suggestion
that if only police officers, prosecutors and
magistrates understood the law a little better
they would make use of the great assistance
that is afiForded to them by Section 174 of
the Criminal Code.
There is one final matter I must deal with
in my remarks at this time. I do so most
reluctantly, not only because it is a' most
sensitive issue, but because I am not in a
position to give the House all the information
in my possession without violating well estab-
lished rules of debate. I feel I must bring it
to the attention of the House as best I can,
however, because of the serious nature of the
issue. I ask the House to consider these
facts.
Hon. members will recall I have described
the composition of Joseph McDermott's hunt-
ing party at James Bay goose club in the
fall of 1958. I have stated the names of
seven of the eight men in that party. I
now tell the House that the eighth man was
one Arthur B. Monteith of Toronto, and that
in a prospectus filed with the -Ontario
Securities Commission on February 7, 1961,
he was identified as secretary-treasurer and a
director of KRNO Mines Limited, a mining
venture in which Feeley and McDermott held
the vendor shares.
As of June of 1960, the records of tjie
Port Arthur mining office show there were
only 300 mining claims in the Big Duck
Lake area north of Schreiber on Lake Superior
registered to either Feeley, McDermott or
KRNO Mines. The same records show Arthur
B. Monteith to be a claim holder in the same
area, and Monteith visited the Port Arthur
mining office in the company of Feeley and
McDermott in the summer of 1960.
The prospectus filed with the Ontario
Securities Commission on February 7, 1961,
was an application for O.S.C. penuission to
release the vendor shares for public sale. By
this time, however, the names of Feeley and
McDermott had become somewhat notorious
and permission was not granted. Because the
application was not technically in order was,
well, technical reasons were given to the
applicants. The directors of KRNO mines,
therefore, had no reason to suspect that the
matter could not be cleared up and the shares
placed on the public market when on May 16,
I
106
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
1960, they decided to designate Davidson
and Company, a prominent brokerage firm,
as the trading agent for KRNO stock.
Mr. Speaker, Arthur B. Monteith has for
several years been an employee, a customer's
man with Davidson and Company. Mr.
Speaker, the foreman of the jury which tried
Feeley, McDermott and Wright was vice-
president of Davidson and Company. The
panel of petit jurors summoned to attend on
May 29, 1961, for the sittings of the Supreme
Court of Ontario in the county of York con-
tained 90 names. A murder trial had first
call on the jury list and 16 names were re-
moved, leaNang 74 available for the trial of
Feeley, McDermott and Wright.
Mr. Speaker, the defence counsel in that
murder trial was approached separately by
two lawyers immediately before his court
began and was asked by each lawyer to chal-
lenge two names should they be called for the
jury in this case. The defence counsel thought
nothing in particular about these requests
partly because, as hon. members may know,
it is a device used by citizens who do not
wish to do jury service, and partly because
he had planned to challenge tlie four names
he had been given anyway because their
occupations indicated that they might be
unsympathetic to his client.
Two of the four names he was asked to
challenge were drawn and were challenged.
All four men served on the jury hearing the
case of Feeley, McDermott and Wright.
That is all I am going to say about the jury,
Mr. Speaker. I have further information in
particular with regard to the deliberations of
the jury and the jurymen which I have de-
cided not to give this House. I feel it is not
my right nor my duty to say more.
This is the function and this is the point
I want to make throughout, Mr. Speaker. I
feel an obligation as leader of the Opposition
and as spokesman and person responsible in
this House to do the diflBcult thing and to
bring these facts to the attention of this
House so that an independent inquiry can be
made. I charge no man, I judge no man but
I feel it conscientiously to be my duty to
enunciate the facts that I have outlined so
that an intelligible determination can be
gained and made for our request to hold an
impartial and a judicial inquiry into all these
matters.
Applause.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Nor am I going to dis-
cuss at length the subject of KRNO Mines
Limited. I will simply tell the House the
company was incorx>orated provinciaUy on
September 10, 1959, and that David Hum-
phrey was identified as president and Charles
Philips, an accountant in the law firm
of Humphrey, Locke as secretary-treasurer.
Humphrey was also identified as the pro-
moter, Feeley and McDermott as the ven-
dors. In the February 7, 1961, application,
Humphrey continued to be president, but
Arthur B. Monteith was named secretary-
treasurer and one J. B. McNamara of 28
Edgar Avenue, Toronto, was named vice-
president.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary knows who J. P. McNamara
is? Hon. members may wish to consult the
file of the Centre Road veterans association
in the company's records ofiice of the hon.
Provincial Secretary's department. They will
find one John McNamara of 2360 Edenhurst
Drive, Cooksville, listed as a director of the
club in 1960 and an indication that he was
the manager of the club. Mr. Speaker, the
McNamara of the Vets club and the
McNamara of KRNO Mines Limited are one
and the same man.
Mr. McNamara is also the publisher of the
Veterans Advocate, a publication of the
army, navy and air force veterans associa-
tion of Canada and has wielded some con-
siderable influence in that organization. Hon.
members uill recall that the Centre Road
club was once a branch of the federally in-
corporated army, navy and air force veterans
association. Perhaps the hon. Provincial Secre-
tary will remember Mr. McNamara as a
defence witness, so to speak, at closed hear-
ings on the Febniary 11 and February 17—
excuse me— 1960, before the Deputy Provincial
Secretary to show cause why the—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, may I
bring to the attention of the House that it is
not the present Provincial Secretary.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, I did not intend
that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, but that is the
way it sounded.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, I am sorry if I
created that impression and I will read it
again.
Perhaps the Provincial Secretary will
remember— it may be that I should have said
the Provincial Secretary of the day will
remember—
An hon. member: And we have a new hon.
Prime Minister too. He will be up in a
minute.
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
107
Mr. Wintermeyer: —Mr. McNamara as a
defence witness, so to speak, at closed hear-
ings on February 11, 1960, and on February
17, 1960, before the Deputy Provincial
Secretary to show cause why the Centre Road
club's provincial charter should not be can-
celled on the ground that it was being used
for illegal gambling.
Perhaps the hon. Provincial Secretary will
remember the fantastic story Mr. McNamara
told at those hearings about how the president
of the army, navy and air force veterans
association had conducted an investigation
into allegations against the club and had
given it a clear bill of health and how he
took his position in the club to keep an eye
on things because it had been more or less
forced on him as the decent thing to do. And
perhaps the hon. Provincial Secretary can
explain why no cancellation was ordered for
months and that, in fact, the charter was not
dissolved until June 14, 1960, after Robert
Wright was arrested and everybody knew
the jig was up.
Perhaps Mr. McNamara can explain how
the vice-presidency of the gamblers' mining
company was forced on him in February of
1961, several months after it was known that
everything had not been so decent at the
Centre Road club after all.
Mr. Speaker, one of the characteristics of
organized crime demonstrated by the New
York crime commission was the use of
violence. The commission said that beatings
and even murder were the consequences of
the presence of organized crime in a com-
mimity. There has been evidence in Ontario
that physical violence and murder are associ-
ated with the activities of gamblers. I will
cite several cases:
On March 21, 1961, Max Bluestein, a
convicted gambler, was savagely beaten by a
number of men in the Town Tavern in down-
town Toronto. He was beaten with brass
knuckles, iron bars and fists. He was knocked
down and kicked and a broken bottle was
ground into his mouth and face. According
to reports, Mr. Bluestein was beaten by a
group of men acting for rivals who wanted to
share the enormous profits of Bluestein's
illegal gambling enterprises in Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, let me outline a little of Mr.
Bluestein's background. In December of 1960
he was convicted along with Sam Binder of
operating a common gaming house in the
Lakeview club on Bathurst Street near Eglin-
ton Avenue. Magistrate Addison in passing
sentence of a fine of $15,000, or four months
in jail estimated Mr. Bluestein's Lakeview
club did an annual volume of gambling in
excess of $13 million with a profit to Mr.
Bluestein of more than $1 million.
Mr. Bluestein obviously could pay the fine
but it was reported in the press that he chose
to go to the Ontario Reformatory at Mimico
because paying the fine would cause him an
income tax problem. While at Mimico a
trusted lieutenant told him that rivals wished
to take over four large floating crap games
which Mr. Bluestein controlled in Toronto
hotels. At this point Mr. Bluestein decided
to pay his fine in order to gain his freedom
and the opportunity to meet the challenge to
his gambling empire. It was curious that
when Mr. Bluestein came to pay his fine, it
was discovered that a clerical error in the
court record made him liable only for a fine
of $4,000 and not $5,000.
It was reported in the press at the time
of Mr. Bluestein's beating at the Town Tavern
that almost half of the hundred people present
had been invited to witness what subsequently
took place. This was a public demonstration
to the gambling fraternity of Toronto that
violence would be used to capture and con-
trol illegal betting here. Despite the fact that
a hundred persons were in the tavern no one
came forward to give evidence to the police.
The tavern's hat check girl and doorman, as
well as the customers were thoroughly intim-
idated.
One month later, after the police held in
camera hearings with 12 witnesses, warrants
were issued for men— for four men— on a
charge of assault causing bodily harm. These
men were Jack Weaver, Frank Marchildon,
Fred Gabourie and John Papalia. The first
three, arrested April 23, 1961, have already
been identified as convicted gamblers and
members of various social clubs convicted or
suspected of being gaming houses. The fourth
man, Johnny Papalia of Hamilton, gave him-
self up to poHce on May 12, 1961, 48 days
after the Bluestein beating and at a time when
the New York State pohce had a warrant for
his arrest in connection with the largest
narcotic ring ever uncovered in the United
States.
Mr. Papalia was a member of the veterans
club, he was convicted of beating Max Blue-
stein and is now serving a sentence of 13
montlis in an Ontario reformatory.
Mr. Speaker, the New York crime commis-
sion pointed out that the three principal fonts
of revenue for organized crime were illegal
gambling, trafficking in narcotics and labour
racketeering. In Johnny Papalia we have a
direct link between the gamblers and the
dope pedlars. The New York District Attor-
ney charged 20 men, four of them Canadians,
108
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as being part of the conspiracy which
smuggled drugs worth $150 milhon on the
black market into the United States in the
course of the past several years.
Of the 20 charged several left the United
States forfeiting bail of $20,000 to $50,000
each. One man was murdered in Brooklyn,
New York, last summer, another tried to com-
mit suicide, a third was declared insane, and
unfit for trial. A fourth was Alberto Agueci
of Toronto, whose beaten, strangled and
burned body was found last week near Roch-
ester, New York. Some of the men charged
in New York have been identified by federal
narcotics authorities in the United States as
members of the Mafia.
Another characteristic of organized crime
as revealed by the New York State commis-
sion was that of extortion. Do we have
examples of extortion in Ontario, Mr. Speaker?
Last April, Toronto Daily Star columnist
Pierre Berton published stories about gang-
land beatings of Toronto stockbrokers who
refused to pay protection money. Beatings
have been reported in Hamilton. Gwyn
Thomas in the Toronto Daily Star on April
10, 1961, reported that beatings and shake-
downs had been going on in Toronto for the
preceding two years. Attempts to corrupt
law enforcement authorities is another charac-
teristic of organized crime.
I have already related the extent to which
gamblers corrupted the Ontario Provincial
Police anti-gambling squad. Gamblers have
also attempted to corrupt magistrates in the
Toronto area. It has been widely reported,
Mr. Speaker, that Magistrate Fred Thompson
was threatened some few years ago on the day
before he was to hear a case against a well-
known gambler. Magistrate Thompson re-
ported this to the hon. Attorney-General. It
would be interesting to know what the hon.
Attorney-General did about it.
It has been reported that an attempt to
bribe Magistrate Addison with $50,000 was
made prior to the trial of another well-known
gambler. It would be interesting, Mr.
Speaker, to know what steps, if any, the hon.
Attorney-General took in this matter.
I have cited the murder of Earl Atwood in
connection with the Roseland club, and no
doubt the hon. Attorney-General is familiar
with that case. I wonder if he is familiar
with the case of Peter "Scrit" Mitchell, one
of the gang in the old Ramsey club. Accord-
ing to evidence in court Mitchell held his
position in the organization by reason of his
alleged ability to provide the club with politi-
cal protection. According to evidence his
position became somewhat tenuous and he is
said to have talked too much. It is no secret,
Mr. Speaker, that Scrit Mitchell disappeared
suddenly and has not been seen for a long
time. I wonder if the hon. Attorney-General
would know where Mitchell is.
Mr. Speaker, physical violence, extortion,
intimidation, bribery and attempted bribery,
drug trafiBcking, and even murder, have all
accompanied the growth of illegal gambling
in Ontario. They are the inevitable corol-
lary of organized crime. In recent years,
however, a new and equally frightening as-
pect has appeared to this relationship be-
tween professional gambling and other
illegal activity. It is the use of illegal gam-
bling revenues to promote fraudulent stock
deals. I will not weary the House with the
complicated details of any particular case.
Instead I would simply cite some cases of
record in which evidence of syndicate money
has been found.
There was the case some two years ago of
Shoreland Mines Limited, a dormant Toronto
firm. There was the case of Manor Securi-
ties Limited in the Maritimes. There was
the investigation and report of the acting
administrator of The Securities Fraud Pre-
vention Act in New Brunswick last year into
the activities of Canam Investments Limited,
and of a number of related companies and
individuals. This investigation found links
with racketeers in Toronto and New York.
If time permitted I could show the House
an association between some of these rack-
eteers and some of the professional gamblers
I have named earlier in my remarks. I have
cited the shakedown and attempted shake-
down of certain stockbrokers. It is no great
secret, Mr. Speaker, that the culprit here,
certainly one of the culprits, was Johnny
Papalia. It is no great secret that the stock-
brokers concerned were really so-called
stockateers, the high pressure brokers and
dealers who live on the fringes of securities
law. At least two of the men coerced by
Papalia were frequent visitors at the Centre
Road veterans club.
I had occasion to mention Eric Cradock
and J. B. Ryan, the operators of the James
Bay goose club. They are associated in
Cradock Holdings Limited, Toronto, and
both have poor records, to say the least,
with the Ontario securities commission.
Cradock offices were once used by Jack
Weaver and Fred Gabourie for a big back-
end booking operation.
I can cite the case of Jaylac Mines Limited,
a stock promotion which resulted this month
in the cancellation by the Ontario securities
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
109
commission of the registration of two To-
ronto stock dealers. The commission identi-
fied one Ivan Gordon as a representative of
Jaylac interests who disappeared in 1960
following the removal and probable disap-
pearance of all Jaylac's liquidated assets.
Here again a detailed examination would
reveal an association with ventures in which
professional gamblers were and may still be
involved.
If for no other reason, Mr. Speaker, a
Royal commission is necessary to discover
and expose the use of illegal gambling
revenues in the participation of professional
gamblers and their associates in fraudulent
stock promotions.
I now come, Mr. Speaker, to the fifth and
final question. The New York crime com-
mission found that one of the characteris-
tics of organized crime is its penetration into
legitimate business. What evidence is there
that this has happened in Ontario? I could
give the House a number of references but
I will detail only one because it is a classic
example of what has happened and what can
happen.
On June 27, this year the chief of police
of Metropolitan Toronto told a meeting of
law enforcement officers in Buffalo that a
questionable group of men were operating
an airline service from Toronto to the United
States and the Caribbean area. Mr. Mackey
said that although no criminal activity had
been discovered the airline would be watched
closely because of the ease with which private
aircraft can cross international borders and
evade customs inspections and regulations.
Mr. Speaker, the name of that airline is
Airgo Limited and it was run for a con-
siderable period of time by Vincent Feeley
and Joseph McDermott. Airgo Limited was
incorporated by federal charter on August 11,
1958. The original owners were a Toronto
lawyer and his brother-in-law who allegedly
were interested in operating a rent-a-plane
service at Toronto Island airport.
On July 3, 1959, the Air Transport Board
issued a licence authorizing Airgo Limited to
operate a flying training school and a com-
mercial passenger and freight service in
Canada. This licence became effective when
the federal Department of Transport issued
an operating certificate on August 21, 1959.
On September 15, 1959, the Air Transport
Board issued another licence to Airgo Limited
authorizing it to make flights to and from
the United States. This became effective
when the federal transport department issued
an operating certificate on October 13, 1959.
Mr. Speaker, on October 19, 1959, six days
after Airgo Limited was in business to make
flights to the United States, the owners sold
the airHne to two Toronto lawyers who said
they were acting for undisclosed principals.
Those lawyers were David Humphrey and
Hugh Locke of the firm of Humphrey &
Locke. The deal was consummated in the
lobby of a downtown Toronto bank when
Mr. Locke handed over a large sum of cash
money to one of the original owners.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of their investi-
gation of Feeley and McDermott on other
matters the police executed a search warrant
for the law offices of Humphrey & Locke,
and it is no great secret that among the
other documents seized was a record of
meetings in those offices concerning Airgo
business. This record shows that those
present at the meeting were Hugh Locke
and his accountant, Charles Philips, the
operations manager of the airline and Vincent
Feeley. The Aviation Directory of Canada,
a private publication which compiled its
listings on the basis of information supplied
by the airlines themselves, also listed David
Humphrey as vice-president and Hugh Locke
as secretary of Airgo Limited for 1960 and
1961.
Nor is it any great secret, Mr. Speaker,
that police seized a document in the law
offices of Humphrey & Locke drawn up in
May of 1960. This document is a conditional
sales document whereby David Humphrey,
Hugh Locke, Joseph McDermott and Peter
Fielding agreed to sell Airgo Limited to
Robert S. Wong, subject to the approval of
the Air Transport Board and other conditions.
Peter Fielding is an alias used by Vincent
Feeley and Robert S. Wong is a manager at
Toronto Island airport. The deal apparently
fell through but the document is at least
indicative of the substantial financial interest
in Airgo Limited by Vincent Feeley and
Joseph McDermott.
I can also tell the House that Feeley and
McDermott were frequently seen about Airgo's
offices at Toronto Island airport, and that they
identified themselves to the employees as the
owners and operators of Airgo Limited.
Further I can say that George Reid, the
trusted lieutenant of Feeley and McDermott
in gambling club operations, was placed on
the Airgo payroll after the Centre Road
veterans club closed down.
Joseph McDermott took a chattel mortgage
for $20,000 on certain aircraft when Airgo
Limited was sold to the present owners some
time last winter. Yet despite all this evidence
of participation by Feeley and McDermott
in the ownership and control of Airgo Limited
110
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for a period of over one year there is no
record with either the Air Transport Board
or the federal Department of Transport of
the sale of the airline from the original
owners in October of 1959.
In August of 1960, and I point out, Mr.
Speaker, that this would be shortly after
Robert Wright was arrested and the gamblers
had discovered the police had had an under-
cover agent in their midst, the Air Transjxjrt
Board did receive a vague letter from
Humphrey & Locke indicating there had been
a transfer of ownership, not to Feeley and
McDermott, but to the current owners.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, a serious evasion of
law occurred in this case. Federal regulations
provide that the air transport board must be
informed of any sale or transfer of stock
exceeding five per cent of the total stock, and
must approve such sale or transfer. Failure
to do so can mean cancellation of the airUne's
licence and legal prosecution. Clearly, the
regulations were violated in this case and
there can be little doubt the law was evaded
in order to conceal Feeley and McDermott's
participation in Airgo Limited.
I shall say nothing, Mr. Speaker, about why
they wanted to run an airline, nor shall I say
anything about the present ownership of
Airgo Limited. Chief Mackey's statement
can speak for itself. But I do suggest most
strongly, Mr. Speaker, that here again is the
type of illegal activity requiring investigation
by a Royal commission.
Mr. Speaker, this speech has been long and
full of detail. The material is complex and
technical. For those reasons it presents a
special difficulty for the hon. members of
the House to grasp all its meaning readily and
easily. I am also aware that much of the
material is sensitive in nature. However, I
want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I have
made no charges of culpable wrongdoing
against any person. I have not made and I do
not now make any judgment about the legal
or moral guilt of any man. What I have done
is to present in this House a number of facts
which I am convinced demonstrates that
organized crime exists in Ontario and requires
investigation.
I believe that the only satisfactory investi-
gation can be that of a Royal commission.
The characteristics of organized crime which
were demonstrated by the New York State
crime commission are all manifest in Ontario.
I think it is obvious that an investigation of
organized crime by the department of the
hon. Attorney-General would be in the nature
of an internal house cleaning.
That is needed, but it is not su£Bcient. I
think it is obvious that a Royal comniission,
independent of government, is the only
adequate device for investigating organized
crime.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Royal
commission should be headed by a Justice of
the Supreme Court of Ontario. He should
be aided by a counsel who will be empowered
and directed to investigate all aspects of the
problem of organized crime. The commis-
sion's terms of reference should require
investigation into the extent of organized
crime in Ontario; the link between profes-
sional gamblers and their counterparts and
associates in the United States; the records
of the department of the hon. Provincial
Secretary in its handling of social club
charters; the failure of the department of the
hon. Attorney-General to carry out govern-
ment policy and to enforce the laws relating
to gambling; the Hnk between illegal gam-
bling and other criminal activity; especially
links with trafficking in narcotics; the penetra-
tion of legitimate business by professional
gamblers; tlie contamination of our processes
of law enforcement by attempts to influence
courts and their operation; and finally the
use of legal fronts for illegal activities.
The commissioner and chief counsel should
be assisted by adequate sta£F of trained
investigators. The commissioner should have
the power to subpoena witnesses and to hear
their testimony under oath and if necessary
at times in camera. The commission should
also be empowered to hold public hearings
if deemed advisable as a means of bringing
home to the general public the nature and
scope of the menace which organized crime
presents. The commission should be required
to prepare a report of its findings for presenta-
tion to this House.
Mr. Speaker, I and my party will not be
satisfied with anything less than the type of
commission and inquiry which I have out-
lined. 1 appeal directly to the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts), to appoint such a
commission and to give it terms of reference
that encompass the matters I have enumer-
ated. I wish to assure him and all the hon.
members of the House that if the present
government does not undertake to appoint
such a commission and to direct it to under-
take such an inquiry, the next Liberal govern-
ment will do so at the earliest opportunity.
Applause.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, that con-
cludes the portion of the address related to
crime. 1 have but a few additional comments.
NOVEMBER 29, 1961
111
and at your instruction I will adjourn the
debate now to continue later, or, if you
prefer, I will continue now and conclude all
my address.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the hon. leader
of the Opposition would he take very long
to finish. If the hon. members agree for him
to go ahead, why-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
note that it is now six of the clock-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: It is quite obvious that the
hon. member was quite prepared to finish his
address—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Leave
it up to the hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: —however, the hon. Prime
Minister has mentioned—
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I said at the
outset of my address this afternoon that it
was my intention to concentrate on the sub-
ject of crime. Mr. Speaker, no address that
I have ever prepared has given me more con-
cern, no address has been more difficult to
present and I assure you, in summary, that I
tried to do so as an hon. member of this
Legislature.
I want to enforce and to reinforce the
observation that I made several times, that
I feel a public responsibility to say the things
that I said. And I feel sufficiently strongly
about it, Mr. Speaker, that I am prepared
to vacate the privileges that are normally
given to an hon. member in an address of this
sort.
However, now, Mr. Speaker, I refer to other
matters, other than crime. And I can, very
briefly, I think, assist all hon. members of
this House by referring very briefly to the
other subjects that I intended to talk about,
subjects that subsequent debates will permit
of great opportunity for explanation and
development.
It is my intention, therefore, at this time to
refer only briefly to given positions I and my
party have taken in respect to several prob-
lems in Ontario.
I have suggested on a number of occasions,
Mr. Speaker, that the problem of sales tax, as
we have it in Ontario, has resulted from a
failure on the part of the government over
a long period of time to accurately assess the
financial conditions of the province. I feel
very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that even now
with the implementation of the sales tax
what has happened is that the tax has been
implemented without due consideration and
without due timing. I feel that the oppor-
tunity is present, even now, to exempt all
purchases up to $25 and to lose only a small
portion of the total revenue that is available
by the imposition of this tax.
I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, about
the matter of agriculture and I would say
that the big duty and responsibility of this
government is to assure the farmers of tliis
province— particularly the man who farms 100
acres, the family farm— give him the assur-
ance that he is going to be given the oppor-
tunity to carry on that farm. His net income
today is less than it has been ever since
Confederation. The simple fact, Mr. Speaker,
is that he does not have any assurance today
that this government will co-operate with
him in building co-operatives and otherwise
assisting him technologically, scientifically,
financially and co-operatively to assure tliat
he can compete with the large competitors
that are growing up to compete with the
small farmer.
I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, about
the matter of the lack of leadership of the
government in respect to municipal refinan-
cing, or at least the re-organization of muni-
cipal financing and the opportunity, Mr.
Speaker, of municipalities to finance their
responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask your permission
now to adjourn because I feel that I can in
five or ten minutes tomorrow express myself
more effectively and more directly and more
cogently than I will. I assure you that with
no more than five or ten minutes I will read
the amendments that I have prepared to
the Address to the Throne. Therefore I
would hke to adjourn the debate.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wintermeyer moves the
adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure
of the House the motion carry?
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We will resume the de-
bate tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.05 o'clock p.m.
No. 7
ONTARIO
I^egisflature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Thursday, November 30, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q*C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 30; 1961
First report, standing committee on standing orders, Mr. Belisle 115
City of St. Catharines, bill respecting, Mr. Momingstar, first reading 116
County of Halton, bill respecting, Mr. Hall, first reading 116
City of Belleville, bill respecting, Mr. Sandercock, first reading 116
Young Men's-Young Women's Christian Association of Cornwall, bill respecting, Mr.
Manley, first reading 116
Nepean township high school district board and Ottawa collegiate institute board, bill
respecting, Mr. Morrow, first reading 116
Township of Nepean. bill respecting, Mr. Morrow, first reading 116
Village of Erie Beach, bill respecting, Mr. Spence, first reading 116
Queen Elizabeth Hospital, bill respecting, Mr. Trotter, first reading 116
Greater Ottawa Community Chest, bill respecting, Mr. Thomas, first reading 116
Village of Markham, bill respecting, Mr. Mackenzie, first reading 116
Board of trustees of the Roman Catholic separate schools of the city of Ottawa, bill
respecting, Mr. McNeil, first reading 116
Ontario Co-operative Credit Society, bill respecting, Mr. Boyer, first reading 116
City of Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, first reading 116
Township of Wicksteed, bill respecting, Mr. Sutton, first reading 116
Public Health Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 117
Department of Economics and Federal and Provincial Relations and The Department
of Commerce and Development, bill to amalgamate, Mr. Macaulay, second reading 118
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Wintermeyer, Mr.
Robarts, Mr. MacDonald 124
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. MacDonald, agreed to 144
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 144
115
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests students from the follow-
ing schools: in the east gallery Gulf stream
Road Public School, Toronto and in the west
gallery McArthur Public School, St. Cath-
arines.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. R. Belisle from
the standing committee on standing orders
presents the committee's first report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee has carefully examined the
following petitions and finds the notices, as
published in each case, sufficient:
Of the corporation of Greater Oshawa
Community Chest praying that an Act may
pass authorizing it to give notice of meetings
by publishing such notice in a newspaper.
Of the corporation of the village of Erie
Beach praying that an Act may pass allowing
it to be represented on the county council of
the county of Kent.
Of the corporation of the city of Belleville
praying that an Act may pass amending The
City of Belleville Act, 1948, to permit monies
held by the board of governors of the Belle-
ville General Hospital to be kept in a trust
company registered under The Loan and
Trust Corporations Act, as well as in a
chartered bank.
Of the corporation of the city of Toronto
praying that an Act may pass authorizing
insurance for members of city council travel-
ling on business of the corporation; and for
other purposes.
Of the corporation of the village of Mark-
ham praying that an Act may pass confirming
an agreement for the construction of a com-
munity centre building and arena, confirming
Thursday, November 30, 1961
a by-law relating thereto and authorizing the
issue of debentures therefor.
Of the corporation of the county of Halton
praying that an Act may pass authorizing it to
receive from persons, or for the credit of
persons admitted to homes for the aged, etc.;
real and personal property and to administer
such property.
Of the corporation of the city of St.
Catharines praying that an Act may pass
establishing the St. Catharines Transit Com-
mission; and for other purposes.
Of the corporation of the township of
Nepean praying that an Act may pass con-
firming debenture by-laws for school con-
struction.
Of Nepean Township High School District
Board and Collegiate Institute Board of
Ottawa praying that an Act may pass con-
firming an agreement for the erection in the
township of Nepean, by the said township
board, of secondary schools to be operated
by the said Ottawa board.
Of the board of trustees of the Roman
Catholic separate schools for the city of
Ottawa praying that an Act may pass raising
the membership of the board from nine to
ten.
Of the corporation of the Young Men's-
Young Women's Christian Association of
Cornwall praying that an Act may pass
exempting its real property from municipal
taxation except for local improvements.
Of the corporation of the township of
Wicksteed authorizing certain school con-
struction and debentures therefor.
Of the corporation of the Queen Elizabeth
Hospital for Incurables, Toronto, praying that
an Act may pass changing its name to the
Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Toronto.
Of the corporation of Ontario Co-operative
Credit Society praying that an Act may
pass increasing the authorized capital of the
society.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills. i
116
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE CITY OF ST. CATHARINES ACT
Mr. E. P. Momingstar (Welland) moves
first reading of bill intituled An Act Respect-
ing the City of St. Catharines.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE COUNTY OF HALTON ACT
Mr. S. L. Hall (Halton) moves first reading
of bill intituled An Act Respecting the
County of Halton.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE CITY OF BELLEVILLE ACT
Mr. E. Sandercock (Hastings West) moves
first reading of bill intituled An Act Respect-
ing the City of Belleville.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE Y.M.CA.-Y.W.C.A. OF CORNWALL
ACT
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont) moves first read-
ing of bill intituled An Act Respecting the
Young Men's- Young Women's Christian Asso-
ciation of Cornwall.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE NEPEAN TOWNSHIP SCHOOL
AND OTTAWA COLLEGIATE ACT
Mr. D. Morrow (Ottawa West), in the
absence of Mr. W. E. Johnston (Carleton),
moves first reading of bill intituled An Act
Respecting Nepean Township High School
District Board and Ottawa Collegiate In-
stitute Board.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE TOWNSHIP OF NEPEAN ACT
Mr. Morrow, in the absence of Mr. W. E.
Johnston moves first reading of bill intituled
An Act Respecting the Township of Nepean.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE VILLAGE OF ERIE BEACH ACT
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East) moves first
reading of bill intituled An Act Respecting
the Village of Erie Beach.
THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL
ACT
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale) moves first read-
ing of bill intituled An Act Respecting the
Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE OSHAWA COMMUNITY CHEST
ACT
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa) moves first
reading of bill intituled An Act Respecting
Greater Oshawa Community Chest.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE VILLAGE OF MARKHAM ACT
Mr. A. A. Mackenzie (York North) moves
first reading of bill intituled An Act Respect-
ing the Village of Markham.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE
SCHOOLS OF OTTAWA ACT
Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin) in the absence
of Mr. J. Morin (Ottawa East), moves first
reading of bill intituled An Act Respecting the
Board of Trustees of the Roman CathoUc
Separate Schools of the City of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE ONTARIO CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT
SOCIETY ACT
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka), in the absence
of Mr. H. E. Beckett (York East), moves first
reading of bill intituled An Act Respecting
Ontario Co-operative Credit Society.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE CITY OF TORONTO ACT
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled An Act Respecting
the City of Toronto.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE TOWNSHIP OF WICKSTEED ACT
Mr. R. E. Sutton (York-Scarborough), in
the absence of Mr. C. H. Lyons (Sault Ste.
Marie), moves first reading of bill intituled
An Act Respecting the Township of Wick-
steed.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
117
THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Amend The PubUc
Health Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day, I would like to draw to the attention of
the hon. members a very important occasion.
I would be remiss, this being St. Andrew's
Day, if I were not to rise in this House and
pay my annual tribute to our fine citizens of
Scottish ancestry. This great country and
province owe a great debt of gratitude to the
Scots for the very large part they played in
the pioneering of Canada and Ontario. In-
deed our gratitude extends to the part they
play in our society today, in politics, educa-
tion, the sciences and the arts— in fact, in
every facet of our community.
The Scottish contribution is one of which
they may very well be proud.
I am proud of the great cosmopolitan con-
stituency which I represent. Within those
boundaries are many thousands of people of
practically every race and nationality in the
world and I am proud also of the fact that
the riding is named after that great patron
saint of the Scots, St. Andrew.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of the con-
stituents of St. Andrew, I extend to the
citizens of Scottish ancestry in Ontario greet-
ings and best wishes, "lang may their lums
reek."
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question which I address to the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan).
The question is: The Ontario Retail Sales
Act permits tax rebate on railway rolling stock
including streetcars and subway cars. Has the
hon. Minister given any consideration to ex-
tending this tax rebate provision to buses pur-
chased by municipalities for public transit
services?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. mem-
ber for having given me notice of this ques-
tion. I may say that railway rolling stock
was exempted because railways have to pay
tax on the tangible materials used in the
construction and maintenance of the roadbed
on which the rolling stock operates. This
exemption parallels similar exemptions in
every other retail sales tax Act in force in
Canada.
In the circumstances no consideration is
being given to extending the exemption to
buses purchased by municipaHties for public
transit service; one reason being that transport
trucks and buses, whether privately or muni-
cipally owned, operate on roadbeds the
construction and maintenence of which is
entirely paid for by the province, if it is a
provincial highway, and substantially paid
for if it is a roadbed belonging to a munici-
pality.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, generally there
is some supplementary question, but I have
no supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I
just might say that the municipality of
Brantford owns its transportation system and
this year they will have a $70,000 deficit
which the taxpayer will have to meet.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
should like to direct a question to the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) in his capacity
as hon. Minister of Education.
Referring once again to the 11 students
who are still absent from classes at the
C. B. Stirling School in Hamilton, the hon.
Minister of Municipal AflFairs (Mr. Cass)
mentioned the other day that there was no
application pending before the Ontario
Municipal Board, that the hon. Minister did
not believe that the board should deal with
the matter as it was obviously the responsi-
bility of local education authorities and a
local council. Could the hon. Prime Minis-
ter in his capacity as hon. Minister of Edu-
cation give the assurance that he will take
immediate action to see that this dispute is
resolved either by the municipal board, local
education authorities, council or someone,
in order that the students might not suffer
as a result of their abstention from classes?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, that is not the question in the
form which it was handed to me.
Mr. Speaker: I asked the member to
shorten the question, Mr. Prime Minister.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, I will be strictly
co-operative and answer it in this form even
though I have not seen it in this manner.
In the first place, I am aware of the situa-
tion there and in regard to the meeting . . .
Perhaps I should say that to understand
the entire situation, there are two groups
of students involved in this problem. In
the first place there was a group for which
the municipal board did order transporta-
tion to be provided. That order was made
as part of an annexation order. In other
words, the whole matter was considered
118
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
when the municipal board was considering
the annexation proceedings and as part of
the annexation settlement an order was so
made.
Then there was a subsequent annexation
by the city of Hamilton and it is with this
group that the present question arises.
Originally, there were some 40 children
involved and now it is down to 11 children
coming from four families. As far as The
Department of Education is concerned we
have no power whatsoever to force any local
school board to provide transportation. The
relevant section of the educational statute,
which is section 37 of The Schools Admin-
istration Act, provides that a board may pro-
vide transportation. In any event, if the
board decides so to do, under certain circum-
stances we pay grants towards the cost of
that transportation; but as a department we
have no power to order any board to pro-
vide transportation and this is a matter that
is left entirely to the local school board.
As far as the affairs in front of the muni-
cipal board are concerned, apparently a meet-
ing was set up between the city council, the
board of education and the parents in front
of the municipal board. This meeting was
called in Toronto for October 13 and Mr.
Kennedy, the chairman of the municipal
board, I believe arranged the meeting. But
at the time the meeting was held he was not
available because he was on a meeting in
another city and therefore Mr. Jamieson, who
is a member of the municipal board, presided
at this hearing.
At this meeting the city of Hamilton people
turned up, as I understand it, the board of
education people turned up from Hamilton,
but nobody turned up from the parents group
or representing the parents, and thus it was
impossible to have a meeting and to discuss
the matter.
The only way in which the municipal board
could enter this dispute at this stage of the
game would be if they were to re-open
annexation hearings which are now some two
years old. However, I am told that if an
application is filed properly the Ontario Muni-
cipal Board would be prepared to consider
the application— if it were properly filed. But
as far as this meeting that was referred to in
the question that I have here, the parents of
the children involved did not appear at the
meeting that was arranged.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, might I
ask tlie hon. Minister in connection with this
matter— is his department not concerned with
the fact that these children are presently being
deprived— perhaps I should use a better choice
of words— being left without an education as
a result of this dispute? Is there nothing that
can be done from The Department of Educa-
tion level which would speed this thing to a
settlement? These children are staying home
from classes in the interim period.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I feel as
keenly about the children as the hon. mem-
ber, but the point simply is this, that in the
legal arrangements of our school system The
Department of Education has no power. This
is a matter over which the local board has
complete control.
Their position, as I understand it, is that
they could establish a precedent here. They
provide no transportation any place in the
city and if they were to provide transporta-
tion here it might lead them into all sorts of
other things about which the hon. member
and I really know nothing, because we do not
know the internal afiPairs of that board. I am
afraid as far as the department is concerned—
we would be prepared to mediate the dispute
if that were possible, if there was anything
we could do in that field— there is no concrete
action that we can take because we have no
power.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
AN ACT TO AMALGAMATE
DEPARTMENTS
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources) moves second reading of Bill No.
5, An Act to amalgamate The Department of
Economics and Federal and Provincial Rela-
tions and The Department of Commerce
and Development.
Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?
Carried.
Mr. K. Bryden fWoodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make some comments on this
bill at this time. I had thought that perhaps
the hon. Minister of Energy Resources (Mr.
Macaulay) would say something in moving his
motion but perhaps he considers that his
comments on the first reading adequately
introduced the bill to the Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, when this bill is considered in
relation to the comment made about it in
the Speech from the Throne, it becomes
apparent that it is part of the process whereby
the government hopes to evolve what it des-
cribes in the Throne Speech as a comprehen-
sive plan. Though the government has not
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
119
divulged details about what it has in mind
when it refers to a comprehensive plan, it is
refreshing to note that it is at least talking
about economic planning and is setting up
some elements of the machinery through
which such planning might be undertaken.
One thing that interests me, Mr. Speaker, is
the way iil which the phrase "economic plan-
ning" which even two or three years ago was
regarded almost as a dirty word, has now
become an accepted part of the vocabularies
of business men, newspaper editors and even
the politicians. In fact, even the Liberal
Party, which is noted for its old-fashioned,
not to say obscurantist, approach to economic
problems, finds it necessary nowadays to talk
about planning.
Admittedly, most of the statements that
Liberal spokesmen make indicate that they
have at best only a vague idea of what plan-
ning is all about. For example, they almost
always say that though they are in favour of
planning they are also in favour of doing busi-
ness at the same old stand, and, Mr. Speaker,
those two things are manifestly incompatible.
If business is to be carried on in the same
way it has always been carried on then, ob-
viously, there is no change and we will have
no more economic planning than we had
under previous Liberal administrations.
It does not follow from this, of course, Mr.
Speaker, that under proper planning there
will not be opportunity for private initiative
and private resourcefulness. On the contrary,
in my opinion these opportunities will be
greatly increased because the basic objective
of planning, as I see it, or one of the basic
objectives, is to create continuous economic
growth which increases economic opportunity.
However, it is sheer nonsense to suggest
that business operations would not be affected
if we undertake a programme of planning.
Business will have to be carried on within an
overall framework and will have to be
adapted and accommodate itself to the basic
plan.
Now, taking the government proposal as
it stands before us in this bill— admittedly the
bill in itself is only a skeleton, but I am try-
ing to take it in the larger context in which
it has been placed in the Speech from the
Throne. I quite hope, Mr. Speaker, that
there is no intention on the part of the govern-
ment, or no notion on the part of the govern-
ment, that planning can properly be carried
on through a single department.
I suggest that that delusion leads to one
of two things, either to ineffectuality— which
was the situation with the so-called Depart-
ment of Planning and Development, which
we had up until a year or two ago when its
name was changed— leads either to ineffec-
tuality or else the creation of an economic
czardom which is above the government even
though it might ostensibly be part of it.
As I see it, in a democratic system of
government, planning is the responsibility of
the whole government and not of an indivi-
dual department. It is the government's
function to set over-all economic objectives,
over-all goals within its particular jurisdiction
and to indicate at least the general lines by
which it expects these goals to be achieved.
Now, within a framework of that kind, Mr.
Speaker, I can see a vital role to be played
by a department of the nature envisaged in
this bill. It can provide the government with
continuous information—
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources ) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of
order, sir. This bill, referred to as Bill
No. 5 in our books, does not mention the
word planning. The bill is designed to com-
bine the purposes of both of the departments
in one department; there has been no suggest-
tion of planning made in this bill-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Hear,
hear. That is the problem.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: And this is perfectly
fine, when the hon. member wants to speak
about planning he is free to do so when he
speaks on the Speech from the Throne. This
bill actually is an administrative bill to com-
bine two departments under one head.
Mr. Bryden: Speaking to the point of order,
Mr. Speaker, it is a pity the hon. Minister of
Energy Resources ( Mr. Macaulay ) had not
read what was stated about his bill in the
Speech from the Throne. On page four of
the Speech from the Throne, in the first
column, about a third of the way down the
column, the Speech states:
A comprehensive plan is being evolved
to assist the economy in achieving a satis-
factory rate of economic growth.
Which I hope is true. And then there
are further comments on that point within
that paragraph, and then in the next para-
graph, and surely elaborating upon what was
said in this paragraph about planning:
In addition, legislation will be introduced
to merge The Department of Economics and
The Department of Commerce and
Development under the title of The Depart-
ment of Economics and Development.
120
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
And so on. Surely that means, at least if
one can assume that the government knows
what it is doing at all, it follows this is an
agency through which, or one of the agencies
through which, they hope to develop the
comprehensive plan to which they referred in
the Speech from the Throne.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Speaker, on the
point of order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
It is quite obvious that we must hmit dis-
cussion to bills before the House and this bill
does not deal with plaiming. Although plan-
ning may have been mentioned in the Speech
from the Throne, and if it was, it may be
introduced by way of a bill at a later date;
if it was mentioned in the Speech from the
Throne the matter of plaiming can be better
discussed in the debate on the Speech from
the Throne.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes
to set up a new department by the amalgama-
tion of two existing departments. The hon.
Minister has not indicated whether he has
any function in mind for the department or
not but I would like to take advantage of the
opportunity afforded by the debate on the
principle of this bill to indicate some functions
that I think this department ought to be
undertaking. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is
within the terms of reference of the bill. The
bill is to create a department; I would like
to discuss the functions of the department
in so far as one can discern them from the
very limited information the hon. Minister
has seen fit to supply to the House.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Speaker, on the
second point of order, the proper functions of
the bill, or the functions of the department,
should be determined when we come to deal
with the specific phraseology of the bill
itself, that is in committee of the whole House.
The only thing we are debating today is the
principle of should these two departments be
joined, this is the principle before the House.
Mr. Bryden: Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is a
quibble beyond all comprehension. The de-
partment is created in order to perform
certain jobs and I presume, I do not know
why else it would be created, its functions
relate directly to the principle of the bill.
The bill has no purpose at all unless the
department is to have some functions; and,
as I say, I do not know what functions the
hon. Minister had in mind. I had hoped that
he had some intelligent ones in mind but—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Speaker, on the
point of order, I would ask you to rule, sir,
if you would, on this in one way or the
other. This bill is quite clearly what it says
it is— an amalgamation of two departments.
When both of those departments were estab-
lished their functions were argued out in this
House and were established and all tliis is
going to do is put both of those functions
under one department; this has already been
debated. Now, if the hon. member wants to
argue about the phraseology, it is well known
to be a rule of this House that the time to
do it is in the committee of the whole.
Mr. Bryden: The matter on which I am
least interested in arguing, Mr. Speaker, is
not the phraseology. I am, however, inter-
ested in arguing about the principle involved
in the bill and this is what I have been
trying to do. If the hon. Minister would give
me an unobstructed opportunity I could
complete my remarks in relatively short
order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Since the hon. Min-
ister asked for a ruling I would say at the
present time the member would be allowed
to proceed but to confine his remarks to the
matter of the amalgamation of the depart-
ments.
Mr. Bryden: Well, it has been my sugges-
tion to you, sir, that the amalgamation of the
departments raises the whole question of the
functions of the department. That seems to
me to be clear and that is what I would like
to discuss.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is not the cre-
ation of a new department but it is the
amalgamation of two existing departments.
Mr. MacDonald: Sheer obstructionism!
What is the hon. Minister afraid of, anyway?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: There is a proper
place to discuss this.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Speaker will
decide, as he already mentioned, when the
hon. member is completely out of order. At
the present time the member will proceed.
Mr. Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I have been trying to indicate, Mr.
Speaker, is that in my opinion this department
which is now being created through the amal-
gamation of two other, and not very ade-
quate departments, can play a vital role in
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
121
assisting the government in achieving an
objective which it set forth in the Speech from
the Throne. Whether or not it genuinely ad-
heres to that objective I do not know, but at
least this department could assist in achieving
it by providing it with information on a con-
tinuous basis to assist it in planning if it had
that in mind. I thought this department
would be an obvious one to assist it also in
giving it advice in how to adapt its plans to
changing conditions.
I would also like to suggest, Mr. Speaker,
that the department could provide a great
service to the government by clearing away
the nineteenth-century mythology which is
so prevalent in Canada today and which
stands in the way of sound efforts to develop
plans at the government level. I would like
to refer very briefly to two matters only on
which I think this department could provide
the government with useful information and
which might help the government to clarify its
thinking— and obviously that is a task that
seriously needs doing just on the basis of the
interjections of the hon. Minister at this point.
There are two myths in particular which I
think stand in the way of developing economic
growth in this country on a continuous basis
and one is the myth that growth is inhibited
by excessive government spending. A com-
parison of Canadian experience with the
experience of other advanced countries shows
just how Httle sense there is in this particular
myth. The National Institute of Economic
and Social Research of Great Britain has
pubhshed authoritative figures on comparative
rates of growth in different countries and it
has pubhshed these figures in its Economic
Review of July, 1961. This Review indicates
that the rates of growth of national product
per man-year in countries other than those
behind the Iron Curtain-
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the member
must confine his remarks to the bill— I do not
think we have to get behind the Iron Curtain
on this one. The point is that the bill actually
deals with the amalgamation of departments
and I think we should confine remarks to
either the amalgamation or the non-amalga-
mation of the departments.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Speaker, I still
submit to you that the functions of the
department and some of the contributions
that it might be able to make to the develop-
ment of economic policy in this country or
this province, which surely is its major func-
tion, are matters that would properly be dis-
cussed. I think some of these points that I
am trying to raise now would be of value to
the government and to the department. As
hon. members know, my prime motive is
always to attempt to assist the government
and if I can suggest that the new department
can assist it in clearing away some of the
delusions under which it at present suffers,
I think that would be a useful contribution
to this debate.
I was referring to certain tables in the
economic review of the national institute
which indicates that in the period 1954 to
1959 Canada ranked tenth in terms of
economic growth among the countries con-
sidered and ahead of it were such countries-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member is stray-
ing far afield. I would point out to the
member and all members of the House that in
a technical way this bill is already carried. I
said "Shall the motion carry?"— no one rose
at that time, and I said "Carried." Technically
the bill is carried. So at this point I would
ask the member to possibly conclude his
remarks.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of
the fact that you have taken such a limited
view of the principle of the bill, I will defer
to your ruling but I would like to state that
I had hoped that the government had some-
thing a little more positive and dynamic in
the proposal it was placing before the House
than now appears. Apparently this depart-
ment is simply a consolidation of two depart-
ments, neither of which had any very effective
function to play within the government struc-
ture or contributed anything in particular to
the development of this province.
It had been my hope— especially when I
read the Speech from the Throne, which I
found at that point quite encouraging— it had
been my hope that the government had some
more dynamic pohcy in view. That the
amalgamation of these two departments and
their creation into a new and what I had
hoped — but apparently mistakenly — into a
better department, had indicated some dis-
position on the part of the government to try
to develop plans to restore economic growth
in the country and to create full employment.
Apparently that is not so. That is un-
fortunate. If this department is just to be the
sum of the two other departments, I am afraid
that it will make very little contribution to
development in this province.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, with respect to
the advisabihty of combining these two
departments, I would remind you, sir, that
my recollection is that when The Department
122
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Economics was created some few years
ago, it was suggested this new department,
The Department of Economics, would serve
as a fund of information for all the several
departments of government; The Departments
of Education, Highways, Planning and
Development and such-like.
Now, it may be that my presentation can
be speeded, Mr. Speaker, if I were to ask
the hon. Minister of Energy Resources (Mr.
Macaulay) whether The Department of
Economics will maintain the same relative
position with respect to the other departments
in the future as it has in the past. Will it
serve as a research branch for all departments
of government; and will it remain or is there
any expectation that it will ever btHX)me the
autonomous department that I once expressed
should be the case, where all hon. members
of the Legislature, for example, could go,
for assistance, for assistance in research, for
assistance in respect to statistical information
that might be helpful to individual hon.
members? I personally feel that there is a
lot to be said for an independent Department
of Economics that serves all departments and
serves, in effect, all hon. members of the
Legislature.
Now it may well be that the hon. Minister
has given this problem some considerable
thought and it may well be that there is an
answer to my question, enunciating what I
think are the advantages of an independent
Department of Economics. I would appreci-
ate the observations of the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say to the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer). The Department of Economics at
the moment is broken down into four main
branches, the finance branch; the econo-
mics and statistics branch; inter-governmen-
tal relations branch and general economics
branch. Each one of these branches has
its own specific responsibilities, but there is
an inter-relation between them all.
Now the question that the hon. leader
of the Opposition has asked is this: when
these are combined into a new department,
or combined or amalgamated into a depart-
ment, will this new department as it will
emerge continue to offer or offer in a more
accelerated way— whichever way one wants
to put it— whatever statistical information is
at hand? Will the hon. members be advised
of the kinds of studies that are being under-
taken so that they be kept appraised of some
of the major problems of the day and those
which we might anticipate will involve us
in the future, and the answer to that is
'Yes.
«\T »
I have in mind rather extensive re-organi-
zation for these departments, including The
Department of Energy Resources and I think,
frankly, the time at which I can best be
brought to task for either handling this well
or badly is when I present the estimates for
all of these departments. Now I submit
that traditionally that is the time, whether
the Minister is conducting the a£Fairs
of his department properly or whether he
is at large sufficiently or so forth, this is the
time I think to bring him to task and also
to make suggestions for progress and devel-
opment in the future.
This is where I think the hon. member for
Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) and the hon. leader
of the Opposition both might make reference
to these things. This will give me a couple
of months with which to bring together three
departments, to pre.sent to the House at that
time what planning we do have in mind,
how it can be done. There are a lot of people
to be approached. I would be happy to send
the hon. member a copy of the speech that
I gave to the trade conference here in
Toronto a couple of weeks ago which was
well received, I imderstand, by labour and
industry alike; and to give him some indica-
tion of the philosophy which is going to be
lx?hind this department. I think we can
accomplish a \'ery great thing. I just ask the
hon. members to gi\e me a few weeks and
a little less ado.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
that is as good a point to rise as any, to
pour a little oil on troubled waters when the
man who is used to pouring the oil around
here has gone elsewhere and is not here too
often.
I do not intend to give the dynamic hon.
Minister of Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay)
any abuse at all, but I hope, sir, he would
not consider it abu.se from me if I said, in
contradiction to my hon. friend from Wood-
bine (Mr. Bryden), that what more dynamic
person could he get to head up two depart-
ments, if not three. Before the government
finishes they may give him five or six. But
if I say that, sir, it is not through flattery,
the desire to flatter him, but to be realistic
about it.
Xovv, sir, the remark I did want to make
to him was this. As all hon. members will
know, this starts my third session and it
seems to me that for reasons of convenience,
perhaps from a pragmatic approach or perhaps
because the government is imbued with the
philosophy of empiricism, that every year,
every year a couple of depaitments are
combined. There does not seem to be any
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
123
overall philosophy or a great deal of thought,
for that matter, put into the conception of
the overall functioning of government.
Mr. Speaker, may I approach it this way
if what I have said to this point is unclear.
Last session we appointed a committee to
inquire into the organization of government
and I was privileged to serve on that com-
mittee, as well as the hon. member for Grey
South (Mr. Oliver), representing the party in
this part of the House. I do not recall, sir,
under the chairmanship of the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts), I do not recall ever
seeing the hon. Minister of Economic De-
velopment, the hon. Minister of Energy
Resources. We were never privileged, sir,
at any time to hear any brief from him or
any representations at any time.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That is quite incorrect.
The hon. gentleman and I had a conference
right after one of the meetings out in the
hall. Does the hon. member not remember
when he spoke to me about somebody up in
the north?
Mr. Sopha: Oh, I remember that well, I
remember that well.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This followed the
meeting the hon. member just said did not
take place.
Mr. Sopha: Oh, no. I had not yet com-
pleted my sentence, which would explain
the absence from the meeting which I
imagine did not take place.
Laughter and interjections.
Mr. Sopha: Now, sir, I am merely saying
this, and I can see now that I have to put
it in the clearest terms for my hon. friend
to understand and particularly the hon. Min-
ister without Portfolio (Mr. Grossman) the
liquor commissioner, whose thoughts no
doubt are consumed with that $400 million
business he is now running. But I say, sir,
that at that committee on the organization
of government we had no representations
about the necessity of this.
Last year, from the pragmatic approach,
we were talking a lot about federal-provincial
relations. That was in vogue. The then
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) had been
down in Ottawa unsuccessfully trying to break
loose the purse strings and bring something
back for this province, which he did not. So
then they obscured the real problem, or
sought to obscure it, by changing the name of
The Department of Economics; they changed
that to Econofnics and Federal and Provincial
Relations. Then at the same time they
changed the name of The Department of
Commerce and Development. I have to look
around to get the assurance of what I say is
correct, sir, from my hon. friends on my right
here, because if hon. members do not keep
a close eye they cannot keep up with what
the names of these departments are— or were.
This year it is going to become Economics
and Federal and Provincial Relations and
Department of Commerce and Development
to be called The Department of Economics
and Development. That is it, it says it right
in black and white there.
My complaint, sir, is that I think anyone,
almost anyone can see that this is the result
of a most makeshift approach. I think it
is fair to say, and one would not be accused
of using exaggerated language to say, they
do not know what they are doing. They do
not know what they are doing at any particu-
lar time. I would go a long way— I would
stop short, sir, of saying that this is the result
of stimulus given the government by any
particular individual who felt he did not
have enough to do and wanted a little more to
do— but I think, sir, that it shows, it demon-
strates this. That as a member of the com-
mittee I referred to earlier, it demonstrates
that the government itself does not have very
much faith in that committee, or at least it
would have apprised that committee before
this bill was introduced of what its intentions
were.
On the other hand, sir, I hope you will not
say that I am straying from the subject at
hand if I recall to your honour that we have
at various times in this House said that The
Department of Travel and Publicity should be
made a branch of The Department of Com-
merce and Development. I reiterate that, sir.
We have said that we do not see any justifi-
cation for a separate Department of Travel
and Publicity and perhaps— I do not know
whether I am going to vote for this bill or
not, I have not made up my mind whether to
vote for it or not— but before this House, sir,
is asked to finally pass upon it, perhaps the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)— the hon.
Prime Minister, sir, who I might say and I
wished to say earlier, seated as he is, is a
rose between two thorns— perhaps he will
consider, sir, taking into account our sugges-
tion that The Department of Travel and Pub-
licity be included in The Department of
Commerce and Development or made a
branch of The Department of Economics and
Development.
It would take, sir, a person who had a much
greater command of the English language
than your humble servant does, to then come
124
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
up with an appropriate name for a combina-
tion of these three departments. If I am not
mistaken the hon. Minister said a moment ago
that he is trying to mould into one whole three
departments already. I have added a fourth,
and to come up with a name for the four
departments. But I have long, sir, admired
the ingenuity of the hon. Minister of Energy
and Resources and I think by tomorrow he
could probably come up with something to
present to this House.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can
avoid being intoxicated with the exuberance
of my own verbosity like the last speaker,
but I do want to go back to one point that
he did touch on in that flurry of words and
that is the discussions on the principle in-
volved in this bill, related to these two depart-
ments, that emerged in the select committee
on government organization.
During the hearings of that committee it
was pointed out that at approximately the
level of 20 hon. Cabinet Ministers you be-
gin to move into an unworkable and un-
wieldy kind of situation. As a matter of fact,
in Great Britain when they moved beyond
that they then had to try to get some more
efiFective working arrangement by having an
inner cabinet and some people out of the
inner cabinet were just heads of departments.
Now, we have had some twenty-odd hon.
Ministers, at this breaking-oJBF point, for quite
some time and there has been great need for
re-organization. Mr. Speaker, the hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) made some
comment about this being a makeshift
approach. I think this comment would have
been very, very applicable in the original
development of these departments. This, I
think, was our problem. The economic de-
partment grew up like Topsy. Quite frankly,
I think it was an incorporation of a private
service for the last hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost), who later dignified it as a department
with an hon. Minister, I do not know that it
really ever deserved the status of a separate
ministry. I think it quite rightly belongs as
part of this new department.
We are making some progress, at least
theoretically, by bringing together depart-
ments that had some relationship to the same
general area of work of the government.
While we will have to bide our time to find
out what the dynamic hon. Minister does in
putting this department into operation, I
think at least this step in bringing these make-
shift arrangements together is a good one.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Motion agreed to.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, at the adjournment
yesterday I advised you that I would take
but a few minutes this afternoon and I in-
tend to do exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr.
Oliver, that the Motion for the Address in
Reply to the Speech of the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor, now before the House,
be amended by adding thereto the following
words:
But this House regrets:
1. That this government has failed de-
plorably to recognize the peril of the in-
roads of organized crime into the life of
Ontario, and has failed to protect the citi-
zens of this province from the activities of
the criminal and the anti-social.
2. That the government's bad manage-
ment of the province's finances resulted in
the imposition of a sales tax and that this
tax, ill-conceived and badly-timed, did pro-
duce a maximum of inconvenience to the
taxpayer and a maximum of irritation for
the retailer, when the plan calling for an
exemption of $25 would have been far
more efiFective.
3. That, as a result of the wasteful
extravagance, unplanned spending and in-
eflRciency of this government, notwith-
standing the imposition of a sales tax, the
public debt of this province has reached
unparalleled heights, and has thereby
placed an onerous mortgage on the future
citizens of this province.
4. That the government, which has a
responsibility to do everything in its power
to provide an opportunity for every citizen
to work, has failed to discharge this respon-
sibility, with the result that gross un-
employment debilitates the morale of the
people of this province and attacks the
stability of the economy, the community
and the family.
5. That the government has failed to
provide leadership in the solution of muni-
cipal financial problems by failing to insti-
tute a financial reform that would have as
its key feature reduction of the property
tax for education and assumption of a
greater share of the total cost of education
by the provincial government.
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
125
6. That in spite of the fact agriculture is
still tlie backbone of the economy of this
province, the economic position of the
farmer has deteriorated to a point where
his net income is the lowest in history.
This government has failed to provide
assurance to our sorely pressed farm com-
munity that government efforts will be
directed towards preservation of the family
farm as an efficient economic unit and that
farmers, working individually and co-oper-
atively with government help, will remain
in control of the production and prime
marketing of agricultural products.
7. That the lack of government leader-
ship in the field of labour-management re-
lations has brought its legislation into
disrepute and thereby caused confusion and
chaos in a vital area of our society and
economy where clarity and order are im-
perative for the public good.
8. That the government's rigid policies
towards the natural resource and manu-
facturing industries has failed to recognize
the vital role it can play in assisting these
industries to be competitive particularly
by making available its special services for
industrial expansion.
9. That the government has failed to
initiate reform in Ontario's liquor laws,
which, under its administration, have be-
come the most widely disregarded and most
thoroughly abused statutes in our province,
and thereby have promoted a disrespect
for law among our people.
10. That this government has failed to
recognize that it has an obligation, by
virtue of its jurisdiction over northern
Ontario, to encourage economic develop-
ment and habitation in the north.
11. That the government has failed its
responsibility as the parent of the Metro-
politan government of Toronto to improve
the structure of that government and
thereby provide for the persons in the
Metropolitan area equity in assessment and
taxation, greater balance in representation
and leadership in the Metropolitan council
that is responsible to the electorate.
12. That the government has failed to
indicate advances in policies and pro-
grammes in the fields of health and welfare.
Mr. Speaker, I so move.
Applause.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer) would permit a question?
With respect to the amendment he has just
brought in and the use therein of the phrase:
assumption of a greater share of the
total cost of education by the provincial
government.
Does that indicate that the Liberal Party
has departed from its declared policy of last
year that the government should assume the
whole cost of education in the province?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, do you
wish me to answer the question?
Mr. Speaker: The members have heard the
amendment and the amendment is now open
for discussion.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure
to be able to congratulate you upon your
unfailing courtesy and skill in dealing with
what are sometimes difficult moments in this
Legislature. Your kindness and impartial-
ity have earned for you, sir, the affection
and respect of members on all sides of the
House and I am happy to take this first for-
mal opportunity of expressing my apprecia-
tion and thanks to you.
I would like also to congratulate the
mover and the seconder of the reply to His
Honour's address. The hon. member for St.
George (Mr. Lawrence) departed from what
might be termed the traditional approach to
the House and I, for one, found it very
refreshing. This is, after all, a form of free
expression of opinion within the limits of
the rules of the House and I would hope
that every hon. Imember would feel free to
express his views upon the many contentious
issues of these days and times. After all,
Mr. Speaker, it is in this way that we will
have reflected in the deliberations of this
body the thoughts, the ideals and the hopes,
the opinions, the attitudes and aspirations
of the many and divergent groups in our
province who are represented by the mem-
bers sitting here.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratu-
late the hon. member for Renfrew North
(Mr. Hamilton) on his very clear exposition
of many of the problems facing the govern-
ment and the solutions which have been pro-
duced by my predecessor over the past feW
years.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the very
lengthy statement made by the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) in rela-
tion to law enforcement, gambling and crime
both organized and unorganized, I first of
all want to assert and to assure the people and
126
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this House that there is no matter which I
place higher than tlie administration of jus-
tice. This is one of our basic cornerstones
and it will be my objective to be sure that
our laws are administered with integrity, with
fairness, with vigour, and with justice.
I can assure hon. members that under my
regime no crimesters or racketeers from other
lands or from our own land will be allowed
to operate with impunity. If such exist, I
can assure hon. members that they will be
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It will also be my objective that the admin-
istration of justice and the operation of our
law-enforcement agencies such as our police
forces, will be operated with integrity and on
the highest plane for both justice and effi-
ciency. That is my objective and that is my
pledge to the people of this province.
I assumed office on November 8, and it will
be readily understood that there are very many
problems to which I have been able to give
only passing consideration. The subject matter
of the speech of the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition, of course, has been current for some
time past and therefore I have endeavoured
to look into the facts as they are in the hands
of the law-enforcement agencies, in a general
way. At the moment I can only say that the
statement which has been made by the hon.
leader of the Opposition does not seem to dis-
cuss anything which the law-enforcement
agencies and the provincial police and other
police forces have not themselves uncovered
and which are not already known in detail by
the department and in a number of cases are
the subject of prosecution at this moment.
Many of these matters are before the court
of the land at the present time.
As to the ways and means by which the
investigation of our law-enforcement agencies
have come into the hands of others, including
the hon. leader of the Opposition, this is some-
thing to which I will refer later.
I do not propose to say more than that
from the information I have been able to per-
use in the days before this session, and com-
paring the same mentally with what the hon.
leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the
information appears to come very largely,
if not entirely, from police investigational
sources. Much of it also is a re-statement of
what has been said and adduced by the
Crown at the instance of the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts), in cases which are
already being prosecuted.
Concerning the statement made by the hon.
leader of the Opposition, I am personally and
under my direction having a complete analysis
of that statement made. I shall have the
same compared with action which has been
taken in and out of the courts. On this
personal investigation and examination I will
make my judgment, which I shall recommend
to the government as to whatever course
should be taken.
I want to point out to the House that The
Department of the Attorney-General and
the law-enforcement agencies in this province
have been very active indeed in these matters
over at least the last two years. Very impor-
tant proceedings have been taken, which not
only could affect the liberty of certain accused
persons, but which are very important from
the standpoint of public interest. I can
assure the House that I shall without delay,
take the course which I have outlined and
I can again assure this House, and through it
the people of our province, that I shall leave
no stone unturned to assure that British justice
and its fearless enforcement will be my
objective.
( Applause ) .
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer for a
few moments to some of the economic factors
affecting our province. Much has been accom-
plished in this province in the years of tre-
mendous expansion which lie between the end
of World War II and the beginning of the
1960's. There is no point in reciting the
statistics of this period, but I think we must
bear in mind that it should be the duty of
this government and indeed, if the province
is to survive, it will be an absolute necessity,
that we continue our economic development.
During the past five years our population
increased by about 800,000 or 2.8 per cent
per year, and we must anticipate as large a
numerical increase in population during the
next five years, although the projected rate of
growth drops to about 2.4 per cent per year.
The rate of growth in gross national
product, which has been about 4.2 per cent
per year, has been higher than our rate of
population growth. However, when we take
into account price changes, there has actually
been a slight decrease in gross national
product in real terms per capita since 1956.
If we are to continue our plans for progress
we will have to accelerate the rate of
expansion in our economy.
The total industrial production of Canada
increased by just over eight per cent from
1956 to 1960. The year 1961 has brought a
general upswing in economic activity and
almost all our industries have been showing
substantial increase.
For example, gold production is at an all-
time high; nickel production is at an all-time
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
127
high, and we expect a buoyant market for
our mineral products in western Europe,
which will support continued high levels in
production in our mining operations. Pulp
and paper production this year is expected
to reach an all-time high. Saw-mill opera-
tions, on the other hand, were running well
below the levels of 1959 and 1960 during
the first half of this year, but since general
housing construction has expanded it is
expected that the second half of the year
will produce near-record levels.
We can also take some encouragement from
the fact that unemployment levels have been
dropping and in Ontario in October were
down to 4.7 of the work force when adjusted
seasonally, which compares with and is well
below the 6.6 per cent average for Canada
as a whole and 6.8 per cent in the United
States.
Another encouraging trend is the continuing
rise in labour income. It has been increasing
steadily since the post-war period and in 1960
totalled $18.5 billion in Canada, and $7.7 bil-
lion in Ontario. This represents nearly $4,000
per paid worker in Ontario as compared with
just under $2,600 ten years ago, and just over
$3,500 in 1956. Thus, even though there has
been some slackening in the rate of growth
in the economic activity during the past four
or five years, Ontario workers are now earning
an average of about $450 more per year than
they did in 1956.
There is, however, as I have stated before,
no cause for complacency about this situation.
It has been estimated that we must create
approximately 60,000 new jobs in Ontario
alone each year for the next nine years. The
creation of these new jobs is necessary to
take account of the expansion of our popula-
tion both through immigration and through
natural growth.
Faced with problems of this magnitude
which concern so intimately all of our people,
I believe it is time for us as a province to
take a completely new look at our position in
the world of trade and commerce and our
traditional position in relation to the federal
government. Under the distribution of legis-
lative powers at the time of Confederation,
the provinces were given exclusive control
over many important matters such as educa-
tion, municipal institutions, public lands and
natural resources, property and civil rights,
administration of justice, and so on. The
general clause included all matters of a local
or private nature and over the years there
has been a tendency, in my opinion, to think
in terms of the provincial government as deal-
ing primarily with matters of a local or private
nature. On the other hand, the central or
federal government was given responsibility
for such matters as national defence, naviga-
tion and shipping, currency and coinage,
commercial paper and banking and most
important, the regulations of trade and com-
merce.
In my opinion this division of powers over
the years has tended to reduce the extension
of the activity of the provincial governments
of Canada in matters of the development of
foreign markets for the products of the prov-
inces, although some efforts have been made
in this direction. We are presently faced
with certain problems throughout the world
that will have a direct relationship and bear-
ing on the economic growth and prosperity
of this province. I think the time has come
when we must play a much more vigorous
and active role as a government than we have
in the past. To promote this concept and to
provide the administrative means of accom-
plishing these ends, mention was made in the
Speech from the Throne regarding an Act
of the Legislature to merge The Department
of Economics with The Department of Com-
merce and Development— I think perhaps the
hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) anti-
cipated me with his remarks earlier— in order
to bring together that department which can
do the necessary research in delineating the
problems we face and the department which
has the facilities for promoting various poli-
cies designed to rectify the difficulties. Legis-
lation has already been introduced in the
form of Bill No. 5, An Act to Amalgamate
The Department of Economics and Federal
and Provincial Relations and The Department
of Commerce and Development.
I should like to point out that there is a
large area of co-operation which has been
developed in the past few years between the
federal government and ourselves to deal
with these problems. As recently as a week
ago Tuesday, there was a federal-provincial
trade and industrial promotion conference
held at the Queen Elizabeth building here
in Toronto under the auspices of both levels
of government. These conferences were de-
veloped, as far as Ontario is concerned, under
the hon. Minister from Kingston (Mr. Nickle)
and certainly they have done a great deal to
highlight the problems which we face. These
matters will be debated more fully and be
explained more fully to the Legislature dur-
ing the consideration of the bill I have just
mentioned, upon second reading of the bill
and so on.
However, I would like to make it very clear
that we are approaching this problem of
128
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
planning for the future with the idea of
utiHzing to the greatest possible extent the
brains, experience and ability that our prov-
ince possesses in such abundance in four
major fields; namely, labour, industry, agri-
culture and government, both provincial and
municipal.
It is not our intention to set up rigid con-
trols and to do planning by governments
which will direct these elements within our
free economy. Rather it is our intention to
provide the leadership in bringing together
these dynamic and powerful elements in our
society so that they may jointly produce
answers to the problems that face us. As I
say, these matters will be dealt with much
more fully in the course of the proceedings
of this House in the next few weeks but this
is the fundamental position from which our
eflForts will proceed.
Closely allied to this programme is the
development of our educational system, par-
ticularly the development of technical and
commercial training. As I have mentioned,
it is forecast that we will require 60,000 new
jobs per year for the next nine years. Many
of these jobs must be provided for the young
people who are presently in our elementary
and secondary schools and it is necessary that
their education be geared to the type of
economic life they will face when the time
comes for them to leave the educational
world and enter the commercial or industrial
life of our province.
With this in mind we have instituted a very
broad programme of curriculum revision, par-
ticularly in some areas of the province which,
in the past, have found it very diflBcult to
provide anything other than a straight
academic type of education for their young
people.
Perhaps it would be of interest if I were
to outline the origin of this reorganization.
The plan results from careful consideration
of the adequacy of existing curriculum and
programmes of study in relation to the diverse
needs of shifting types of pupils. Secondly,
it resulted from a consideration of the edu-
cational requirements of our young people
in relation to the employment situation and
changing procedures in industry.
As I have already stated, it appears to me
to be fundamental that we must keep our
educational system completely flexible so
that it may not only provide our young
people with the basic education required for
a happy and contented life in our society,
but also, we must educate them to fill the
needs in industry as it develops.
Thirdly, we have been greatly concerned
over a good number of years about the num-
ber of drop-outs from our secondary schools
and the loss that this entails to our society
as well as to the pupils concerned.
Fourthly, it arose from the consideration
of the desirability in a shift in emphasis from
what has been, broadly speaking, a one-
course situation with respect to the branches
of study offered in the several types of On-
tario secondary schools. In effect we con-
sidered it necessary to provide a greater
variety of opportunity for young people in
secondary schools so that they would not
all be forced to take the same course and
continue in the same branch of study. This
means that we will attempt to provide for
every secondary school pupil the type of
education that will best develop his voca-
tional capabilities and will best promote for
him security of employment for himself and
his family as he takes his place in the eco-
nomic life of our province.
I am not going to go into the specific
details of the school programmes as these
can be considered in detail at the time of
the submission of the estimates of The
Department of Education. Suffice it to say
that for the purposes of this debate that we
have developed three main branches of study
which will represent major differences in the
interests, special abilities and prospective
careers of pupils who are entering our sec-
ondary schools.
These three branches are broad fields of
preparation for different types of education
and are not to be understood as requiring
the pupil to decide early and specifically
upon his life work. One of the problems,
of course, which has disturbed some parents
is the thought that their children have to
make a very early decision upon their life
work. This is not so. The pupil entering
high school will select one of the three
branches on the basis of special interest or
possible future career when he leaves grade
eight; the grade nine year is exploratory
and he may take as an option one subject
from another branch of study. This will
facilitate his transfer, if he so desires, and if
he has completed his grade nine year suc-
cessfully, to another programme of another
branch.
It has been, as I have mentioned, our
endeavour to keep the programme as flex-
ible as possible and yet if we are to offer
a variety of courses we must have decisions.
I can assure the hon. members of this House
that we will in developing these courses
keep all the flexibility that is possible but.
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
129
as you can understand, if we are to have any-
thing other than a single choice system, why
certainly decisions are going to have to be
made at some stage of a child's educational
career.
Hon. members can understand also that
the function of guidance and direction, and
the education of parents in the possibilities
of these courses, becomes of paramount im-
portance, and the strengthening of this
branch of our educational system is being
proceeded with now.
It is interesting to note that we presently
have applications for approximately 175 proj-
ects to be constructed under the educational
training agreement with Ottawa, and at least
one-half of these are in areas which have
never offered commercial or vocational train-
ing on this scale to the young people of these
areas before. Now this, to me, is a very
encouraging feature of this entire pro-
gramme.
Many people are concerned about the in-
creased emphasis on vocational and com-
mercial training. It is my opinion that this
emphasis is long overdue and when we were
presented with an opportunity to accomplish
these great things in a relatively short time,
we seized the opportunity with enthusiasm.
I do not think that the flow of students into
our traditionally academic courses will in
any way be affected.
After all, one must realize that the total
enrollment for elementary and secondary
schools has more than doubled since 1945 to
a total of 1.4 million people in 1960. It is
impossible for us to expect that all these young
people will wish to take the traditional
course. In addition, through a centralization
of secondary schools by the creation of high
school districts and in the improvements in
our roads and increase in transportation
facilities, we are now offering secondary
school education to a larger group of our
young people than have ever enjoyed it
before. Also a larger percentage of these
young people are staying in school longer,
thus we have a constantly increasing per-
centage of a constantly increasing numerical
group in our high schools. I think that it
is quite obvious that the time has come to
develop additional courses to suit a great
many of these young people who will not
necessarily have university in mind.
There are many other facets of education
with which I will deal at a later time, namely,
the development of our trade schools, the
development of our technological institutes
and our assistance to universities. These
matters will be dealt with during my estimates
and I shall now proceed to some other matters
arising from the great programme outlined by
His Honour's address to this Legislature.
In connection with the development of
hydro-electric power I would like to say that
the commission has been pushing ahead with
the development of additional supplies of
power and energy in all parts of the province.
Thermal generating units including the
Thunder Bay station at Fort William, the
Lakeview generating station, are being con-
structed and hydro power stations in the
James Bay watershed are underway or in the
planning stage. It is estimated that the total
additional capacity of these new plants will
be about 2.4 million kilowatts; or in terms
that we are able to understand, enough to
meet the power requirements of all the homes
in this province. Work is also under con-
struction on nuclear power stations at Rolph-
ton and Douglas Point.
Legislation has already been introduced by
the hon. Minister of Energy Resources (Mr.
Macaulay) to provide for the amalgamation
of Hydro's northern Ontario properties with
the southern system. The hon. Minister has
already dealt with this matter at some length
in a statement made at the time of the
introduction of these bills and of course after
being thoroughly examined in the select
committee on energy these bills will be fully
debated in the House and there is little that
I can add at this time.
However, I would like to point out that
this amalgamation should result in a more
economical development of electrical re-
sources across the province and should result
in a better balanced system, which will
enable the northern section to withstand
economic swings and fluctuations caused by
nature, together with a larger reserve of
power for contingencies.
Now, hon. members will recall that on
April 7, 1960, my predecessor announced to
this House the formation of a special techni-
cal committee on portable pensions. This
committee was asked to study and make rec-
ommendations for strengthening the exist-
ing programme of pensions and removing
impediments to the employment of the older
workers.
The committee is under the joint chairman-
ship of Mr. G. E. Gathercole, Deputy Minister
of Economics, and Professor D. C. Mac-
Gregor of the University of Toronto. The
other members are Mr. J. A. Tuck, managing
director and general counsel of the Canadian
Life Insurance Ofiicers Association; Mr. R. E.
G. Davis, executive director of the Canadian
130
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Welfare Council; Professor C. E. Hendry, of
the University of Toronto; and Professor R.
M. Clark, of the University of British
Columbia.
At the last session of this House the sum-
mary report of the committee was tabled.
On February 15 last the committee appeared
before a special committee of this Legisla-
ture and presented evidence of its findings
and recommendations to that point. Because
of the complexity of this subject, the com-
mittee was asked to continue its work and
to prepare with the co-operation of legal
counsel, a draft bill which would contain the
essence of its recommendations. Mr. John G.
McDonald, a Toronto lawyer, was engaged
for this purpose. '
At the conference of provincial Premiers
held in Charlottetown last August, my pre-
decessor presented the draft bill together with
the second report of the committee to the
Premiers of the other provinces. Active
interest in this problem was shown by four
or five provinces, some of which had begun
similar studies on their own. They have been
invited to make use of our committee to
obtain advice and a fuller explanation of the
committee's recommendations.
Members of this Legislature have received
copies of the draft bill and the second report.
I should like to recommend that they be
studied carefully by all members. The second
report which was prepared largely by Pro-
fessor MacGregor provides a background of
information which is essential for anyone
seriously interested in the subject. I might
say that both of these documents received a
very wide public response, almost 4,000
copies of the draft bill have been circulated
and well over 2,000 copies of the second
report.
As this study is a pioneer work in this
field in North America, requests for informa-
tion about it have come in from all parts of
this continent as well as from western Europe.
Throughout the autumn the committee has
been engaged in preparing a set of regula-
tions to accompany the draft bill, as well as
making certain revisions to the bill itself
which have become necessary as a result of
outside reaction to the first draft.
Later on in this session an opportunity will
be provided for a detailed study and dis-
cussion of the committee's proposals. It may
be that a special committee of this House
should be appointed at that time. In any
event, I hope that hon. members will study
the work which this committee has already
produced and we will provide a suitable
forum for discussion in due course.
To deal with the ever-growing registration
of motor vehicles in our province, the high-
way construction programme undertaken by
the government has been unprecedented. A
total capital and ordinary appropriation for
the present fiscal year for all highway pur-
poses totals $270 million which includes $75
million for municipal subsidies. At the present
time expenditures on construction of develop-
ment roads are running about $8 million per
year.
Work on our superhighways is being pushed
ahead very rapidly and at the end of this
year the total mileage on Highway 401 will
be 386 miles with a total of 84 miles having
been added during this past year. Work is
also underway on the first stage of Highway
403 which runs from the Queen Elizabeth
Way to Highway No. 2 in the Burlington
area. I note also that work has begun on the
new 405 Highway which will run between the
Homer Skyway and the new international
bridge to New York at Queenston.
We are developing seven new highway
programmes which will be of benefit to all
the people of this province. Plans are under-
way to construct new roads between major
airports and the centres which they serve.
The earliest possible start is planned on new
routes between Malton and Toronto and
between the Uplands Airport and the City
of Ottawa.
By way of assisting municipalities with road
construction programmes, the department is
encouraging municipalities to initiate traffic
studies and in addition to paying 75 per cent
of the cost of these studies the department
makes technical personnel available to assist
in the compilation of the figures and studies
that are being done. These are co-operative
ventures in research to predict the future
transportation requirements of a given area.
In addition, The Department of Highways
in conjunction with Economics is carrying out
considerable research in the fiscal policies to
provide for highways, roads and streets
throughout Ontario. We plan also to intro-
duce legislation at this session to increase
to 90 per cent from 80 per cent the present
subsidy which is paid on bridges and culverts
on any connecting links in the case of towns
and villages, excepting separated towns with
population of over 2,500.
The approach of the government toward
highway construction has had and will con-
tinue to have two purposes. First, to extend
the liighway system which is the direct
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
131
responsibility of the province, and second, to
increase assistance to be given to municipali-
ties in order to enable them to meet their road
and street construction cost.
Mr. Speaker, we in the government are
very much interested in challenges of all
kinds which appear before us today: economic
challenges, social challenges that are facing
lis as a people in this present era. However,
I think we might bear in mind that challenges
are nothing new for Canadians and down
through our history, problems which were no
less difficult in their own day arose frequently,
but were solved successfully so that the task
of nation building could proceed without
obstruction.
This happened despite diverse backgrounds
of interests of the people who settled and
developed this province. In fact, it happened
to a great extent because of those diverse
backgrounds and interests and the wide and
rich variety of talents and skills which flowed
from it.
In Ontario diversity has produced rewards,
not conflicts. We must always be vigilant
to ensure that this fortunate state of affairs
remains with us and that every individual
regardless of race, creed or colour, has a full
and equal opportunity to direct his life toward
what he thinks to be the most rewarding
objective. That is the purpose of the human
rights legislation which has been placed on
the statute books of this province during the
past 17 years. It should be a matter of pride
to every hon. member of this House that our
province has been a leader in the campaign
against racial and religious discrimination. I
wish to associate myself firmly and un-
reservedly with the policy upon which our
human rights legislation is based.
( Applause ) .
Through the efforts of the Ontario human
rights commission and with the wholehearted
support of churches and schools, industry,
trade unions, press and radio and a wide
variety of community organizations, great
progress has been made in winning under-
standing and acceptance of the aims of this
legislation. We can be proud of what has
been accomplished but there is no reason for
us to be complacent. There are still areas of
prejudice in our community life which com-
mand our concern and it remains the task of
individuals and organizations to strive to still
higher levels of improvement in the field of
human rights.
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a few
moments about the retail sales tax which came
into force on September 1, and I might say
that the treasury is now receiving its second
month's remittances from registered vendors.
Dislocation of business by reason of intro-
duction of the tax appears to have been very
slight. In the original instructions going to
vendors, they were asked to keep records of
gross sales, taxable sales and the amount of
tax they collect. This appeared to impose
some hardship and the requirements have
been reduced so that only records of gross
sales and the tax collectible will be necessary,
although the vendors will be expected to
keep a proper file of all purchase invoices and
inventory records.
At the same time, the field men from the
department are asking vendors to suggest
methods to them whereby they may account
for the tax collected on a formula basis, pro-
vided the formula is approved by the sales
tax branch. By this I mean it is possible in
some types of enterprise to work out a
formula whereby the gross sales are so much,
and over a period of time the percentage of
gross sales can be established as being that
portion of sales which is taxable and the tax
can be computed on that amount, and of
course it will have to be checked periodic-
ally by the sales tax branch.
It is this type of formula computation of
tax which we are aiming at in order to re-
lieve the retail storekeeper of the burden that
has been imposed upon him, by keeping
records to date. These matters, as I say, are
under constant review. V"' ' 1
In addition to these improvements, vendors
who operate on a seasonal basis, such as
summer resorts, will be relieved of the neces-
sity of filing returns for periods during which
they are not actively engaged in business. All
vendors are being requested to advise the
department of the months they will not be
operating so that the records in the depart-
ment may be suitably adjusted.
Rules and regulations are being reviewed in
the light of present experience— and once
again I reiterate that this tax came into eftect
only on September 1— and comments have
been received from a host of retailers through-
out the province in order to provide for ease
in the requirements, all with the idea of
simplifying collection procedures.
In addition certain of the exemptions are
being examined very carefully in order to
correct any anomalies that may presently
exist. I can assure the House that all these
matters will be kept under constant review
in order to reduce to a minimum the incon-
venience caused, by the addition of this tax.
132
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
However, I would like to point out to the
hon. members that the purpose of imposing
this tax is to collect revenue which is needed
if we are to maintain our standards of service
in the fields of education, highways, welfare,
health, and all the other myriad services
which the government provides. It is
ridiculous to impose a tax and then immedi-
ately to ask for exemptions to such an extent
that the effectiveness of the tax in producing
the revenue required is destroyed. There is
no jurisdiction of which I am aware which
imposes a sales tax which has a broader list
of exemptions than those contained in the
Act establishing this tax.
While I realize how politically attractive
it is to offer exemptions to various sections of
the population and on various classes of
goods, I can assure hon. members that in the
long run it will only create and perpetuate
inequities.
Mr. Speaker, the government of the prov-
ince of Ontario has always been energetically
interested in every activity which can serve
the goals of our agricultural industry and
which can increase the opportunity for, and
the income of our farmers. In recent years
there have been expansions in all the main
branches of The Department of Agriculture
to further the services the government is
giving our farmers.
An indication of the extent to which the
interest of our farmers have been served, is
the fact that the cash income of Ontario
farmers has remained above 1960 during the
first half of 1961. Present indications are that
for the whole year, the farm cash income will
continue above 1960, as well as over the
average of the past five years. This compares
very favourably with the development of the
country as a whole.
The government of the province is
interested in preserving the family farm, for
the rural economy is still the backbone of our
province.
I should point out that a healthy and stable
agriculture does not depend merely on the
number of acres in a farm. For example, a
profitable livelihood can be obtained from a
market garden which is only a relatively few
acres in extent and located near a larger city.
The income per acre varies a great deal on
different types of farms. When hogs are
raised or hens provide the main source of
income, for instance, the income bears no
necessary relationship to the number of acres,
for feed may be raised or purchased if the
farm is not sufficiently large to supply it all.
On the other hand, on some types of farms.
such as those engaged in raising beef cattle,
even 100 acres might not be sufficient as beef
requires a lot of roughage of a kind that
cannot be shipped very far without the
expense rising too much to be economical.
These are all considerations which are
important and it is impossible to state that
the success or failure of any farm depends
on any particular acreage, since the acreage
required for a good livelihood varies so greatly
according to the type of crop grown or animal
being raised.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are some other
matters I had thought I might refer to, but I
think I will leave these for another day. Many
of the matters I have mentioned this after-
noon, of course, will be debated much more
fully as time goes on, and I would direct a
little more attention to some comments that
have already been made by hon. members of
the Opposition.
Applause.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before I proceed with what I am
prepared to say I would like to make two
brief comments with regard to the initial por-
tion of the comments of the hon. Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts).
If the hon. Prime Minister is going to have
a personal investigation of the problem of
organized crime, in effect what he has said
is that he is going to move in at least to some
degree on the department of the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts). I would say,
Mr. Speaker, that this is long overdue. Some-
body has needed to move in, because this
department has been guilty of a combination
of neglect and mismanagement. In fact the
real problem, of course, was it would not
face up to even the existence of this problem
of organized crime and therefore, of course,
was not willing and able to come to grips
with it.
So, if the hon. Prime Minister is in effect
going to move in and start doing some of the
jobs that the hon. Attorney-General has not
been doing, well, very good; a little late, but
very good.
Now the second comment is that I am a
little disturbed by the tendency of the hon.
Prime Minister to dismiss all that was pre-
sented in this House yesterday by the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) as
being merely— and I am using my phraseology,
but I do not think it is inaccurate— a rehash
of what has appeared in the papers, appeared
in evidence, that has been adduced by the
Crown and presented in various court cases.
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
133
The thing that disturbs me about that, Mr.
Speaker, is that the hon. Prime Minister has
himself become guilty to a degree of the same
complacency in making that kind of a com-
ment. Because along with the evidence that
the hon. leader of the Opposition presented—
much has been known for quite some time,
to all those people who have been on top of
this issue, and there is some more I would like
to add when I get to the appropriate com-
ments in my own remarks— but along with
that, there were other things, that I do not
think the hon. Prime Minister can dismiss in
the fashion that he has done.
For example, hon. members had the sugges-
tion that the hon. Attorney-General— the only
conclusion that one can make— is that the
hon. Attorney-General stepped in at the very
critical stages of the investigation with regard
to the O.P.P. and the efforts of Constable
Scott. Now this is extremely serious and this
cannot be dismissed just as a rehash.
For example, we have had these efforts to
corrupt members of the judiciary, magistrates,
in the city of Toronto. I have been absolutely
astounded that statements appear under the
by-line of responsible reporters in this city
with a backing of the papers, and there is
an echoing silence from government just
as though somebody had said that Monday
follows Sunday— nothing more important than
that. And here hon. members have a sug-
gestion that there have been bribes even up
to the extent of $50,000, as far as one of
the magistrates was concerned.
In other words, there have been too many
things that suggest that there is a serious
threat to the very nature of our society, if I
may borrow the phraseology of Professor
Morton. This is the kind of thing to which
the government has not yet got close enough
to recognize its serious proportions. As a
matter of fact, I was just flipping through the
report on syndicated gambling in New York
State, and I recall the phrase there that I
think is not inapplicable as far as this govern-
ment is concerned. The hon. Prime Minister
himself to a degree is guilty of it.
We cannot longer afford the luxury of
ignoring the menace of professional gam-
bling and all that flows from professional
gambling.
The hon. Attorney-General has done this,
and if the hon. Prime Minister is going to
dismiss everything that was presented in this
House yesterday, and more that will be
coming, as a rehash, he too is guilty of the
same kind of approach.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the
pattern of my remarks that I had prepared.
In the traditional fashion, of course, I not
only must, but I very enthusiastically, extend
to you my best wishes and my sympathies
for the task that you have in maintaining
order in this House.
I also, have to extend congratulations to a
rather lengthy list of Cabinet Ministers, and
like the hon. member for Toronto-St. George
(Mr. Lawrence) I am not going to go through
them one by one because this would be
rather a wearying thing.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this process
of Cabinet shuffling is one of continuing
fascination. Essentially, in so far as we have
seen it of recent years, essentially it is a
game of musical chairs, a sort of shuffling
around of the various posts among the Min-
isters, but it has interesting variations in it.
Some are on their way in, others are on their
way out. This one had the added pain that
some who thought they were on the way in,
discovered that they were really on the way
out and have not yet figured out exactly
what struck them. However, I congratulate
them all— those who are on the way in and
those who are on the way out and those who
are not sure which way they are headed at
the present time.
I now turn to extend my congratulations to
the mover and the seconder but I am not
going to do it in the fulsome fashion that is
normally done. Because, Mr. Speaker, I
wonder when we are going to get to a stage
—one of the hon. members did break with
precedent here— when the mover and the
seconder to the Speech from the Throne can
deal with some of the issues that are pre-
occupying the people of this province, instead
of an endless and fulsome heaping of praise
upon their fellows and their party.
As a matter of fact, I am emboldened to
make this kind of a comment this year. I
have sometimes wondered— perhaps I am a
litde bit unsympathetic towards the great
work of this government, perhaps I do not
see it in its full and rounded proportions,
perhaps I am biased. But after the speeches
were over the other day I happened to be
chatting with a certain member on the
government side— I shall never reveal his
name because both his safety and his survival
in the party would be seriously threatened-
he would belong to those, quite rightly, who
would be on the way out! But his comment
was that all speeches should be restricted to
three superlatives.
Even he was getting just a little bit sick
of this outpouring of congratulations upon
134
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
each other. That is the kind of sentiment, I
must confess, that I share.
However, I do want to make a comment
about the hon. member who moved the
motion. The hon. member for Toronto-St.
George is by nature a rebel, he has great
difficulty in accommodating himself to living
within the Tory Party. That I can under-
stand.
An hon. member: He bet on the wrong
horse though.
Mr. MacDonald: He bet on the wrong
horse, you bet, but some of his remarks
were refreshing. But even when his re-
marks were refreshing he always tends to
indulge in exaggerations that border on the
puerile. My colleague in the House has
dealt with some of them that he chose to
make outside the House rather than inside
the House. I just want to deal with one he
did make inside the House— his comments
on the Royal York strike.
He started out by saying he was in sym-
pathy with the strikers. Well, Mr. Speaker,
the strikers will be pardoned, after they
read all of his remarks, if they make some
such comment as that old one that "my
enemies I can live with and cope with, but
God protect me from my friends." Because
he started out saying he was in sympathy
with them and then he went on to express
his own personal judgment that they had
made a mistake in the timing when they
started their strike.
This was the only criticism that he had
to make— that they had chosen the wrong
time. In other words, he from his great
experience in the trade union movement
and his great experience in coping with a
corporation like the C.P.R. and of work
within a hotel, he presumed to say that he
knows more than they— they were wrong in
chosing their time. From that point on he
really cut loose.
They were idiotic, their tactics were idio-
tic. He then described them as bull-headed,
and he finally concludes by saying "a pox
on both their houses."
So this man who started out by being
basically in sympathy with the union ends
up with "a pox on both their houses." I
must say, Mr. Speaker, it was one of the
best mugwumpish efforts I have ever heard
in this House. He certainly was on both
sides and I am sure he was not too sur-
prised when he picked up the Globe and
Mail the next morning that the point in
his remarks that got the headline was that
the union in the Royal York was bull-headed.
Well, that is rather typical of the way he
deals with these issues.
However, I will have to sympathize with
him from this point forward— in having to get
something dynamic out of the Throne
Speech. Because, Mr. Speaker, this Throne
Speech in my view wandered wearily for
about four thousand words and then it came
up with such earth-shaking pronouncements
as commending the federal government for
looking into health insurance.
Now, I grant hon. members that is rather
difficult for a mover and a seconder to get
very excited about that kind of a Throne
Speech. In fact, the whole tone was a con-
tinuation of that which we saw and heard
so much of in the Tory leadership campaiga
—pompous words parading across the land-
scape in search of a single new idea, and
they did not come up with any new idea.
As a matter of fact they thought they came
up with a new idea at their convention—
in that programme committee— the new idea
that got some headlines in sympathetic
papers, to the effect that they were going
to bring in a provincial bill of rights.
New, Mr. Speaker?
Well, 14 years ago, in that banner prov-
ince of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas in-
troduced a provincial bill of rights. And
here it is a new idea! However, it was so
new that they could not grasp and retain it>
so sometime between the leadership conven-
tion, some three weeks ago, and the Throne
Speech, this new idea got lost and it did not
even turn up in the Throne Speech.
There was another point which emerged
in the debates of the mover and the seconder
—their comments with regard to the Tory
convention and their eulogizing because of its
being so democratic. Well, Mr. Speaker, I
concede that the leadership contest in that
convention had all the appearance of at least
a wide open battle. But that, of course, is
what made it so exceptional.
If the hand that had directed the organiza-
tion in the Conservative Party for more than
ten years had still been around, I wonder
how much even of an appearance of democ-
racy there would have been in the leadership
contest. I venture to predict that procedures
would be pretty cut-and-dried.
But even if one concedes this, the conven-
tion provided an illuminating revelation of the
limitations of the Tory concept of democracy
in party politics. Grattan O'Leary once stated
—after tlie last two national leadership con-
ventions, when he was asked what he thought
of the policy resolution that had been passed
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
135
—that they were not worth the paper they
were written on. And he went on to add,
that in the old parties— and he lumped them
both together— it is the right and the preroga-
tive of the leader to lay down policy.
Now the thing that interested me in this
recent Conservative convention is that clearly
the delegates accepted this as the right
approach. They were not interested in policy.
They simply were not interested when it was
under discussion. In fact, their two policy
meetings, insofar as they were reported in
the press, were epic displays of mass non-
participation. Out of 1,780 delegates there
were 55 attended one meeting and some 40
turned up at another one. And instead of a
discussion on policy matters, Mr. Speaker,
apparently, if the news reports be correct, it
degenerated into a verbal slug fest between
Fred Gardiner and Charlotte Whitton. Now
that apparently is the Tory substitute for a
discussion or democracy in the shaping of
policy.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio ) : What was done at the New Demo-
cratic Party?
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister with-
out Portfolio (Mr. Grossman) should just
come up and view what we did at the N.D.P,
And the people who came cynically to view
what happened at the N.D.P. conceded that
there were never fewer than 2,000 present
in the coliseum when we were discussing
policy and there was a vigorous and a lively
participation in it. And as was pointed out
the floor was in control and repeatedly sent
back things that the people at the head
table, or on the platform, had decided.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Did Mr. Douglas con-
firm it all?
Mr. MacDonald: Confirm all what?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: All the policies set?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am
not going to get into a debate on this.
However, I have been critical of the Con-
servatives and I want now to commend the
hon. Prime Minister. I was very interested
in the way he carried on his campaign and
successfully won the leadership. He very
seldom revealed what his policies were, but
at one meeting— and I am almost wondering
whether or not he was unaware of the fact
that the press were there— he did discuss a
little bit of policy along with some other
things.
He was talking to the young Progressive-
Conservatives on the campus at the University
of Toronto. And I could hardly believe my
eyes— although I repeat again 1 want to com-
mend him— when the news story came out
because it was headed: "Something different
—N.D.P. will change politics says Robarts".
Apparently what happened was that one of
the students, in the question period, asked
the hon. Prime Minister designate— to-be—
the embryonic Premier, whatever would be
the correct description of him at that point—
"How do you differentiate between Conserva-
tive and Liberal policies? To me it often
seems just a matter of personalities and
policies thrown together for elections." Well,
the hon. Prime Minister replied, according to
the Toronto Daily Star, in this fashion:
The old clear-cut definitions have tended
to blur over the years. It is one of the
problems we have in this country in our
political system. Opposition parties tend
to offer just more rather than anything
really different. Now we have a new party
coming up which is going to introduce I
think some new policies. It will mould
the old doctrinaire C.C.F. and the political
arm of organized labour and should come
up with something diflFerent.
Well, I want to congratulate the hon. Prime
Minister—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I did not say better, I
said different.
Mr. MacDonald: All right, different, very
well. I want to congratulate the hon. Prime
Minister for his basic political realism.
He acknowledges (a) that there is no differ-
ence between the Liberals and the Conserva-
tives, and this is part of our problem in
politics in this country; and secondly, he
then proceeds to say that the new party is
going to bring out something different, and
that this development will be good. How-
ever, in making this kind of a comment, Mr.
Speaker, he of course is following in the foot-
steps of his predecessor who also had elements
of realism on occasion— though he hid them
a bit more when he was talking about topics
of this nature.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost)
a year or so ago got into a private discussion
with a visiting Australian political scientist
who subsequently wrote a book. In this book
he describes the things on the Canadian scene
that attracted his attention most, and the one
that he put very close to the top of the list
was the emergence of a new party on the
Canadian scene. But he ended up by quoting
136
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Premier Leslie Frost of Ontario who told him
this:
Mind you, I think you are right in sug-
gesting that the next 25 years in Canada
will see the emergence of an increasingly
stratified conflict between a Conservative-
Liberal or a Liberal-Conservative party of
the right and some sort of Socialist party of
the left.
That is basic realism, with regard to what
is happening on the Canadian scene at the
present time.
However, I want to go back to this Y.P.C.
speech that the hon. Prime Minister gave on
the campus of the University of Toronto,
because here he breached his normal pro-
cedure of not stating policy and made two
observations. Both were rather indicative
of his approach and the approach of his
government.
The first one was that he was not in favour
of free university education. Now, Mr.
Speaker, I can conceive of some arguments
against free university education. I hasten to
add that I have never found them convincing.
I think that in this province and in this nation
the development of human resources is one of
our greatest challenges and if we do not suc-
ceed in facing up to this challenge, we are not
going to develop this province and this nation.
But I cannot conceive of how we are going
to develop our human resources unless we
take the dollar sign off the educational oppor-
tunities at the higher educational level.
What really puzzled me was not just the
assertation of the hon. Prime Minister, that
he was against this, but his reason for being
against it. According to the Toronto Telegram
—which of course always reports accurately
and fairly on anything to do with the Con-
servative Party, and therefore I feel quite
certain in accepting their version of it— he
said he does not believe that free university
education "gibes with free enterprise."
If the hon. Prime Minister will forgive me
for putting this very bluntly, Mr. Speaker,
that is a pretty fatuous comment. I suspect
it accurately reflects this idea that for some
reason or other you cannot give higher educa-
tion to the people on a free basis because
it does not gibe with free enterprise when
obviously education in the 20th century ever
since the year 1900 has had nothing to do
with free enterprise.
As a matter of fact, it is a comment which
is in exactly the same spirit and approach as
Tories were uttering 100 or 150 years ago,
when they were arguing against free educa-
tion at the secondary and the primary level of
school. A child received an education if he
happened to be a member of a family where
the pocketbook permitted it and he could go
to private school, but otherwise a child be-
came part of the great inarticulate masses
who did the work and lived and died in
society.
The same kind of approach today seeks to
keep the dollar sign on higher educational
opportunities. Cautious Toryism. This is the
only way it can be described— the role the
Tory party has played traditionally through
history, that of a brake on the wheel of pro-
gress. We need progress but the function
of the Tory party is to make it slow rather
than as fast as is necessary to meet the needs
of our day.
In the same spirit of cautious Toryism, you
have the second comment with regard to
policy advanced by the hon. Prime Minister.
"A health insurance plan is at the present
time beyond Ontario's financial capability,"
he said— at a time when the province of
Saskatchewan under the leadership of Tommy
Douglas is moving once again to pioneer-
they are going to pay for it, as they did for
14 years on hospital insurance, while you
dragged your feet here and would not do it
unless you got help from Ottawa. They will
pioneer it and they will force it so that a
few years sooner the whole of the nation
will get it as a result of their efforts.
"Some time we may have to consider it,"
Mr. Robarts added. Cautious Toryism once
again.
Mr. Speaker, if there was any comment
needed to underline the need for a new party
in this province and across this country, I
think it was a comment of that one speech
of the new hon. Prime Minister of this prov-
ince (a) that there is no difference between
the Liberals and Conservatives, that we must
have something different, and I can assure
him besides being different it will be better.
In fact it will be so much better that five
or ten years from now you will accept what
we are now proposing— in the same way that
has been going on for the last generation or
more. Also, of course, that he is going to
pursue this policy of cautious Toryism.
However, Mr. Speaker, to further proceed
with the main theme of the Throne Speech
as it was brought down. It was a theme
which is now central to Tory propaganda,
both federal and provincial, that good times
are back again. Unemployment figures are
minimized. We have John Diefenbaker going
around the country, with all the melodrama
of which he is so capable, accusing those
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
137
who face the facts as gloom-mongers. The
Throne Speech picked up this rosy picture
of development.
This may be good politics, Mr. Speaker,
but it is not good economics. Just let me
quote from a source which I do not think
even the Tories can dismiss as being guilty
of gloom-mongery. Following the recent
meeting of the chamber of commerce in the
city of Halifax the Financial Post appeared
on October 7 with a front page editorial
which led off like this:
Canada is in a basic long-term trouble
and nothing less than really first-rate think-
ing and high courage will set us again
on the path of progress.
That was the very sober gist of several
thoughtful statements made by Canadians
of stature and great experience this week.
In addition to that comment, Mr. Speaker,
just last Saturday I was interested to note in
an article on the financial page of the
Toronto Daily Star comments carrying the
predictions of two reputable economic an-
alysts in this country, Dr. D. E. Armstrong
of Economics Research, of Montreal, and
Allan Beckett of W. A. Beckett Associates, of
Toronto.
"How high will the business upturn be?"
was the question that was put to these men,
and the gist of their reply was, "Not very
high or very long". In fact. Dr. Armstrong
put it this way: "I think this good growth
will last until at least January or February."
The last year, Mr. Speaker, has been
marked by one very remarkable achievement.
It is one to which one of my colleagues
made reference earlier today— though he was
having difficulty in meeting the requirements
of your ruling at the time. I refer to con-
versions of almost mass productions to the
idea of economic planning.
E. P. Taylor is calling for a federal ministry
of planning. W. S. Kirkpatrick, who is the
new president of the chamber of commerce
and the head of Consolidated Mining &
Smelting Company, declares that our present
plight is the result of a lack of planning, and
now we have been deluged by Macaulay
plans. There are plans here; plans there;
plans everywhere, but, Mr. Speaker, I want
to suggest to you that there are two kinds
of plans.
On the one hand there is state assistance
for a continuation of big business planning
and that is what most of these spokesmen
are really calling for. On the other hand
there is genuine economic planning with the
government giving a vigorous lead in mapping
out the objectives of the nation and then
developing the most effective working part-
nership of private, public and co-operative
enterprise to meet those objectives.
In the latter, the genuine kind of planning,
full employment and the welfare of the
people are the stated objectives of economic
activity. In the other, profits are still the
prime motive and full employment, when
achieved, is merely the fortuitous by-product
of this kind of planning.
Indeed, the hon. leader of the Opposition,
one time last year in his very frank and
honest way, put the point well. He declared
that he was opposed to economic planning,
for that is socialism, said he. What he is in
favour of is economic co-ordination.
The Toronto Star editorial came out with
another version of it the other day— economic
direction. Well, Mr. Speaker, economic co-
ordination or economic direction is merely a
nice euphemism for not doing enough to meet
the situation, which is what both the Liberals
and Conservatives will do— and as a result we
shall continue to have high levels of un-
employment in this country.
I turn now, Mr. Speaker, from this main
theme to consider the position of two of the
main groups in our economy at the present
time, the agricultural industry and labour.
First let me deal with the agricultural indus-
try.
Agricultural industry today, as the hon»
Prime Minister acknowledged in his com-
ments, is faced with rather a serious position,,
if not a new one. It is the product of this
relentless cost-price squeeze which has been
going on since the peak of wartime pros-
perity that was reached in 1951. Periodically
we hear from those who want to project the
rosy side of the picture that there has been
an increase— a fractional increase it should be
added— in cash income of farmers. But what
they constantly neglect to emphasize is the
even greater increase in the cost of pro-
duction that the farmer has to contend with,
so that the net income of farmers continues
to drop. The result of this, Mr. Speaker, the
long-term result of it, I think, is something
we should take a look at. And I must confess
that I was impressed with discovering it for
myself anew this past summer when I took
the opportunity, for reasons that I will not
bother the House with at the present time, to
visit in rural areas throughout most of
southern Ontario— indeed in all of the
counties from Ottawa to your own home
areas of Essex, Mr. Speaker.
I recall on one occasion when I happened
138
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to be in the Seaway valley that I was speak-
ing with a person in one of the little com-
munities some 15 miles away from where
the great development of the Seaway had
taken place. I was rather startled to be in-
formed by this person, who had a very close
relationship with a little church in that area,
that there was not a single parishioner in this
little church that had indoor plumbing in
their homes. When I went away and
pondered this, it struck me, Mr. Speaker, as
being a very illuminating and rather sad
comment on the society in which we live.
Here was a little community no more than
15 miles away from an area where by the
application of modem skills and technology
they had altered the historic course of a
mighty river, they had dammed the waters as
they flowed from the Great Lakes down into
the sea and had made a lake and a power
plant which is producing some two million
horsepower each year to go out and run our
industry and light our homes. Yet 15 miles
away they had not succeeded in applying
sufficient of these skills and modem tech-
nology to get indoor plumbing into the homes
of the families which, not only themselves,
but their fathers and their grandfathers be-
fore them, had pioneered and done the work
in this country.
As I pondered this kind of thing even
further, Mr. Speaker, I recalled a feeling
of disbelief on my own part when I read
some of the results years ago of the census
that was taken in 195 L I have a recollection,
for example, of the fact that there were
almost a quarter of the homes in this country
that they claimed did not have indoor plumb-
ing. So I went back to check on this and
I came across some figures that I think the
House would be interested in.
I emphasize for the moment that these
are 1951 census figures. They had three
breakdowns in the statistics that they gave
for the province of Ontario— these are not
national, they are for the province of Ontario.
The first one had to do with no Inside piped
water into the homes and, without going into
the figures themselves— I will just give the per-
centages—the results of the census in 1951
were that 18 per cent of the homes in the
province of Ontario had no Inside piped
water.
When you moved from the overall figure
in the province to the position in rural On-
tario, the 18 per cent had risen to 54 per
cent with no piped water in their homes;
and if you moved from the rural to the farm
sector of the rural community— in other words
eliminating the towns and villages— 59 per
cent of them had no piped water in their
homes.
There was a second indication of living
standards— homes with no bathtubs or shower.
Believe it or not, they were 27 per cent of
the homes in the overall in the province of
Ontario. But again when you moved out
into rural Ontario the 27 had jumped to 68
per cent, and when you moved to the farm
section of rural Ontario the 68 per cent had
jumped once again to 74 per cent without
bathtubs or showers.
Then there was another paragraph which
you might be interested to know, dealing
with toilet facilities. This was broken down,
Mr. Speaker, into four columns. The first
one was "flush toilet, exclusive," the next one
was "flush toilet, shared," and the next one
was "chemical toilet," and the next one was
delightfully referred to as "others."
What I want to refer to for the moment is
others, which might be translated into "no
inside toilet" of any kind. What was the
situation? 22 per cent of the homes in
Ontario had no inside toilet of any kind.
In the rural area the 22 per cent had jumped
to 62 per cent, and in the farm sector of
rural area, 70 per cent.
Now, what more graphic proof, Mr.
Speaker, of the extent to which rural Ontario
has not shared in the progress of the last
25 years? I emphasize once again that these
are the figures from the 1951 census and I
have sought to ascertain whether or not the
new figures from the 1961 census are avail-
able and am told that they will not be avail-
able until approximately the middle of the
year 1962.
It will be very interesting to see what
change has taken place in this decade. We
may discover that it is not as great as we
think, because once again in dealing with
agriculture we have to remind ourselves that
agriculture reached its period of peak war-
time prosperity in the year that these census
figures were taken, 1951. Since then they
have been the victims of this relentless tight
squeeze and therefore had relatively little
extra money, beyond the requirements for
buying new machinery and keeping their
farms up to date, to be able to survive
economically. They have had very little left
to be able to build the living standards with-
in their homes.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, just before I leave
that comment I was making on rural Ontario,
I think it should be frankly acknowledged
that if that kind of a situation were to exist
in an urban area— say, here in the city of
Toronto— that it would certainly be described
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
139
as a sliim. It is certain that all social workers
and all other interested people in the com-
munity would be focusing attention on it and
it would create such concern that there would
be a move that likely would be followed by
pretty immediate action for redevelopment to
remove this kind of condition. But in the
rural areas people with these living standards
have to live on from year to year with no
immediate prospect of them likely being
bettered.
Now, tlie attitude of this government, it
seems to me, Mr. Speaker, in approaching not
only the problems but the consequences of
these problems that I have just been spelling
out, is what disturbs me most. For example,
I was rather interested when this new govern-
ment was formed, that in the Cabinet
shuffling one of the men dropped from the
Cabinet happened to be one of the farm
representatives. Here is a government whose
basis of power rests in rural Ontario. The
overwhelming majority of the seats which
established their power in this Legislature,
are from rural Ontario, and there have been
relatively few farmers in the Cabinet.
In fact, I happened to be in a service
club a year or so ago when one of the
farmers in the Cabinet quite frankly said
that he was appointed and given the post
as Hydro Commissioner at that time, not
because he knew anything about Hydro but
because they wanted another farmer in the
Cabinet.
Well, here we have the dropping of one
of the few farmers in the Cabinet. I think
it is a symbol of the attitude of this govern-
ment, the real attitude of this government,
towards the problems of rural Ontario.
I was out yesterday— which explains my
absence from this House, I must confess I
would like to have been in two places at the
same time on that occasion— attending the
annual meeting of the Huron County Feder-
ation of Agriculture, and one of the people
who spoke rather briefly there was the local
Conservative federal member, Mr. Cardiff,
who, I believe, is parliamentary secretary to
the federal Minister of Agriculture. I was
interested in the fact that he stressed, when
he was acknowledging the limitations on the
extent to which the government had been able
to meet some of the needs of the farmer, the
fact that agriculture is a smaller and smaller
sector of the economy and he finds it in-
creasingly difficult to get the government to
face up to this problem.
I think this was accurate. This is the kind
of problem agriculture also faces when
dealing with this government.
Let me give another example, and this is
the whole approach to marketing. I am not
going to thresh over all of the old straw that
we had a year ago, but there is one aspect—
the restrictive clauses of Bill 86— which this
government has made part and parcel of
the farm marketing legislation that I do
want to touch on. Every time I and others in
the Opposition got up and talked about this
we were assured by the then hon. Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Goodfellow) that the
farmers in the province of Ontario were not
unhappy about Bill 86. In fact, the present
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart), the
newly appointed Minister, got up and vigor-
ously defended Bill 86 in the House. Well,
I had my serious doubts as to whether this
was an accurate reflection of the farmers'
view.
But, Mr. Speaker, my doubts have gone, I
am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt
now that the overwhelming majority of the
farmers in this province regard this bill to
be what it is, an unwarranted intervention on
the part of government; Tory paternalism,
which, in effect, treats the farmers of this
province as adolescents who cannot really be
trusted in the exercise of legislative power
that is granted to them. This is what I found
to be unanimously, or almost unanimously,
the feeling among farmers.
Yet we have to recall, Mr. Speaker, that
this Bill 86 was brought in when the farmers,
at least the hog producers among them, were
in a battle with the packers, and this gov-
ernment chose to side with the packers— P.C.'s,
you know. Packers' Chums— they decided to
side with them as against the hog producers
when they were trying to get greater control
of the market.
It is also rather ironical, Mr. Speaker, that
within the past year we have had a report of
a combines investigation into the packing
industry in which we now have solidly
documented the extent to which the packing
industry has its prices rigged through the
efforts of the dominant company, Canada
Packers. I wonder, as the government read
this report, and thinks back on the manner in
which they sought to frustrate the efforts of
the primary producers to get greater collective
bargaining strength, what their views are.
I ani also interested, for example, Mr.
Speaker, in the fact that the government is
now moving to acknowledge a long-standing
request of organized agriculture for the estab-
lishment of a department of co-operatives.
They did not, as is usual, concede the request
fully. What they did was to set up a co-
operative section within The Department of
14a
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Agriculture. I want to suggest though that
this kind of minor departmental shuffle is not
really the important thing. The important
thing behind the forms of the department is,
once again, the attitude of the government,
and this is what distmrbs me.
For example, the most important co-opera-
tive venture that has emerged in this country
in recent years has been FAME, the efforts
of the primary meat producers in this province
to build their own packing plant. This is not
a new idea, Mr. Speaker. The farmers in the
province of Quebec today have meat packing
plants which they own and control co-opera-
tively, processing some 35 to 40 per cent of
the meat produced in that province. If you
go to little countries like Denmark you will
find that 80 to 90 per cent of the meat that is
processed there is handled through producer-
owned and -controlled packing plants.
So this was not a revolutionary idea. And
yet when the idea emerged in the House, right
from the very outset we found the attitude
of the government to it, so magnificently ex-
pressed by the previous Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost), that he had "never heard of anything
so nonsensical in his life." But that kind of
attitude— he may have gone, somebody inter-
jected to say he had gone— but the same atti-
tude continues.
Last fall we had, the more I think of it, a
calculated effort on the part of this govern-
ment, or one of the agencies of this govern-
ment, to frustrate the efforts to realize this
new packing plant. I am referring to the
decision of the Ontario Securities Commission
which blocked the sale of debentures.
I was interested in attending the annual
meeting of the same co-operative just about
two or three weeks ago to discover that the
intervention of this government on that occa-
sion—creating for at least a time the chaos
that it did in the campaign that had been
mounted by these producers— the intervention
of this government cost the farmers of the
province of Ontario close to $50,000.
In other words, $50,000 of the money that
thev had raised to launch the whole campaign
to begin with— all of their literature, all of
their promotion— went down the drain in the
debenture sale and they had to start all over
again.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to contrast this kind
of thing and the attitude of the government
towards it, with that of another Torv govern-
ment, the one in Nova Scotia. In recent
years the farmers of Nova Scotia have moved
towards the building of their own meat pack-
ing plants. Yet when they launched their
campaign they were assured in advance by
the goverimient that for every dollar of share
capital that they raised, the government
would guarantee them $2 or $3 in loans to
be able to build their plants and get into
operation. In contrast to that kind of work-
ing co-operation, there is this government
with its attitude of "nothing more non-
sensical" to begin with creating chaos in the
early stages of the fund-raising venture; and
even now, an undercurrent of opposition,
which I find as I move across the province,
is often centered in the local Conservative
organizations in many parts of the province.
I ask you also, Mr. Speaker, to contrast by
way of attitudes of government, the kind of
thing that happens where a government is
genuinely interested in co-ops. If you will
forgive me, I will take another example from
that banner province of Saskatchewan. Years
ago-
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Only three superlatives in a speech.
Mr. MacDonald: Banner is not a superla-
tive. The hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr.
Yaremko) is too far away from his grammar.
Mr. Speaker, development of the oil indus-
try in the province of Saskatchewan was pro-
ceeded with on the basis of a checkerboard
system so that when drilling took place in^
any one of the checkers on the board, and
oil was found and therefore there was a fairly
good assurance that there was oil available
in the neighbouring checkers, what this
government in Saskatchewan— that was
genuine and sympathetic to co-operatives-
did was to give some of these checkers to the
co-operative movements in the province. As
a result, in the co-operative movement in
Saskatchewan there is an oil industry which
goes all the way from taking the oil out of
the ground, to the refineries which they built
to refine the oil, to carrying it in co-operative
trucks, to the retail co-operative agencies, to
the farmers who are using it in their
machinery on their farms.
Farmers there can feel that this resource
which is under the groimd in their province
is not something that is being exploited in the
fashion that is happening in neighbouring
Alberta, for example, by big oil companies,
but rather they themselves have a share in
it. This is the kind of thing that can happen
when a government wishes to assist people
to enter into a programme of co-operative
enterprise as a contribution to economic de-
veloDment.
There is one other item on the farm front,
Mr. Speaker, that I want to touch on. It
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
141
grows out of the observations of the hon.
Prime Minister with regard to farm machinery
legislation. The interesting thing about farm
machinery legislation that is now being dis-
cussed in the province of Ontario is that it is
to meet a problem that is by no means new.
Farmers have grumbled for years about the
cost of farm machinery. Indeed back in the
30's when the economic pinch was very great
there were quite a number of investigations
to look into the cost of farm machinery.
They have grumbled in many instances about
the inadequacy of farm machinery to meet
the particular condition in a certain province.
They have grumbled more recently about the
difficulty in getting parts so that if perchance
they should have a breakdown on late Friday
afternoon, they find that they cannot get parts
for their machinery until Monday and they
lose the whole weekend in the rush of the
harvest season— something which is pretty
desperately important when you have the
Icind of weather conditions that we had this
past year. So this is not new.
Indeed, in the province of Saskatchewan
a man like Tommy Douglas, who works with
the people to solve their problems, passed a
farm machinery Act in that province in the
year 1949. And I am interested to note that
that farm machinery Act in Saskatchewan
comprises all five of the principles which
were spelled out by the executive of the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture, when they
raised the matter with the hon. Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) a few weeks ago.
Mr. William Tilden, the president of the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture, in a recent
issue of the Rural Co-operator, in discussing
this issue, concludes thus:
Saskatchewan has a farm machinery Act
and certainly farmers in the west have in-
dicated approval of it. There is every
reason to believe that Ontario farmers will
be just as appreciative.
The point I am trying to make, Mr.
Speaker, is that this is an old problem and
the solution is one that we do not need to
pioneer, because I repeat, and 1 point this
out to the hon. Prime Minister, that the five
principles that have been suggested by the
O.F. of A. executive are the basic principles
of the Saskatchewan Act. They are not
just the one point, for example, that appears
to be the point of concern in the Liberal
bill that is now standing on the order paper,
namely that of the provision of adequate
parts.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member will agree that our approach to this
problem of having a look at it before we
do any—
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
am not certain that I do agree with this
approach. That is the point I am getting
to. In the light of the fact that the pioneer-
ing has been done, instead of this govern-
ment taking its courage in its hand and
bringing in a bill and letting us debate the
bill— and if we wish to amend it, surely,
we will have the opportunity to amend it—
what is the government doing? They are
going to call a meeting on December 7—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Of the people most
interested before we plan the bill, Mr.
Speaker, that is what we are going to do.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, just
let me remind the hon. Prime Minister
what he himself said the other day. He
said we will talk about it and we will hear
the representations made on December 7.
And then he kept the door open, he said
then we may set up a select committee to
look into all the diflBculties involved in this.
Well, this is really opening the door for the
farm machinery companies to get in and exag-
gerate the problems that are going to have to
be coped with so that we will have a select
committee run for two or three years and
perhaps the farmers will get their bill at the
end of that period.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is indicative,
once again, of the approach of this govern-
ment in coming to grips with problems of
agriculture. They do not need to delay. There
is no need for procrastination. All they need
to do is get the statutes of the province of
Saskatchewan, where they have had ten satis-
factory years of operation, as testified to by
the president of the Ontario Federation of
Agriculture, and adopt tliat bill to meet the
needs in the province of Ontario and bring it
into this House and let us get on with the
matter.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We will look after the
needs of this province and we will let the
province of Saskatchewan look after itself.
That is the reason we are doing it the way
in which we are doing it. We are not going
to accept holus-bolus—
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will
leave the farm sector of my remarks and
move now to the other great body of workers
in this province, to be found in the unions
of this province.
I am constantly amazed at the continuous
142
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
flow of comment from people, comment that
is of a malicious nature with regard to the
role of labour in the province of Ontario at
the present time. If I can just take one
example of this from an old union baiter from
away back— the Globe and Mail on November
27. I find Norman L. Matthews, that ex-
president of the Liberal Association of
Ontario, delivering a speech to an organiza-
tion in this city, and it is not surprising to
discover that he was meeting in the Royal
York, and this is what Mr. Matthews is
reported to have said. "In the past two
years there have been instances of labour
union lawlessness in Ontario which previously
would have been thought impossible." He
said this resulted from an increasing union
power "which has made legislators reluctant
to deal with acts of violence and coercion
by trade unions in the way they would treat
the same crimes by individuals," a statement
which is utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
He put part of the blame for this on "the
sector of management that helps increase
union power by agreeing to such forms of
union security as the compulsory dues check-
off." In other words, here is an ardent and
leading Liberal of the province still arguing
against dues check-off and union security. He
proceeds— as did, incidentally, a number of
the men as they were aspiring to the leader-
ship of the Conservative party— he goes on to
state that in many cases union leaders have
abused their powers and have used them to
exploit the workers. And of course he always
—as did the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe
( Mr. Downer ) and others— he always picks on
the teamsters union.
The abuses brought to light in the
teamsters union would not have been
possible if it were not for the high degree
of union security granted to these unions.
Trying to smear the whole of the union
movement with the sins of one sector of it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what I think these gentle-
men must take a look at is the fact that in
the instance that they usually pick to smear
the whole labour movement, the labour move-
ment has moved. They are coping with
their problem. If you go to the United States
of America where Hoffa lives— you would
almost think he lived here— you will find that
Mr. Hoffa has been thrown out of the trade
union movement. Indeed, he is in a running
battle with the trade union movement,
launching $1 million suits against the heads
of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. What I sometimes
wonder is: when are some of these people
who spend so much of their time berating
the trade union movement going to take a
look at the same kind of illegality and abuse
of power that goes on in the business world?
I was interested just last week to read in
the Toronto Daily Star the comments of a
judge when he sentenced the former president
of the Electrical Contractors Association of
Ontario to $7,500 for conspiring to run a
combine. In sentencing him, Mr. Speaker, he
made this comment: "In my view what was
done in this case verges on the tactics used
by racketeers and gangsters."
I look forward to somebody— on the Con-
servative side of the House preferably— draw-
ing attention to this kind of thing and stressing
it.
A few weeks ago I arrived in Gait on the
very day on which a man who is head of an
electronics industry out there, which is part
of the whole electrical industry of this North
American continent, who had apparently been
very, very critical of myself. In discussing
the combine law in the Dominion of Canada,
this man went on to make these comments:
Mr. Rapsey branded the Canadian Com-
bines Investigations Act as an importation
from the United States, and the rest is a
direct quote, Mr. Speaker: "where they have
recently been throwing a lot of Christians
to the lions to amuse the populace."
Here were the heads of the electrical
industry who had combined to gouge the
public of the United States of America of
untold millions of dollars; for the first time
they had been sentenced to spend a little
time in jail as well as pay fines, and some of
their colleagues on this side of the border
were weeping these great tears and describing
them as Christian gentlemen who were being
thrown to the lions to amuse the populace.
It is this approach to such illegality in the
business world that is never mentioned while
gross exaggeration is made of the alleged
illegality that takes place in the trade union
movement.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, during this past year
we have seen an epic battle take place in the
province of Ontario; one of the epic struggles
of the trade union movement throughout the
whole history of the labour movement in this
country. I am referring to the struggle that
was put up by the immigrant construction
workers this past summer. When the social
history of this nation is written, I think you
will find that struggle is going to find its way
beside the Winnipeg strike and others in
which the workers of this nation have fought
and won their rights.
But what should not be missed, Mr.
Speaker, is the fact that government neglect
NOVEMBER 30, 1961
143
—this government's neglect— was responsible
for the conditions which produced that violent
explosion. Just let me recall to this House
a sequence of events which took place during
hearings of the select committee on labour
more than three years ago.
A certain witness had testified regarding
alleged violence and intimidation of the
teamsters union in attempting to "organize**
gravel pits north of Toronto. This witness
was immediately put on oath, his testimony
was submitted to the hon. Attorney-Generars
department, which acted with exceptional
speed in appointing Mr. Justice Roach as a
one-man Royal commission. Here was an
example which the hon. Attorney-General
recognized as providing an opportunity to
smear the whole trade union movement with
the alleged sins of a few— and the government
seized on it.
Some weeks went by, however, and the
Ontario Federation of Labour returned with
another brief. This was a brief in which they
spelled out the illegalities that had taken
place in management's participation in labour-
management's relations. There had been
endlessly repetitive evidence with regard to
what unions had been doing and so the
Ontario Federation of Labour came back
just to get the record back into perspective.
I have their brief here. It is some 19
pages of solidly documented instances of
illegal action on the part of management. I
just want to read one portion of one page
because it is very relevant to this epic battle
that took place this past year:
Canada is not always the promised land
for immigrants. Bruno Zannini, who
founded a union for new Canadian workers,
conducted a survey of bricklayers soon
after his Local 35 was chartered. His
survey revealed that 85 per cent of the
new Canadian bricklayers he organized
never received holiday pay, compulsory
under Ontario law. They had never seen
a holiday with pay book or the stamps.
Fifty per cent of them had never heard
of unemployment insurance and their em-
ployers had never deducted the worker's
share or paid their own.
Most of these cases revealed outright
chiselling by employers; three out of four
worked for 12 hours a day including
Sunday, a practice banned by law: work-
men's compensation, especially needed in
the construction field, was a joke— employers
who were not deducting income tax pay-
ments could not be bothered making pay-
ments to the compensation board. A
common practice was to pay a worker with
a post-dated cheque, when he went to cash
the cheque the bank stamped it N.S.F. Al-
though wages were pitifully low, when the
worker could collect them, the men were
cheated on the hours worked. If they
worked 72 hours a week they were paid for
50, and if they rebelled the threat of
deportation hung over their heads. Men
daily work in fear of deportation.
So reported Mr. Zannini.
He was alarmed at the number of new
Canadians who were trying to save every
penny possible so that they could return, so
they could leave and return to their native
land. "All they prayed for was enough money
to get out of Canada," he said.
The O.F.L. brief went on: "At least 20 per
cent of the firms employing new Canadian
bricklayers made income tax deductions for
the total hours a man worked, although they
deprived him of at least a tenth of his rightful
earnings. According to their books they paid
a man for his work on the job, but the worker
took what he could get."
I could go on, and on, Mr. Speaker. The
interesting thing is that when this was pre-
sented to the committee, I suggested that we
had no alternative but to refer it to the hon.
Attorney-General's department for action.
After all, we had moved in precisely the same
way when charges were made against the
unions. But what was the result of my sug-
gestion?
I could not even get a seconder for my
motion, not even either one of the two Lib-
erals on the committee would second the
motion. I invite this House, Mr. Sneaker,
when they read in newspapers of Liberal
M.P.P.'s suffering the self-imposed hardships
of a week living with Italian immigrant fami-
lies to recall that neither of the Liberals on
that committee were willing to second the
motion which would have lead directly to
investigations to get the full facts and bring an
end to this shameful exploitation.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Well, one can-
not speak—
Mr. MacDonald: However, Mr. Speaker, I
do not wish to direct my main fire at the
Liberals. As usual they were only an accom-
plice in this old party deal and I am quite
willing to believe that even if they had
seconded the motion the Tory majority would
have killed it.
Thus it was, Mr. Speaker, that this govern-
ment was responsible, with an assist from the
Liberals, for the perpetuation of the con-
ditions which produced the violent explosion
144
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in the construction industry. If the select
committee on labour and this government
had done its duty there would have been no
need for the Goldenberg investigation that is
now underway. It would have been done
three years ago and the shameful exploitation
and hardships imposed upon fellow Canadians
would have been halted.
That hardship did not end and has not
ended now. Just let me illustrate it with one
case which I drew to the attention of the
public a week ago— the kind of thing that
still goes on.
This will take me just a minute, Mr.
Speaker, and then I will move adjournment of
the debate, but it is an integral part of what
I am speaking about. This is the case of a
new Canadian, who was unemployed for a
year prior to last June. So he went to the
city of Ottawa; he answered an advertisement
in the paper in the city of Ottawa. He got a
job with a certain garage in the city of
Ottawa.
He was forced to post a bond of $400 as a
guarantee of his integrity. And then he signed
a contract in which his prospective employer
would give him $50 a week for the first
month and $75 a week after that.
Well, Mr. Speaker, after two weeks he was
laid off and he was given three cheques for
the amount of $435, post-dated. But there
was no money in the bank. In fact, one of
the Ottawa papers, in publishing my com-
ments last week after a statement to the press,
claims even the operator of the garage is a
fictitious name. And yet there is nothing
which this man can do. He can take court
action, which will cost him more money. Mr.
Speaker, I will just read to you the last
paragraph of his letter to me:
I went to the priest, the police, to a
lawyer, to my union, unemployment insur-
ance office, the Italian Consulate, the immi-
gration office, the labour board, the better
business bureau, the small wage claim,
and everybody turned me down. But I do
not want to let this matter be dropped. I
was victimized and cheated. People laugh
in my face and I want justice. I just beg
you to help me.
If there were ever a continuing cry of the
exploited, there it is. And yet there is no law
in this province to cope with this kind of
thing.
Our Fair Employment Practice law? I
have talked about this thing with Louis Fine,
and Louis Fine quite frankly said, "I cannot
do anything about it, it is outside our juris-
diction, but if you give me the details the
next time one of my men go into Ottawa, I
will have him look into it."
Well, I have not sent the details to Mr.
Louis Fine because I think this is a matter
on which something should be done at the
legal level so that a man— who was exploited
in this fashion by an employer who himself
should have been putting up a bond as a
guarantee of his integrity instead of filching
the worker of $400— there surely should be a
law to protect workers from this kind of thing.
So it continues.
Well, Mr. Speaker, so will I continue to-
morrow; and I will move the adjournment
of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before
moving the adjournment of the House, we
will proceed with any of the orders on the
order paper tomorrow and tlie Throne Debate.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.05 o'clock p.m.
Page
19
ERRATUM
(November 23, 1961)
Column Line Correction
2 5 Change to read:
Mr. Rollins, Chairman; Messrs. Carruthers,
No. 8
ONTARIO
Hegiglature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Friday, December 1, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C*
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
J I Friday, December 1, 1961
JPower Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Macaulay 147
Revised Statutes of Ontario, bill to confirm, Mr. Roberts, second reading 148
Fish Inspection Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, second reading 148
Bailiffs Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 148
Coroners Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 148
Crown Attorneys Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 148
Jurors Act, bill to amend, Mr, Roberts, second reading 149
Mechanics' Lien Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 149
Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1960, bill to confirm, Mr. Roberts, second reading 149
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 149
Trustee Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 149
Sanatoria for Consumptives Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 149
Air Pollution Control Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 149
Department of Economics and Federal and Provincial Relations and The Department
of Commerce and Development, bill to amalgamate, reported 149
Ontario Parks Integration Board Act, bill to amend, reported 149
Conservation Authorities Act, bill to amend, reported 149
Parks Assistance Act, bill to amend, reported 151
Provincial Parks Act, bill to amend, reported 151
Forest Fires Prevention Act, bill to amend, reported 153
Forestry Act, bill to amend, reported 153
Resumption of the debate on tfie speech from the Throne, Mr. MacDonald 153
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. White, agreed to 169
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 169
•i,',r;> ,■?.^'^,1Vu^|^ .(SkS.':,l itmfi!. K>t ^>*^''^
14t
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE POWER COMMISSION ACT
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources) moves first reading of bill intituled.
An Act to amend The Power Commission
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which
amends a section of The Power Commission
Act, which has provided up to this time that
the Commission of Ontario Hydro shall con-
sist of not less than three and not more than
six, of which two may be and one must be a
member of the executive council. The amend-
ment provides that the commission shall be
not less than three and not more than six, of
whom two may be members of the executive
council.
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day, I would like to draw to the attention
of the hon. members of this House a report
that has been placed on their desks, concern-
ing the Metropolitan Toronto system of
government.
This is a 90-page document prepared by
Tlie Department of Economics with the co-
operation of The Department of Municipal
Affairs at the request of the special committee
of the metropolitan council on metropolitan
affairs. It is essentially a fact-finding report
and is objective in nature. I am sure it will
be useful in stimulating and crystalizing our
thinking on the subject.
FRroAY, December 1, 1961
The Metropolitan Toronto system of
government established by this Legislature
in 1953 has been an outstanding success, but
all of us know that the growth of Metro area
and changes in basic conditions have raised
questions of representation and economic bal-
ance. This report considers the financial
effects of amalgamation, or of a four- or five-
borough system of government on each of the
13 municipalities now in Metro.
Between 1954 and 1960 the assessed popu-
lation of Metro increased from 1,253,000-odd
to 1,527,000-odd, for an increase of 22 per
cent. In the last seven years North York,
Scarborough and Etobicoke have doubled
their population, absorbing more than 90 per
cent of the population growth in the whole
Metropohtan Toronto area. Each has one
vote on the Metropolitan Toronto Council.
The anomaly is that these three municipali-
ties under the present system would have, by
1970, a combined population of 950,000
people, or nearly half of Metro's then total
population, and close to half of its total
assessment, yet would have only 13 per cent
of the representation.
This report, Mr. Speaker, does not contain
any recommendations, nor does it reflect the
views of the government of Ontario. It is
submitted as a study document to assist the
special committee of Metropolitan council in
any future deliberations,
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, rising out of the statement of the
hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Cass),
I wonder if he would care to advise the
House whether or not he proposes to intro-
duce any legislation at all reforming Metro
along the lines of this report; or any other
thoughts that the hon. Minister might have.
Hon. Mr. Cass: Well, Mr. Speaker, I might
say that at the present moment I can only
answer the first part of the hon. member's
question by saying that I have had as little
opportunity as he has to study the report,
which was presented to me yesterday, so I
am not in a position to say whether there
would be any action on the part of this
government arising out of the report.
148
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
With respect to legislation to be brought
before this House concerning Metropolitan
Toronto by the government, I may say that
undoubtedly there will be legislation brought
in during this session of the House regarding
Metropolitan Toronto. As to its contents and
its nature I am not in the position to say
because the last meeting of Metro council
for this year has not yet been held and it
has been the policy of this government in the
past, and I am sure will continue to be, that
we do wish to have the views and the wishes
and the conclusions of Metropolitan Toronto
Council placed before us before we finally
formulate any legislation for consideration by
this House.
Mr. Singer: Is it reasonable to assume then,
Mr. Speaker, that there will be no changes in
the Metro system of government unless the
Metro council requests it?
Hon. Mr. Cass: The hon. member may
draw his own conclusions, sir, from what I
have said.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
wonder if it would be in order to ask the
hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow)
when I might expect the answer that he
promised me about a week ago when he
made a statement to the House with respect
to the temporary service on Highway 401?
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Speaker, I made a note of it at the
time the hon. member brought it to my
attention. It got mixed up in my files, but
yesterday I requested Downsview to prepare
a report for the hon. member.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I am
prompted by the blackout, which I hope will
be temporary, to ask the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) a question in relation to the
changes in the Hydro Commission, an-
nounced in the paper this morning. Does he
not feel that inasmuch as the House is now in
session that it would have been at least cour-
teous to have announced these changes in
the Legislature rather than in the news-
paper?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Well,
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Energy
Resources (Mr. Macaulay) attempted to make
an announcement here concerning some poli-
cies on Hydro the other day and was practic-
ally booed out of his seat. However, I will
make a note of the hon. member's remarks
for future cases.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE REVISED STATUTES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General)
moves second reading of Bill No. 1, An Act to
confirm the Revised Statutes of Ontario.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE FISH INSPECTION ACT
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves second reading of Bill No. 12,
An Act to amend The Fish Inspection Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE BAILIFFS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 14, An Act to amend The Bailiffs
Act, 1960-61.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): I
might say that these bills would normally go
to the committee on legal bills following
second reading.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry, I could not catch the
remarks of the hon. Attorney-General.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I was making the usual
announcement about the committee on legal
bills dealing with these types of bills.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CORONERS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 15, An Act to amend The Coroners
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CROWN ATTORNEYS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 16, An Act to amend The Crown
Attorneys Act.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, before that
motion is put, unless the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) wants that bill
to go to the committee on legal bills,, it seems
to me we could let it take its normal course.
It is merely providing for a Deputy Crowii
DECEMBER 1, 1961
149
Attorney in York. If that is agreeable then
this will not go to the committee on legal
bills.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE JURORS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 20, An Act to amend The Jurors Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MECHANICS' LIEN ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 23, An Act to amend The Mechanics'
Lien Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE REVISED REGULATIONS OF
ONTARIO, 1960
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 26, An Act to confirm the Revised
Regulations of Ontario, 1960.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would not think there
is any reason for those two bills, the consoli-
dation of the statutes and regulations going to
committee on legal bills unless—
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) could
send that Crown Attorneys bill to the com-
mittee on legal bills?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well^ I mentioned a mo-
ment ago—
Mr. Singer: Yes, I know, but we missed—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Is it the wish of the
Opposition that it should go?
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, as far as I per-
sonally am concerned, it would not matter
but the hon. member for York Centre (Mr.
Singer) has just advised me that he would
like it to go and I would make that formal
request, on his behalf.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 27, An Act to amend The Summary
Convictions Act. ^,. _ ^
Motion agreed to; Second reading of the
bill.
THE TRUSTEE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 28, An Act to amend The Trustee
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SANATORIA FOR CONSUMPTIVES
ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves second reading of Bill No. 30, An Act
to amend The Sanatoria for Consumptives
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves second reading of
Bill No. 31, An Act to amend The Air Pollu-
tion Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair and
the House resolve itself into committee of the
whole House.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee, Mr. K. Browji in the
chair. . :> .;. .
AMALGAMATION OF DEPARTMENTS
House in Committee on Bill No. 5, An Act
to amalgamate The Department of Economics
and Federal and Provincial Relations and The
Department of Commerce and Development.
Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 5 reported. •
ONTARIO PARKS INTEGRATION BOARD
- .. ;.. .... ACT -...'-. -
House in Committee on Bill No. 6, An Act
to amend The Ontario Parks Integration
Board Act. ^ . . •
Sections 1 to -3, inclusive, agreed to. •'
Bill No. 6 reported. :,r;V. v r ,-;
CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 7, An Act
to amend The Conservation Authorities Act.
150
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr. Chair-
man, this brings up the point that has often
been argued in this House. I could never
understand why, when a bill of this character
is before the Legislature, why the government
would not be in a position to say what hon.
Minister the department was going to be
under, rather than say that the hon. Minister
shall be a member of the executive council
designated by the Lieutenant-Governor. Do
you mean to tell me now that you do not
know what hon. Minister it will be, and if
you do know, why do you not say so in the
legislation?
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Well, I would say to the hon.
member who has spoken, the convenience of
working it in this way is, for example, where
an hon. Minister becomes ill or in some way
is unable to act or a change has been made,
no action can be taken in the department
because there is no legal way of having some-
one else act on his behalf.
Mr. Oliver: That would apply to all
departments.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This may apply in
all departments, but here in this particular
case relating to conservation, it is impossible
to transfer conservation from one hon. Min-
ister to another in the event of incapacity.
In this instance, you will have to speak to
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) as to
the intention of what hon. Minister is to
administer the branch deahng with conser-
vation. But it was designed to introduce
this section so that this could be transferred
from one department without having to
amend the whole Act.
Mr. Oliver: Well, tibere may be reasons
but I do not think those are the ones.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Did the papers
not already announce which hon. Minister
it was going to be— I saw where Dr. Lord,
the chairman of the Metropolitan conserva-
tion authority, said today it is in The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It is possible that Dr.
Lord has made that statement. I cannot be
responsible for his statements.
H<m. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, I am prepared to say— and I think
it is a matter of common knowledge— that
we are going to transfer the conservation
authority to The Department of Lands and
Forests. This is simply a method of doing
it that allows for a certain amount of flexi-
bility. We on this side of the House are
very interested in flexibility and this is the
method by which we have chosen to do it.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Chairman, was there any
thought of transferring that particular branch
to The Department of Municipal Affairs, be-
cause it is mostly through the municipalities
that the conservation authority branch
operates?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, there
are many advantages to having the conser-
vation authority in The Department of Lands
and Forests and I believe that this is where
the conservation authorities were originally.
This will provide for a high degree of
co-operation between the conservation authori-
ties and The Department of Lands and For-
ests. The Department of Lands and Forests
is, of course, the best equipped department
of the government as far as research facili-
ties are concerned, as far as technical experts
are concerned. All their facilities, under
the amalgamation that we propose, will be
available to assist the conservation authorities
in the work that they are doing.
Now I think this is very logical, I think
it is very workable and I think that it will
lead to greater efficiency and will be of dis-
tinct assistance. It is our purpose in making
the shift to provide assistance to the various
conservation authorities throughout the prov-
ince who are really doing such a tremendous
job.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, there is just one brief comment I
would like to make on this. The other day
when we were discussing the future role of
the public accounts conunittee, the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) saw fit to with-
hold action until a select committee which is
looking into precisely this kind of matter
had made its report.
Now that committee, on which both he
and I happen to be members, has given a
great deal of discussion to parks and conser-
vation, to the fact that the jurisdiction over
them is scattered through a great number of
departments. I am therefore a litde curious
about another inconsistency on the part of
this government: when it moves in advance of
the committee having made a report to the
House and decides that it is going to do it
in this way.
I am not objecting to it. I think the logi-
cal place for conservation is in The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests, though it does
DECEMBER 1, 1961
151
have relationship with municipal affairs, but
I am just a little curious as to why he is
jumping the gun and why the hon. Prime
Minister was not ready to jump the gun on
an even more obvious point of getting the
job done with the public accounts committee.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, we are
not jumping any guns. This is a matter of
government administration and frankly it is
a relatively simple matter, as the hon.
member admits. He admits also that he has
no objection to what we were doing and it
is the logical place to put it.
On the other hand, there is no parallel be-
tween this situation and the question of the
function of the public accounts committee.
In dealing with the function of the public
accounts committee, we are contemplating
—when I say we, I am now referring to the
committee, to the select committee, of which
I happen to be a member— the discussion
there contemplated somewhat I would term
rather drastic changes in the function of this
committee and our government set-up. There
are no drastic changes involved in what we
are dealing with in this bill.
Therefore, I do not think that the hon.
member can draw a parallel and say that we
are beating any guns or jumping any fences
or whatever the expression was that he used.
As far as the public accounts committee is
concerned, I would like to see the recom-
mendation of the committee brought forward
and I would like to see that recommendation
considered in this House because it is, as I
say, a matter of some quite complete change
in the policy and the function of the com-
mittee. That is an entirely different matter
than this where we are merely putting our
house in order to get on with the job
government.
Mr. C. E. Janes (Lambton East): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to add a word. There
is no better place, in my view, for this res-
ponsibility, and I have had the pleasure and
honour of working on the oldest conservation
authority in Ontario since its inception. Our
work is practically 100 per cent with Lands
and Forests.
When we ask for advice or help from any-
body on reforestation and river development
and so on, it is always The Department of
Lands and Forests from which we get the
support and help. To my knowledge they are
the only department with that type of experi-
ence.
The hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) mentioned municipal parks. That
is a different idea altogether. I certainly
think they should go under municipal affairs.
But these are different, these must in my
view be under Lands and Forests.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 7 reported.
THE PARKS ASSISTANCE ACT
House in Committee on Bill No. 8, An
Act to amend The Parks Assistance Act.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, barring the
ever-present possibility of incapacitation on
the part of an hon. Minister, could the
government leader tell us who will be the
hon. Minister to administer this particular
bill?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, this bill has
named the Minister of Commerce and Devel-
opment (Mr. Macaulay), but I think—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, it will
be the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
(Mr. Spooner).
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr. Chair-
man, we had a bit of a debate last year on
this bill and the government at that time was
most insistent that this bill be left with The
Department of Commerce and Development.
I am very glad to see that the government
has shown a little enlightenment and did not
take too long to do it. All the reasons that we
got last year apparently have gone out the
window. It made sense just a year ago when
this was just a new bill and it makes just as
much sense today.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 8 reported.
THE PROVINCIAL PARKS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 9, An Act
to amend The Provincial Parks Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort William): Mr. Chair-
man, on this bill, you are turning all your
officials in forestry into Ontario provincial
policemen. Now, is this to be an automatic
procedure; just because you are a member of
the forestry branch, are you automatically a
member of the O.P.P.?
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Chairman, if I may explain to
the hon. member for Fort William (Mr.
152
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Chappie), at the present time certain officials
of The Department of Lands and Forests,
including the district forester, the super-
intendent or other person in charge of the
provincial parks and every forest ranger,
while they are within the boundaries of a
provincial park, have all the power and
authority of a member of the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police. That has been found over a
period of years to be most desirable.
On some occasions it has been found de-
sirable also that a person who is a conserva-
tion officer should have the same authority
as his co-workers in the provincial parks.
And all we are asking for is that the title
of the conservation officer should be added
to those who have authority within a provin-
cial park, to those who already have such
authority.
It is purely a matter of routine, in my
estimation, for greater facility and ease of
maintaining law and order and all the other
things that our department people have to do
while within a park. They will have no such
authority outside the boundaries of a pro-
vincial park.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think
I can agree with the hon. Minister that
it makes some sense for remote sections of
the province that foresters should have that
power. But when you extend this to conserva-
tion officers! Many of these conservation areas
are in pretty substantially built-up areas—
Hon. Mr. Spooner: The hon. member is on
the wrong track.
Mr. Singer: Just wait till I finish! Many of
these conservation areas are in substantially
built-up parts of this province— Heart Lake
and so on— there are several of them within
the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto and
not too far from Metropolitan Toronto. If
the government plans to cloak conservation
officers in these areas with all the powers of
police officers, I think that we should have
the positive assurance to this House that these
conservation officers will be given complete
training as policemen.
Now it may well be that this is impor-
tant, these conservation areas in the middle
of built-up locations certainly need policing,
but in the various Metropolitan areas there
is a good force— the Metropolitan Toronto
police force— and in the surrounding town-
ships, in Chinguacousy and Toronto township,
Markham and Vaughan, there are police
forces. The hou; 'member for York North
(Mr. Mackenzie) Idiows this. There is a real
danger, to my mfnd, of clothing conserva-
tion officers with powers of policemen unless
they are properly trained. It could lead to
some very serious difficulties.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Chairman, unfor-
tunately the hon. member is terribly con-
fused this morning. He is a like a friend of
mine who said he never wakes up until
11:00 o'clock in the morning irrespective of
what time he gets up.
If he would only read the Act, and as a
well-known member of the bar I would sug-
gest that is the best and the first thing to do,
he would see that this has nothing to do
with river valley conservation authorities. It
has efiFect only while in a provincial park,
and provincial parks are set aside by the
proper legislation. It has nothing to do with
river valley conservation authorities at all,
metropolitan authority or any other kind.
Mr. Troy: I wish I had the authority of
a conservation officer, I would do something.
I am sure that the bill would be a little
more understandable if in Section 1 after
"line" you put in a comma.
As you look at it and read it again— this
may be Grey Cup weekend but we are still
not in the mood. It says:
Section 9 of The Provincial Parks Act
is amended by inserting after "ranger" in
the second line "and conservation officer"
all part of the same section, "so that the sec-
tion shall read as follows."
I presume that you are including in this
bill the words "and conservation officers."
That is what the hon. Minister has said, to
bring him into the ambit of the Act so that
the conservation officer has the authority
that the other officers already have. I think
that section would be more intelligible if you
had a comma after the word "line."
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Trans-
port): Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very
important point and I think the hon. mem-
ber might move to amend the section in the
terms he has described.
Mr. Troy: Well, I thank the hon. Minister
very much. With that advice from the hon.
Minister, a distinguished member of the
bar, I so move.
Mr. Chairman: All in favour of the amend-
ment, please say "Aye."
Those opposed, say "Nay."
Section 3 agreed to.
Bill No. 9 reported.
DECEMBER 1, 1961
153
THE FOREST FIRES PREVENTION ACT
House in Committee on Bill No. 10, An Act
to amend The Forest Fires Prevention Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 10 reported.
THE FORESTRY ACT
House in Committee on Bill No. 11, An Act
to amend The Forestry Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 11 reported.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the commit-
tee rise and report certain bills without
amendment, and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole begs to report certain bills with-
out amendment and asks leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, when the House adjourned last
evening at six of the clock plus five, I had
just reviewed the situation within the con-
struction industry, particularly in the Metro-
politan area, and the fact that this situation
was not a new one— though it had been
revealed in all its ramifications just this past
year— because the details of it had been given
to a select committee some three years ago.
That select committee and this government
refused to move so that they were in good
part responsible for the perpetuation of the
conditions which are now being looked into
three or four years later by the Goldenberg
commission.
I also pointed out that this kind of exploita-
tion continues in many ways and cited a case
of Giovanni Ariginello, an unemployed chap
here in Toronto who had gone to Ottawa
to get employment, got two weeks employ-
ment and meanwhile was bilked of some $400
plus his wages for that period.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that most
of the difficulties we are facing are rooted
in The Department of Labour itself— its opera-
tions and administration. Many times in this
House when we have been considering the
estimates of The Department of Labour, we
have pointed to the extent to which it is com-
pletely out of date; that its Acts are not
being administered even when they do have
some relationship to modern problems.
I was rather interested, Mr. Speaker, to dis-
cover that those general charges that we had
documented in some instances were very,
very solidly documented once again when the
report of the Royal Commission on Industrial
Safety was brought down just a short time
ago.
Hon. members will find for example on
page 3 of the report reference to some of
the Acts and regulations of the department
being "archaic and outdated." Now I do
not know if we used those words but certainly
they are an apt description. On page 4
there is a reference to the fact that one of
the Acts, The Factory, Shop and Office Build-
ing Act, which one of my colleagues has dis-
cussed a number of times in recent years, is
generally "antediluvian"— a pretty harsh term
coming from as responsible a body as a
Royal commission.
We have on a number of occasions re-
ferred to the complacency of this department
and the fact that it just was too smug in the
face of the problems that kept recurring. I
was interested to read on page 7 of the
report this delightful understatement:
The testimony of the officers of The
Department of Labour generally with res-
pect to the adequacy of the Acts, their
enforcement and the number of inspections
and inspectors required, indicates a degree
of satisfaction that is inconsistent with the
requirements of keeping pace with the
rapidly growing industrial technology.
I repeat, it is a delightful understatement,
but what they are saying is that this depart-
ment is just smug and complacent, with re-
gard to its inadequacies. Perhaps the best
example, without going into any more detail
at this point of this particular report, was
its references to the whole problem of indus-
trial safety on pages 21 and 22, where they
point to the fact that this Act has been in
effect for some 45 years; that portions of the
Act— the regulations relating to it— have never
been clear. They report that the attitude of
the associations which have been given the
responsibility for safety by the Workmen's
Compensation Board is one of complacency
with respect to their present functions which
are largely educational.
On the next page they point out that ten
years ago this government set up a commis-
sion, the Roach Commission, to look into
industrial safety. This commission made rec-
ommendations which have been sitting on
the shelf gathering dust and now ten years
154
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
later exactly the same kind of recommenda-
tions are made again.
That, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, is about
as solid a documentation as you want of the
kind of criticisms we have been making of
The Department of Labour. The fact of the
matter is that the operations of The Depart-
ment of Labour are hopelessly inadequate for
a great industrial province like the Province
of Ontario.
Our horse and buggy department has
wandered willy-nilly into the traffic of our
modem world oblivious to its shortcomings
and complacent about its actions. In fact, in
this department complacency has become a
disease of almost epic proportions, and I am
hoping that with a new hon. Minister— though
I express this hope with some trepidation— we
will get at some of these problems that have
not been looked into.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn to another topic.
I am sorely tempted— I shall steel myself and
discipline myself against doing this— but I am
sorely tempted to preface it with a story of
the emergence of the New Democratic Party
in this nation and in this province during the
last year. I know that I shall make no con-
verts here. Hon. members missed the inspira-
tion and the excitement that was testified to
by critics who came to scoflF and remained
to be impressed at our conventions, and so
on. . . . All of this is extremely important.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute. Mr.
Speaker, now I am provoked into taking a
moment or so to enlighten hon. members.
I have here, for example, quotations from tlie
press who attended our national convention
for one solid week. Let me quote one of
them for example: Norman Campbell of the
Ottawa Citizen:
It was the hardest working, most faith-
fully attended political convention ever
held in Ottawa as well as being the largest
in point of official delegate registration.
I refer to the Ottawa Journal, a good Tory
paper:
So ended what may be considered one
of the best attended, best organized, best
publicized political conventions ever staged
in Canada.
This will prove that a newspaperman who
came there critical went away profoundly
impressed.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, let me give just one
final quote and then I remove the pain and
suffering from this revelation of truth to the
Tory back benches. This is a comment by
Norman Smith. He happens to be a good
Conservative appointed to one of tlie nortliern
commissions that looks after—
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
What is the date of the clipping? Before
October 27?
Mr. MacDonald: The clipping was immedi-
ately after our convention in August. Here
is the quotation:
This reporter looks back on the found-
ing convention of the New Democratic
Party with a strange kind of elation: It
was a humdinger. The N.D.P. is going to
do things. My elation is not that of a
party member, it will neither surprise nor
sadden them when I say I am not a party
member, nor do I plan to be, but the
feeling of warmth that ran through me
as the convention hall throbbed with a
genuine fervor, with an awareness that
democracy was showing some life. The
N.D.P. is going to do things for itself and
its people.
I did not plan to do this, Mr. Speaker, but
I was provoked by my colleagues in the
House who are thirsting for some informa-
tion about this great development.
There is one aspect of this development
which is a matter for consideration of this
House— the financing of political parties— after
all the comments that have been made with
regard to it by aspirants to the leadership
of the Conservative Party and by some of the
peregrinating ministers of this government
who are touring the province in various
capacities.
An hon. member: Would the hon. member
give us the meaning of that word?
Mr. MacDonald: Peregrinating? That is
somebody who wanders around not knowing
exactly what he is doing, where he has come
from or where he is going.
Let me start, Mr. Speaker, with what may
seem to be an irrelevant point but I think I
can prove to hon. members tliat it is very
relevant. During the course of the campaign
for the leadership convention, one of the aspi-
rants to the leadership of the Conservative
party, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe
(Mr. Downer) made this comment:
I ask myself how in the name of Heaven
can we expect to change the evils of our
government and over-taxation if the expen-
ditures being made during the campaign
are representative of the kind of govern-
ment these men expect to lead.
DECEMBER 1, 1961
155
He showed his audience a brochure put out
by the hon. Minister of The Department of
Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay) entitled
"Dedication, experience, responsibiHty."
"And I have added extravagance," the
hon. member for Duflerin-Simcoe said. "You
may say that I am the candidate of the Httle
people."
Well, apart from its demagoguery, Mr.
Speaker, sheer demagoguery, I was also inter-
ested to see that when the same hon. member
got to speaking to the convention he added
to it even greater demagoguery. He said, for
example:
I contend that money taken from the
pay envelopes of the workers under the
guise of union dues must not and should
not be used for the furtherance of any
political party. It is an evil thing. It is
an evil thing that employers are forced to
collect money from pay envelopes to be
passed to a political party with whom they
have nothing in common. It is an evil
thing that workers should be forced to sup-
port a political party with whom they have
nothing in common.
I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, if one could
paraphrase this. Is it an evil thing when
management makes compulsory collections of
money from consumers in order to pass it on
to their political friends? Because this is
where they are getting their money.
Mr. W. B. Lewis (York Humber): There is
something burning. There must be a short-
circuit.
Mr. MacDonald: There is no short-circuit
at all. No short-circuit at all. If it is evil
that money which is part of union dues by a
democratic process shotdd be used for the
financing of the party of their choice, why
then should the consumers of this nation have
to pay money on every product they buy,
money that is going to be given by manage-
ment under the table to finance a party with
which the consumers have nothing in
common?
Hon. M. B. Dyniond (Minister of Health):
Let them contract in, then, instead of con-
tracting out.
Mr. MacDonald: However, let me proceed
with the comments of the hon. member for
DuflFerin-Simcoe. He goes on in characteristic
fashion, maligning the trade union movement
for sheer political purposes:
I want to go on record that if I am
elected your leader, the president of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters will
not dictate policy here in Ontario. I will
not stand for dictation from Mr. HofiFa or
anybody else out of our country in labour
matters. It is my intention to make a thor-
ough study of gangsterism and dictatorship
in the union movement in Ontario.
I wish the hon. member displayed a small
measure of the same enthusiasm about investi-
gating gangsterism in the electrical companies
and the electrical associations, and many other
parts of management.
Mr. Speaker, I say this as much in sorrow
as in anger, because I learned to have a great
respect for the same hon. gentleman when he
sat in that Chair and fulfilled the role of
Speaker for a number of years; I had a respect
for him because he was very fair. I do not
need to tell hon. members that a Speaker is
subject to a good many pressures from many
directions and that it is very difficult to be
fair throughout and I became convinced dur-
ing his tenure of ofiice that this man would
do everything possible to be fair in the exer-
cise of his responsibilities.
For that reason I was profoundly disillu-
sioned that this man should make this kind
of a campaign when he was aspiring to the
leadership of the political party that now
holds the government because, Mr. Speaker,
his campaign was definitely a combination of
moss-back Toryism and cheap pohtics from
the word go.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have a
suspicion that the people in the government
party of which he is a member, considered it
even cheaper than some of us on the other
side of the House who had to withstand the
indignity of some his attacks. So much so,
I think, that in the process he has assured
himself of a back bench perpetually in the
government.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member
will fully understand and appreciate what I
am saying this morning because if I may
borrow a phrase from him, "I am just simply
naihng his political hide to the fence." That
was his phrase. However, I do not want to
dwell on his views any further because he is
not in the Cabinet and I do not know what
influence he is going to have on this particular
issue.
I want to get to a man who presumably
may have something to do with this issue, the
hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts). As far
back as last March the hon. Attorney-General
started going around this province making
statements such as the fact that the new
party was going to be financed by "extortion."
The hon. Attorney-General stated last March,
156
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in all the solemn terms of which he is capable
on occasion:
Many I am sure would have reservations
about not only the wisdom but the validity
of such a system of financing. If such a
policy were adopted in this province it
would raise a serious question of public
interest to public policy.
In an interview after his speech, so the
Toronto Telegram reported, on March 24,
the hon. Attorney-General said he would not
comment on whether Ontario might legislate
against such a fund-raising activity, but said
he thought the courts will accept a law British
Columbia is passing barring political donations.
Then the hon. Attorney-General went on in
his leadership campaign. He went into Peter-
borough proclaiming his theme that "I intend
to hit and hit hard." He is a wonderful
fellow, he has not yet figured out the diflFer-
ence between a fighting leader and a leader
that goes around picking fights.
However, when the hon. Attorney-General
went into Peterborough he had it revised
slightly as to "scription by extortion"; and
another phrase, "It was dangerous to the very
roots of democracy."
The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, about
the danger to the roots of the democracy— if
I may go back to the comments of the hon.
member for Dufferin-Simcoe— if it is
dangerous to the roots of democracy that the
aspirant of the leadership to the party should
be buying his way into power, as the hon.
member for Dufferin-Simcoe said of the hon.
Minister of Energy Resources, is it not
equally dangerous tiiat a party should be buy-
ing its way into power, particularly when the
hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was living
off some of the buying process during all the
years in which he has been fighting Conser-
vative election campaigns? This is sheer poli-
tical hypocrisy on the part of the hon.
Attorney-General and other spokesmen in the
government.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
May I ask—
Mr. MacDonald: No, the hon. Attorney-
General may not ask. He has had all the
chances to this stage, he can just sit down and
keep quiet. He is the centre of a hurricane,
and the centre of a hurricane is a place of
inaction and silence.
Mr. Speaker, let me proceed. I do not
intend to have the bluster of the hon.
Attorney-General interrupt me at all. I have
got the floor.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Just do not talk about
me.
Mr. MacDonald: I will continue to talk
about the hon. Attorney-General because he
is the focus of suspicion and inaction and
most of the trouble in this government at the
moment. Make no mistake about it, I am
going to continue to talk about him a great
deal.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: All the hon. member
ever produces, though, is suspicion.
Mr. MacDonald: That is the kind of Tory
speech this province has been hearing for
too long.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying before I was
interrupted by the hon. Attorney-General that
comments of his are sheer political hypocrisy
because this government, in fact the old
parties, traditionally have been financed by
big business interests. Let me give the hon.
members one of the more recent instances of
testimony.
There is a gentleman by the name of
Scott. He was organizer for the Liberal
Party provincially and then he became
organizer of the Liberal Party nationally.
Now I do not know exactly what he has
become. Perhaps in fulfilment of the old
adage that those who cannot teach, teach
teachers; maybe those who cannot organize
talk about organization. That is what he is
doing a great deal of at the present time,
and writing articles.
In the course of writing one of his articles
in Macleans magazine early in September,
he pointed out how the old parties were
financed. If hon. members will read it, they
will find he documents it solidly. He comes
up with the conclusion, which he must
know something about, that the Tory party
fought the last federal election on $11
million. The Liberals were not quite so well
off, they only had $8 million; and they got
most of it JFrom the business world. This
from a man who was an organizer and right
in the centre of things.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is going to
cause a lot of outcry in both the Liberal and
Conservative Parties. I am reminded once
again of that old comment of Henry Tru-
man, when somebody said:
"Give them hell, Harry,"
and President Truman said,
"I am not giving them hell, I am just
telling them the truth and they think it is
hell."
DECEMBER 1, 1961
157
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): No com-
parison at all.
Mr. MacDonald: However, Mr. Speaker,
the thing that intrigues me about the approach
of the hon. Attorney-General to this whole
thing is that the hon. Attorney-General heads
a department whose known function is to
treat everybody fairly, that justice shall be
administered equally; and this is precisely,
of course, what the hon. Attorney-General
does not want to do.
He wants to have two rules. He wants
to have one rule for the financing of his own
party in which they will raise money secretly
from whomever they please and nobody
knows anything about it. He wants to have
another rule in which his opposition party,
or one of his opposition parties, will have to
bare the facts of how they are going to be
financed. Well, we do not object to baring
the facts, but it is passing strange that this
kind of approach should come from the hon.
Attorney-General of the province of Ontario,
that he in effect should be going across this
province trying to legislate against his
political opponents. This is precisely what
he is doing.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Nobody said anything
about legislation.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I have
the floor? I think I should have the oppor-
tunity, Mr. Speaker, to comment without
interruptions of the puerile and destructive
nature that I usually get and I do not intend
to tolerate them. Thanks.
Last winter, Mr. Speaker, an hon. colleague
of mine in this House introduced a bill
which could meet and resolve this situation
very readily. It was a bill that presented one
small amendment to The Election Act, that
henceforth the central funds of political
parties would be subject to a public audit.
In the course of that debate the then hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) got up, and with
his halo fairly glistening, informed this House
he knew of no contributions from the business
world to the campaign of the Conservative
Party. From the other side of the House
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer) got up and he too said that
he knew of no contributions that came from
the business world to his party.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest this year that if
the hon. Minister is the least bit worried
about this, my hon. colleague is going to
introduce the same bill once again, and if
the hon. Minister really wants to solve this
thing and put everybody on an equal basis
so that at least we will know where the funds
are coming from, just support this bill.
We, Mr. Speaker, are proud of the way
the New Democratic Party is financed. I
do not come ashamedly at all. It is open
and above board. It is in our constitution.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the
hon. members that the present speaker is the
fifth who has taken part in this debate. The
four previous ones had good attention from
the House and I would ask that the same
attention be given to the present speaker
and all speakers.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not objecting to
their lack of attention, I am objecting to what
is accompanying their attention.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that we
are proud of the way the New Democratic
Party is financed. It is set down in our
constitution so that all the world knows how
it is financed.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Has the hon. member heard of
John Lesage?
Mr. MacDonald: Have we heard about
John Lesage? I am not interested in John
Lesage; I am interested in the hon. leader
of the Opposition and his operations in this
province.
The New Democratic Party is financed by
contributions and memberships from its in-
dividual members and contributions from its
affiliate members.
Mr. Speaker, I may just enlighten the
House on this one point in case the govern-
ment is contemplating legislation to deal
with the situation. Let me tell hon. mem-
bers the procedures that are followed in
making decisions with regard to affiliation.
Notification is given in the normal fashion of
an item on the agenda of a trade union
meeting or whatever other organization it
may be— for there are other organizations,
fraternal and otherwise, that are affiliated.
It is debated at a meeting and after the
debate is held, if there is a majority vote,
they then affiliate. When they affiliate they
do not get contributions that amount to $8
or $11 million. They do not get contribu-
tions of something over $700,000 such as the
Liberal Party got from one company, the
Beauharnois Construction Company, a few
years ago, on which we have documented
evidence. No, they make a contribution of
five cents per member per month, Mr.
Speaker.
158
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
However, Mr. Speaker, there are some
people in these unions who are not sup-
porters of the New Democratic Party. The
constitution of the New Democratic Party
lays down in very firm terms that any per-
son who so desires can contract out so that
no contributions will be made on his part.
All he has to do is to sign the necessary
slip or indicate it to the appropriate offi-
cer-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Orderl Orderl I would like
to point out to the hon. members that this
debate is open to all hon. members to take
part. All hon. members, I understand, will
have an opportunity to speak and I would
ask that the hon. members as they are speak-
ing be given attention.
Mr. MacDonald: In other words, Mr.
Speaker, the democratic process in coming to
this decision is doubly protected. They start
out with a majority vote, which is normally
the way the democratic process works, but
the constitution lays down one further step
that anyone in the minority, who disagrees
with the majority vote, can contract out so
that there is no payment on his behalf.
Now, that Mr. Speaker, is the way in which
the new party is financed, and we invite the
pubhc to take a look at it. However, Mr.
Speaker, when they have done that, I suggest
the next thing they should do is take a look
at how the old parties are financed and ask
exactly the same question and demand that
government, instead of having several rules,
should have the same rule and make certain
that the financing of these parties should
become public property too.
I was interested, Mr. Speaker, to note a
few weeks ago a Gallup poll in which it
indicated, if I recall correctly, something in
the range of 80 per cent of the people of
this country feel that the financing of poHtical
parties should become pubhc knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, there is another comment
with regard to the financing of political
parties, that I will come to a little later in
another context.
I want to move now, Mr. Speaker, to some
comments on the crime situation in the prov-
ince of Ontario. At the moment, Mr. Speaker,
we have the Morton report before us. There
has been a great deal of criticism directed at
the Morton report, some in editorials, some
from the Liberal Opposition in this House.
In my view much of this criticism is some-
what misdirected. The Morton report was
compiled under pretty strict terms of refer-
ence. It was asked to spell out the operations
of crime in a general way in the province of
Ontario and then to examine how these
problems are coped with in other jurisdictions
and to suggest legal procedures whereby
they might be coped with in the province of
Ontario.
In other words, it was not the function of
the Morton report to go beyond these legal
terms of reference and to document the
existence of organized crime or to draw any
moral conclusions with regard to the existence
of organized crime and its threat to society.
The authors of the report stuck to those terms
of reference.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think it is our
duty in this House to go from the general
observations of the Morton report to their
apphcation in the province of Ontario at the
moment, and take a look at the evidence.
This is what I want to do in the first portion
of my remarks.
We do not have to go back very far, Mr.
Speaker. In the last year or so we have had,
for example, evidence of violent killings, in-
dicative of the tie-in with organized crime.
Just let me remind the House of these very
briefly:
Early in 1960, there was a case of a man
coming into the office of a Bay Street broker
and seeking from this man a cool $1,000 a
week simply as protection— part of the so-
called protection racket. When the man ob-
jected and in effect told the gentleman to get
out of his office, the man went out and said,
"You simply have not learned your ABCs." He
came back within five minutes into this
crowded Bay Street office and with four secre-
taries looking on, and in broad daylight, two
hoodlums walked in swinging their blackjacks.
They slugged the man into unconsciousness. A
few months went by and we had another
case that was reported in the Toronto Daily
Star. Lome Gibson, a 35-year-old ex-convict
was forced to stand against the wall of a gar-
age in tiny Milan Street where three bullets
were pumped into his back. His death remains
a mystery and the Star adds, "It was Toronto's
first gangland killing since 1944."
In other words, Mr. Speaker, let us note the
emergence of this pattern of violent attacks.
We have had the Bluestein beating, of which
there has been so much heard that I need add
no more. We have had the mysterious beat-
ing up of the United Church minister out in
Etobicoke— whether or not it has any rela-
tionship to crime nobody knows. With $2,500
offered as a reward, the case stands unsolved.
DECEMBER 1, 1961
159
We had, just a few weeks ago, two people
murdered in a downtown boarding house, or
apartment house, in the city of Toronto. The
evidence seems to be very conclusive— in fact
charges have been laid and arrests have been
made— that it ties in with international crime,
We have had still another case— that of
Alberto Agueci, a resident of this city, who
was beaten up and his body burned and
mutilated because of his involvement in
organized crime.
Let us go one step further, Mr. Speaker.
We have had comments from such responsible
people as Chief Mackey, who pointed out that
gamblers now rule bingo in the province of
Ontario and he warns that they now have a
yearly take in the neighbourhood of $6 million
after all the prizes are paid for.
Hon. members periodically pick up the
paper and read stories such as this one on
October 4, 1961, in the Toronto Daily Star,
that a $3 million betting headquarters had
been found in the Keelesgate Drive area of
North York.
Going back a little, there is a report in the
paper of an O.P.P. investigation into gambling
in the province of Ontario, indicating that
the probe found gambling in 27 centres
throughout the province of Ontario. This is
not just the normal friendly game of gam-
bling; let us make that clear.
Where were these centres? Commissioner
Ward H. Kennedy of the O.P.P. listed them:
Barrie, Brantford, Chatham, Guelph, Hamil-
ton, Kitchener, Niagara, Oshawa, Almonte,
Brampton, Dundas, Fort Erie, Georgetown,
Grimsby, Milton, Oakville, Perth, Preston,
Simcoe, Thorold, Tillsonburg, Uxbridge,
Crystal Beach, Metcalfe, Norwich, Port Credit,
Sutton— this is the kind of evidence of which
we have had so much.
I was interested to read an article that gave
further details of this kind of thing, in
Macleans magazine a few weeks ago by
Trent Frayne, in which he quotes Chief
Mackey as stating this:
There is not a city or small town in
this country that does not have booldes.
And he goes on to add:
It is estimated that the number of bookies
and bookie runners in Canada is 18,000,
while the number charged before the
courts in a year is less than 1,000.
He quotes an eastern judge as speaking
privately and saying this:
The regularity with which bookmakers
appear in the courts, pay fines of a few
hundred dollars and depart to take up their
books where they left oflF is one of the
most striking absurdities in Canadian
justice.
It is a laxity on the part of the courts in
enforcing it!
Mr. Speaker, I think it is well for us to
pause— and I am going to make my point in
this connection by quoting from Trent
Frayne's article— and note how crime is be-
coming established through professional
gambling.
At the outset let me emphasize this point,
which is very well known but one we should
bear in mind: professional gambling is the
heart of organized crime. In fact the point
was made very well in a Brooklyn grand jury
report in 1959, which was reported by Mr.
Frayne:
Gambling is the very heart-beat of
organized crime. Actually if you scratch
the professional operator of a gambling
venture you find the narcotics pedlar, the
loan shark, the vice game operator, the
white slaver and the murderer.
In other words, here is the financial heart
of the whole organized criminal world.
Then in a very graphic way, Mr. Frayne
indicates how organized crime is built up.
At the outset he cites cases of relatively
innocent bookmaking in the city of Toronto:
The bookmaker in the branch office of
an insurance company in downtown
Toronto not far from the R.C.M.P. head-
quarters, is a well made blonde girl in her
middle 20s. She is the kind of friendly
community servant that all bookies would
like to be classed with and usually are.
They simply take bets from men in the
office who cannot wait to get out to the
track and pay them the track price the
next day if they have won. On a recent
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday she
booked $58, $36 and $42 respectively; her
book for the three days was $136 of which
$14 went back in $2 bets— bettors who
won— and $122 went into her bank account.
There is stage one, Mr. Speaker, and what
we have got to face up to is either enforcing
the law or revising it, because the police just
wink at this kind of thing. In wide-open
fashion, there are bookies operating in
Queen's Park right here. Right here in this
building, there are bookies operatingi
An hon. member: Did the hon. member
buy one?
Mr. MacDonald: No, I have never bought
one in my life and I do not say it proudly.
160
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I just never get out to the racetracks and I
do not frequent them from afar.
Mr. Frayne goes to the next step, Mr.
Speaker:
As the dumb blondes go, this girl is
a Texas Guinan, but as a bookmaker she is
little better than a gifted amateur. Her
next step, if she adopts the classic road to
the top in her adopted profession, is to
acquire a cigar store, a lunch counter, or a
dry cleaning shop as a screen for her trade,
a "sheet writer" to record bets that come
in by the telephone; and, if she prospers, a
contract with an American firm that wires
the results of races at all the tracks on the
continent as soon as they are run off. She
might even sell cigars, although most
bookies have little regard for their putative
occupations. "I know a guy," says racing
writer Joe Perlove, "who has this dry clean-
ing business but if you brought in a suit
he would smack you square on the headl"
Well, that is stage two where the individual
operator gets tied in with the developing
organization.
What is stage three? Well, Mr. Frayne
puts it very graphically.
In time a gifted bookie can graduate
from his store front entirely to run his busi-
ness sensibly, under a club charter from
the provincial government. These charters,
though, countenance members gambling
with each other on the premises, but do
not stretch to telephone bets from a wide
public as Toronto police pointed out when
they took a smart businessman named Max
Bluestein, proprietor of the Lakeview
athletic club, to court last December. The
evidence at Bluestein's trial was that the
club he ran with two other bookmakers was
booking an average of $37,000 a day in
illegal bets for well over $13 millions a
year.
So there you have it, Mr. Speaker, from the
individual to the tie-in with the organization,
to becoming established with the approval
and the knowledge of government depart-
ments—certainly with the inaction of govern-
ment departments.
Then we get into the international links,
Mr. Speaker. What has the evidence been in
the last year with regard to the international
links? We have, for example, the Toronto
Telegram of April 22, 1961, quoting the U.S.
Justice Department:
The F.B.I, and the Bureau of Narcotics,
say that they have been fighting organiza-
tional crime in Canada and the United
States for 20 years and have not been get-
ting anywhere.
This, Mr. Speaker, raises a very interesting
point— the number of times we have to find
out about organized crime in Canada from
American sources. They have been fighting
it for 20 years and the hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts) has only got around to fighting
it in the last 48 hours. In fact, he just learned
of its existence about 48 hours ago.
Let us take another example, Mr. Speaker.
The Toronto Daily Star on August 22, where
it reported that "the New York State crime
probers told the Senate subcommittee today
that Toronto bookmaking is big time and
linked to U.S. gamblers."
But let us turn now to a very authoritative
person, Commissioner Harvison of the
R.C.M.P. who came into the city of Toronto
a week or so ago and made a rather remark-
able statement. What Commissioner Harvison
said in that speech was not something that
was new in his public announcements, be-
cause as far back as last June he had made
the statement that Canada was being invaded
from the United States by "powerful corrupt-
ting and vicious crime syndicates."
But he spelled it out a bit more on this
occasion when speaking to the Canadian Club.
He apparently had come right into the city
of Toronto to speak ostensibly to the Cana-
dian Club, but in reality his words obviously
were directed to the hon. Attorney-General.
Because what he said was this:
Crime syndicates in the United States
have infiltrated Canadian gambling, nar-
cotics, trafficking, counterfeiting and pro-
tection racket enterprises and seek to spread
their evil influence in Canada.
He went on to ask why this was happen-
ing. He pointed out that the F.B.I, in the
United States and The Attorney-General's
Department there are vigorously prosecuting
the leaders of organized crime and those
operating it. So they are moving up to
Canada, because they tliink these are greener
fields in which to prosper and to invest their
illicit gains. He pointed out that Castro has
chased the gamblers out of Cuba and that
they too, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: May I—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I con-
tinue to quote from Commissioner Harvison?
Mr. Speaker: Let the member have his
point of order.
DECEMBER 1, 1961
161
Hon. Mr. Roberts: My point is this— on a
point of order, that is what I am moving on
—the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) is reading from a speech, he
is taking certain excerpts, and I am going to
ask him now if he will— I have a copy of the
speech here— but if he will read the bottom
of page 5, the top of page 6, particularly the
centre of page 6. I will give the hon. mem-
bers one sentence:
None of these operations brought the
power of the syndicates into Canada
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is not
a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) wants to
make his speeches, he can make them on
bis time and not mine.
Mr. Speaker, I have attempted briefly to
document from sources that are public
sources, available to anybody, the extent of
organized crime. I want to emphasize once
again that our problem has been that the
people who are responsible for coming to
grips with this have just refused to recog-
nize its existence. That is basically our
problem.
The hon. Attorney-General has been playing
a game of make-believe for the past year. But
not only the hon. Attorney-General— and this
is where it becomes even more serious. For
example, this year when word came from
the United States— this is in August— com-
menting on charges before a Senate Com-
mittee in the United States, that there were
phone links between Toronto and New York
and gamblers and bookmakers were in big-
time business in Toronto, Fred Gardiner
immediately rushes into the picture and said:
I do not believe one word of it, gam-
bling here is kaput. Ever since the Max
Bluestein incident, gambling and every
other racket has been 100 per cent under
control here.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That is exactly what
Chief Mackey told me yesterday at noon.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, will you
please have that hon. gentleman keep his
seat?
Mr. Speaker: The Speaker will maintain
order.
Mr. MacDonald: I draw your attention
to a third incident, Mr. Speaker, and that is
when Chief Mackey made his comment that
bingo had now come into the control of
organized gamblers in the province of On-
tario and that their yearly take was some
$6 million after prizes. What was the re-
action of Mayor Nathan Phillips? He im-
mediately launched a counter offensive.
"Lay off bingo" was his cry. Here we have
the chief of police pointing to the fact that
bingo is part of organized crime and the
mayor of all the people in the city of To-
ronto immediately demands that he lay off
bingo.
Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that state-
ments like these from the hon. Attorney-
General, from the Metro mayor, from the
mayor of Toronto, are precisely the kind of
protection that organized crime wants and
needs in order to get established in this
country.
They are almost criminal in their irrespon-
sibility. This is lulling the public into a
sense of satisfaction with regard to the situ-
ation when others have tried to point out
its seriousness. I have talked to Chief
Mackey no more than 48 hours ago, sit-
ting beside him at a luncheon and I will
not reveal the confidences of that discussion
but they are not completely in line with
what the hon. Attorney-General said just a
moment ago.
The consequences of this, Mr. Speaker,
are what I now want to discuss. We have
the crime, the evidence of it; we have the
attitude of top Tories, the hon. Attorney-
General, Metro mayor and the mayor of
Toronto, toward it. What disturbed me yes-
terday was the kind of lighthearted approach
in one respect, that even the hon. Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts) took, because while he
said we are going to prosecute these men
vigorously— that was nothing new for tbe
hon. Attorney-General has been saying he
was going to prosecute them vigorously all
the time he was saying that there was no
problem. Then he went on to kind of dismiss
what had been presented in this House as a
rehash of information that was available in
the papers and evidence submitted in the
courts, as though it was not important.
Well, there was one comment in the
Morton report in which they might have gone
beyond their terms of reference and pointed
to the long-term problem and danger of this,
and I want to read that comment..
From an examination of the problem, the
committee is satisfied that there is grave
danger, if the present illegal gambling
operation is permitted to continue, that
either domestic or foreign criminal elements
will prosper to such an extent as to under-
mine the very nature of our society.
162
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Those are pretty serious words, Mr.
Speaker:
the very nature of our society.
Commissioner Harvison, Mr. Speaker, has
also pointed out once again how this threat
was being established, when he said this:
The second step, when big crime syndi-
cates move into a territory, is buying
protection from prominent o£Bcials.
Now I want to pause here, Mr. Speaker,
for a moment because this is a relatively new
development in the province of Ontario, in
the proportions that we now have to face it.
It is an extension of the American pattern of
crime and I think it is useful, in fact I think
it is necessary, that we in this House should
take a look at certain aspects of the American
pattern of crime, because there is every
reason to believe that they are going to be
duplicated here in the province of Ontario. So
let us look across the border for a moment.
The head of the U.S. Department of
Justice's special group on organized crime
declared about a year ago, and I am quoting
here:
The underworld gets about $9 million
of the estimated $47 billion spent annually
on illegal gambhng. Fully half of the
syndicates* income from gambling is ear-
marked for protection money paid to the
police and politicians.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, here is a
U.S. Department of Justice special group on
organized crime flatly asserting that there is a
cool $4.5 milhon being spent in the United
States to corrupt politicians and the police
as part of the whole establishment of organ-
ized crime.
Let me go to another phase of it in the
United States. Alexander Heard has made a
study of campaign contributions and financ-
ing of political parties in the United States,
arid he has estimated that organized crime
currently pays for 15 per cent of campaign
expenditures at state and local levels. In
fact, he has docimiented figures in which he
points out that back in 1952, that would have
been some $16 miUion, a figure which was
ten times the national contribution of organ-
ized labour to politics and political action in
the United States. Now we are getting this
situation into perspective.
I want to say to Cabinet ministers who are
going around today crying havoc about labour
support for the New Democratic Party,
through contributions of five cents per mem-
ber per month, arguing that it is conscription
by extortion, dangerous to the very roots of
our democracy. Perhaps their cries are to
distract attention not only from the size and
source of their own campaign funds but, also,
from something even more insidious, some-
thing that threatens to undermine the very
nature of our society— as Professor Morton
puts it.
In view of the documented case of cam-
paign contributions by organized crime in the
United States and establishment of the same
pattern of organized crime in Canada, it is
pertinent to ask what proof the old parties
are willing and able to give to the people of
this province that their campaign funds are
not being augmented by contributions from
the leaders of organized crime? The case is
even stronger for a public audit of the central
funds of political parties along the lines sug-
gested by the amendment introduced to The
Election Act by one of my colleagues a year
ago; and it will be introduced again this
year. If political parties are not recipients of
contributions from organized crime, then the
obligation falls upon them to provide the
proof; not simply by verbal denial of the
fact, for that is not good enough, but to open
their books to public audit.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): May
I ask, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member
reading from something, or is this his own
idea?
Mr. MacDonald: These are my own ideas.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: All right, I just
wondered.
Mr. MacDonald: That is right. When I
am indicating a quotation, I will indicate it
as a quotation.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is the N.D.P. con-
cept of justice.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): To make them
publish their accounts; what are you hiding?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am willing
—does the hon. gentleman know who made
contributions to the Conservative Party in the
last election?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. .
Mr. MacDonald: Well, how can he say
that there were no gambling monies going into
his contributions?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member is
saying that a man is guilty until he is proven
innocent.
DECEMBER 1, 1961
163
Mr. MacDonald: How can the hon. Min-
ister say that there were no contributions to
your funds?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Unless they are wilhng to
publish their accounts and let the people of
this province see for themselves, we have the
right to say that the pattern of American
organized crime is being duplicated here, and
we have the evidence that in the United
States 15 per cent of the funds at the state
and community level are coming from organ-
ized crime. So either put up or shut up in
terms of where they are getting—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is the N.D.P. con-
cept of justice.
An hon. member: Everybody knows where
our funds come from, where do the hon.
member's come from?
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I would ask
once again that the hon. members give all
members in this debate equal consideration.
Mr. MacDonald: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me
carry this one step further. Campaign funds
are not the only kind of protection money that
is spent by organized crime. They move dir-
ectly to corrupt politicians and law-enforce-
ment agencies, as has been pointed out— and
union leaders, agree.
When the Kefauver committee exposed the
operations of organized crime in the United
States— operations which we have since learned
extended international links into Ontario and
are carefully masterminded by secret meetings
of big-time gambling leaders, such as the
Apalachin strategy gathering that was held
—Thomas E. Dewey, then governor of New
York State stated this, and I am quoting, Mr.
Prime Minister, from Thomas E. Dewey:
This would not happen were there not
definite links between big-time gambling
racketeers and those in high office.
Indeed, the point constantly emphasized in
American reports, and here the hon. Attorney-
General might heed, is that we have to reckon
not only with the existence of organized crime
but also with wealthy and firmly established
criminal classes. In the words of the Ameri-
can Bar Association report on organized crime,
the gambling industry in the United States
has and I am quoting:
acquired control of an enterprise of fan-
tastic proportions with all the power that
flows from the control of great wealth. The
result has been a new type of criminal, liv-
ing in luxury, flanked by expensive attorneys
and advisors, able to cut deeper into our
social structure by corrupting weak officials
than he ever did by open defiance and
violence.
Events during the past few months in
Ontario have revealed a set of gamblers in
Ontario living in luxury, defended when
charged by the top criminal lawyers of the
province. The American Bar Association's
comment obviously has application here. In-
deed in Ontario this situation has already
become even more blatant. The company
records of the hon. Provincial Secretary's
department reveal that at least one of these
top criminal lawyers is a business partner
with the admitted professional gambler in
so-called legitimate enterprises which— there
is every reason to beheve— are financed by
the illicit gains of organized crime.
There is no mystery as to who this person
is. It is David Humphrey. His name has
already been mentioned in that connection.
How many more of these top criminal lawyers,
who are the constant defenders of these
professional gamblers when they come before
the courts, are involved jointly in business
enterprises with them, we do not know. The
hon. Provincial Secretary's records do not
provide all of these details.
But in the light of Governor Dewey's
statement that this could not happen were
there not definite links between big-time
gambling racketeers and those in high office,
I suggest that the public is entitled to a
full explanation on a number of situations.
Since these involve the government or depart-
ments of the government, or agencies thereof,
getting the full facts on these situations is
possible only through an independent com-
mission.
Mr. Speaker, there are two kinds of ways
in which a government or agency can be
involved. One I would describe as being
involved by negative assistance; that is tliey
are simply doing nothing by not fulfilling
their duties. Mr. Speaker, if I may pause and
just emphasize this point for a moment, this is
what makes the detection of organized crime
particularly difficult, because the protection
money that is paid is very often paid not to
get somebody to do something but merely
to get somebody to do nothing. If they
happen to be in the appropriate government
department or law-enforcement agency it is
desperately difficult to be able to spot and to
pin down the responsibility for somebody
whose act is a negative act. He is doing
nothing instead of doing something. So you
have tliis negative kind of assistance.
164
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On other occasions, there has been active
co-operation.
Let me draw attention for a moment to
some of the negative kinds of assistance.
Tliere is the situation, for example, of govern-
ment-licensed social or gaming clubs. The
newspapers have repeatedly commented on
this. The hon. leader of the Opposition has
solidly documented this situation. The prima
facie case for a full investigation of the failure
of The Department of the Attorney-General
and that of the Provincial Secretary is now
absolutely conclusive.
How could Max Bluestein and a couple of
bookmaking partners operate government-
licensed Lakeview athletic club for so long,
averaging $37,000 a day in illegal bets or
well over $13 million in a year? How?
As tlie Toronto Daily Star pointed out in a
front page story by Jocko Thomas last May
26, a big time Toronto township gambling
club was able to continue its operations under
a provincial charter for months, even after
Premier Frost had personally been informed
of it by the Toronto township police chief
Garnet Magill. What is the explanation for
this— or even more important, for any other
such clubs which are still in operation?
However, Mr. Speaker, we have got to
move not from only negative assistance by
doing nothing to something even more serious.
There are allegations that within The Depart-
ment of the Attorney-General some have
moved from the negative to the active parti-
cipation in the gambling world, and this is
a desperately serious situation and set of
allegations.
Portions of the Scott diary that were not
revealed in court refer to fixes being made
at Queen's Park and senior officials of The
Department of the Attorney-General being
involved, even to the extent of being paid $800
a month. The hon. leader of the Opposition
chose not to name the officials whose names
were mentioned in the diary. Mr. Speaker,
naming them is neither here nor there. The
term "senior officials" encompasses a very
small number of people. At the moment the
offices along Bay Street and the halls of
Queen's Park are buzzing with whispers con-
cerning this matter.
If in addition to this fact, Mr. Speaker, it
is true, as the evidence suggests, that the hon.
Attorney-General did halt the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police investigation, then the situation
becomes even more serious. When the
Ontario Provincial Police conducts an investi-
gation in which the evidence dug out involves
high officials in The Department of the
Attorney-General, then it is no time for the
investigation to be halted or for the evidence
to be withheld from the public.
Mr. Speaker, I say this. If these men are
not guilty they have every right to have their
names cleared and cleared as quickly as
possible. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, to maintain
public confidence in as important a depart-
ment as that which is responsible for the
administration of justice, it is absolutely
necessary that those doubts be resolved. The
present situation is an intolerable one.
This is perhaps the most important matter
which the hon. Prime Minister tended to slur
over yesterday when he stated that the
evidence given in the House was merely a
rehash of what had appeared in the paper or
had been submitted to the courts. The fact
of the matter, in this instance, is that the
evidence was withheld from the court and it
would be interesting to know who was re-
sponsible for the withholding of that evidence.
Only an independent inquiry can resolve this
situation. It is impossible, with the govern-
ment and its departments involved to this
extent, that the situation should go on with-
out being resolved, or that they themselves
should be able to resolve it. You need an in-
dependent authority.
However, Mr. Speaker, let me move on. I
want to refer to the role of the Liquor Licen-
sing Board in this. Pierre Berton solidly
documented just how far oflF-base Fred
Gardiner was when he said that organized
crime was "kaput'* in this country with an
article that was carried on August 25. I am
not going to read this article, Mr. Speaker,
it is a very illuminating one, but he sent out
a housewife who is one of his operatives,
operative 67, who spent two days moving
around the city of Toronto, and in the course
of two days placed 24 separate bets. He
details all the elaborate ways in which crime
is going on. He concludes in this fashion:
There is nothing particularly startling in
what the operative did. Scores of others do
it every day in Toronto. It is only signifi-
cant really in the light of the curiously
bland public statement such as that of Mr.
Gardiner that organized crime is kaput.
But then Mr. Berton went on. He said:
If a housewife can place these bets this
easily in Toronto, one wonders how is it
that the bookies can continue to operate.
How can private clubs with their own
tickers catering to known criminals continue
to hold and get a licence when honest
restaurateurs all over town cannot get so
much as a wine licence for a steak house?
DECEMBER 1, 1961
165
How is it that a sleazy lounge with bookies
behind the bar and prostitutes at the table
can continue to enjoy the protection of
the Liquor Licence Commission?
A lot of very good questions.
An hon. member: When did he write that?
Mr. MacDonald: Four months ago while
you and the government were sleeping. A
lot of good questions which the government
should answer, Mr. Speaker, or preferably
a Royal commission should get the answers,
since once again the government is involved.
Let me add one more specific case. Last
spring the Town Tavern was spotlighted in
a blaze of publicity on account of the brutal
beating of Max Bluestein. But right in the
midst of this publicity the proprietor of the
Town Tavern extended his holdings by the
purchase, along with others, of a restaurant
around the corner complete with liquor
licence. In fact, I think it is a very safe
statement to make, Mr. Speaker, that there
would have been no purchase if there had
been no liquor licence.
A place like the Town Tavern does not
become the meeting place of known gamblers
without the knowledge and ultimately the
approval of the proprietor. Yet right in the
midst of the public furor over the Bluestein
beating the Liquor Licensing Board gave the
proprietors of the Town Tavern a lucrative
assist in extending their holdings. How can
that be justified? I put that question to
Judge Robb when he was before the select
committee on government organization, and
his explanation was that the board had no
reason to delay granting the licence because
appeals on the charges arising out of events
in the Town Tavern might take years.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the argument that the
Liquor Licensing Board was under some
obligation for a quick decision which favoured
the applicants is eminently unconvincing.
Many applicants have been waiting for years
to get a Liquor Licensing Board decision.
Why the haste in this case?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: How can the hon.
member blame the applicant?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Have any charges been
laid against the applicant?
Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Ministers
would listen they would see why I am
blaming the applicant.
For the moment, Mr. Speaker, let me con-
clude with presenting to the House one
further situation. Feeley and McDermott held
extensive mining claims in the Big Duck Lake
area in the Thunder Bay district. In Septem-
ber of 1959 they were involved in the incor-
poration of a gold mining venture known as
KRNO Mines Limited, with David Humphrey
as president. Shortly after the incorporation
McDermott tried to interest at least three
brokers in the company using the name of
a person high in The Department of Mines
who was stated to be interested in the area
and would be sending in a geologist to have
a look at it.
A departmental geologist did make a survey
during the summer of 1960. On page four
among the acknowledgments is the follow-
ing paragraph. I have the report right here,
let me read directly from it:
During the course of the field work
valuable assistance in the provision of camp
facilities and transportation by helicopter
was rendered by J. P. McDermott and
V. T. Feeley of KRNO Mines Limited. On
several occasions the use of the helicopter
facilitated the examination of the mineral
deposits in the area and the traversing of
sections where access was difficult.
Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkable situation.
Does The Department of Mines usually work
in such an intimate way with mining pro-
moters in geological surveys, particularly
when the promoters involved are self-con-
fessed professional gamblers? The danger of
the leaders of organized crime digging them-
selves into establishment in legitimate
business is an extremely important phase of
this whole problem.
That is why, when the proprietor of Town
Tavern buys with the assistance of the govern-
ment a licensed restaurant around the corner,
it is of some relevance. Yet the hon. Min-
ister's department was working hand in glove
with known professional gamblers.
Mr. Speaker, there is another intriguing
feature to this report. Printed at the bottom
of the front cover of the report is this nota-
tion: "This report has not been edited in
order to allow immediate publication." Surely
it is very strange that a technical report
would be rushed into publication without the
usual editing. Clearly the professional geol-
ogist whose name stands on it was unhappy
about something and was seeking to protect
himself.
Why the unseemly haste? Well, I will
suggest an answer, and perhaps we should
have it investigated to be confirihed or elabo-
rated on. Feeley and McDermott held the
vendors* shares of KRNO Mines. One week
after the geological survey was released, was
166
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
rushed into print without editing, by co-
incidence or otherwise KRNO Mines filed its
prospectus with the Ontario Securities Com-
mission, applying for permission to release the
vendors' shares for public sale.
The interesting thing here, Mr. Speaker, is
that those familiar with mining have long
considered the mining possibilities in the
Thunder Bay district, especially for gold, to
be slim indeed. The area has been pros-
pected many times and the favourite quip
in the trade is that all the gold in that district
is to be found along Bay Street. This geo-
logical survey has every appearance, Mr.
Speaker, of having been rushed into print
just before Feeley and McDermott were about
to seek permission to strike gold by bilking
public by sizeable sums through the sale of
the vendor shares that they controlled. Un-
fortunately, between—
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
I come from up there and—
Mr. MacDonald: Why is the hon. Minister
so anxious to defend these men?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I am not defending
them.
Mr. MacDonald: Why does he not let me
present the facts and—
. Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Because the hon.
member is telling lies.
Mr. MacDonald: Why is the hon. Minister
of Mines interrupting so much? I would think
that silence on his part would be most
appropriate.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: The hon. member
would not be happy unless he was down in
the gutter anyway. Carry on.
Mr. MacDonald: Unfortunately between
the time KRNO Mines made application for
public sale of stock and the hearing by the
Ontario Seciu-ities Commission, the news be-
gan to break of Feeley and McDermott's
involvement with organized crime, and
allegedly other serious ramifications of it, and
so die application was turned down. I am
informed that Feeley and McDermott since
have lost interest in the whole venture.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is a final
phase of this subject which is perhaps the
most disturbing of all. Our society and
civilization is built on the rule of law. When
law enforcement agencies become corrupted,
then indeed, as Professor Morton has warned.
the very nature of our society is being under-
mined.
The evidence of corruption of the judiciary
and other law enforcement agencies in the
United States is so widely documented and
known as not to require elaboration. But
what is the situation here in Ontario? Obvi-
ously the threat is a very real one. The
bribery case involving the O.P.P. is now
sub judice, but the evidence is so replete with
testimony alleging corruption of various arms
of the law enforcement agencies that it
cannot be ignored and should not be ignored
in this House.
The case of alleged bribery of a juror was
dismissed for lack of conclusive evidence but
the circumstances could not help but leave
an uneasiness in the mind of any serious-
minded citizen. We have had evidence pre-
sented to this House of a planted jury, of
circumstances where, by strange coincidence,
men who got on the jury in that trial happen
to be involved with the company which was
going to promote the stock of the mining
firm that Feeley and McDermott were in.
The hon. Prime Minister cannot simply
dismiss this kind of tiling. This is at least
prima facie evidence of the corruption of the
judiciary and other law enforcement agencies
in this province, that must be looked into.
The hon. leader of the Opposition has placed
on record the reported attempts to bribe
Magistrate Joseph Addison with $50,000 prior
to the trial of a well-known gambler. This
has been in the papers, and so has the fact
that efforts were made on three occasions to
influence Magistrate Fred Thompson on a
case involving another gambler who was
before him. It is inconceivable that the hon.
Attorney-General would have done nothing
about these serious threats to the integrity of
our judiciary.
After all the public discussion these matters
have provoked surely some public statements
from the hon. Attorney-General as to what
he did in these cases is long overdue. But
the threat does not end there.
Richard Hayward of the Toronto Telegram
is one of the most knowledgeable and reliable
reporters in his field. On November 10 the
Telegram carried a front-page story by Mr.
Hayward. I assume the hon. Attorney-General
reads the Toronto Telegram, and I am
wondering why we have not had something
from him on this.
The opening paragraph of Mr. Hayward's
story was this: "There is organized crime in
Ontario and municipal i)olice chiefs could
help the Attorney-General expose it if they
DECEMBER 1, 1961
167
want to." That is the end of the quotation
for the moment.
Mr. Hayward had canvassed the situation
with police chiefs across the province, re-
ported their understandable reluctance to give
details, but then he went on, and I am
quoting from Mr. Hayward's article:
One told me that a known gambler had
been vouched for by a pohce chief so that
he could obtain a charter for his social
club.
This is a highly inappropriate i)oint for the
hon. Provincial Secretary, who has gone
out. . . . He cannot speak, Mr. Speaker, he
has gone out.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I certainly can on a
point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. I
think it was very unfair but typical of the
hon. member to make a remark like that. I
am going out not because I want to, but
because I have to fulfil another duty and it
will be the first time I have ever left the
House.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, let me read—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I ask the hon.
member to withdraw that remark?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: I am not going to with-
draw any—
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is imputing the motives of my leaving
this House.
Mr. Speaker: Order! It is highly improper
for hon, members of this Legislature to
impute motives to other members. If any hon.
member leaves this Chamber no other mem-
ber can impute the motive for his leaving.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, earlier in
this debate the hon. Provincial Secretary has
been consantly interrupting and saying "we
are doing everything, we are on top of the
job, we are looking after it" and then when
I read from a story that was carried on the
front page of the Toronto Telegram which
said "One police chief told me that a known
gambler had been vouched for by a police
chief so that he could obtain a charter for
his social club"— all I added was that it was
highly inappropriate that the hon. Minister
should be out when I was saying this kind
of thing; he should be in the House here to
listen, because I am providing evidence that
I want some action on.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: What kind of evidence
is that?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
Minister will sit down, I will repeat it. I
said that this man is a highly reliable and
knowledgeable reporter in his field and he
published this on the front page of the
Toronto Telegram, which is a Tory supporting
paper. If this is not prima facie evidence
enough for the hon. Provincial Secretary to
get out of his seat and do something, instead
of being a negative participant in the estab-
lishment of organized crime, then I do not
know, and I shall continue to present my
case.
I continue with a quote from Mr. Hayward:
Later the same gambler is reported to
have paid for part of a reception held by
the chief. I saw this police chief. He ad-
mitted to me that he took money from the
gambler but only for one round of drinks.
Another chief said that he had been told
by a big-time gambler that he was "paying
oflF from here to Toronto." He added that
although he knew who was getting the
money in Toronto, "it would cost me my
life to reveal it." Still another police chief
said he knew of gamblers using an airstrip
in his community to fly back and forth from
Toronto for gaming purposes. In another
city a police sergeant was told if he con-
tinued his harassment of certain gambling
houses he would be taken care of. He did,
and was. After one more raid the sergeant
was assigned to permanent desk duty but
not until he had been offered a bribe which
he refused.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Is the hon. member
quoting?
Mr. MacDonald: I am quoting, still quoting:
The chief of another city told of gam-
blers* political influence. He gave details
off the record.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: All hearsay evidence.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is about
time the hon. Minister collected some of the
hearsay evidence and did something about it.
This is smug complacency, a negative assist
to these people to get established.
It is absolutely incredible, Mr. Speaker,
that such accounts should be published with-
out any statement or action by this govern-
ment. I assume the hon. Attorney-General,
as I said before, is reading the Telegram and
therefore I ask: Why his sOence, because that
was published on November 10.
168
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The United States Attorney-General Robert
Kennedy has declared, and I am quoting, "If
we do not, on a national scale, attack criminals
with weapons and techniques as effective as
their own they will destroy us."
Contrast that with the complacency of our
hon. Attorney-General who has had to be
badgered and beaten by events, by the pub-
lic, by the press, by the Opposition, before
he would even acknowledge the existence of
organized crime.
The hon. Attorney-Generars record in this
connection is one of indescribable irresponsi-
bility. It is almost beyond belief that with
this record he should have been re-appointed
to the post of Attorney-General in the new
government. If the circumstances within
the Tory party following the leadership con-
vention dictated his re-appointment then,
Mr. Speaker, all I have to say is that the
welfare of the Conservative party has been
given precedence over the welfare of the
province of Ontario.
The case for a Royal commission is now
absolutely beyond dispute. Government
agencies and departments of this govern-
ment, according to evidence that is now be-
fore the House, are involved. Mr. Speaker,
this is the kind of situation which must be
resolved. We must have the full facts, the
public are entitled to them, and because
the government is involved they themselves
cannot do the investigation.
I would say that the case for a Royal
commission is now conclusive to everybody
—except those within the government who,
if they continue their present approach,
leave the public with no other alternative
but to come to the conclusion that they dare
not let the full facts become known, because
it will blow the government right out of
qflBce.
- I turn finally now, Mr. Speaker, to some
amendments which I would like to move.
I would like to preface it with these com-
ments. I doubt whether there has ever been
an occasion in which a political party in this
country is speaking with such a babel of
voices and such a confusion of policy as the
Liberal Party at the present time. For
example, Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of
the Opposition got up in the House last year
and made a very impassioned plea for mass
immigration to this country. The day after-
wards his federal leader went into the city
of Hamilton and said, in ejBFect, that now is
not the time for mass immigration. And I
was very interested to see that just two or
three days ago, when Walter Gordon was
speaking here in the city of Toronto, he
said, "I do not support immigration under
present circumstances." One wonders what
is the policy of the Liberal Party on immi-
gration.
I was interested to note the other day,
for example, that the federal leader of the
Liberal Party attacked the New Democratic
Party for its policy of bringing old age pen-
sions up in line with the cost of living today,
namely $75 a month, and said this was im-
possible and heaped scorn on this story. I
was interested in it because just a year or
two ago I sat and listened to the hon. mem-
ber for Bracondale (Mr. Gould) make a plea
in this House that not the federal govern-
ment but the provincial government should
be paying pensions of $75. If it is not
possible for the federal government to finance
the $75 pension, what about the voice of
the Liberals who want it to be done pro-
vincially?
And health insurance! We all know that
the Liberals have been talking about health
insurance since 1919. We all know that
they fought eight elections and won seven
of them before 1957, and during the 38
years they did nothing about it. By 1955
they had backed away from their policy
altogether.
A year or so ago in this House the Liberal
Party introduced a motion in which they
called for the establishment of a province-
wide health insurance programme that would
be prepaid, et cetera, et cetera. They did not
clarify the nature of the programme so we
moved an amendment that it would be "gov-
ernment-sponsored," and automatically the
Liberals got into a battle in which their true
interests with the Tories were revealed. They
opposed the idea it should be government-
sponsored and voted with the government to
end a debate on their own motion.
Confusion in strategy as well as a confusion
in politics. It is interesting to speculate as to
what their policy is today on health insurance
because undoubtedly it is an important matter.
If they have been talking about it since 1919,
it must be an important matter, yet it is not
included in their amendments.
Finally, Mr. Speaker— perhaps the epitome
of the confusion— we come back to sales tax.
After promoting it for three or four years last
spring they suddenly did a switch and tried to
catch the political wind by opposing it in the
House. More recently they have come out
with a position that can only be described as
supporting it with certain revisions. Heaven
knows what their policy will be a few months
from now.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I was not able to
DECEMBER 1, 1961
169
follow the tortuous explanation of the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
when he said that he was not going to call
for a Royal commission to investigate crime
because somehow or other that would mean
that the back benchers of the Conservative
party would have to vote against it. Since
they traditionally vote against an amendment
to the Throne Speech, this meant it would not
be a good thing to put it in there. Now, I
want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if
the back benchers of the Conservative party
are putting the welfare of the province of
Ontario ahead of the welfare of their own
party, they will vote for a motion to have
an investigation of crime in this province, and
therefore it should be part of a want-of-
confidence motion.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move
seconded by the hon. member for Wentworth
East (Mr. Gisborn):
That the amendment to the motion for
an Address in Reply to the Speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor now
before the House be amended:
(a) By striking out clauses 1 and 2
thereof and substituting the following:
1. That the government has refused to
appoint a commission to conduct a full,
untrammelled public inquiry into the
organized crime in this province in all its
ramification, has otherwise failed to take
adequate steps to protect the people of
the province against this deadly menace,
and has indeed, by its negligence and its
refusal to face up realistically to the known
facts, permitted organized crime to extend
its foothold in the province.
2. That the government has not seen fit
to eliminate the retail sales tax and to rely
instead on more equitable and progressive
methods of raising money, such as corpo-
ration and income taxes, revenues from
natural resources and a weight-distance tax.
(b) By adding thereto the following:
And this House further regrets:
1. That the government has failed to dis-
close any genuine awareness of the impera-
tive need for comprehensive social and
economic planning to provide continuous
economic growth, full employment and
balanced development of all sections of the
province.
2. That the government has failed to act
decisively and with a due sense of urgency
to remedy the gross neglect of adequate
safety precautions in important sections of
Ontario industry, particularly the construc-
tion industry, and has thereby permitted
the safety and even the lives of countless
workmen to remain in jeopardy.
3. That the government has announced
no plans to encourage farmers' economic
organizations but on the contrary is con-
tinuing to hamstring such organizations
with restrictive legislation, thereby under-
mining the position of the independent
farmer and the family farm.
4. That the government has not seen fit
to proceed with a programme of health
insurance, covering medical and other
related services as well as hospital services.
5. That the government has failed to de-
velop a co-ordinated welfare programme
designed to help all those in need regard-
less of category or residential qualifications,
and in particular, has failed to establish
welfare allowances on a budgetary basis in
line with the Ontario Welfare CounciFs
suggested minimum income and to negoti-
ate an agreement with Ottawa for a cost-
sharing arrangement to replace the present
multiplicity of specific grants.
6. That the government has not an-
nounced any intention to proceed with a
bill of rights for this province.
Mr. J. H. White (London South) moves
the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, in moving
the adjourrmient of the House, on Monday
we will proceed with some other orders on
the order paper, there are some second
readings of bills that have not come up yet,
and we will proceed with the Throne Speech
debate.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 12.50 o'clock, p.m.
*
No. 9
ONTARIO
HtQi^Utuvt of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Monday, December 4^ 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C*
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per sessiott $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
^ Monday, December 4, 1961
Reading and receiving petitions 173
Second report, select committee on standing committees, Mr. Rollins 173
Election Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bryden, first reading 173
Department of Economics and Federal and Provincial Relations and The Department of
Commerce and Development, bill to amalgamate, third reading 174
Ontario Parks Integration Board Act, bill to amend, third reading 174
Conservation Authorities Act, bill to amend, third reading 174
Parks Assistance Act, bill to amend, third reading 174
Provincial Parks Act, bill to amend, third reading 174
Forest Fires Prevention Act, bill to amend, third reading 174
Forestry Act, bill to amend, third reading 174
Devolution of Estates Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 174
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 175
Fire Marshals Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 175
Legitimacy Act 1961-1962, bill intituled, Mr. Roberts, second reading 175
Master and Servant Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 175
Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second
reading 175
Dentistry Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 175
Cancer Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 175
Department of Education Act, bill to amend, Mr. Robarts, second reading 175
Schools Administration Act, bill to amend, Mr. Robarts, second reading 175
Public Health Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 175
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Reaume 175
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Cowling, agreed to 188
Revised Statutes of Ontario, bill to confirm, reported 188
Fish Inspection Act, bill to amend, reported 188
Revised Regulations of Ontario, bill to confirm, reported 188
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 188
173
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as gviests in the east gallery students
from Holy Rosary School, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the corporation of the township of
Etobicoke praying that an Act may pass
providing that the provisions of The Public
Parks Act shall not apply to the township.
Of the corporation of the city of Hamilton
praying that an Act may pass incorporating
the board of governors of the Hamilton civic
hospitals; and for related purposes.
Of the corporation of the township of
Toronto praying that an Act may pass respect-
ing payment for services installed in advance
of development of land.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Mr. C. T. Rollins, from the select committee
appointed to prepare the list of hon. mem-
bers to compose the standing committees of
the House, presented the committee's second
report which was read as follows and
adopted:
Your committee recommends that the
standing committees on public accounts and
on conservation, lands and forests ordered by
the House on Tuesday last, November 28, be
composed as follows:
Committee on Public Accounts— Messrs.
Auld, Beckett, Boyer, Brown, Brunelle, Bry-
den, Chappie, Cowling, Davis, Downer,
Edwards (Perth), Edwards (Wentworth), FuU-
erton, Gomme, Gould, Grossman, Guindon,
Hanna, Haskett, HoflFman, Janes, Johnston
(Parry Sound), Lavergne, Lawrence, Letherby,
Lyons, MacDonald, Mackenzie, MacNaugh-
ton. Morrow, Myers, Noden, Oliver, Parry,
Price, Reaume, Rollins, Rowntree, Sandercock,
Simonett, Singer, Sutton, Thomas, Thompson,
Trotter, Whicher, White, Whitney, Winter-
meyer, Worton— 50.
Monday, December 4, 1961
The quorum of tlie said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Committee on Conservation, Lands and For-
ests—Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Auld,
Belanger, Behsle, Boyer, Brunelle, Bukator,
Carruthers, Chappie, Davison, Downer, Ed-
wards (Perth), Evans, Fullerton, Gisborn,
Gomme, Guindon, Hall, Hamilton, HoflFman,
Innes, Janes, Johnston (Carleton), Johnston
(Parry Sound), Lavergne, Lawrence, Letherby,
Lewis, MacDonald, Mackenzie, MacNaughton,
Manley, Morningstar, Morrow, McNeil,
Noden, Oliver, Parry, Price, Rollins, Root,
Sandercock, Simonett, Sopha, Spence, Sutton,
Troy, Whicher, White, Wintermeyer— 50.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE ELECTION ACT
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Election Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, there
are two questions I would like to ask, on
both of which I have given notice.
The first one is to the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts): In Saturday's issue of
the Peterborough Examiner, there appears a
letter from Inspector Allan Stringer of the
OPP in reply to allegations that he had
tipped off gamblers with regard to undercover
work against them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, at your suggestion I
shall not give the substance of the quote.
But what Mr. Stringer in eflFect has said is
that "over-zealous underlings" of the hon.
Attorney-General have been responsible for
digging-out information with regard to
organized crime in this province, information
which the hon. Attorney-General has then
just proceeded to use as a "stepping stone to
higher places." Would the hon, Attorney-
General comment on this and indicate what
action he proposes to take in the light of
Inspector Stringer's letter?
174
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald) has consider-
ably shortened the quotes he had in the—
Mr. MacDonald: At the request of Mr.
Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: However, my answer,
which may not be quite as apparent without
all the quotes which I would have appreciated
having, my answer is simply this: my com-
ment is that the material as quoted appears
to me to be garbled nonsense. Insofar as
there may be matters concerning discipline
internal to the force, the commissioner of the
Ontario Provincial Police has the matter in
hand.
Mr. MacDonald: Garbled nonsense! Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask as a supple-
mentary question: the garbled nonsense is in
reference to Inspector Stringer's statement,
is it?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: In reference to the
material which the hon. member presented
to me preliminary to his question, which I
answered accordingly.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, my
second question was to the hon. Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Stewart). The hon. Minister
informed the House last Tuesday that a
meeting of the standing committee on agricul-
ture will be held on Thursday, December 7,
and as quoted in Hansard, its purpose was for
the hearing of recommendations of the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and any
others who may be interested, relative to an
agricultural machinery Act in the province of
Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I happened to meet some top
officers of the Ontario Farmers' Union last
Friday here in the Parliament Buildings and
discovered in talking with them that they
were unaware of this meeting. Since the hon.
Minister has stated that this meeting was for
the purpose of hearing the views of any
others who may be interested— and they are
so interested as to have passed a resolution
at their convention— will he inform the House
who or what organizations have officially
been invited to attend this meeting?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question
of the hon. member, I thank him for his
advance notice of this.
I might say that a letter was forwarded
under date of November 29 to the president
of the Ontario Farmers' Union. This was the
day following the day the announcement was
made in the House, if I am correct. It may
not have reached him. I have a copy of the
letter right here, it is dated November 29,
and addressed to Mr. Melvin L. Tebbut in-
forming him of the meeting and asking if he
would like to send a representative to the
meeting.
I cannot understand how he did not know,
but he might not have been home to have re-
ceived his mail; or perhaps it is someone else
to whom the hon. member is referring.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture was
advised on the same date, as well as the
Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers Asso-
ciation. We have a letter confirming their
notification.
I have great respect for our gentlemen
in the press gallery and I am sure that the
reporting of this has reached many people in
the province, some of whom have called sug-
gesting they might like to come. To any of
those who want to come, the meeting is
wide open.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motions:
Bill No. 5, An Act to amalgamate The
Department of Economics and Federal and
Provincial Relations and The Department of
Commerce and Development.
Bill No. 6, An Act to amend The Ontario
Parks Integration Board Act.
Bill No. 7, An Act to amend The Con-
servation Authorities Act.
Bill No. 8, An Act to amend The Parks
Assistance Act.
Bill No. 9, An Act to amend The Provincial
Parks Act.
Bill No. 10, An Act to amend The Forest
Fires Prevention Act.
Bill No. 11, An Act to amend The Forestry
Act.
THE DEVOLUTION OF ESTATES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General)
moves second reading of Bill No. 17, An Act
to amend The Devolution of Estates Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of tbe
bill.
DECEMBER 4, 1961
175
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 18, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ACT
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
second reading of Bill No. 33, An Act to
amend The Department of Education Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE FIRE MARSHALS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 19, An Act to amend The Fire
Marshals Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves second reading of
Bill No. 34, An Act to amend The Schools
Administration Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE LEGITIMACY ACT, 1961-62
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 21, The Legitimacy Act, 1961-62.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MASTER AND SERVANT ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 22, An Act to amend The Master
and Servant Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MAINTENANCE ORDERS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 25, An Act to amend The Reciprocal
Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE DENTISTRY ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves second reading of Bill No. 29, An Act
to amend The Dentistry Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CANCER ACT
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves second reading
of Bill No. 32, An Act to amend The Cancer
Act. ■ ---■ - -• ■ ■ • ■
Motion ^'agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves second reading
of Bill No. 35, An Act to amend The Public
Health Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, may I first take this
opportunity to extend my thanks and appre-
ciation and my compliments to you, sir, for
the able manner in which you perform your
very onerous duties. I feel confident that my
remarks this afternoon will be of such a
nature that your duties will be very light in
controlling the House.
The purpose of my remarks is to attempt
in my own way to give to you, sir, and to the
hon. members of this House some facts and
information relative to the operation of a
number of the branches of The Department
of Lands and Forests. We have in this depart-
ment many different functions to perform and
I felt that it would be more advisable if I
might be given the opportunity to deal with
a number of these things at different times
during the session of the House, so that one
would not have to listen to matters relating
only to Lands and Forests and its operation all
on the same day.
One of the problems of forest management,
of course, which is one of our prime responsi-
bilities, is that even with this province's great
productive capacity regeneration and growth
of desired tree species on cut-over land is
most imperative. Hence the advanced plan
of forest management which has been ad-
vanced by the department's officials and staff
176
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is vital to meeting future needs of the people
of Ontario, even though our forest lands have
the productive capacity to meet the new
demands of industry in the near future with-
out any intensive utilization.
It is estimated that Ontario will have a
population of eight million people by 1975
and that the demand for timber from Crown
lands will double by 1980, or in about 20
years.
Management plans, which are required
from all licensees holding 50 square miles or
more, must provide for the orderly regulation
of development, harvesting, regeneration and
treatment of the area under licence. In case
of the Crown management unit, the manage-
ment plans are prepared by department for-
esters and are kept on file here in our office
and through our different district offices.
These management plans may vary from a
scheme for the development of potential tim-
ber values in the hinterland; to active, realis-
tic operational prescriptions to meet clearly
stated objectives of established industry in
areas where the available timber and the
market demands are nearly in balance.
This department manages 148,000 square
miles of the province's productive forest, of
which 82,000 square miles is under Crown
timber licence to the forest industries. The
total net volume of timber cut on Crown
timber licences is in the neighbourhood of
350 million cubic feet, with a stumpage value
of $12 million. The cut is about 90 per cent
in coniferous forest and 10 per cent hard-
Vv'oods.
The allowable annual cut of coniferous
growth on Crown land equals 700 million
cubic feet; the annual allowable cut of hard-
woods equals 520 million cubic feet. The
total allowable annual cut equals 1,220 mil-
lion cubic feet, which is over twice the actual
cut of coniferous timber and 15 times the
iictual cut of hardwood.
The broad objectives of the timber branch
are to manage the Crown forests of Ontario
so as to provide the established forest indus-
try with its present requirements, to meet
the needs of expansion, and to provide, by
sale and licensing, a supply of timber for
new industry and new utilization up to the
volume of allowable cut.
In order to meet these objectives, the
timber branch conducts forest surveys and
compiles the forest inventory, prepares its
own management plans and analyzes and
approves those furnished by industry. It oper-
ates 11 nurseries producing 50 million trees
annually, conducts silvicultural operations for
stand improvement, and operates a licensing
system for the sale of standing timber. In
short, the main functions of the branch are
timber production and sales.
In addition to responsibilities on Crown
lands, the timber branch also manages
143,000 acres for counties, municipalities and
conservation Authorities, known as agreement
forests, all managed under the terms of
specific agreements. The branch also conducts
a forestry extension service, which is con-
centrated mainly on private woodlots in
southern Ontario, but some 85,000 persons—
land-owners, mostly farmers, and some others
—are interested in this extension programme.
The organization of management planning
and forest inventory has been based on the
characteristics of the forest associations found
in Ontario. A realistic silvicultural practice
is being carried out, on the basis of these
associations. The methods used in planning
and inventory have been influenced basically
by the existing and probable markets for
timber products, the mass production tech-
niques of the logging industry, the cost of
regeneration and the present economic devel-
opment of the forest industry. The best
principles of textbook forestry have been
advanced in our new plans.
Our forest industry and management plan-
ning is integrated in structure, so that there
is hardly any line of demarcation between
them. Management planning in Ontario under
the revised methods now in effect takes into
consideration the experience gained in the
last 15 years or riore in the intensive use and
analysis of plans and inventory which were
completed during this period.
The preparation of normal yield tables and
extensive work on cull studies has supple-
mented the forest inventory to a large degree.
In the reinventory programme now in its
fourth year, normal yield tables are used
exclusively in determining volume and incre-
ment, for annual growth. The first forest
resources inventory was begun in 1946 and
completed in 1957, Reinventory commenced
in 1955.
This reinventory programme provides for
re-photography every ten years. The inventory
is designed to meet the demands of the
method of management which will probably
be a form of clear-cutting over 75 per cent
of Ontario, with provision for regeneration,
either artificial or natural, assisted by the
modification of cutting methods.
Re-photography of approximately 18,000
square miles annually will cover the total
exploitable forest area of 180,000 square
miles in ten years. This inventory method—
DECEMBER 4, 1961
171
which by the way is done by aerial photo-
graphy—is fast, flexible and relatively inex-
pensive. It records the basic data in a form
that permits ready access for statistical pur-
poses, and provides the detailed stand
information required as a basis for manage-
ment planning.
Management planning is concerned with
the rational utilization of forest resources as
well as the organization and maintenance of
the forest for sustained yield purposes. Dur-
ing the transition from the unmanaged to the
managed forest abnormal conditions exist and
the management plan, if it is to be of any
value, must achieve the best possible com-
promise between what is economically pos-
sible at a given time and what is technically
desirable.
Therefore during this period of conversion,
the management plan must strive to achieve
the following broad objectives:
First, it must strive to meet the economic
needs of the existing forest industries and the
forest requirements of the present generation.
Second, it must promote the utilization of
surplus forest resources through the establish-
ment of new industry.
Third, it must strive to lay the foundation,
through long-range plans, for an approach
to the balanced or normal forest so as to
secure sustained maximum production.
The trend of Ontario's forest industry has
been upwards since 1958. In 1960, Ontario
pulp and paper mills surpassed all previous
records with an output of about $495 million,
a seven per cent increase over the previous
year. Newsprint production was up over
seven per cent; in fact this part of the forest
industry has the highest annual rate of growth
in output since 1946.
The production of woodpulp was substan-
tially ahead, too, and the volume of paper
board, and book and writing paper was up
more than four per cent over 1959.
The United States continues to be by far
the largest market for Ontario's newsprint,
using about four-fifths of the output. Exports
to overseas countries have reached a record
level and are expected to continue rising; I
would say that the overall newsprint pros-
pects are good. By the same token, the
healthy state of the pulp and paper industry
has stimulated logging operations, so that
there was a nine per cent increase over 1959
in the volume of wood cut on forest lands.
This is a very important industry. The
immense value of the pulp and paper and
lumber industries in the provincial economy
can easily be realized when it is pointed out
that they employ more than 26,000 people-
about 21,000 of them in pulp and paper—
and pay salaries of about $110 million.
When we include industries that are
wholly or partly dependent on wood, we find
some 80,000 people employed in Ontario,
receiving salaries of upwards of $315 million
and with an annual output of about $600
million. Pulp and paper and lumber indus-
tries together spend annually more than $31
million for fuel and electricity; several
hundred millions are invested in plant and
materials. The sale value of factory ship-
ments of pulp and paper products approxi-
mates $443 million.
Proper forest management is vital when
we consider that forests cover nearly three-
quarters of our province. Our 200 million
acres of forest land represent more than 15
per cent of Canada's forests. Of this, almost
two-thirds is productive and supports a great
many industries using wood in manufactures.
More important still, 90 per cent of our
forests are owned by the Crown— the people
of this province— and are administered for
them by the Ontario government.
Our presently accessible merchantable
timber is estimated at nearly 85 billion cubic
feet, and its predominant Crown ownership
favours our system of province-wide plan-
ning and management. Our department has
made great strides in promoting complete
utilization of forestry products and elimina-
ting waste.
For example, by suggesting— and that is not
quite the right word, because I think we are
a little bit more forceful than that— but I use
that word— by suggesting the installation of
chippers in saw-logging operations with the
chips being shipped to pulp and paper mills,
we estimate that about 250,000 tons of chips
will be utilized this year— enough to supply
a mill the size of the one at Iroquois Falls.
A very few years ago this good material
would not have been utilized.
As the economics of the industry improve,
we are confident we can accomplish more in
this field in promoting new industries in pulp
and paper, hardboard and industries of that
type.
One of our other great responsibilities, Mr.
Speaker, is that of protecting the forests from
ravages of insects and of our worst enemy,
fires.
This past year has not been a good one
insofar as fire damage is concerned but I
think it will prove to be not as serious as
was first anticipated. Lightning fires, mostly
during the months of June and July, were
178
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
responsible for 99.2 per cent of the forest fire
losses in Ontario this year and represented
34.5 per cent of fires in the province.
The 527 fires which occurred in June and
July accounted for 1,170,165 acres of the
total 1,184,998 acres burned during the fire
season, reaching their peak in northwestern
Ontario around the July 1 weekend. How-
ever, 80 per cent of the areas burned in north-
western Ontario were north of the area that
would be logged in the foreseeable future.
It consisted of mature or over-mature trees.
In some of the damaged areas natural re-
generation is already occurring.
You might say that immediately after the
fires were extinguished our foresters were in
the area analyzing the damage and planning
the salvage of the salvageable damaged
forest. Lightning strikes tended to occur in
bunches and the fires they cause are most
difficult to control. Of the area burned during
the season only 3,318 acres were privately
owned.
Fires and acreage burned in other months
were held to comparatively small losses. For
instance in April we had 98 fires burning
1,125 acres. In August we had 253 fires in-
volving 8,300 acres. In September 32 fires
involving only 41 acres.
Now it might be of interest to you, sir, in
the House, to know some of the fire causes,
that is other than lightning. Settlers caused
79 fires damaging 543 acres; campers had
289 fires involving 3,000 acres; the railways
64 fires involving 163 acres; logging opera-
tions 19 fires involving 2,516 acres; mining
operations only 4 fires. Careless smokers
caused 200 fires involving 1,016 acres. Road
construction a very small figure of 15 fires
and only 14 acres. Incendiary fires were 31
in number and involved 914 acres. Unknown
—12 fires involving 914 acres and miscel-
laneous, which are fires caused chiefly by
children playing with matches and fire-
crackers, involved 140 fires and 1,503 acres.
During the past fire season, and particularly
during June and July, the efficiency of our
forest fire protection agency was put to the
test, and I feel that the organization came
out with flying colours. The facility of move-
ment of our forces on a province-wide basis,
the well-trained fire crews, the thousands of
pieces of equipment, the co-operation of the
citizens and the operating companies, all
proved their mettle under stress and strain.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): At the time of
the fires in the Sioux Lookout area— I ask
this question because I have just come back
from a little visit up that way and I was
informed that the closest the fires got to Sioux
Lookout was 35 miles. I was also informed
that The Department of Travel and Publicity
was making announcements and publishing
advertisements advising tourists not to come
near Sioux Lookout.
I wonder, was it the hon. Minister's de-
partment that told The Department of Travel
and Publicity that such be the case— that there
was an immediate and present danger to
Sioux Lookout and to the tourist resorts in
that area?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Under the Act I have
the authority to close off any part of the prov-
ince for fire protection purposes and during
the year it happens that certain areas are
always closed off to travel. This year was no
exception and certain areas of northwestern
Ontario were closed to travel. I have not
heard anything about anyone being advised
by The Department of Travel and Publicity
as to whether they should travel or not travel,
and so I am not in a position to give a very
definite answer to the hon. member's ques-
tion. I do not know anything about it, but it
often happens that we do close off areas of
the province to travel during the high hazard
season.
Mr. Speaker, I turn now to one of the other
very important functions of Lands and Forests
—our parks for the people programme. This
programii;ie is looking forward to future rec-
reational and park needs and in many areas
across the province, lakes and other attractive
features are being set aside for the develop-
ment as required. Six new provincial parks
were opened this year; 79 now are fully oper-
ating; others are not yet ready for top park
status.
With public demand for parks growing
year by year, the department's policy under
this programme will be steady and continued
expansion of the provincial park system. New
parks operating this year are Bon Echo in the
Tweed district; Fitzroy in the Kemptville
district; Ojibway at Sioux Lookout; Turkey
Point in Lake Erie; Samuel de Champlain in
North Bay district and White Lake in White
River district.
Every effort is made to develop the park
system, to retain their natural features so that
picnickers and campers can get back to nature
as a relief from the stresses of urban life. For
this reason the major reserves provided in all
parks with sufficient acreage are proving most
popular with visitors and then in some of the
larger provincial parks, wilderness areas are
being retained. I have had tlie pleasure of
DECEMBER 4, 1961
179
receiving many letters of commendation from
persons who have availed themselves of the
park facilities; for instance, one camping fam-
ily after a vacation in the Pinery v^hich is in
the Lake Huron district expressed pleasure
and commendation in a letter sent to me.
The Pinery which has 4,340 acres is located
on Highway 21, five miles south of Grand
Bend. It has a natural oak-pine forest, sand
ridges and dunes accumulated over the cen-
turies in an area not previously developed and
it also has an excellent beach on Lake Huron.
Of the Pinery the delighted visitors wrote:
Several things contributed to a very
enjoyable stay. Firstly we were impressed
by the lovely location and well-thought-out
layout of the campsites. We enjoyed the
peacefulness of the park despite the fact
that it contained a very large camping
population.
We appreciated the excellent facilities
provided. We were most impressed with
the helpful and courteous park staff. You
and your stafiF are to be commended on the
Pinery, and we are grateful to the province
of Ontario for preserving such sites for the
general public. We would appreciate it if
you could pass on our thanks to the parks
superintendent.
We have many other areas set aside, areas
that are deemed suitable for future park pur-
poses, and this, Mr. Speaker, will give you
some indication of the continuing develop-
ment projected for the provincial parks sys-
tem. They extend right across the province
and from Kenora district down to Lake Erie
and many other parts of Ontario.
In developing the park: after acquiring or
choosing the site, a master plan for each
provincial park governs development with
consideration for its location, its natural fea-
tures, anticipated use, the anticipated visita-
tion, and major and minor uses. So each
park, therefore, is planned and developed
individually in view of its optimum use in
the interests of public recreation, and in view
of the natural environment.
I realize that in southern Ontario we are
perhaps facing ovir most serious need for
park facilities but much has been done
through government assistance in various
ways. We have conducted a survey, for
instance, in a radius of 50 miles from Toronto
and Hamilton, and we have come up with
some rather interesting statistics.
There are almost 8,700 acres of recreational
land in this area owned and operated by con-
servation authorities. The Niagara Parks
Commission has 2,800 acres, and Metropolitan
Toronto has almost 1,300 acres. I know that
my colleague, the hon. member for Lincoln
(Hon. Mr. Daley) who is the chairman of the
parks integration board, will report this in-
formation to the Legislature in greater detail
when he has the opportunity to report on
the work of the parks integration board.
Some people who are interested in possible
refinements of our present parks send sugges-
tions which we appreciate very much; but
some of the suggestions have been that we
should install laundromats, showers, electricity
and waste drains for trailers, and so forth.
Now, I do not want to eliminate the eventual
possibility of these services being installed,
but our thinking at the present time is to
retain some semblance of true camping
atmosphere in our parks, and I am inclined to
think that the vast majority of park users
think along these lines. We must draw the
line somewhere and block efforts to create
a Coney Island or Luna Park in some of our
parks.
Other services incidental to our parks pro-
gramme include the facilities provided for
canoe trips. Many trippers enjoy these facil-
ities in quite a large number of our parks.
They have made some suggestions in con-
nection with improving the cleanliness on the
canoe routes, the portages particularly, and
so this brings to light the problem of pro-
viding quality recreation of a wilderness type
for large numbers of people, and it may well
call for public education and additional staffs
for patrol and guidance duties.
The park attendance this year, Mr. Speaker,
was a record 6,215,300 people to the 79 parks
open to the public and where records are
kept. There have been many visitors who
have availed themselves of the facilities avail-
able in some of the parks that are not
completed, where the establishment is not
completed, and we have not included these
numbers in the figures I have just quoted.
The figure of 6^ million is rather an interest-
ing one in that it represents one-third of the
whole population of Canada.
There has been an extraordinary increase
in the number of campers— a jump of nearly
50 per cent over last year— which, to me,
indicates that the need for more parks and
more camp sites will continue to be felt as
the popularity of camping spirals to an un-
predictable peak. The same applies to canoe
trippers in our bigger parks who have in-
creased in number by 62 per cent over last
year.
In view of the annually decreasing area
of public hunting ground, the parks branch
has been co-operating with the fish and wild-
life branch of The Department of Lands and
180
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Forests to provide hunting in some provincial
parks. This is another instance of the value
of the integration of all efforts geared to
the use of natural resources in the depart-
ment. This year waterfowl hunting has been
continued in Rondeau, Presqu'ile and Darling-
ton Parks, Holiday Beach Park was added
this year, and Long Point Park was included
in die managed waterfowl stocking in the
adjacent marshlands.
Pheasant hunting of stocked birds was intro-
duced at Sibbald's Point, Darlington and
Presqu'ile parks this year, while deer hunting
in Clyde and Bruton townships, now part of
Algonquin Provincial Park, was permitted to
continue under certain controls, including the
limiting of the number, as well as the location
of hunt camps. A moose season was declared
open in Lake Superior Park. Although figures
are not yet available, it is anticipated that the
results will be such as to warrant the con-
tinuation of this added park activity.
In a number of our parks we must assist
nature in re-establishing itself, and as an
instance of that I will quote what has been
done in the Pinery Park which is a large area
on the shores of Lake Huron, long known as
the most southerly area of red and white pine
in Ontario. In our parks management pro-
gramme we are planting this area with red
and white pine. Examination in preparing
the park's development has shown that much
of the soil was covered with scrub hardwood
and that indiscriminate cutting practices and
repeated fires had removed the pine trees,
damaged the soil and spoiled the aesthetic
beauty of the land.
To remedy this situation our department
embarked on an extensive tree planting pro-
gramme to work the area to its natural state.
Red and white pine have been planted in
all the open areas and the low quality hard-
woods underplanted with white pine. These
two species were chosen because they are
native to the site and in keeping with the
natural beauty of the park. The programme
has involved planting 1,065,000 seedlings since
1957.
Our parks for the people programme pro-
vides enjoyment and fine recreation for the
summer. Then in winter many of our parks
provide employment for quite a large number
of our people.
We estimate that this coming winter there
will be an expenditure investment, I would
say, of close to $1 million in work being
done in our provincial parks. This work will
provide more camping, parking and recrea-
tional space and more trailer sites, as well as
road improvements, docks, boat launching
ramps, more wells and sanitary facilities and
beach and other necessary work.
Completion of the last link in the Trans-
Canada Highway around the north shore of
Lake Superior brought a tremendous influx
of visitors to the northwestern part of the
province. It also gave a great impetus to
camping. Camp unit days, for instance, in the
Port Arthur district were up 125 per cent
and in the Sault Ste. Marie district the in-
crease was 300 per cent.
Winter work in the provincial parks is
being concentrated in areas of heaviest use in
relation to facilities that were available last
summer. Enlargement of facilities is regarded
as required particularly from Sault Ste. Marie
west through White River, Geraldton to the
Lakehead and the extreme northwest. Work
commensurate with their heavy use is also
required in parks in the Lake Erie, Lake Sim-
coe and Parry Sound districts in southern
Ontario.
In 1946 the then Department of Game and
Fisheries was amalgamated or integrated with
The Department of Lands and Forests and I
would say that the whole operation has been
most successful.
I would now like to report on some of the
activities of the fish and wildlife branch.
Much interest was always evidenced by
our people and certainly yourself, Mr. Speaker
and lion, members of the House, in receiving
a hunting report.
I should like first to deal with the deer
hunting report. The impact of the deep
snow winters of 1958-1959 and 1959-1960 on
the eastern Ontario deer herd was once more
clearly revealed in the preliminary results of
in 1960 deer hunt. Where the winters were
severe, hunting this year was poor. An un-
happy coincidence brought unfavourable
hunting weather to most of the hard hit areas,
making the hunting even worse.
In the more southerly districts where win-
ter mortality was less severe, fairly good
hunting weather prevailed. The combination
brought hunters better success than has been
experienced for the last few years.
In the area from Sault Ste. Marie to North
Bay, the gloomy forecasts of The Department
of Lands and Forests officials proved only too
true. There was the expected small improve-
ment over the 1960 hunt, because of the mild
winter just past, but hunting remained gener-
ally poor. Yearlings and two-year-olds were
conspicuous by their absence at some of the
checking stations near North Bay. These
were the age classes most affected by the
deep snow. The poor hunting weather south
DECEMBER 4, 1961
181
of Sudbury along the north shore of Lake
Huron added to the frustration of hunters.
On ManitouHn Island, where the snow had
not been so deep, success at the end of the
first week was running about 20 per cent.
This is sHghtly low for Manitoulin, I am
advised by my biologist.
There may be another reason and it may
be partly due to the fact that dogs were pro-
hibited for the first time this year and also
partly due to the warm, dry weather which
made hunting difficult. Despite the weather
though, some of the local residents who knew
the deer runways did very well. I suppose the
hunter, like the fisherman, must know his
hunting area.
In Lake Huron district, success on the
Bmce peninsula dropped this year. This
was also due to poor hunting weather. The
age distribution of deer taken from this area
shows very little distortion, due to the deep
snows.
In Parry Sound, the hunter success main-
tained the upward trend of last year despite
the effects of the winters with deep snow. In
1958 the success in Parry Sound was 29.3 per
cent. In 1959, following the first severe
winter, the success dropped by about 20 per
cent. Even though the 1960 hunting season
followed a second deep snow winter, success
rose slightly to 23.4 per cent. This year
hunters were aided by fairly good hunting
weather and preliminary figures indicate the
hunter success will be about 25 per cent.
The hunting success in the Lindsay district
was about equal to that of 1958 and the best
since that time. Apparently the good hunting
weather compensated for the winter losses
sustained in this district and allowed good
success.
Tweed and Kemptville districts were little
aflFected by the severe winters. Both showed
normal age distributions with 38.9 per cent
yearlings and 24.9 per cent two-year-olds in
Tweed.
Pembroke district, farther north, is not in
so happy a position. It has suffered losses
of deer similar to those in North Bay, Sudbury
and Sault Ste. Marie districts. Many dead
deer were found in the spring surveys of 1959
and 1960.
That these severe winters reduced the
available deer can again be shown from the
deer ages. Only 24 per cent of the deer shot
in Pembroke district in 1961 were yearlings
and only 17 per cent were two-year-olds. The
same reports are found pretty well throughout
the province.
In so far as fishing is concerned, I am not
in a position to pass any remarks about that
since we have very little statistical information
available because we have no resident angler's
licence in this province. So we have few
methods of amassing any large amount of
statistics. In some cases we do obtain and
carry on a qualified census in areas where
research projects are undertaken.
One of the other services maintained by
Lands and Forests is that of establishing
hatcheries and providing hatchery-raised fish
to supplement the high standard of fishing.
Fish management is certainly one of the
largest programmes we conduct in this depart-
ment with the possible exception, 1 suppose,
of enforcement and biology.
The department now operates 18 fish cul-
ture establishments including eight rearing
stations for brook, brown, lake and rainbow
trout; eight pond stations for black bass and
maskinonge; one jar hatchery and two hatch-
eries for culturing early stages of lake trout.
All the pond stations used for culturing warm
water fish in summer are also used for carry-
ing cold water fish in winter.
In addition to the department hatcheries,
one is being developed by The Department
of Commerce and Development, and there
are 18 private hatcheries operating under
permit from the department to produce trout
for sale for restocking privately owned waters.
In southern Ontario there are at least
10,000 privately operated multi-purpose farm
ponds whose owners sell fishing rights. They
purchase stocks of fish from private sources
or have their own facilities for maintaining
fish stocks.
The objective of the department is to
provide fish of the best possible quality at the
lowest possible cost. This objective is main-
tained throughout the complete cycle of
events, from spawn-taking to the time the fish
are released from the hatchery to public
waters. The use of pellets as a supplement
in the diet has meant a considerable saving in
the cost of feeding, a substantial item in the
rearing of trout. Growth, reproductive func-
tion, vigour, etc. are kept under careful
surveillance to offset any unfavourable devel-
opment.
Hatchery operations in Ontario are compar-
able with the best features of these operations
in federal and other provincial or state
agencies. Adjusting hatchery water tempera-
tures upwards stimulated the growth of rain-
bow trout and aurora trout. Self -cleaning
ponds, fish planting from aircraft, perfected
stocking policies and management are some
of the improved methods of fish husbandry in
182
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
use to assure the greatest return of hatchery
fish to the fisherman's creel.
The hatchery production of whitefish, yel-
low pike-perch and black bass for restocking
had been greatly curtailed on the basis of
research information. The operation of white-
fish and pike-perch hatcheries, known to have
contributed little, if anything, to fish produc-
tion, was discontinued for biological as well
as for economic reasons.
I would also predict an expansion of private
enterprise in this field, particularly as legis-
lation authorizing trout produced in privately
owned ponds to be sold for human consump-
tion has been provided. Licences for this
enterprise are now available from the depart-
ment.
The Department of Lands and Forests
stocks waters free of charge, provided they
are open for public fishing. Posted streams
and streams of which less than 50 per cent
are open to public fishing are not stocked
by the department.
In 1954, the American Fisheries Society,
one of the most renowned of its kind in this
field, adopted a North American fish policy
which was endorsed by Ontario. One of the
principles set forth in this policy was, and I
quote:
Food, game and forage fishes reared at
public expense, should be stocked only for
public benefit.
"Open to fishing" does not mean that
fishermen can trespass over private property
without the owner's consent. If a stream is
stocked by the department and is sub-
sequently posted, or public fishing prohibited,
stocking is discontinued by the department.
Applications for fish for stocking private
Avaters on the basis of purchase of the fish
are referred to private hatcheries. If they
are unable to provide supplies of fish, the
department considers these requests if surplus
fish remain after commitments to public
waters have been satisfied.
Our present plans are to provide for an
inventory and classification of all waters,
particularly those currently under manage-
ment. This, we feel, will greatly facilitate
and improve the hatchery planting pro-
gramme in Ontario. But we must not be
content with inventory only, because basic
research is most important and should tell us
why the fish planted did survive or why they
did not survive.
A site has also been purchased at Sault
Ste. Marie for an experimental hatchery and
fish culture training centre. There, experi-
mental studies on fish nutrition, selective
breeding and assessment of planted stocks of
fish are among studies to be undertaken. This
training will be primarily for our own
hatchery staff. It may extend in the future,
but at the present time we are concerned
with training our staff and those who have
given evidence of great interest in this type
of work.
One of the further functions of Lands and
Forests is assisting the production of fur pelts
by local trappers. One of the activities which
we have assisted here is the work being pro-
moted under the auspices of the Ontario
Trappers Association with respect to the fur
sales. This organization, with our support,
will again this coming fall and winter hold a
number of fur auctions. These will be on
December 12, January 19, February 27, April
10 and May 25.
We recently opened another area in
northern Ontario to beaver trapping after it
had been closed for some time. After a three-
year closure, beaver trapping on a quota
system has been reopened in the Indian
band areas adjacent to Big Trout Lake. In
this large area in the centre of Patricia central
district there are approximately 275 Indian
trappers who depend largely on trapping for
their livelihood.
Beaver is not only a source of revenue for
those people but it is also very important as
food. During the years when the beaver
season had been closed, I think it was rather
fortunate that a high population of wild mink
in that area helped ease the economic situa-
tion.
The beaver die-off occurred in this area
between 1949 and 1952. A disease known as
tularemia was found to be present among
the beaver and it decimated the beaver in
those areas.
The department then live-trapped beaver
from other parts of the province and trans-
planted them to this part of northern Ontario.
About 800 animals were transplanted in three
summers.
This year aerial surveys and ground exam-
ination where possible have indicated that the
increased beaver population warrants reopen-
ing the trapping season. It is considered that
the restocking would by now have produced
a large population of strong, healthy, active
beaver which will continue to multiply.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that my remarks are
of interest to you and to the House and that
I may be privileged later on during this
session to present other information on the
DECEMBER 4, 1961
183
activities of The Department of Lands and
Forests.
At this time, in conclusion, I would like to
pay tribute to the very excellent staff which
this department has, these people who give
willingly of their knowledge at all times. I
would say that they recognize their great
responsibilities as the caretakers and managers
of the birthright of all our citizens in the
natural resources of the kind Providence has
bestowed upon us.
Applause.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex Nortli): Mr.
Speaker, I want to join with others who have
already spoken in extending my very best
wishes to the Speaker, whom I think is doing
a very excellent job. As a matter of fact, I
think he improves with age. Probably that
trip that he had overseas this last summer
helped him. Being from Essex, I have, as you
know, a very real interest in you; in your
present and your future; and so I hope along
with the other hon. members that you have
a very happy year.
Now, I want to say a word also about your
family, whom I have known for a long time
and have always found to be very fine people.
I want to do it every year because it is true.
We people from our part of the world are,
as you know, very warm-hearted. It is not
very often that we have any arguments, only
about once every third year, sometimes every
fourth year. When we do we generally have
a good one.
There have been some changes made on the
opposite side of the House and I suppose if
I might I should run down them in a hurry.
There is the odd one who is not here, of
course, as usual.
Mr. R, M. Whicher (Bruce): Where are
they all? No Cabinet there at all!
Mr. Reaume: I think, though, that for
the most part, the changes which have been
made have been made for the better. As a
matter of fact, I think it would be an honest
statement that it could not be any worse
than it was.
There is no question about it that the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts), I think, has a
\'ery hard job. He is going to make an
attempt to fill the shoes of a man who has
served this province and served it well for
a long time. I do not want to make his job
any harder than I have to—
I beg pardon? I cannot hear the hon.
Prime Minister. Would he mind speaking
up? Honestly, I did not hear him.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I
will write the hon. member a note.
Mr. Reaume: As a matter of fact, I was
just about to wish the hon. Prime Minister
luck in his new work. I think he is really
going to have to have all the good wishes
that he can get.
Now, one thing that puzzles me in the
change-around in positions of the Cabinet
—in the shuffle, I do not know what happened
to the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin
(Mr. Root), whether he got what they call
an Irish promotion or just got kicked up-
stairs. He wound up, as I understand it, as
the official water boy for the party.
Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday in this House
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer) made what I thought— and I
am certain that hon. members will all agree—
was one of the finest speeches that has been
made in this House for a long time. All
of us who are acquainted with him know
him as a friendly man, as a man who does
not go out of his way for the purpose of
trying in any way to injure anybody. Cer-
tainly he is the type of a man who is first
of all an honest man.
I noticed that throughout the long time of
his speech, two hours and a half, that the
hon. members of the House— on both sides
of the House— gave him a good hearing. I
want to thank the Speaker too for having
allowed him to go on with his important
work.
His speech, I would say, was important
because it was evident that he had spent
a long time on it. His speech was important
because it brought to the attention of the
people of this province a very important
matter. I think it laid on the doorstep of
those in power a problem that they themselves
and nobody else can now properly deal with.
There is not any sense in we over here
making any more attacks on the chief law
enforcement officer of this province. He now,
in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is no longer a
man of any importance. He might just as
well occupy a position in the back row. He
has lost his effectiveness. The matter we
must now lay in the lap of the hon. Prime
Minister of this province.
The hon. Prime Minister of this province
is a comparatively young man and, I think,
an able man and a man who wants to do a
good job. I say to him that if he wants to do
a good job the first thing he should do right
now is to institute a Royal probe on the
matter of crime in the province.
184
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Years pass by and they go by quickly. This
very same party in power now has been in
power for some 18 years and I can remember
(luite well during the term that I was mayor
of the city of Windsor it did not take much
prompting on anybody's part for the people
on the opposite side of the House at that
time to institute a probe.
I want to say that I am not sorry, that I
think in very many of tliese cases a probe
serves a very good purpose. But I am certain
of one thing, that if a probe served a purpose
in the instance of a community of which I
was at that time the head, then there are a
thousand times more reason why there ought
to be a probe now.
Hon. members may feel sure that the people
of this province are not going to sit still. There
is an obligation, and a real one, on the part
of the hon. Prime Minister and those who
follow him to get up in this House and in a
loud voice let themselves be heard.
The hon. leader of the Opposition, I want
to say again, had no intention at all of injur-
ing or harming any innocent people. The
difference between the speech of the hon.
leader of the Opposition and the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) is as differ-
ent as night and day. In one case, the speech
coming from the man who heads our party
was a speech based on facts. He would not
have made that speech only that he felt it
was a duty on his own part. We have sat
in this House for years and have heard time
after time the hon. member for York South
tear the characters of people apart, not caring
who they were, giving no thought at all to
the pcKJon involved or their family.
But this is a different sort of a man who
made this speech last Wednesday. There
can be no line of comparison as between the
hon. member for York South and the man
who leads our party. I want to put that on
the record.
As proof of that fact, with all the hollering
and all the character assassination in which
this man indulged, in the month of June,
1959, he came back with these great, big, five
men who sit over here. That goes to show
what the people of the province think about
them. The N.D.P.— the "no down payment"
party!
I want to urge again the importance of in-
stituting a Royal probe and letting the chips
fall where they may.
Last summer a group of pink-eyed social-
ists had what they called a convention in
Ottawa, and I happened to be in Ottawa
that week— not at the convention. I had no
problem getting a hotel room at all, there
was plenty of space; and I heard the hon.
member for York South the other day ex-
pounding in this House the brand new
theories of a new party, the democracy and
what it stood for and all the fine people that
were there. Some of us have been in this
business for a long time and we go back a
ways.
It was some 35 years ago that a different
group, and yet maybe part of the same
group of pink-eyed socialists, at a meeting in
the west were going to change the whole
country around. I again remember the words
of Woods worth then. We hear them now
from the little man from the west with the
sports pants, echoing those words again: "I
believe in the two party system but one of
the old parties must die."
That was 35 years ago, and as we thumb
over the pages now as history goes by year
by year, we find that the party that died by
their own hands— by their own hands— was
the party that was going to make certain that
somebody else died.
So this year, assembled in the city of
Ottawa, a few of those pink-eyed people from
the west who had been kicked out of public
office in the west— not by agriculture, not by
the farmer, but by the unionist himself in
industrial ridings of the west, unemployed as
they were— they took it upon themselves to
form a New Democratic Party. Well, I just
want to explain to hon. members how new it
is and how democratic it is. It is a shame
that they even call it a party.
It is so new that the principles of it are
the same principles of the old C.C.F., and it
smells just as bad. They have not changed
a thing.
Democratic? Let us get down to that party,
the democratic party.
I always thought that Canada— the country
where I was born and to which hundreds of
thousands of other people have come from
other parts of the world— I have always
thought and I am certain that they think it is
a democratic country. I do not think they
are looking to these people to change it
very much in the way that they would want
it changed.
Let us point out one thing, however. They
claim that they have the backing of the trade
unions in the country. First of all I want to
say, and I will use myself as an example, that
I come from a highly organized and indus-
trialized part of the province, from the very
same part of the province as two other
Liberal members in this House. In the auto-
motive part the Liberal candidate in each
DECEMBER 4, 1961
185
case ran first and the N.D.P. or the C.C.F., or
whatever you want to call it, in each case
ran third.
I heard the hon. member explain how they
extract dues from the union men. There are
a few things he did not explain, and I want
to explain to the House, Mr. Speaker, that a
long time before our hon. friend from York
South even knew that there was such a
thing as a union in Canada, I was fighting
for them and still am. Before I explain this,
I want to say also that I am not opposed, Mr.
Speaker, to a union affiliating itself with any
party, nor will I vote for the enactment of
any law that will stop the union from giving
its dues to any party. That is its own affair
and I shall always fight for the right of union
members to do that sort of thing if they wish.
But let us analyze for a moment how it is
being done.
First of all our friends of the N.D.P. say that
they trust the unions, that they are friends
of the unions and the unions are friends of
theirs. Well, they do not trust them enough
to put the contributions on a voluntary basis;
that is for sure. The unions— the union men
who walk up and down our street and I am
sure other streets in the province— do not like
the N.D.P. or anybody else sticking their
hands in their pockets, and that is exactly
what the N.D.P. are doing. They are sticking
their hands in other people's pockets, Mr.
Speaker, without getting permission of those
people.
Take for instance a local of 4,500 people;
a quorum in that local is 100. The N.D.P.
knows that. It is not very hard to pack a
meeting of 100, and so they do it. They
pack the meeting, the affiliation is made and
they get their hands in the working man's
pockets. But now they say: well, if the work-
ing man does not want his money to find its
way into our pockets, and that is where it
is going, then all he has to do is to sign
a ,chit or write us a letter and we will stop
that. We will stop putting our hands in his
pockets.
The working man does not want to write
a letter nor does he want to sign that chit
because if he does, everybody in that plant
knows that he has signed it. This man is
not going to fight with a bunch of big-
mouthed people just over a dime or 15 cents;
but if these fellows are so democratic— and
everybody now is so anxious to use that word.
Hitler used it, Mussolini used it-
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): You are using
it.
Mr. Reaume: Cuba now has a democratic
government; but if they are so democratic
then I have a suggestion that I will make:
why do you not— you five hon. members with
the big mouths— why do you not allow each
and every trade union across Canada to hold
a secret vote, first of all whether or not they
should affiliate with your party, and second
whetlier or not they want to give their
money to you? You will not agree, you will
not agree.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Speaker, when a union
takes a strike vote they take it by secret
ballot. Now, in the affiliation of a union
with a political party all I am asking is that
the union man of this province be given the
right to cast his ballot secretly. There has
been no secret ballot among the rank and
file members of unions and hon. members
know it. I am asking them to agree that
each and every local union across the province
be given the right to vote secretly as to
whether or not they want to affiliate with their
party and whether or not union men want
the N.D.P.'s hands in their pockets. That is
all I am asking; you do not agree to that.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask that the speaker
be given every attention and we will proceed
very well. It does not appear to me that
the speaker needs any help with his speech.
Mr. Reaume: I think we can trust tlie
union men and women across the province.
Mr. Bryden: That is why we are not
worried about it.
Mr. Reaume: That is what you have said
in years past but you get beaten all the time.
Mr. Bryden: We are still not worried. We
are quite happy to let the unions themselves
determine the way they want to make their
decisions.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Speaker, you know when
our hon. leader was making his speech in the
House on crime the other day I looked over
at the expression on the face of the hon.
member for Woodbine, and he looked like
one who had just been weaned on a very
sour pickle.
Mr. Bryden: That was your eyesight.
Mr. Reaume: For a man who thinks so
much of the auto workers that he has a car
186
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
made in a foreign land, I think he should
quieten down for a little while.
I want to say that insofar as I personally
am concerned, and I think I can speak for
my party, my party has no thought, nor have
we ever had any thought, of extracting funds
forcibly from anybody and that goes for
criminals as well. I have never read a head-
line in a paper so bad, and I did not think
there was an hon. member in this House who
would be so dishonourable as to intimate that
anybody in this House, regardless of what
party, would take campaign funds from a
criminal, or from any source of crime.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
hon. member ought to read the records on
organized crime.
Mr. Reaume: Has the hon. member read
them?
Mr. MacDonald: Sure.
Mr. Reaume: He is right in there then!
Mr. Speaker, I think we need not worry
about this type of thing; we need not worry
about the policies and principles that they
follow. They have taken ethics and put them
in the ash can and before we are finished
with them they will be right in on top of
their own ethics.
We realize, and I want this to be put down
clearly in the records, we realize we follow
the philosophy that was established some 30-
odd years ago in the west. We know that
this New Democratic Party whose members
do not know what the word "democratic"
means, we know how badly they hate us in
our party. I want to inform the government
of the province that we know the hatred that
they have for us is far greater than the
hatred they have for the government.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Reaume: Because they know that they
must first hurdle us before they can get
over there. I want to tell hon. members who
is in bed with whom—
Mr. MacDonald: The Tories are in bed
with the Liberals.
Mr. Reaume: There are hon. members in
this House who have told me to my face,
privately and personally, that the hon. leader
—if you can call him that, I will call him
the hon. member from York South— that in
the election of June 1959, this man who calls
himself a leader of a party, approached
certain members of the government or tlie
Tory party and put the proposition to them
in cold turkey, and here is what it was!
Would the hon. member like me to put a
C.C.F. candidate in his riding, in order that
we can split the vote and help him? If he
wants me to do it, I will do it!
An hon. member: He had no choice.
Mr. Reaume: But to the credit of the Tory
members of Parliament of whom I speak,
they said they wanted no part of the hon.
member's filthy deal.
Mr. Bryden: Where was this supposed to
have happened?
Mr. MacDonald: I rise on a point of
privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, the hon. member rises
on a point of privilege.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this state-
ment is a complete fabrication for which the
hon. member has given no evidence and he
can give no evidence.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Speaker, I have made the
statement and I stand back of it. At the
appropriate and proper time I will produce
the evidence; there is no question about it.
Mr. Bryden: And when will that be?
Mr. Reaume: It is none of the hon. mem-
ber's business. I will produce it when I
want to. I make the decisions.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: It just goes to show how
much ethics and how much principle these
birds have!
Mr. Reaume: That statement stands; it all
goes to show the type of tactics that they
employ.
Mr. Bryden: That the hon. member uses!
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member ought
to know, he uses them!
Mr. Reaume: Make no mistake about if, the
only way to handle them is the very same
way that I intend handling them, and as I
ha\'e always handled them in my own riding.
Mr. MacDonald: Why does the hon. mem-
ber not fight the Tories?
DECEMBER 4, 1961
187
Mr. Reaume: Because the only language
that they know is to fight fire with fire. Now
we do not have to stoop, we do not have to
stoop, of course-
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is down
there now, of course, he does not have to
stoop.
Mr. Reaume: —to the ethics and tactics
that they employ. They are so hungry for
public power that they will do anything and
I just want to say-
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is too
low down.
Mr. Reaume: If the hon. member was any
lower his head would be dragging on the
street. I was going to say something else,
Mr. Speaker, but in any event-
Mr. MacDonald: Well, it is obvious who the
hon. member is worried about anyway. We
do not hate the hon. member, we just-
Mr. Reaume: Why should we worry about
the hon. member? He always runs third.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. member has looked
pretty worried for the last while.
Mr. Reaume: We have won every time,
have we not?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Bryden: Look at Peterborough!
Mr. Reaume: Look at the books!
Mr. Speaker, on the business of contri-
butions to parties, it is a well-known fact
that the government in the province of
Saskatchewan for a long time past has been
taking contributions from oil companies,
breweries, mining companies. If that is not
so, let Mr. Douglas— and not the oflBce boy-
let Mr. Douglas stand up, wherever he wishes
and make a statement that what I have said
is wrong-
Mr. Bryden: Well, it certainly is wrong.
Not one word of truth in it.
Mr. Reaume: It is public knowledge that
it is true.
Mr. Bryden: There is not a shred of evi-
dence. It is completely false.
Mr. Reaume: There is nothing lower than
a hypocrite.
Mr. Bryden: Another unsupported state-
ment!
Mr. Reaume: I do not want to hear from
an office boy and I have mentioned a name
in the House.
Mr. Bryden: It is completely false.
Mr. Reaume: It is pubhc knowledge. Oh,
Mr. Speaker, my Httle friends over here—
Mr. Bryden: Why does the hon. member
not prove that it is true?
Mr. Reaume: I am just mentioning that
fact because it is true. The hon. member
knows it is true.
Mr. Bryden: Why does the hon. member
not prove it, if it is true?
Mr. Reaume: I just said, if it is not true
have him deny it.
Mr. Bryden: Why does the hon. member
not challenge someone who is here?
Mr. Reaume: I do not want to hear from
the hon. member; I do not want to hear from
him, who does? The hon. member does not
even know what is going on.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Reaume: I have done that, he can
answer for himself.
Mr. Speaker, in ending I want to say this,
that I have a tremendous amount of faith
and confidence in the unions of the province.
Although these fellows may be allowed to
get away with the business of putting their
hands in other people's pockets, there is no
question about it that the average rank and
file unionist in this province, when he gets
behind the curtain, he like many, many
hundreds of thousands of other good people
will vote as he wishes—
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. Reaume: He does not want to be told
and he will not be told. In my own area the
president— and this is by way of informing the
hon. member— the president of the North
Essex Liberals is vice-president of the Ford
local, which is a pretty good union-
Mr. MacDonald: Which by vote has en-
dorsed the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Reaume: Because the hon. member's
group packed the hall!
He is not one of them. We will take our
chances when the time comes. I am just
asking that when the hon. member introduces
this bill that has to do with contributions to
188
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
political parties, I would ask if he would
amend it and legislate that the trade unions
of the province be allowed to hold a secret
ballot on whether or not they affiliate with
the hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: They are allowed, we
know that right now. The hon. member does
not know the facts.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cowling moves the ad-
journment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of the whole.
House in committee of the whole; Mr.
K. Brown in the chair.
THE REVISED STATUTES OF ONTARIO
House in committee on Bill No. 1, An Act
to confirm the Revised Statutes of Ontario,
1960.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 1 reported.
THE FISH INSPECTION ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 12, An Act
to amend The Fish Inspection Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 12 reported.
THE REV^ISED REGULATIONS OF
ONTARIO, 1960
House in committee on Bill No. 26, An Act
to confirm the Revised Regulations of Ontario,
1960.
Sections 1 to-4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 26 reported.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the com-
mittee of the whole House rise, report certain
bills without amendment and ask for leave to
sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report certain bills
without amendment, and asks for leave to
sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, that completes the business of the
House for today. Tomorrow we will consider
the estimates that have already been tabled
and continue the Throne Speech debate.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to. .
The House adjourned at 4.55 o'clock, p.m.
No. 10
ONTARIO
Eegis^lature of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Tuesday, December 5, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q*C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $2.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 5, 1961
Reading and receiving petitions ; 191
Hours of Work and Vacations with Pay Act, bill to amend, Mr. Gisbom, first reading 191
Statement re report on jurisdiction of county and district court, Mr. Roberts 191
Estimates, Office of the Lieutenant-Governor, Mr. Robarts 195
Estimates, Department of the Prime Minister, Mr. Robarts 195
Estimates, Office of the Provincial Auditor, Mr. Allan 195
Estimates, Department of Travel and Publicity, Mr. Cathcart 198
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 221
'1 :f5
191
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests, in the east gallery and in
the west gallery, students from Flos Township
School Area No. 1, Elmvale.
We also welcome today on the floor of
the House to the Speaker's right, Mr. Joseph
A. Gillis, a member of the Michigan State
Legislature.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received;
Of the corporation of the united counties
of Medora and Wood praying that an Act
may pass authorizing the division of the
township into three wards and the election
of the council by wards.
Of the corporation of the city of Hamilton
praying that an Act may pass relating to
assessment of cost of private drain connec-
tions and to permit licensing and regulation
of use of untravelled portions of the high-
ways.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts moves that when this
House adjourns the present sitting thereof,
that it do stand adjourned until 3:00 o'clock
on Thursday afternoon.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the time for
depositing private bills with the Clerk free
of penalty be extended to Tuesday, January
16, 1962; and that the time for presenting
petitions to the House be extended to the
end of the first week after the resumption of
the present session in 1962; and the time for
introducing private bills be extended to the
end of the second week after such resumption.
Motion agreed to.
Tuesday, December 5, 1961
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE HOURS OF WORK AND
VACATIONS ACT
Mr. R. Gisbom (Wentworth East) moves
first reading of bill intituled An Act to amend
The Hours of Work and Vacations with Pay
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Bills.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I beg
leave to present a report made to me as
Attorney-General by Eric Hamilton Silk,
Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, of certain
studies of the jurisdiction of county and
district courts and related matters.
I would say in tabling this it is a report
of a study of the jurisdiction of the county
and district court which he commenced early
this year. While the report is based princi-
pally on the results of more than 50 meetings
held throughout Ontario with lawyers, judges
and court officials, as well as members of
Parliament, the Senate and the Legislature
and representatives of labour and of trade
and industry; the recommendations made are
fortified by studies made of court conditions
elsewhere in Canada, as well as in England
and several states of the union, and by Mr.
Silk's long experience with our courts both
as counsel appearing in them and in his
administrative roles.
The report, comprising some 144 pages,
contains recommendations calculated to re-
duce legal costs and render the civil courts
more accessible to those having occasion to
use them.
While the primary recommendations urge
(1) an increase in monetary jurisdiction of the
county and district courts; (2) greater powers
in the county judges in their capacity of
local judges of the Supreme Court; and (3)
a vesting in them— that is, county and district
judges— of divorce authority, which latter of
course can only be affected by Dominion
legislation, certain of the other proposals are
regarded as more basic.
192
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Silk recommends the establishment of
the oflBce of chief judge of the county and
district court. This he considers as essential
to the successful vesting in our secondary
courts of the proposed increased powers.
The principal purpose of the proposal is to
ensure a movement of the judges among the
counties as circumstances may require and
would result in a more efficient use of avail-
able judicial services.
Recognition of the present status of our
juvenile and family courts by instituting a
plan of providing them with their own bench
comprising legally trained, provincially ap-
pointed judges is also recommended. Presently
these courts are presided over principally by
judges and magistrates whose main responsi-
bilities are in other courts.
In somewhat the same connection, relief
of the county judges, particularly in the larger
centres, of their division court responsibihties
is also recommended.
The plan would develop a system of
provincially appointed division court judges.
It is not unhkely that should the plan be
adopted, the division court and juvenile and
family court responsibilities would be com-
bined in a single appointee in some areas.
The report urges that members of the
county court bench be relieved of admin-
istrative and other responsibilities which tend
to challenge the time available for the
judicial functions. Establishment of a panel
of impartial arbitrators with legislative recog-
nition in order to ensure high calibre personnel
is regarded as being indicated by existing
arbitration practices which demand a sub-
stantial amount of the time of some of our
judges.
The report proposes schools for court
officials at various levels in hne with the
system presently being instituted following
the report of a committee under tiie chair-
manship of Mr. Silk that completed a study
of the Ontario coroners' system a year ago.
A streamlining of the appeal process in
the magistrates' courts; provision in the
mechanics' lien proceedings for disclosure of
the position of the respective parties before
trial; and a review of the responsibihties of
the county and district judge where he is
appointed as a persona designata, are among
the recommendations made.
Recommendations for a thoroughgoing re-
view of the cost structure in all the courts
and for the court sittings in a place other
than the county town where circumstances
warrant it, are features of the report that
indicate the thoroughness of the study and
the directness of approach of the reports.
A review of some aspects of our division
courts where small claims are handled brings
forth a strong recommendation for a resurvey
of all post-judgment processes by a committee
of experts with a view to avoiding abuses,
reducing costs and rendering the collection
process more efficient. Court room accommo-
dation of many of these courts is a matter
which appears to warrant attention.
Touching on certain features of the magis-
trates' courts, the desirabiUty of having Crown
attorneys extend their activities beyond
criminal hearings is urged in a review of the
present practice of having police officers act
as prosecutors.
It is urged that magistrates. Crown
attorneys and pohce alike should regard
traffic ofiFences in the hght of their real
importance. This is in line with the estab-
lished policy of the department in its effort
to reduce the accident toll on our highways.
The problem of bringing cases to trial
promptly in the Toronto area in both Supreme
and county courts is dealt with separately
because of the heavy backlog that persistently
maintains here. Special procedures are sug-
gested, although a sparsity of court rooms and
other physical facihties at the moment seem
to be principal contributing factors.
In conclusion, Mr. Silk reminds of the
progress that has been made in the simph-
fication of court procedures over the years
and commends continued study and constant
improvement towards rendering our courts
of justice ever more available to the pubHc.
The report concludes, and I quote:
When one considers that for the average
layman the first fear that stands in the way
of seeking justice in the courts is the cost
of litigation, it is manifest that each im-
provement in the process of simplifying
procedure renders access to our courts of
justice a httle less forbidding.
I am following the course of tabling the
report in the Legislature in order to provide
the fullest opportunity for all concerned to
study the recommendations made.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I should like to
address a question to the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts):
(1) Professor Paul Fox, appearing last
night on the programme "Viewpoint", stated
that the hon. Minister of Justice for Canada
(Mr. Fulton) had sent to the provincial hon.
Attorney-General a draft of the proposed
method of amending The British North Amer-
ica Act by the Parliament of Canada. He said
DECEMBER 5, 1961
193
that substantial agreement had been reached
with the provinces on the method of amend-
ing. Has the hon. Attorney-General received
such a draft?
(2) If so, does he propose to make it public?
(3) Is it the government's intention to ask
for representations from interested persons or
bodies as to the method of amendment of The
British North America Act?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the questions, I would say that I did receive
yesterday a copy of the draft bill from the
hon. Mr. Fulton, a draft bill intituled An Act
to Provide for the Amendment in Canada of
the Constitution of Canada.
This bill purports to be drawn as a result
of substantial agreement in principle by all the
participating parties at the various confer-
ences; including the last one, when this was
settled in principle. When I say "settled in
principle" I do not mean settled by governing
bodies in principle; I mean settled by the
people who were assembled there to take
something to their respective governments for
consideration of the governments concerned.
That is the position it is in at the moment.
Copies will undoubtedly be made available;
there is no reason that I can see why we
should not have copies for any hon. member
interested to study it in advance. In due
course I would anticipate that some approach
will be made through the Legislature to dis-
cuss the bill and to deal with it in whatever
way the government may recommend.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South); Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
a question which I would like to address to
the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Warrender),
a copy of which I have submitted to him.
A constituent of mine who operates a gar-
age informs me that one of his mechanics,
who had worked for five years under the
supervision of a licensed mechanic and whom
he describes as one of his most competent
men, failed his examination when he sought
to get his auto mechanic's papers because of
difficulties with the English language. The
man in question is a new Canadian of
Italian background. The employer who has
interceded with me on behalf of his own
workman states that this mechanic had been
informed that he will not be able to try the
examination again for another two years.
Will the hon. Minister state whether the
regulations of his department do bar a man
for two years from trying again his auto
mechanic's papers when language difficulties
are the problem? Is a knowledge of the
English language essential to this trade? Or
could the examination be taken again with
the help of an interpreter?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank
the hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald) for his question, because here is
something where I think help should certainly
be given.
I say in answer to the first part of his
question: is there a bar? There is no bar.
Actually the regulation is there to attempt to
find out not whether the man can speak
English but whether he has the necessary
background of experience and ability and
competence in order to carry on as a
mechanic. So I can give the hon. member
the assurance that— and he has already been
kind enough to give me the name of the
person in question— it will be followed up
and every opportunity will be given to him
immediately to try the examination again.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, by way of
a very brief comment if I may, I think the
hon. Minister should make certain that this
kind of information is not given out by offi-
cials of the department— that a man is so
barred when the regulations do not bar it.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Speaker, I do
not know how this happened because after
receiving the question from the hon. mem-
ber for York South, I discussed it with the
previous hon. Minister of Labour, the hon.
member for Lincoln (Mr. Daley). He tells
me this has been his custom in the past,
where there is some kind of language barrier
or impediment, he did not hesitate to say we
will use an interpreter, or some other means,
in order to assist this gentleman— the appli-
cant. That can be done in this case.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I would like to
direct a question to the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions (Mr. Haskett), a copy of
which I have already provided to you and
to him, and which reads as follows:
With regard to a report appearing in the
press on November 22, 1961, to the eflEect
that the executive of the Metropolitan Toronto
Council had agreed unanimously to arrange
a meeting with the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions, to clarify the responsibility for
setting salary scales for employees of Metro-
politan Toronto or Don Jail: (1) has such a
meeting been held as yet; (2) if so, when
may an announcement of its results be ex-
pected; (3) if not, when will it be held?
194
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Speaker, for the courtesy
of the hon. member for Woodbine (Mr.
Bryden) in giving me notice of this question,
I express my thanks.
The question has three parts: (1) Has such
a meeting been held as yet; (2) if so, when can
the announcement of the results be expected;
(3) if not, when will the meeting be held?
Has the meeting been held as yet? The
answer is "no".
Part two, if so, when can an announcement
be expected? The first part of the answer is
in the negative, so part two washes out.
Part three, if not, when will such a meeting
be held? I would answer "as soon as pos-
sible."
Mr. Bryden: May I ask as a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker, if representatives of
the Metropolitan Toronto executive have been
in touch with the hon. Minister about this
matter? I take it from the nod of the hon.
Minister that they have.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, the answer
to the third part was quite conclusive. I said
"as soon as possible," which presupposes
that an approach has been made.
Mr. B. Nevraian (Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
a question directed to the hon. Prime Minis-
ter (Mr. Robarts), notice of which has been
given.
I have had inquiries from teachers and
teacher candidates in the Windsor area as to
the new Windsor Teachers College now in
the construction stage. Because of delays
brought about by the strike in the construc-
tion industry— and that strike, by the way
has been settled— there is some apprehen-
sion that certain categories of potential
teachers may be required to go outside of
the Windsor area to obtain their teacher's
certification. Would the hon. Prime Minis-
ter please answer the following questions:
Will grade 13 students possessing the
necessary qualifications be accommodated?
All of tihese refer to the Windsor Teachers
College.
Will grade 12 students possessing the
necessary qualifications be allowed to enroll
in the two-year course?
Will grade 12 students who have taken
two simimer courses and by June, 1962,
will have had two years of succesfxil teach-
ing experience be allowed to complete their
teacher training at this college?
And the last question: is there any provi-
sion being made to accommodate the above
teachers if the construction is not completed
in time for September 1962?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, the first question is: will grade 13
students possessing the necessary qualifica-
tions be accommodated? The answer is
when the Windsor Teachers College opens
grade 13 students possessing the necessary
qualications will be admitted.
Question two: will grade 12 students pos-
sessing the necessary qualifications be al-
lowed to enroll in the two-year course?
When the Windsor Teachers College opens,
grade 12 students possessing the necessary
qualifications will be admitted to the two-
year course. Should the enrolment in this
course have to be limited, a selection will be
made on the basis of the academic record
of the apphcants in grades 11 and 12.
Question three: will grade 12 students who
have taken two summer courses and by June,
1962, will have two years of successful teach-
ing experience be allowed to complete their
teacher training at this college? The answer
is that the students who have completed pre-
teachers college summer courses first and
second year, and have subsequently taught
successfully for two years on temporary certi-
ficates, will be admitted to the completing
year of the in-service course.
Question four: is any provision being made
to acconmiodate the above teachers if the
construction is not completed in time for
September, 1962? It had been hoped that
the building for the new Windsor Teachers
College would be ready for occupancy on
September 1, 1962. Owing to the strike, it
now appears unlikely that this will be the
case. Two alternatives are possible if the
building is in fact not ready for use in Sep-
tember, 1962.
First, the London Teachers College would
continue to operate on two shifts for the
college year 1962-1963 and continue to
accommodate the students from the Windsor
area. Second, suitable accommodations for
the college might be obtained in Windsor on
a rental basis imtil the new building is ready
for occupancy. Tentative inquiries have been
made of the Windsor Board of Education of
the possibihty of temporary quarters for the
college being made available.
I could add to this that we had really
planned that this teachers college would be
open in September and we will make any
adjustments that we possibly can, but there
are real difficulties in the way.
DECEMBER 5, 1961
195
When we were building the teachers
college in Port Arthur we did make arrange-
ments with the Fort William Board of Educa-
tion to rent certain space from them and in
that space we were able to conduct our
classes prior to the opening of the teachers
college there. But it is not always possible to
obtain accommodation that is suitable for
classroom purposes, because it is specialized
accommodation and in our school system
across the province there is very little spare
accommodation these days.
The other point is, of course, that the
London Teachers College is horribly over-
crowded and this college in Windsor was
built to relieve that condition. We are anxious
to get the London Teachers College back on
a normal routine as quickly as possible, so
I can assure the hon. member that we will
do everything in our power to have some
type of teachers college operating in Wind-
sor in September of 1962.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, may
I ask a supplementary question? Did I not
understand the hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Robarts) to say some time ago that in
1962 the two-year course would be cancelled?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, no, I did
not. What I did say was that we were elimin-
ating the pre-teachers summer course for
grade 12 students. In other words we had
the completing year this past summer and
we did not take in any first-year people.
That is what we ruled out. I did say our
ultimate objective would be to end up with
grade 13 entrance to teachers college, but
this may be some distance in the future. I
did not say that we would eliminate those
courses in 1962 or 1963.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. J. P. Robarts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee, Mr. K. Brown in the
chair.
ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE
LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR
Vote 1101 agreed to.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF THE
PRIME MINISTER
Vote 1401 agreed to.
On vote 1402.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr. Chair-
man, might I ask a question before you go into
that vote? Was the report of the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) for the year 1960 cir-
culated to the hon. members? I do not recall
having received one. 1 did receive one for
the year 1959.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, I am afraid I cannot answer that
question. May I take that as notice and I will
find the answer.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, the
matter is this. I think it does have a bearing
on the estimates and I would think that it
might be desirable for the hon. members to
have a report for the previous year before
being asked to vote on the estimates of the
current year. I would think it does have a
bearing on these estimates. It may be that I
just did not receive one. I do not recall
having received a copy for the past year.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am not aware of it.
Perhaps the hon. member is referring to the
public accounts.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: No, I am referring to
this very lovely document as published by the
hon. Prime Minister for the year 1959. I have
a copy of it here. I would be glad to send
it over to the hon. Prime Minister to acquaint
him with it if he would like to see it. I have
the hon. Prime Minister's report as the hon.
Minister of Education; I am in error.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, I can assure the
hon. member that I will have that report out
and available to him before the estimates of
The Department of Education come into the
House.
Vote 1402 agreed to.
ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE
PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
Vote 1501 agreed to.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to once again pay a
tribute to the work of the provincial auditor.
It is wonderfully satisfactory to have the con-
fidence that we have in our provincial auditor,
I know that he again has performed his duties
in a satisfactory and thorough manner and it
does give us confidence in the operation of
government.
I may say that in day-to-day operations the
provincial auditor carries on a continuous
196
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
examination of all expenditures from consoli-
dated revenue funds and in doing so counter-
signs all cheques and certifies there are funds
available and legislative authority for each
such payment. In addition, Mr. Chairman, his
staff is continually making audits of revenue
accounts and records of the consolidated
revenue fund.
Further to his duties in connection with the
audit of the government's transactions, the
provincial auditor conducts audits of such
boards and commissions and Crown instru-
mentalities as may be required by governing
statutes and directives.
The estimates of the audit office have been
increased by $50,000. May I say that in my
opinion if the auditor needs more money to
ensure that government spending is checked
as efficiently and thoroughly as possible, I
believe this House would wish me to assure
the auditor that whatever money he needs
for staff and expenses he can have. In other
words, I think the House would wish me to
assure the auditor that he can write his own
ticket to make sure that he is able to do this
immense job properly. If the $520,000 set
aside in the estimates for the coming year is
not enough, then I am sure we will see that
more is made available.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): With the comments of the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) I can agree.
In particular I can agree in the observation
that he made about the conscientious and able
way in which the provincial auditor has exer-
cised his responsibilities. With that we all
agree, Mr. ChairmaVi.
I would ask the hon. Provincial Treasurer
whether or not in the course of the past year
the provincial auditor has added to the num-
ber of boards and commissions that he audits.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, I may say
that he has. He now audits the books of the
Niagara Parks Commission, which he had not
done until this year, and the books of the
Ontario Water Resources Commission.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is there any expectation
or intention to include Hydro in this particular
audit?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I think not. I think the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) understands that it has always been
considered that Hydro would have their own
auditors?
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Why is
that? Why is that?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I am sure the hon. member
realizes that the Hydro is a creation of the
municipalities.
Mr. Reaume: I do not recognize it at all,
let us not fool with it. Hydro after all is
owned and operated by the province, regard-
less of any way the hon. Minister wants to
switch it. I am just wondering why not, why
is it not good practice? If the province is
going to guarantee all the bonds of Hydro,
and apparently is the foster father of Hydro,
why then would it not be good sense if we
had one auditor who audited the books of the
government, every branch of the government,
and also Hydro? Why are they split up?
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): I would say to the hon. member
that we have covered this point in the House
and in the energy committee on several
occasions and to repeat the answers that have
been given before, the Ontario Hydro-Electric
Power Commission is a municipal co-operative
system owned by the municipahties. The
Power Commission Act provides that the
officers shall be appointed by order-in-council
and the auditors are the Clarkson company.
It is a very special kind of audit, almost
as large as the audit carried out by the
auditor himself of the province. The increased
cost of this, quite apart from the need for it,
would be immense. There are something like
25 full-time auditors on the staff of the
Hydro at the moment doing this audit.
This is an audit which, if the audit were
to be carried out by the auditor of the prov-
ince of Ontario, would require an entirely
basic change, or an entirely different change,
in the concept of the ownership of Ontario
Hydro. Until that is an acceptable proposition
throughout the province and to this Legisla-
ture, it is not possible to have the Ontario
provincial auditor do the audit.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Chairman, I understand
that in other parts of the province, or rather
in other provinces, that other governments
have one auditor who audits all the books
of all the boards and the commissions in the
province. Now, why is it that they do it that
way in other provinces?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Could I ask the hon.
member if he would name the commission
and the province?
Mr. Reaume: I am asking the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member has
made a statement which is not accurate.
Where there are other provinces that have
DECEMBER 5, 1961
197
boards that are true boards of the Legislature
which has established them, then the pro-
vincial auditor is the auditor that does the
accounts. Where the board, however, or
commission, is one which has been established
by the municipality there is no such analogy
as that the hon. member has drawn, that I
know of. But if the hon. member would like
to point out to me the specific commission
which stands in the same relationship to the
Legislature that Hydro stands to this Legisla-
ture, I would be very interested in looking
at it.
Mr. Reaume: I could name them for the
hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, let him name
them right now.
Mr. Reaume: I will give them all to the
hon. Minister, there are all kinds of them.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: There is not one.
Mr. Reaume: Oh, yes, there is.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, if there are so
many let us hear one right now.
Mr. Reaume: I will give them to the hon.
Minister, I will give them all to him.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: All right!
Mr. Reaume: As a matter of fact, there
has been for some reason here in the House,
an effort on the part of the people in power
to keep the Hydro hidden away in a little
comer all by itself. I think it is time we
brought Hydro right out in the open. There
can be no reason in the world why we could
not appoint one auditor who could be the
overseer or the auditor for all the boards and
commissions of the province. There can be
no reason for it at all.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, the
insinuation that the hon. member has made
in relation to Ontario Hydro and the commis-
sions connected with it, is not, I think, of
the very highest order. But more than that,
perhaps the time to deal with the question
of who does the audit of the Ontario Hydro
will be when I present the estimates of The
Department of Energy Resources, and Hydro
is oflBcially—
Mr. Reaume: I am making the observation
now and I think I am quite in order. All I
ask is that there ought to be one auditor for
all the boards and the commissions of the
province.
An hon. member: It will take more than
one to handle all that debt.
An hon. member: I should say so.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): I wanted
to ask the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Allan), he has intimated to the House that
the auditor now does the books of the Nia-
gara Parks Commission and the Ontario
Water Resources Commission. I wanted to
ask him in how many instances in the finan-
cial affairs of these boards and commissions
does the auditor not yet do an audit? I
mean, how many boards and commissions are
not yet audited by the auditor of public
accounts?
Hon. Mr. Allan: The Teachers* Super-
annuation Commission is not audited by the
auditor of the province, nor is the Soldiers*
Aid Commission, the workmen's compensa-
tion board or the Ontario Research Foun-
dation.
Mr. Wintermeyer: What about the hospi-
tal commission?
Hon. Mr. Allan: The hospital commission
is audited by the provincial auditor.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Provincial funds do
go into the research foundation, do they not?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Yes.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Then what assurance
does the Legislature have that these moneys
are being expended properly?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is a matter which
I would say to the hon. member is also
under the estimates of The Department of
Commerce and Development. He will see
the items there and I will show him how
it is accounted for and how the money is
paid in, and so forth.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Then will we have
the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, under these
estimates, to suggest that this matter be
placed under the provincial auditor? Is then
the time to make that suggestion?
It would seem to me that now is when we
should go into this matter. All that I have
asked the hon. Minister is, what assurances
do we have that this money is being ac-
counted for properly? Now, assuming that
we wish to bring this up again, will it be in
order?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, that will be in
order. As a matter of fact, from my point of
198
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
view when we are reorganizing this depart-
ment, as well as the Ontario Research
Foundation, it may very well be that the
recommendation that the hon. member has
made is worth while. I would certainly like
to look into it.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Chairman, I want to
ask this. Does the auditor audit every board
and commission other than Hydro? We seem
to have a hard time getting this out of the
hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, I have just
given a list of those boards and commissions
5iat are not audited by the provincial auditor.
Mr. Reaume: And all the others are?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Yes.
Mr. Reaume: Including the liquor board?
All that is audited?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Yes.
Mr. Reaume: By our auditors?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Could I just say to
the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. R. C.
Edwards) who asked about the Ontario Re-
search Foundation, the budget of the Ontario
Research Foundation is several millions of
dollars of which there is a contribution by the
provincial government, but the budget is
basically contributed by private industry, so
this is something that obviously has to be
worked out.
The Ontario Research Foundation reports
to this Legislature to the extent that moneys
are given to it for certain types of research
and it acts in place of the council which was
washed out two, three or four years ago.
Therefore, it now distributes as an agent for
the government certain scholarship funds.
But this is only, I would think, about 25 per
cent of the money which is handled by the
research foundation, which is really a being
of private industry itself. So whether we
are in a position to audit the books or
whether the audit should be carried out
initially by the research foundation and then
checked by our auditor, this might be another
ramification of it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, are
those fees, in that they pay services rendered,
rather than a donation?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is correct. The
fees are calculated in such a way as to recover
from industry about 75 or 70 per cent of die
total costs of the foundation. So the hon.
member can say they are recovered for
services rendered, or any way he wants, it is
industry which puts up 75 per cent of the
amount to run the foundation.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRAVEL AND PUBLICITY
On vote 2101.
Mr. Reaume: I thought we were only going
to deal with the unimportant departments
and here we have the big departments
coming on, the heavy guns.
Hon. B. L. Cathcart (Minister of Travel
and Publicity): In the first place, may I take
a moment to express my appreciation to the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) for making
it possible for me to present the estimates
of The Department of Travel and Publicity
at this time.
An hon. member: The hon. Minister is
lucky.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: There are a number of
reasons for this, but in particular I think there
are two that I would like to mention.
First, by giving early consideration this
government is recognizing the tremendous
importance of the travel industry to the
welfare of all of our people and certainly to
the total economy of the communities and
the province of Ontario.
Second, the approval of these estimates
will be a firm assurance to those fine people,
and the many associations who support and
contribute so much to the travel industry as
a whole, of the continuance of the faciUties
of this department to an ever greater extent
than in the past.
Therefore, you will understand, Mr. Chair-
man, why it is a very real pleasure, as the
Minister responsible, to place before this
House for consideration the estimates for
The Department of Travel and Publicity.
However before doing this, I would like to
follow the usual custom of giving an outline
once again of our responsibilities and objec-
tives and some idea of how we fulfilled those
obligations during 1961 as well as some of
our plans for the coming fiscal year.
Briefly stated it is the responsibility of our
department to pubHcize, abroad and at home,
the tourist industry and the resources,
attractions and advantages of Ontario; to pro-
vide information to our visitors; to ensure that
a good standard of accommodation is main-
tained and to encourage the development of
DECEMBER 5, 1961
199
attractions that will enhance our reputation
as the top vacation province in Canada; to
commemorate persons, places, events, and
structures of historical significance while
encouraging municipalities and organizations
to preserve those artifacts related to our early
history: to collect and preserve government
records and other documents of historical
significance; and to censor films shown in
public theatres and to license such theatres
in the interest of pubUc safety.
These responsibilities are interesting and
challenging but I can safely say that we, and
all those organizations and individuals asso-
ciated with us in the tourist industry, can
take satisfaction in knowing that our eflForts
together have been largely successful. To
illustrate what I mean I would mention that
in the past we have enjoyed in this province,
and we have bragged about it, about 60 per
cent of the total volume of foreign vacationists
coming into Canada. This year, up to the
end of September, that is for the first nine
months, we have received 75.15 per cent of
all tourists, regardless of their length of stay,
and 70.5 per cent of those remaining over 24
hours. This, of course, refers to the total
influx of people into Canada. Ontario enjoyed
percentages to that extent this year. This
is a significant increase and is a strong indica-
tion that we are moving in the right direction
and are enhancing Ontario's reputation as a
mecca for tourists.
Mr. Chairman, I have referred to those
who are associated with us. I did so advisedly
for we realize that the success of our efforts
depends to a large extent upon the co-
operation which we have always received,
from our hon. Prime Minister, the hon.
Ministers of other departments and their dedi-
cated staffs and every member of this House
as well as from the press, radio and TV and
those tourist associations, chambers of com-
merce, boards of trade, other associations and
individuals which by their dedicated efforts
have belped to make the travel business the
success it is today.
The travel industry is more competitive
today than ever before in history. It is now
the largest single earner of foreign currency
for the United Kingdom and many of the
European countries and they are expending
ever greater amounts of money and effort to
increase this market. The United States of
America has become sufficiently concerned
at the imbalance of the travel dollar that this
year they established a U.S. Travel Service
operating out of Washington with an initial
budget of $2.5 million and for 1962 a budget
of $4.7 million. Mexico and the countries of
South America are enlarging their pro-
grammes and actively seeking tourists in the
same market upon which we depend.
In order to retain our favourable position
we must remain alert to changing conditions
in travel patterns; to what our competition is
doing and be constantly progressive in our
own operations.
During 1961 we revised and revitalized
many of our publications related to the travel
industry and the economy generally and pro-
duced in excess of some five million pieces
of material in both colour and black and
white.
Our advertising campaign which is carried
out in the United States and Canada uses
paid space in magazines, newspapers and
radio. This campaign commences in February
and in various forms covers most of the
months of the year.
Everything indicates that this programme
has been meeting with success. Our mail
inquiries up until the end of November
were 261,558 as compared to 249,217 for
the same period in 1960; in other words an
increase of some 12,000.
In addition to buying advertising space
and producing attractive publications we use
every means to have responsible publications
do feature articles on Ontario by bringing
writers into the province and providing both
writers and editors with pictures and material.
We also take part in sportsman and travel
shows in the United States and also in our
own province of Ontario. Where we do not
exhibit ourselves, we sometimes provide staff
for others so that the story of Ontario can
still be presented to the public. In other
words where private exhibits are on display,
or at least association exhibits over in the
U.S., we have often supplied extra personnel
from our department to assist them. In 1961
we took part in shows in Chicago, Kansas
City, New York, Cincinnati, Toronto, Port
Huron, Minneapolis, North Bay, Fort William
and New Jersey and provided staff at the
Halle Brotiiers Travel Show in Cleveland
and the sportsman show at Milwaukee. In
1962 we will be continuing our show pro-
gramme in those centres from which we draw
our greatest number of tourists.
During tiie summer months we provide
personnel at the New York and Chicago offices
of the Canadian Government Travel Bureau
to give out specific information on the
attractions of this province*
I mentioned to the House during the pres-
entation of these estimates last year that
200
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
1961 would see the opening of a new recep-
tion centre to be known as the Lakeland
Tourist Reception Centre and that this would
bring our total number to 16. The Lakeland
centre was opened as promised and proved
its value during this past summer when almost
32,000 registrations were reported.
During the last session I forecast that the
opening of the last section of the Trans-
Canada Highway along the north shore of
Lake Superior, and of Upper Canada Village
near Morrisburg, would result in an increased
number of tourists in these sections and this
has certainly been the case.
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics has pro-
vided us with figures for the 12-month period
from October, 1960, to September, 1961, as
compared with the same period from October,
1959, to September, 1960. These show that
entries of U.S. cars at Pigeon River advanced
nearly 20,000, or about 40 per cent, and
entries at Sault Ste. Marie at the other end of
the north shore Lake Superior route advanced
more than 26,000, or approximately 21 per
cent.
Just as significant are the figures showing
what happened to Canadian cars which, prior
to the opening of this highway, travelled the
south shore of Lake Superior and re-entered
Ontario either at Sault Ste. Marie or Pigeon
River. Re-entries of Canadian cars at Pigeon
River declined over 5,000, or 11 per cent, for
this period, while re-entries at Sault Ste. Marie
declined about 10,000 or 8 per cent. It is
obvious that Canadians are making extensive
use of this highway and our internal economy
benefits to that extent.
The new international bridges at Prescott
and Rainy River, both of which replaced fer-
ries, have also had an effect on the number
of cars entering from the United States. The
entries at Prescott, based on the same 12-
month period of October to September as
used previously, have shown an increase of
21,000 or nearly 70 per cent. Also, during
the 12-month period following the opening
of the bridge at Rainy River the number of
entries increased by over 6,000 or 81 per cent.
Hon. members may wonder when I men-
tion the north shore Lake Superior route.
Upper Canada Village and the international
bridges, what we have done or will be doing
in respect to these. During the establishment
of the pioneer village we provided the services
of our museums* advisor to the Ontario-St.
Lawrence Development Commission and
worked closely with that body in the prepara-
tion of publicity concerning its opening. In
addition, our publications carried reference
to Upper Canada Village and the north shore
Lake Superior route. Also, with respect to
the latter, we prepared a special booklet as a
guide to visitors travelling it for the first time.
This summer we produced two 16mm.
colour films with sound, one of which was on
the northwestern section of Ontario covering
a region from Dryden to the Manitoba border
and south to the international border, and the
other one covering the Lakehead and Lake
Superior area. These films will be available
for distribution early in 1962 and copies will
be placed with the National Film Board for
distribution throughout the United States.
In 1962 we plan to produce two films on
eastern Ontario, one of which will cover the
St. Lawrence valley and, the other, the
Ottawa valley.
I might just mention that last Sunday some
of our people, Mr. Chairman, might have seen
"Waterway Holiday," which is a production
of ours through the Fletcher Film people.
It is on the Trent-Severn and was shown over
CFTO-TV last Sunday between 11 o'clock
and 12 o'clock. That was one of our films.
During this past year, we worked closely
with 20th Century Fox for the production of
a 35mm. film in technicolor and cinemascope
on fishing in Ontario which will be shown in
theatres throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, I have given you some idea
of what we do to promote Ontario and to pro-
vide information and services to our visitors.
We have an equal responsibility to ensure that
the accommodation provided to our guests
is of a high standard and to encourage the
development of attractions which will serve
as a magnet to lure and hold tourists for even
longer periods.
The department is responsible for the
inspection and licensing of all tourist accom-
modation within the province, with the excep-
tion of those hotels which are under the
authority of the liquor licence board. This
involves in excess of 7,000 tourist establish-
ments providing approximately 75,000 rooms
or rental units and is combined with the ex-
tremely valuable service provided by our
trained inspectors who act in an advisory
capacity to tourist operators on all phases
of construction and operation.
That this is far from being a static industry
is indicated by the fact that up to November
15 this year 217 new tourist establishments
providing 1,890 units of accommodation were
constructed and additions were made to 323
existing establishments which added 1,101
new units.
Renovation to existing accommodation is
always going on and each year more operators
are upgrading their establishments by pro-
DECEMBER 5, 1961
201
viding better facilities than were previously-
available to their guests.
Another very important function of this
part of our operation is the conducting of
community surveys to determine the value
of the industry to any particular municipality
and also the needs and requirements of the
tourists. This year, five such surveys were
conducted in Fort Frances, Geraldton, Blind
River, Parry Sound and Westport. While the
results of these are not as yet available I
have no doubt that the figures will be as
impressive as those which I gave in my last
estimate speech and which concerned the
town of Kenora.
It is planned to continue this programme in
1962 and to make these surveys available to
those communities which request them and
are prepared to actively co-operate in ensuring
maximum value and accuracy in the statistics
gathered. I am happy to say that the fullest
co-operation has been forthcoming whenever
we have carried out one of those surveys.
We have continued our programme of com-
memorating sites, structures, events, and
individuals of historical significance by means
of official plaques. Some 100 diflFerent sub-
jects were investigated in detail through
extensive research in libraries, archives,
registry offices, and private collections, as
well as through interviews with local his-
torians. Final inscriptions for about half
of these were approved by the Archaeological
and Historic Sites Board of Ontario. Forty
plaques were officially unveiled during the
summer and fall months making a total today
of 268 erected throughout Ontario since the
inauguration of the programme.
I have said before, and wish to repeat
again, how much we are indebted to the
members of the Archaeological and Historic
Sites Board and its fine chairman, Mr.
William Cranston, for their untiring efforts
and great assistance in making this pro-
gramme such an outstanding success.
The erection of plaques and the investiga-
tion of sites of archaeological and historical
significance has resulted in a greatly increased
interest among local residents in their own
district's historical attractions. For example,
we gave assistance to Dr. Wilfrid Jury in his
investigation of the Willow Fort site in
Vespra township. As a result of his findings
there, the Barrie Chamber of Commerce pur-
chased the property and is drawing up plans
for reconstruction of this former military
depot. Situated near the western terminus
of Nine Mile Portage, it protected, back in
those days, the vital supplies being forwarded
to British military posts on the upper Great
Lakes during and immediately after the War
of 1812.
Support was also given to Dr. Jury in
his project of locating and outlining the ruined
structures which formed part of the former
naval headquarters at Penetanguishene, and
in his investigations of certain Huron village
sites in Tiny township in an effort to locate
definitely some of those visited by Champlain
and the early missionaries in the early 17th
century.
We also employed an expedition, headed by
Mr. Walter Kenyon of the Royal Ontario
Museum, to continue investigation of the
ruins of a fortified structure near the mouth
of the Albany River. While no final con-
clusions have, as yet, been reached it appears
to have been erected with considerable skill
along military lines, and it is believed to have
been the second or third post of the Hudson's
Bay Company on the Albany. It was probably
built during the 1680's and abandoned in
1713 and was obviously involved in the
military conflict between the French and
English in that era.
This site is of particular interest since
it has not been built on, or disturbed, since
the early 18th century and has thus provided
invaluable information on the construction
methods, living conditions, weapons, trade
goods and utensils of that period. An exten-
sive collection of artifacts was recovered from
the site and these will provide important
information to historians and museum authori-
ties. It is also felt that the knowledge gained
from excavation of this post will prove useful
to any organization contemplating the recon-
struction of other early trading posts as
historical attractions.
The programme of assistance to the prov-
ince's public museums is being continued and
by the end of this fiscal year it is estimated
that some 40 museums owned by munici-
palities or regional conservation authorities
will have received financial assistance through
this department. Grants, intended to assist
in maintenance and curators' salaries, are
made on a matching basis and are contingent
upon expenditures made by the municipality
concerned.
Technical assistance is also available to
all public museums, and during this year some
80 museums took advantage of this service
which covers such aspects as administration,
organization, display, cataloguing, preserva-
tion of material, and publicity.
The Department of Public Records and
Archives has continued its important role of
collecting and preserving government records
202
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and other documents, and I am happy to say
that students and researchers are making use
of the material in ever increasing numbers.
Also, the archives are particularly con-
cerned with the preservation and the avail-
ability of essential records during an emer-
gency, and have produced a programme for
this purpose for tlie Emergency Measures
Organization which, I understand, is being
studied by other provinces with a view to
adopting the same methods.
Mr. Chaimian, in giving this report on
the activities of the department during 1961,
and some indication of our plans for 1962,
I have left to the end, as I did in the last
session, the programme of matching grants
to recognized regional tourist organizations
which was commenced, as you will recall,
at the beginning of this present fiscal year.
The last time I addressed the House I
expressed the hope that this plan would
bring about the formation of tourist organi-
zations which would fill the gap between the
efiForts of this government and those of com-
munities and individuals.
While we were optimistic about the out-
come of this project, we anticipated that in
the first year no more than eight to 12
regions would become organized and qualify
for the grant. I am especially pleased to say
that the reaction throughout the various
areas of the province has been excellent and
up to the present 15 organizations have
qualified for grants, and it is anticipated from
the information that we now have before us,
that no less than 22 regional associations
throughout Ontario will qualify by the end
of this fiscal year. This is very encouraging
and is very indicative that, with a Httle sup-
port and encouragement, the people in all
types of business are prepared to work with
us in helping to make our province more
attractive to our visitors and to our own
people.
Mr. Chairman, I would hke to sum up by
saying that every indication points to 1961
as being one of our top tourist years. This
is supported by the forecast of the Dominion
Bureau of Statistics on which we have to
rely for our figures and which, on the basis
of material before it now, expects Canada
as a' whole to receive in excess of $400 mil-
lion in tourist revenue from the United
States alone, and to have in excess of 30
million people cross our Canadian borders.
This will mean that Ontario will receive
in excess of $300 million in United States
dollars alone and that would not include
travellers from other foreign countries or the
expenditures of our own Canadian people.
which certainly amounts to a very high
figure.
Our K.O.B. advertising programme and the
assistance received from throughout the prov-
ince certainly has encouraged our own
people to travel about our province and we
feel the industry has profited very much
from it.
I am sure we can look forward to 1962,
and on into the future, with optimism, for
greater things, for an increasing volume of
vacationers from other lands, for increasing
numbers of our own people and from our
sister provinces, and for better facilities for
this great industry that means so much
directly and indirectly to the benefit of all
the people of this province of Ontario. Tour-
ism is a big and profitable business, and once
again I do ask for the support of this House
and in fact the support of all our people in
Ontario to help us not only retain the envi-
able position that we hold today, but to
make greater progress. Thank you.
Mr. Reaume: In the early part of the dis-
cussion the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
mentioned the fact that we were going to
deal with a very few unimportant matters,
rather than estimates of the departments.
Now, I agree that this is probably one of the
unimportant ones, but after hearing that
speech I was just wondering who are we
to actually say that by the efforts the hon.
Minister has made, or the department, that
he has really attracted any people here; he
may have frightened some of them away.
I do not really think that he should brag
so much about these advertisements he has
put in the papers, the movies that he once
in a while shows. After all, the tourist busi-
ness, as he has outlined, is a big business,
a profitable one and I am just wondering
what the province is doing about it. It
must be about five years ago that a large
group of people who were in the indus-
try appeared before our group here, the
committee, in the presence of the hon. Min-
ister, the present one, and they had a very
well worded brief asking the government of
the province to help them by making loans.
These people, I think, are men and
women engaged in the business of trying
to attract people here from other parts of
the world and one of the complaints that
we get from tourists, who come here, is that
in various parts of the province we have not
got proper places for them. Accommoda-
tions are not as good as they could be if
the province would make available to these
people funds in order that tliey might build
DECEMBER 5, 1961
203
proper types of places or fix up the places
that they have.
I remember at that time the hon. Minister,
after hearing the brief, and I think this is
about five years ago, got up and made one
of these speeches, and at that time he said:
"I will take this matter up with the hon.
Prime Minister of the province and you can
feel sure that we will give you aU the help
that you want.**
There has not been any help forthcoming;
these people in the industry are still asking
for help. I was just wondering when the
government is going to take this job, this
business of attracting tourists to our province,
as being a big job and an important job?
The head of the department says it is
important, and yet the government of the
province treats it as though it is not impor-
tant. As a matter of fact, the hon. Prime
Minister himself—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: As a matter of personal
privilege-
Mr. Reaume: —as a matter of fact, the hon.
Prime Minister himself, in the early part of
these sessions, said that we will only deal
with unimportant and—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It is a matter of personal
privilege.
Mr. Reaume: All ri^t!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. member says
that I said that this was an unimportant
department.
Mr. Reaume: No, I did not say that.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. member just
said that.
Mr. Reaume: I said that the hon. Prime
Minister said, we are only going to deal
with some estimates— or rather some unimpor-
tant departments, or something to that effect.
Well, all right, go right ahead and read it.
The hon. Prime Minister has it there.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is not what I said
at all, nor did I even intimate it.
Mr. Reaume: Well, what did the hon.
Prime Minister say?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That I can only reiterate
that the estimates being tabled here this
afternoon are for departments that will not
have a large effect on the over-all financial
picture of the government.
Mr. Reaume: Well, is that not a fine state-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: If that can be interpre-
ted as referring to this as an unimportant
department, the hon. member's powers of
logic are beyond me.
Mr. Reaume: It has the effect of this. I
want to say again, in my opinion, this one
branch of government could be made very
important but as hon. Prime Minister of the
province he is deahng with it as one that is
not important.
Now, I can agree, sir, I can agree with
everything the hon. Minister said about this
being a wonderful province; there is no ques-
tion about that. I do not think there would
be an hon. member in the House here who
would dare stand up and say that it is not a
wonderful province.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: For 75 per cent of the
total toiuists.
Mr. Reaume: There is no question about it.
But here is the point: With the resources that
we have here, and there can be no question
about it that it is a wonderful place for people
to come, we must look at the facts. There are
one-tenth as many people here in our country
as there are in the United States, and yet two
and one half times as much money is spent
by our people over there as by the people
from over there who actually come here and
spend their funds.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The trend has been
changed!
Mr. Reaume: Tourism in our province is
not going up; as a matter of fact, there are
more people who are going to other parts
of the world. Tourism in our province, I
think, is standing about as it was. There is
no question about that.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Increasing. Over 75
per cent of Canada's total.
Mr. Reaume: I know, but the hon. Minister
uses some fancy figures. What I think he
ought to do is to table those figures and
explain to this House how he arrived at those
figures.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The Dominion Bureau
of Statistics.
Mr. Reaume: The hon. Minister seems to
be a Httle branch of government, over in the
corner, operating all alone without any help
204
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
at all. Now there are other branches of
government that I think could help him,
whether or not he has any influence—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I said in my speech that
they are all helping me.
Mr. Reaume: —whether he has any influ-
ence on that in the Cabinet, of course, is
questionable. But I suggest this one little
thing that was announced only a week ago.
In the building of highway 401— and the gov-
ernment has been years and years building
401. Part of 401 four-lanes, part of 401 two
and still part of 401 nothing at all; conse-
quently American people coming over here,
trying to get from the border of the United
States— Detroit, Windsor— travelling east in
our province. It was like playing this game of
on-again, off-again Finnigan.
You go on to No. 3 or No. 2; off of No. 3
or No. 2 onto 401; off of 401 again back on to
2 or 3, and back on 401. So you did not
know half the time exactly where you were
going.
It might be a good idea if the hon. Min-
ister's department, along with other depart-
ments including, I think. The Department of
Highways, and we might couple with that one
too, hquor laws of the province— now there
really is an important one that we pretty
nearly overlooked.
An hon. member: There must be others.
Mr. Reaume: Now, if the government had
a sane, sensible liquor pohcy in the province,
under which tourists could get alcoholic
beverages in proper places instead of the
nonsensical, foolish laws that we have on
our books now, it might attract tourist people
to our province.
There was a wonderful iliought advanced
by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Connell). He was going to attract a great
many tourists to Windsor, my home town.
He had made a trip out west and visited a
park and while he was out there he had seen
a lot of prehistoric monsters and that attracted
the eye of the hon. Minister. He became
entranced. It became a romance with him
so he took moving pictures of these pre-
historic monsters and upon one of these trips
to Windsor he thought so much of this film
that a very few people were invited to the
preview of a private showing, the mayor and
a few of the higher oflScials of the community
and he said, "Now, I think this would be a
wonderful thing if we estabhshed a zoo, a
prehistoric zoo, right in the uptown part of
Windsor's area."
Well, now, here is a picture of some of the
ideas of the hon. Minister of Public Works.
Just imagine this, if The Department of Pub-
lic Works in all its wisdom, had established
a prehistoric zoo in the heart of downtown
Windsor, right at the end of the exit of the
tunnel, how would people have found any
place to park? It is the most congested area
in town; and if that had received the blessing
of the people in power— I do not know
whether the hon. Minister took it on his own
or not— but if that is the kind of fuzzy thinking
that his government is going to do, it is not
any wonder that they are changing Ministers
around every now and then, and probably
should change them around more.
I am sure that all the hon. members of the
House— and that includes those over there— are
interested in doing what we can in order to
attract more people to our province. But how
are they going to attract them when they find
their way into certain parts of the province
and the accommodation is inadequate? If the
hon. Minister had his heart and soul in this
business of attracting tourists here- if there
is any agency or anybody who ought to be
helping these people, it is this department.
First of all, what they are doing is this: By
not giving credit, by not loaning these people
funds, they are forcing them to go to loan
sharks who are charging them bonuses in
order to obtain loans.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I was told exactly the
opposite by the Northern Ontario Tourist
Operators Association; that they are very
happy with the latest arrangements whereby
loans may now be obtained from the Indus-
trial Development Bank of Canada.
Mr. Reaume: I have in my files names and
addresses of people who have borrowed fimds
and have paid bonuses right here in Toronto,
and the bonuses are high. All I am asking
the hon. Minister, and tiiey have asked this,
is that the hon. Minister estabhsh in the
department some form of credit whereby
these people can borrow funds and build
proper places.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The Industrial Develop-
ment Bank of Canada.
Mr. Reaume: There is not a branch here
of the government, and if the hon. Minister
will go back with me some four or five years,
we had a meeting, I think it was in committee
room No. 3—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: We changed the
government at Ottawa and they came through
with the necessary legislation.
DECEMBER 5, 1961
205
Mr. Reaume: Well, I think what we
should do is to change it again. But at that
time, in all seriousness, at that time these
gentlemen had a brief, the hon. Minister took
a copy of that brief, and I understood at the
time that he was going to take this matter
up with the former hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost) and the Cabinet, or the hon. member
for Victoria alone, who was the entire
Cabinet, and the hon. Prime Minister was go-
ing to bring back a report. That was four
years ago and we have not heard a report on
it yet.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I did not say that.
Mr. Reaume: What did the hon. Minister
say then? What happened to it then?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: They submitted their
brief and I reported back to my joint board
of the Ontario Travel Association.
Mr. Reaume: Who is on the hon. Minister's
joint board?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Representatives of all
the major tourist associations in Ontario.
Mr. Reaume: Ah, but what the hon. Minis-
ter said was this— I am not talking about
some joint board. What I am talking about is
this: The hon. Minister said he was going to
take up the brief with the hon. Prime Minister
of the province. Did he do that?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Yes.
Mr. Reaume: Well, what did he say?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: We made arrangements
with the federal authorities and they have
provided the loan resources in two different
ways. They are available to the tourist
operators and the tourist operators told me at
a convention yesterday— with some 300 of
them present— that they were very happy
with the manner in which money is arranged
for now; that they do receive their loans and
they receive them at a reasonable rate of
interest.
We felt that the federal authorities should
handle this across Canada, making it avail-
able to all of our ten provinces and not just
single out this one province that has enjoyed
the advantages of bringing in people over the
years. We preferred that the federal govern-
ment should do it. They have done it and
the tourist operators told me yesterday they
were very happy with the ease with which
they now can arrange loans either through
the banking facilities or the Industrial De-
velopment Bank.
Mr. Reaume: I am very, very happy that
the hon. Minister explained that. Now I
want to ask this question: I am assuming
from what the hon. Minister said, that the
policy of his people is to leave things as
they are? That he is very well satisfied? That
is what he has said.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No, I did not. The
hon. member is putting words in my mouth.
The policy-
Mr. Reaume: Now, do not worm out of it.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I do not create the
policy.
Mr. Reaume: Well, who does?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The government of the
province of Ontario.
Mr. Reaume: Well, who is the government?
Now is that not a good one? The govern-
ment? The hon. Minister is part of it.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: That is right, but I
am not the government. I am just a portion
of it.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Does the hon.
Minister wash his hands of the responsibility?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No, I do not, and the
evidence is in the statements I have made
that I do not wash my hands of the respon-
sibility.
Mr. Reaume: Well, the hon. Minister ought
to.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Ontario is enjoying 75
per cent of the total of Canada's travel
industry.
Mr. Reaume: There is no use in talking to
the hon. Minister at all then. He might as
well quieten down.
May I ask the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) then? May I ask him— the hon. Min-
ister is finished now. May I ask the hon. Prime
Minister, what is the policy of the government
of the province? Is he satisfied with the
credit arrangement respecting the tourist
people of the province, or is his government
going to institute a policy that will give
them credit?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, if I can
follow the question of the hon. member, he
206
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is asking me what is the policy of the govern-
ment regarding this government making loans
to the tom"ist industry, is that it?
Mr. Reaume: And if the hon. Prime Min-
ister has a policy.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, at the present time
we are setting up certain committees to
investigate various phases of the economy
of the province and in due course we will
produce a policy covering this, and covering
many other things.
Mr. Reaume: I am not worried about other
things, I am worried about this one.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am glad to hear the
hon. member is not, but I will just answer
his question.
Mr. Reaume: Let us deal with one at a
time.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I will just deal with the
hon. member's question. In due course we
will produce a poHcy which I am quite
sm-e will be acceptable to the tourist industry
and will meet certain requirements— which we
must investigate before we do it. I cannot
give the hon. member any more detail than
that at the moment.
Mr. Reaume: What the hon. Prime Min-
ister is saying is that actually there is a
study being made now of the tourist problem
in the province as it respects credit? Is
there?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, I have
to be very careful in answering the hon.
member. I did not say that a study was
presently being made, I said that we were
creating the organization by which a study
would be made of this problem, as well as
many other problems concerning various fields
of economic activity in the province. That
is precisely it. I want to be exact in what
I say because the hon. member might possibly
misquote me.
Mr. Reaume: I am assuming, of course,
that any responsible group of people, such
as you have over there, are constantly making
a study of everything. I know that the hon.
Prime Minister is going to encompass all the
problems of the province and that he and
the brain trust will probably make an attempt
to answer questions on all the problems we
have; but what I was asking was very simple.
I was asking whether specifically you are
making a study of the tourist problem now
as it respects credit to these people who want
to build motels, tourist places and things of
that kind. Now that is not a tough problem,
a tough question. Is there a specific study
being made on it or not?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think I can be any more exact than I have
been. I have told the hon. member that we
are setting up the machinery and organization
by which this problem among others will be
studied. Now I cannot really be any clearer
than that.
Mr. Reaume: If the hon. Prime Minister
will look on page 38 of Hansard, in the top
left column in the corner he will find this
quote, in his own words; he was speaking
about the estimates of these departments we
are dealing with now. Here are the words of
the hon. Prime Minister that he was so
certain that he did not say:
Nor do they have the importance, if I
may put it that way, that some of the
larger departments have.
Now that is in his own words.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is quite correct,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reaume: Why did you put it that
way?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Now just a minute, if
you will read what I said-
Mr. Reaume: Well, I have it right here—
"nor do they have the importance—"
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is right.
Mr. Reaume: Well now, is that not a fine
thing for—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: In other words they are
not the large spending departments of govern-
ment.
Mr. Reaume: Nor do they have the impor-
tance.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I may put it that way,
the importance of some of the larger depart-
ments; that relates to spending.
Mr. Reaume: Nor do they have the impor-
tance.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The whole point was
that I was referring to departments whose
total amounts of spending were not what one
might term significant in the total budget of
DECEMBER 5, 1961
207
the province. The hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Wintermeyer) knows this is the point
we were debating. Now, if you want to twist
it around to make it appear that I said this
was not an important department, I will stand
up here and debate unequivocally that I con-
sider this to be one of the more important
departments of our government. Its budget
is not a large budget comparatively speaking
with other departments of government.
Mr. Reaume: What the hon. Prime Min-
ister is doing now is squirming out of what
he said.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, may
I ask the hon. Prime Minister a further ques-
tion? I would like to try to elicit some infor-
mation with respect to this committee that
he mentions is being set up. It would seem
to me, sir, that this information should be
available through The Department of Eco-
nomics. I am of the impression that for the
past number of years, surveys have been
made in the province. Would the hon. Prime
Minister tells us how this information will be
different from that which might be obtained
through The Department of Economics?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
can only say the studies to which I am refer-
ring will be made by the new Department of
Economics itself.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman, if
they will be made by this department, are
they not available now? It is my understand-
ing that this department has been making
surveys throughout various parts of the prov-
ince and that the portion of the province
which is more particularly concerned with
the tourist industry has already been surveyed.
Is that correct, sir?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: May I say to the hon.
member who has spoken that the reports to
which the hon. member makes reference are
reports which have been published from time
to time like other reports by The Department
of Economics, The Department of Economics
itself. These reports are studies of tlie eco-
nomics of the tourist industry. There are
studies on the development of the Georgian
Bay district; there are studies relating to the
Milk Board. These are publications which are
put out by The Department of Economics
from time to time. This is the study to which
the hon. member is referring.
The hon. Prime Minister is referring to the
establishment of the new Department of Eco-
nomics and Development and the creation of
an Ontario Economic Council which will have
a number of study groups which will study
specific industries, one of which will be the
tourist industry; it will study various ways and
means that this industry may be stimulated.
The one is the situation report of that which
exists, the Economic Council and its study
group on the tourist industry. The council's
purpose will be to find what ways and means
are available to the government, as well as to
the industry itself, to stimulate it by way of
whatever legislation there might be or what-
ever kind of assistance there may be, both
for the industry to help itself as well as for
the government to assist.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I would like to say this
Mr. Chairman. The hon. Minister has given
a very comprehensive answer but it seems to
me that both these departments have been in
existence a number of years and surely this
government has not been unaware of the
situation with respect to the tourist industry,
which I understand is a very important seg-
ment of the economy of this province.
It seems to me very strange that notwith-
standing the fact that several years and great
sums of money have been expended to pro-
duce these services by The Department of
Economics; notwithstanding the fact that we
have had in this province a number of years
a Department of Commerce and Development
—and the only difference now Mr. Chairman
is that these two departments are to be amal-
gamated—it seems to me very strange that
notwithstanding the fact that the government
has been fully aware of the problem with
respect to the tourist industry, that they
should just now be getting around to setting
up a department or setting up some kind of
a committee to study this problem. It has
been brought to the attention of the govern-
ment many times before and I think they can
be criticized for being neghgent if they are
only now getting around to studying this
problem.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The points which have
been made by my hon. friend are not related.
He says because we now plan a new attack
on this problem we must therefore assume
that nothing has been done or we were not
aware of any kind of a problem before. This
is patently unfair when the hon. Minister in
charge of The Department of Travel and
Publicity indicates the tremendous increase
in the proportion of the tourist industry
which has been attracted to this province.
The total has increased to over 75 per cent
of all tourists. Surely the hon. member would
want to give even begrudging credit to an
208
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hon. Minister who has administered, capably
and well, a department which is now respon-
sible for attracting into this province about
75 per cent of tourists and the attendant
benefits these bring to the province of Ontario.
As far as the reports are concerned, in
relation to The Department of Economics,
these have been available both to the hon.
Minister and the tourist trade, and the hon.
member would know if he were closely asso-
ciated with the tourist industry that these
reports have formed a basis for a number of
activities which have been engaged in in re-
lation to the tourist industry. They are avail-
able to the hon. member if he would like to
have a copy.
These reports are not related to the pro-
gramme which, as I have indicated, will be
attacked under the Economic Development
Council. This is a new approach towards
the revitalization of industry in this province
and one cannot properly do it without accept-
ing that the tourist industry is part of it, and
attacking the industry problem in this prov-
ince as a whole for the future.
To leave out the tourist industry just for
fear that by including it, it may be said of
us that we have ignored it in the past, I
suggest is a sieve that just does not hold
water. We are approaching this problem as
an economic whole and that is the purpose of
creating The Department of Economics and
Development. We want, if we can, to
approach this problem of industry in Ontario
in an aggressive and creative way.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to say that the hon. Minister has done a
lovely job of stickhandling around the issue.
The issue which was started originally and
which the hon. Prime Minister answered was
the matter of loans to tourist establishments
and he gave us a great long detailed approach
of the new Department of Economics and
Development. But the fact of the matter is
that it has been well known for a number of
years that the tourist industry has been suffer-
ing due to a lack of financial assistance. I
can suggest to the hon. Minister one case
where excessive rates of interest had to be
paid at one of the border points in this prov-
ince because the operator of a very large
motel was not able to obtain financing for
this very important part of our tourist indus-
try through the normal channels. I think the
hon. Minister has sidestepped the issue com-
pletely, but I am glad to see that they are
going to do something and that something
will be forthcoming witih respect to this prob-
lem.
I have several other questions, Mr. Chair-
man. I do not know if this is the time I
should present them. I presume we are still
working on vote 2101; is that right, sir?
Mr. Chairman: That is right.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Would the hon. Min-
ister of Travel and Publicity advise the House
whether any thought has been given to
recommending to The Department of Trans-
port that the licence plates which are issued
to all Ontario cars, and which travel through-
out North America— if perhaps some slogan
were placed on these plates similar to other
provinces of Canada and throughout many of
the states of the union to the south of us?
Has any thought been given to promoting
Ontario by the addition of a slogan or some-
thing to our automobile licence plates?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Mr. Chairman, there
has been a lot of thought given to it and as
a matter of fact I cannot help but agree with
you that we should work out some kind of
a deal, which would not cost us too much,
to have that "Refreshing Ontario," "The
Heartland of Canada," or some such phrase—
those phrases that we use in our publications
are good examples. They all bespeak of this
province. No matter what you say as long
as it is bright and cheerful, it apphes to the
province of Ontario. Ontario has everything
that all of the other countries in the world
have. We have it all within the boundaries
of this province.
We have been giving this serious considera-
tion but I believe that there are problems—
I know there are problems in relation to the
production of the licence— to get something in
the way of a phrase on there and which
would not interfere with the numbers of the
licences, which are of very great importance
as you know. As a matter of fact, I would
like a suggestion or two of some very short
names or words which we might use so that
I might be able to meet with a little more
success.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, the
question I thought I had asked is, has this
matter been taken up with The Department
of Transport and is it likely to become a
reality?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I do not know. Again,
I say if we had some small word that could
be used indicative of the province we might
be able to do something about it. It is a good
suggestion.
DECEMBER 5, 1961
209
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I have
here a copy of a submission by the joint
board of Ontario Travel Associations regard-
ing the insurance industry, which was pre-
sented to the legislative committee on travel
and publicity, and I see two or three other
suggestions here about which I should like
to ask the hon. Minister at this time. I see
that it is some months since this was pre-
sented and I am sure there has been time to
consider the suggestions. The one I just
made with respect to licence plates was
included in there and I am surprised that
the progress has been as slow as the hon.
Minister has just suggested.
One of the suggestions was that more
consideration be given to providing tourist
information to the travelHng public along
Highway 401 which services many tourist
areas. It seems to me that we set these
reception centres up at the entrance to the
province and then we speed the people
through the province from one side to the
other without any indication and without any
other place where they can get this informa-
tion. I would like to ask the hon. Minister
whether consideration has been given to
providing perhaps one or two of these recep-
tion centres along Highway 401, or what has
been done to provide this service to the
people using that road.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Mr. Chairman, I men-
tioned in my talk that, as I promised last
year, we did construct the lakeland centre
up on Highway 400, which is in the heart
of the province. It serves many more, but
32,000 went in and signed their names and
received information.
Highway 401 has not been completed, but
I might say that throughout the province,
over and above our centres, we do grant
approval to many business places to distribute
Ontario literature and to give out information.
These places only receive approval when the
municipality in which they are located
recommends it.
We have moved on the one inland centre
on Highway 400 which I know has proved to
be a great success and very helpful because,
as the hon. member has stated, people cross
at the border point, they travel two, three,
four, five hundred miles maybe, in this big
province. You can get lost and bewildered
having driven two or three hundred miles
and you need a refresher course, and that
is where we found that the lakeland centre
up here on Highway 400 has been very help-
ful. People have appreciated it; we have
received many letters commending us for
that centre.
I think consideration will be given to High-
way 401 in some manner or another. I am,
as the Minister of this department, not sup-
porting the building of Ontario information
centres indiscriminately throughout the prov-
ince of Ontario. I think we could clutter it
up with such centres, they cost money to
operate. When you get too many they be-
come a routine aflFair and people do not appre-
ciate them. We do have many locations
throughout the province that have our
approval to distribute information and they
have signs displayed. They have been very
helpful.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, since
the hon. Minister is going to be thinking
about this matter as it applies to Highway
401, I note in a remark of the hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. Goodfellow) that The Depart-
ment of Highways has just got around to
thinking of service facilities on Highway 401.
Might I suggest to him that perhaps a httle
talk with the hon. Minister of Highways
might not go amiss. It might be possible to
put in these information centres, or to rent
a very small section of the service centres on
Highway 401 to distribute this information.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: That is now being con-
sidered.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I am very pleased to
see that it has already been considered.
Would the hon. Minister tell me whether this
is going to be done with The Department of
Highways or with private people who are
going to operate these facihties?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: It has not reached that
point yet.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): A ques-
tion of detail. We were told the other day
that it is under study.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: The other question I
would like to ask the hon. Minister is with
respect to the number of tourists who have
entered, or the number particularly of
Americans who have come into Ontario in
the present year. Does he have any figures
available with respect to the number of
people, and could he tell me whether or not
this is an increase or a decrease over pre-
vious years?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: A year ago it was
4,320,705; these are figures that we obtained
from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, it
is the one way in which we can obtain
figures and they are not ours so they are not
210
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fixed in any way, we get them from the
federal government. 4,320,705 came a year
ago. This year for the first nine months:
4,557,916 and so there is an increase on the
number of people that have crossed our
borders.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I asked the hon.
Minister for the figures. I am sort of amused
to get them though because I am referring
now to Hansard, March 23, 1960, when the
then hon. Prime Minister of the province ( Mr.
Frost) made a great speech in which he
indicated that when the exchange rate was
lowered so that there was not such a penalty,
that this would increase by substantial
numbers. I am interested to note that there
has not been much of a change other than
the normal increase which has been taking
place for the past number of years.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls) : Mr. Chair-
man, the question I would hke to ask— at
Fort Erie, which is part of this system that
the hon. Minister is taking care of, and doing
such a good job according to his own admis-
sion—he was not boasting, he was just giving
us the facts—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I work for it.
Mr. Bukator: Quite some time ago the hon.
Minister may recall that he had a letter from
those people asking him to do something
about their reception centre at the Peace
Bridge. They also suggested that the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) might look
into the matter and improve the conditions
for the provincial pohce. I saw the letter
that the hon. Minister received from them;
they sent copies to me after they failed
miserably in getting action.
I like the way the hon. Minister says
that he would look after this matter in due
course. These letters were similar to that; in
due course— I wonder when that will be, it
could be in a couple of years' time when
we take over.
I was out to the opening of a pumphouse
with the hon. member for Wellington-
DuflFerin (Mr. Root), and the mayor of Fort
Erie, disillusioned but still beheving in the
goverrmient, said, "They will take care of us
when we need anything." Now, for several
years he has been looking for this particular
unit. I do not want to criticize the hon.
Minister severely at this time, but does he
recall his visit to Niagara Falls in that beau-
tiful Brock Hotel when we had this dinner
and I was his guest?
The hon. Minister was talking then about
this wonderful system that we have and I
agreed with him, but does he recall my words
at that time, that across the river from him
things were happening. They have a park
there that puts ours to shame. They have
started out with an estimate of $63 million,
from BuflFalo to Fort Niagara. Those people
have improved a considerable amount of that
area.
I am going to tell the people of this govern-
ment that the figures of tourists in that area
will decrease because of their activities there;
we are missing the boat. We have the natural
beauty, we have the area in which to enter-
tain tihese people but they are not going to
come here because the hon. Minister has not
kept up with the times.
I am not going to take it any further except
to say that in due course Fort Erie is entitled
to a new reception centre. The hon. Minister
ought to be ashamed of that unit.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Mr. Chairman, I wrote
a letter to the mayor a couple of weeks ago
to explain the whole thing.
Mr. Bukator: Is that not wonderful? After
many, many months have passed, he finally
wrote another letter to explain the whole
thing. The mayor will be mayor no more;
he has resigned his job owing to the promises
that this government has given him, and that
it has not come through with. He did not
want to be defeated— he quit.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Oh, did he? That is
too bad.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, I was most disappointed in the
remarks of the hon. Minister and the fact
that he completely left out any comment
concerning the tourist reception centre in the
city of Windsor. Time and time again this
government has practically built the centre
on their promises. Two years ago the hon.
Prime Minister mentioned that the people in
the Windsor area had voted against this;
then he corrected his remarks and said that
you will have it this year. That was two
years ago and we are still waiting for it. The
hon. Minister of Public Works came into the
area and after presenting us with a beautiful
stone zoo made the following comment. He
said that there is a big need for the centre
which he predicted would be comparable to
the tourist information centre at Samia.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: When was that?
DECEMBER 5, 1961
211
Mr. Newman: This was on August 25, 1960
and that was the date of the memorable zoo
presented to the city of Windsor.
Now, if the government was as interested
in the tourist industry as they claim, they
would certainly have co-ordinated depart-
ments. One of the prime interests of the
tourist in entering the province of Ontario
is to be able to travel on decent highways.
Now, the latest comment is concerning High-
way 401. Certainly the tourist department is
not getting together with The Department
of Highways when an editorial such as this
taken from the issue of the Windsor Star of
December 2 reads:
SHORT CHANGED ON 401
The long missing link on Highway 401
between Cobourg and London is to be
about the last completed portion of that
superhighway. Provincial authorities have
made much of the fact, however, that it
was to be completed in 1963. Now they
are reneging by half on this promise. All
that will be completed in 1963 will be a
two-lane strip. It will not be until 1964
that the four-lane highway is ready and as
these completions normally come in
summer or autumn probably will not be
available to heavy traffic until 1965.
Surely you can see some of the short-
sightedness on the part of this government
when on the one hand they talk of the tourist
industry and on the other they do not give
the tourists the opportunity to travel on de-
cent highways so they can see portions of
this wonderful land of ours.
Then again, Highway 401 was completed
from Windsor to a little past Tilbury, approxi-
mately 36 miles, but the chambers of com-
merce in the Kingsville-Leamington area had
the most difficult time in getting The Depart-
ment of Highways to erect signs pointing to
the city or the town of Leamington, to Point
Pelee National Park which is the second
most popular park in the Dominion of
Canada, or to the town of Kingsville.
Certainly there must be some shortsighted-
ness on the part of the government when for
the want of a sign they deprived our Ameri-
can tourists of an opportunity of visiting such
renowned areas as Kingsville and Leaming-
ton. When I say Leamington and Kingsville
I include the Jack Miner bird sanctuary, one
of the unusual spots in the province of
Ontario. ..
. :B~u; l.iM! ',-^r. , : ■....■:
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of High-
ways): Might I ask the hon. member if he
would send me the information in connection
with where they want these signs?
Mr. Newman: The signs have been con-
structed since, prior to the hon. Minister
taking over. But they had the most difficult
time in getting them. It was only after the
concerted efforts of practically all of the
chambers of commerce there, that this govern-
ment woke up.
Windsor, being the garden gateway to
Canada, has practically more tourists entering
it than any other city in Canada outside of,
I understand. Fort Erie. We are located in an
area where we can attract within one day's
travel approximately 50 million people; yet
the tourist centre that is provided for our
American guests certainly does not speak
too highly of the government's ideas of tourist
promotion.
Across the river from Windsor you have
Detroit with its innumerable conventions.
Yet we do not find sufficient tourist informa-
tion supplied to these convention delegates
in the city of Detroit by our own Department
of Travel and Publicity. I understand there
are plenty of conventions across there and it
is only seldom that we do see Ontario travel
information in Detroit.
Hon. R. Connell (Minister of Public Works):
It. has been brought up a couple of times
this afternoon about these dinosaurs in the
Windsor area. Hon. members completely
missed the point of the reason for my being
there on— they have the date better than I
have, they say it is August 25, I am not too
sure of the date. I was up there primarily to
talk to the members of the Windsor city
council that day in announcing a travel and
publicity centre for which we are going to
call tenders this winter. Construction will
begin as early as possible so that it will be
ready for the summer tourist season. This
is the first portion of the Windsor public
building, or provincial building that is, that
has been talked of.
There was a section of that area we had
bought that the Windsor people were very
concerned about; cars were parking on it, so
an arrangement was made with tlie Windsor
city council whereby this would be sodded
and the cars kept off.
I did mention at the time that I had been
out west this summer and had visited a
dinosaur park which was very heavily
crowded, and was of very much interest to
myself. I do not know whether hon. members
have done much travelling or not^ I have not
had the opportunity of doing much myself.
212
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
but on occasions when you are in a travel
and publicity centre and you have young
children it is diflBcult to entertain them. I
did suggest that possibly as an attraction they
might put something in this park and I did
mention a dinosaur, but the story did get
played out of proportion a little bit.
The interesting part to me, and I hope
hon. members will pay attention to this, was
that a week ago Saturday night I was watch-
ing the hockey game and during the Imperial
Oil advertising I noticed that they had about
26 seconds— I do not know what television
time costs, but it is pretty darn expensive—
I noticed about 20 or 25 seconds of the
Imperial Oil broadcast devoted to the dinosaur
park out in Calgary. I think you people in
Windsor are missing a very good point when
you do not have something there that might
interest people, whether it is dinosaurs or any
type of thing.
I want to remind you people that we are
building a travel and publicity centre and
you are missing the point entirely. You play
these things out of proportion.
Windsor is getting a good many things. I
visited the teachers college there, and the
technological school; there are a lot of things
that the people of Windsor are getting there
that are attracting tourists from all over. I
still think that dinosaurs have some good
points. If you cannot find dinosaurs, I will
bring some of my cows up there, maybe they
will look at those.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr.
Chairman, I just want to answer the hon.
Minister—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: In relation to the high-
ways, may I say to the hon. member that
we had a couple up from Florida, a Mr. and
Mrs. Millar who won a contest for the best
essay on why they would Hke to visit Ontario.
He is the general manager of the radio
station at Tampa Cypress Gardens, and they
are a very fine couple. They are certainly
familiar with the State of Florida and the
facilities there, and during their ten-day tour
I collected a bundle of cUppings from our
local papers and in every case Mr. Millar kept
saying "If Florida only had the wonderful
highways that Ontario has, we would really
go places". That was the reaction of the
Florida couple.
Mr. Newman: Has the hon. Minister been
to Florida?
Mr. Belanger: Mr. Chairman, I wanted
to say to the hon. Minister of Public Works,
that after he came to Windsor and made the
statement of what they were going to do with
the property they had bought to establish
this provincial building, namely, a prehistoric
park. Within a week the hon. Prime Minister
was in the city of Windsor and promised the
citizens of Windsor that we would have our
tourist centre, not the dinosaur park. I want
to say that certainly the hon. Minister left a
bad impression upon the citizens of Windsor
when he promised them the dinosaur park in
place of a provincial building. It just goes
to show you that one hon. Minister will come
to the city of Windsor and say certain things
and then after that we have other hon.
Ministers making other statements. Then you
have the hon. Prime Minister himself come
down and straighten out the whole affair. I
wanted to show that sometimes the hon.
Ministers should confer with the hon. Prime
Minister before they make their statements.
Mr. Bukator: Could I ask a question of
the hon. Minister of Public Works? He
mentioned the fact that they are getting this
building in Windsor and also a dinosaur,
if they want it.
Is it possible that he has in his programme
a small unit for Fort Erie where all these
people come in? Has the hon. Minister con-
sidered that in his programme? No dinosaurs,
just the building itself. Is there a possible
chance we will get this building some time
in the near future?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
We will give the hon. member a statue of a
Liberal.
Mr. Bukator: I would not want to be that
honoured. All we are asking for is a decent
unit for the tourists who come in, because
there are thousands come in over the Peace
Bridge; a place where they can ask questions,
rather than those fields we have at the
entrance.
I do not want to go after the hon. Minister
of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow) yet, because
first I would like to talk about the entrance
and then we will talk about the highway if
need be. Is this in tlie planning stages or
are they going to go on with it? The hon.
Minister knows it is necessary.
Hon. Mr. Connell: Mr. Chairman, a travel
and publicity centre would be a prestige
type of building, but the last I had heard
was that they had difficulty in getting clear
title to the property that had been proix>sed
for the centre.
DECEMBER 5, 1961
213
Mr. Bukator: When are they going to take
the building off— because they have one there
now. All I want to know is what is going
to be done? Is there going to be room for
the provincial police, who are in a tower
now, or in a type of building that looks like
a cell block.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The hon. member
knows the city does not want it where it is
presently located.
Mr. Bukator: All I know is that they have
asked me to come to you hon. gentlemen—
who have their support there by the way,
for the time being— to bring this about.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: If the mayor has
retired, I thought the hon. member would be
the next.
Mr. Bukator: He stepped down to deputy
reeve, at least he is running for it. If he got
a telegram from the hon. Minister now, I am
quite sure he could be assured of his election.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Not a telegram, that
costs money, I write letters.
Mr. Bukator: It is remarkable that the hon.
Minister spent $110,000 on travelling and he
cannot spend one 50-cent piece for a telegram.
I will give it to him.
By the way, what is going to happen to
the additional $354,000 that the hon. Minister
is going to spend this year? Is there anything
in the estimates for that? Maybe we have
that unit hidden in there somewhere. This
is not a diflScult thing, the government owes
the people in Fort Erie something. You all
know the mayor; most of you who ran for
Prime Minister have talked to the gentleman.
He got up publicly the other day and said
as long as we have these people in govern-
ment, the Conservatives will be treated right.
Now I am asking for your own to be treated
right.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: We recognize the need
there and we are-
Mr. Bukator: I noticed many years ago that
you had recognized just that, but I would
ask the hon. Minister again is there possible
chance he will go to work on it some time
in the near future; before the next election?
At least I can say they gave it to you, but I
brought it about.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, I am very pleased that the hon. Minister
of Highways is in his seat along with the
hon. Minister of Travel and Publicity because
what I have to say concerns both.
Particularly in Bruce Peninsula many of the
tourist operators complain of the fact that
they have a great deal of diJBficulty in being
able to put up signs showing not only the
various municipahties, the local villages or
tourist areas but also they have difficulty in
putting up signs showing their various places
of business. Now, I would like to compare
that with the situation in Muskoka. I have
travelled through Muskoka and I do not
think I am exaggerating at all when I say
that on the corners that it is not uncommon
to see perhaps 15 or 20 signs, showing where
certain areas are.
Mr. Chairman, I assure the hon. Minister
of Travel and Pubhcity and certainly the
hon. Minister of Highways that this is not
the case in the Bruce Peninsula and in the
tourist season the Bruce Peninsula can cer-
tainly be compared to the Muskoka area.
It is primarily a tourist area and I feel if
these signs are allowed in Muskoka they
most certainly should be allowed in the
peninsula. This is actually a hardship on
many tourist operators.
In the Muskoka area I have seen on
numerous occasions where not only the area
is advertised but the person's place of busi-
ness also, there is a finger sign pointing to
it along the highway. And I feel that
inasmuch as the peninsula, I would say from
Highway 21 north, as a matter of fact, but
inasmuch as this area is primarily a tourist
area, that an exception should be made in
the case of that area as it has been in Mus-
koka and I think rightly so. These people
should be allowed to advertise their places
of business and the tourist areas as they
are in other areas.
Mr. R. J, Beyer (Muskoka): Mr. Chairman,
I think the people of Muskoka will be inter-
ested indeed, to know that an exception has
been made in that district, but it will be a
big surprise to them, I am sure.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I assure you
I was not trying to take any backhand slap
at the people of Muskoka. I am merely
pointing out that it is not the least bit
uncommon in the Muskoka area to see
numerous signs pointing to various small
municipalities, tourist municipalities. Such is
not the case as far as the Bruce Peninsula is
concerned. The Department of Highways
has not allowed these signs to be put up,
and I am merely asking, Mr. Chairman, that
it be allowed in the area from which I come.
214
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Chairman, I hear complaints from
my own county— I have one of the most im-
portant tourist counties in the province of
Ontario— Rice Lake, Trent River and Lake
Ontario— and I hear complaints similar to
those mentioned by the hon. member for
Bnice (Mr. Whicher).
I do not think we want to get every tourist
resort having big illuminated signs, but I
think there is a good deal of merit in having
finger boards on our secondary King's High-
ways so at least a tourist coming from the
States gets a general idea of where the resort
is; so that you can stop at the four corners
and see the finger board.
The whole matter, I understand, is imder
review, but I have the same problem as the
hon. member for Bruce. We are considered
to be in southern Ontario— in the more civil-
ized part you see— and we are not allowed
these things.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: As a matter of fact
added to that, we have representation, through
tlie kindness of the hon. Minister of Highways
on their sign committee so that such things
can be brought to their attention.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I want to
ask either of the hon. Ministers: would it do
any good to bring down people to ask you
for these things? This is a very important
matter, I assure you, to the people concerned.
I feel that we should have the same chance of
attracting these people as those in the Mus-
koka area; people do get lost on our back
roads in Bruce county, there is no use denying
it.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Reahzing that I
always pay strict attention to, and take into
great consideration, any matters raised by the
hon. member for Bruce, there is no point in
bringing down a deputation.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to ask another question of the hon. Min-
ister. I note in this pamphlet, to which I
have already referred, a considerable amount
of time has been given to the problem of
Overcrowding in some of the more popular
resort areas. I think this admission indicates
that greater numbers of tourists are coming
into the province— not as many as we would
have hoped for, but greater numbers— and
they are coming over here in many cases with
high powered boats and the peace and tran-
quilhty which was once available to our
Ontario residents at many of these smaller
lakes is being disturbed. They have sug-
gested that the hon. Minister give considera-
tion to enforcing the part of the statute under
The Tourist Establishments Act, section 2,
subsection j, which states: "prescribing the
maximum number of tourist establishments
for any designated area."
Would the hon. Minister tell us how he
goes about doing this? What has been done
in the past few years? And whether or not
any licences have been refused because of
over-population in any particular area or not?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: We have provisions
under our legislation for zoning. However,
there is tremendous pressure for increased
facilities and in co-operation with The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests we are endeavour-
ing to control the situation so that it does
not get out of hand.
There are parts of the province where it
has became pretty well developed and there
are parts which are pretty much wilderness
areas. Of course we are particularly con-
cerned about holding some of those wilderness
areas until they can be given further study
before they become overdeveloped. Does that
answer your question?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: No, Mr. Chairman, it
does not answer my question. I particularly
asked the hon. Minister if any licences had
been withheld or refused because of an over-
population in area; can he answer that part
of the question?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, then, how is
the department prescribing the maximum
number of tourist establishments of any
designated area? Does the hon. Minister not
feel that there is any particular area that is
over-populated? He merely said that this was
a problem and yet it would appear to me that
the only way that he could control it would
be tihrough the licensing; and he tells me that
no licenses have been refused. Could he tell
me how they are prescribing the number of
establishments?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Well, maybe I mis-
understood. There have been applications to
establish refused.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: The hon. Minister just
told me they had not been refused.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Are you speaking of
north-western Ontario, or just down in the
southern part— in the highly developed areas?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, if I
might elaborate: I am speaking to the recom-
mendations contained in this submission of
DECEMBER 5, 1961
215
which I am sure the hon. Minister is aware.
I will endeavour to make it more clear if I
can.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Which recommenda-
tion?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I have just referred
to this submission, Mr. Chairman. It is the
submission of the joint board of Ontario
travel associations regarding the Ontario
tourist industry, to the legislative committee
on travel and publicity. Has the hon. Minister
not seen this report?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Oh, yes, of course.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, then I am sure
if the hon. Minister has seen this report he
is aware of the contents. I am sure he is
aware of the fact that this group has pointed
out to the government that this is becoming
a problem, and I think he is hkewise aware
of the portion of the report contained on page
7, section 2; it merely says that The Depart-
ment of Travel and Publicity enforces section
2 l(j) of The Tourist Establishment Act.
Now I have read that portion of the Act to
the hon. Minister and I am asking him how
he is going about enforcing it. It appears to
me that it is not being enforced from the
answer that I have received thus far.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 102?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Oh, just a minute, Mr.
Chairman, I think I am entitled to an answer
to the question. I have asked it twice now to
try and clarify it.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I recall this was dis-
cussed again when I was up at the Northern
Tourist Operators Association on Monday. It
is a matter of great concern to the present
operators throughout this province lest it
become over-populated. In the north and
northwestern part of Ontario, insofar as I
know, there is no over-population by resort
operations— motels and so on, unless it might
be adjacent to a populated community; and
I would not say they were over-populated
because of the increase in the influx of people.
I have spoken to no one during this past
year who is directly connected with the
tourist business, who did not tell me they had
a good year and they made money last year.
I do not think we are over-populated.
I think the matter you are discussing, or
bringing to my attention as a result of the
submission which was made, was the concern
on the part of some of our operators who
enjoy what you could call a wilderness area;
at least they have their operation out in a part
of the province where there are not too many
other operations. Some of them are quite
anxious that we do not approve too many
licences for estabhshments in that particular
area of the province lest it become over-
populated.
Well, there is the story. They are con-
cerned about the zoning; we are controlling
it in co-operation with Lands and Forests.
That is that.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Apparently I have not
yet made myself clear to the hon. Minister.
Just so that he will be aware of what I am
trying to say, I hope you will permit me to
read two paragraphs of this brief to which
I have been referring and which I think sets
out the situation and which is somewhat
contrary to the opinion of the hon. Minister—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: It has been taken care
of to the satisfaction of our joint board of
associations.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman if you
allow me to continue I would read, sir, on
page 6 of this submission which was for-
warded to all members of the committee:
Therefore the peace and quiet and re-
laxation desired by both tomrist and private
summer cottage ahke is in many areas no
longer available and this is having an
adverse effect on the tourist industry.
I stop here, Mr. Chairman, long enough to
tell you that this is contrary to the informa-
tion that has just been given us by the hon.
Minister. I continue to read:
Also in these areas, which are fast be-
coming overcrowded, the introduction of
bigger and faster boats and motors are
creating a hazard to personal safety. A
recent survey by the Canadian Govern-
ment Travel Bureau indicated that 30 per
cent of the non-resident tourists use a boat
for all or part of their vacation in Canada,
and it is safe to assume that an even
greater number of residents also use boats
during their vacation.
While Ontario has more than enough
waterways to accommodate the fast-grow-
ing multitude of boats, they are being
crowded into the more popular areas of the
province, hence the urgent need for tourist
population control in these areas.
With the building of bigger and better
highways in northern Ontario plus the in-
crease in non-resident tourist traffic and
the vast increase in the population of
216
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
. Ontario, there is a tendency towards
greater overcrowding of presently estab-
lished tourist and private cottage areas.
Not only is this condition depriving these
people of the peace and quiet of a restful
vacation, it is also creating a greater pres-
sure on our fish and wildlife resources than
they can stand, and therefore the future
of the tourist industry in such areas is be-
ing greatly jeopardized.
Mr. Chairman I would just say this and I
will leave this issue. It has become clear, in
my mind anyhow, that nothing is being done
by The Department of Travel and Publicity
to alleviate this situation. It may be they feel
that nothing should be done, but I point out
to the hon. Minister that this is a submission
from a responsible group of people. It seems
to make some sense to me and I think that
the hon. Minister should give some thought
toward taking action to correct this situation
at an early date.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Well I am sorry; I think
the hon. member was talking about one
matter and I was talking about another.
What he has just read, I would gather from
the submission, is concerned with the number
of cottages that are being constructed along
our lakes and because of new highways that
lead into them and so on, and of course that
is a matter for Lands and Forests. Our job is
the approval of licences to establish on the
part of resort operations, outfitters camps, and
so on; In that submission, hon. member will
note— I paid particular attention while he was
reading it— that I think they were referring
there to cottage establishments of private
individuals.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Not quite. The hon.
Minister is partially correct. It is a matter
for The Department of Lands and Forests
and the submission so states. It says in sub-
section 1 that the establishment of new
commercial tourist camps continues to be con-
trolled through The Department of Lands
and Forests, but I would point out, sir, that
The Tourist Establishments Act comes under
the hon. Minister's department I understand,
and they also suggest on the next section that
this section of the Act which is now in exist-
ence be enacted and controlled through his
department and I suggest that this is not a
matter for any other department but The
Department of Travel and Publicity.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
before we pass on, I would just like to ask
one or two questions about the roadway and
the tourist area in general on the north shore
of Lake Superior.
I took this trip this summer; I have taken
the advice of the hon. Minister's department
to see Ontario first, so I have a very accur-
ate idea of what it is like. But one obser-
vation I would like to make, Mr. Chairman,
is that the accommodation is obviously not
nearly adequate to take care of the tourist
people who will be going through that area
that I went through this summer.
My first question, Mr. Chairman: is the
goverrmient doing anything to assist the tour-
ist industry in order to provide more ade-
quate accommodation in that area?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Mr. Chairman, in an-
swer to the hon. member's question— first of
all we did issue a special publication last
year that we got out in a bit of a hurry, to
let the people know generally that when they
attempted to make that trip they should not
look for the best of accommodation. In
fact it was pointed out they might have
trouble because of insuflBcient accommoda-
tion. But I was up there the first of this
week and I was told by our inspector who
serves from Wawa down to the Sault that
in that section 28 new establishments are
being opened up. The first 19 new licences
have been issued and the other nine will be
issued very shortly; the premises are under
construction, so that the accommodation is
being added to very quickly.
Lands and Forests are endeavouring to be
careful in the sale of land and the kind of
accommodation that is proposed there and
they tell me some of it is very elaborate.
Two establishments up at Wawa, which I
have not seen because they are newly built,
are just tremendous. They will open your
eyes when you go up there. So I think the
accommodation is being taken care of and I
hope by next year-
Mr. Trotter: Well, Mr. Chairman, there
are two things I might be able to inform
the hon. Minister on this. He may be send-
ing out literature but certainly the American
tourists who are going through there are not
aware of it. Some of them might be but I
heard an awful lot of complaints and cer-
tainly they are going to carry these com-
plaints back to their homes, so that adverse
advertising will not do the north shore of
Lake Superior any good.
. The highway has been in the process of
being built for so long, surely some plan-
ning could have been done by the govern-
ment in assisting the private tourist operators.
Once again reference should be made to a
DECEMBER 5, 1961
217
fund that should be made available to the
tourist industry to help them provide the
accommodation that is needed up that way.
One other thing I would like to ask the
hon. Minister and which would also affect
the hon. Minister of Highways, concerns
signs up this way. I understand that it is
the policy of The Department of Highways
not to permit too many signs in order to pre-
serve the wilderness effect. I admit this is
a good idea, but let me give one instance
of how far that policy can be carried to make
it appear foolish in some instances.
One of the better accommodations by Fort
William— going south from Fort William— is
not allowed to put up a sign; in fact they
are only permitted to put up signs so many
feet from their entrance and at this particu-
lar place if they measured the required
footage their sign would end up in the
middle of a stream. As a result they had
no sign up.
The man who owns this particular place
tried to fly two Canadian ensigns by the
entrance and he was ordered by the depart-
ment to take down the Canadian ensign.
He told the department if they wanted to
take the flags down they could come and do
it themselves; the last I heard the flag was
still flying.
The tourist industry is never going to be
helped unless advertising is permitted to
some extent. I do not think they should
carry it to the extent seen on the south
shore of Lake Superior; you can hardly see
the lake in some places, the way the Ameri-
cans have got their big billboards up, but
we have carried it to the other extreme.
As a result the tourist industry is hampered
and I can certainly supply names to the
hon. Minister of Highways of people who
have been put to great hardship in obtain-
ing customers. One way of getting around
it is for the man who owns a camp to put
a sign on his car, park the car on the highway
and in that way indicate to the traveller
where the camp is. It is only by getting
around the law in this way that they can
advertise. I would ask the hon. Minister
to bear tliis in mind.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Would the hon.
member send me all this information as
quickly as possible so that we can take it
under advisement immediately?
Mr. Trotter: Yes, because you take things
under advisement for so long and I figure
if I send it to you now, you might do some-
thing just before the next election. I have
one question, Mr. Chairman, regarding the
ferry leaving Manitoulin Island going to
Tobermory. The ferry service there is terrible.
One American had arrived at 10 o'clock
in the morning to get the 11 o'clock ferry.
He could not make it and was there at
7 o'clock when I arrived that evening. This
is a common occurrence at the Tobermory
ferry and I was wondering, seeing that there
are going to be so many Americans coming
down from the north shore of Lake Superior
to Manitoulin Island, if there is any prospect
of improving the services of the Tobermory
ferry.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr.
Chairman, the hon. member wants an answer
about the ferry and I am qualified to give an
answer. I have been travelling back and
forth on this ferry regularly for the last 14
years. If the hon. member will listen to this
he will learn something about the Manitoulin
Island ferry.
For the benefit of the hon. member, it is
called Tobermory, it is a beautiful Irish
name, it is like the Lakes of Killarney, and
that song— "How are things in Glockamorra?"
Mr. Trotter: What about the ferry service?
Let us get into that.
Mr. Cowling: I am going to get around
to that. They have two ferries up there.
There is one called the "Norisle," Mr. Chair-
man, and this carries about 50 cars. It is on
regular schedule and leaves Tobermory at
7 o'clock in the morning and at 3 o'clock
in the afternoon. Then on the weekends,
when they are a little busier, they put a
smaller ferry on, it is called the "Norgama"
and it takes 14 cars.
Very often during the busy season, and
particularly on the weekend of July 4, the
Independence holiday in the United States,
and our July 1, they are extremely busy. They
are very busy on the first Monday in August
which is civic holiday throughout the province
of Ontario. But at other times, and certainly
during the week, the ferry service is quite
adequate.
When you stop to consider, Mr. Chairman,
that in order to build a larger ferry— as a
matter of fact, consideration was given at one
time to taking over one of the ferries that
ran across the Straits of Mackinac. They are
much larger ferries, they carry up to 80 and
100 cars, but they cost $1 million. Now,
you cannot have a $1 million ferry running
between Tobermory and South Baymouth, to
lake up a little bit of slack on those two
heavy weekends.
218
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The ferry starts to run about May 1 and it
runs until after the hunting season in Novem-
ber. It makes thousands of trips across that
strip of water, and with the exception of these
two or tliree weekends with which I am very
familiar, Mr. Chairman, because I have
arrived there several times myself and had
to wait for the next ferry, the service is
adequate.
At the same time this situation is a great
boost for business in Tobermory. The local
restaurants are full of tourists enjoying the
sandwiches and other things that are there.
For the convenience of the tourists we also
have a first-class liquor store there where they
can go and spend some time if they wish, and
a brewers* warehousing, and so on.
The same thing applies on the South Bay-
mouth side. There are many beautiful attrac-
tions to see close to the dock. They can tour
around and have a picnic and really, for the
number of hours-
Mr. Trotter: Catch fish, too!
Mr. Cowling: Yes, lots of fish right ojff the
dock on either side. Spend the hours whiling
away the time and fishing and learning about
the great province of Ontario.
I would like to say for the benefit of the
hon. member that the ferry service, although
not completely adequate on the two busy
weekends, takes care of the trafiBc back and
forth. Some day, when the tourist business
gets up to where the hon. Minister of Travel
and Publicity (Mr. Cathcart) would like to
hsve it, there might be a call for another
ferry, but certainly there is not up to now.
I would suggest that next year, when the
hon. member for Parkdale ( Mr. Trotter ) takes
his tour of the north country, he should try
it again, and I suggest he hit it about
Wednesday.
; Mr. Trotter: Too long a wait!
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chair-
man, I was very interested in the remarks
of the hon. member for Parkdale about the
incident of the flag. All I can say is that
it is very fortunate that the hon. member for
Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Downer) did not hear
about that incident or that would have been
in his platform and the results of the recent
contest might have been diflFerent.
The other week, sir— I adverted to this
matter in the House yesterday when the hon.
Minister was absent, no doubt due to the
pressure of the onerous responsibilities of his
office— I asked the hon. Minister of Lands and
Forests (Mr. Spooner) about the fires in the
Sioux Lookout area. Many of the fine people
of Kenora, and they are all fine people up
there, earn their livelihood through tlie tourist
industry. Particularly is this so in the Sioux
Lookout area where there are many excellent
lodges which cater, as does the whole riding
of Kenora, generally speaking, to the large
influx of tourists that come from the mid-
western United States. I might say I was
rather surprised, just dwelling on Kenora for
a minute, to see how much farther advanced
—I say it without seeking any invidious com-
parisons at all— the tourist industry is in north-
western Ontario compared to northeastern
Ontario.
I can see, sir, that these vigorous enter-
prises in the northwest are indeed aware of
the gains and the profits of individual
initiative— and I do not want to offend my
friends to the left when I talk about indivi-
dual initiative— that can be had from the
cultivation of the large number of people
that come across from the United States.
Now, sir, I was told by tourist operators
in Sioux Lookout, and I do not come armed
with affidavits— that is not the fashion this
year, last year was the year for affidavits—
they told me that when the fires were raging
in that area that the closest they got to the
town of Sioux Lookout was some 35 miles.
As anyone who has lived in the north or been
in the north will know, 35 miles means that
several ranges of hills or mountains probably
separated the fires from the town. They told
me that at the height of the hazard The
Department of Travel and Publicity used the
devices of tlie media of communication, news-
paper and radio, to inform American tourists
to stay away from the Sioux Lookout area.
They did; with the consequent loss— an
injurious loss— of a great deal of revenue
during that period.
I could hardly believe that the department
working in conjunction with the other depart-
ment of government would make such a silly
assertion if it had not first informed itself of
the facts of the case. Surely there must have
been in that area a representative of the
department, or at least some means of com-
munication with The Department of Lands
and Forests, to see what the forest fire situa-
tion was when it was at its worst in the month
of July. I would take it that in the future
that the hon. Minister ought to attend, or
liis officials ought to attend— well, never mind
the officials, the hon. Minister is responsible—
to a better funnelling of communications and
information when forest fires are encountered
so that no such loss will be felt.
DECEMBER 5, 1961
219
I might as well go on to the second thing
that I want to say, and it is all I want to say
in the estimates of this department.
I think the eflForts of the hon. Minister will
be largely in vain. This may have been said
earlier in this debate and forgive me, Mr.
Chairman, as will, I hope, all other hon. mem-
bers in giving me their kind indulgence, but
I repeat, I think his eflForts will be largely in
vain in trying to sell the province of Ontario
and particularly the northern parts of the
province of Ontario as a haven of rest, relaxa-
tion and recreation to visitors, particularly
from the United States, until something is
done about our silly, stupid, hypocritical, dis-
gusting liquor laws so far as they affect the
rights of tourist outfitters to supply their
guests.
Now we, at least, on September 26—1
believe I am correct— we came out with our
policy statement of what this party will do
when it is elected in relation to the liquor
laws. I am not going to repeat that poHcy
statement, I would be out of order, sir, if I
did.
We waited expectantly, with bated breath,
you might say, to hear what the Conservative
Party was going to do about the liquor policy
when it had its recent large gathering at
Varsity Arena. They were completely silent;
and as a matter of fact, this may be referred
to here, if I am permitted; we are told that
at the time they were so engaged— that they
were so obsessed with picking the new leader
of the party— that the most they could ever
muster at a poHcy-making conference was 50
souls— 50 souls; even with the stellar attrac-
tion of the mayor of Ottawa, who was ready
to take on Fred Gardiner and all the rest of
the old guard, and the hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts) will tell hon. members who
they are.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If the hon. member
will ask the hon. leader of the Opposition's
(Mr. Wintermeyer) assistant, he will tell the
hon. member how many were present, if he
can count in the thousands.
Mr. Sopha: We said— to get back to this
department— that in the realm of tourist out-
fitters that we would adopt a sensible policy.
I say that the hon. Minister's efforts are
largely in vain until the time comes when he
will look upon these citizens who operate the
tourist lodges and recognize them as respon-
sible and law-abiding people and give them
the responsible right to supply liquor to their
guests.
Let me give a typical example. At Gogama,
Gogama is a hamlet on the C.N.R. some
150 miles northwest of Sudbury, there is a
tourist lodge on Lake Mattagami— the head
waters of the great Mattagami River which
flows northward into the James Bay water-
shed—a large lake some 25 or 30 miles long.
There is a tourist lodge there operated by a
person from Ohio by the name of Rowlands.
He came up there as a fisherman for relaxa-
tion, he fell in love with the country— that is
easy to do— and he decided that he and his
wife would establish a tourist lodge and they
would thereafter every summer, six months
of the year, live amid the beauties of northern
Ontario.
The first year in which he was in operation,
in came a party of his friends from Dayton,
Ohio, or Ashtabula, or some other place down
there. If hon. members knew Gogama they
would know that geographically they are
isolated, as in a desert, by some 150 miles
from the nearest lawful dispensary of spiritu-
ous beverage. These people came in and
said: "Bill, have you got something to drink
for us?"
"Well, no, I have not, I am sorry."
"Well, we would really like one."
"Maybe I will drive into town and get
you one."
I will not name the oflBcial, but an oflBcial
of one of the departments of government, he
would be the leading citizen of the hamlet,
such a person, he has the imprimatur of the
government— he works for the government-
Rowlands goes into town to this oflBcial and
he says: "I have friends out at the camp,
would you lend me a bottle?"
"Fine, sure, take it," was the reply.
Rowlands takes it and he goes out and he
gets into his truck, puts the bottle in the glove
compartment and starts to journey back to
his camp some 10 to 12 miles distant. Lo
and behold— it is not moose season but he
hears something that sounds like the call of
the mating moose— the siren of the provincial
police cruiser.
He pulls Rowlands over to the side of the
road and says: "You have got a bottle in the
car?"
"Yes, I have."
**Where did you get it?"
"I got it from Mr. X."
"Give it to me."
He does not know what this is all about
but the fellow is in uniform and he has to
give him the bottle. The next day the pro-
vincial policeman arrives at his camp and
hands him a summons, illegal possession of
liquor, 89(1) of The Liquor Control Act.
220
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He says: "You can plead guilty to it and I
can change it to 43(1), liquor in a place other
than a residence. Give me $16.50 and that
will be the end of it."
Now if the time ever came— here is the
horrendous part of it, here is the really stark
proportion of the government's poHcy, the
pohcy which you as a member of the govern-
ment, pardon me, Mr. Chairman, the policy
that the hon. Minister supports by being a
member of the government— if they ever did
relax the right to supply guests and to keep
spirituous beverages on the premises, under
the present system of the liquor licence board
that man having been convicted or pleading
guilty to an offence under The Liquor Control
Act, could not get a licence in the future.
He was not in the courts. He innocently
went and got a bottle. The policeman— doing
his duty— confiscated the bottle; was judge,
jury and executioner; took the $16.50.
What is the result of it? I have said before,
and I do not coin any phrase: the govern-
ment makes honest, law-abiding citizens break
the law, makes them into bootleggers. They
have to be bootleggers, because people are
not going to journey from Minnesota, Penn-
sylvania, New York or far distant points;
they are not going to journey on a holiday
seeking rest and relaxation and recreation,
and thereby become abstainers, sir. They
are not going to give up their drinking habits.
All we ask on this side— and the hon.
Minister will remember, and perhaps I have
the ear of the hon. Prime Minister and
perhaps I do not— this is the era of the new
broom. There is a new leaf and the hon.
Prime Minister who preceded him told us two
years ago, he told this House, that they would
try. In a few instances they would give
tourist outfitters the right to purvey spirituous
beverages. He promised that.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Generally speaking, as
history will record, that has been done.
Mr. Sopha: As history will record? Well,
it is not being done.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: It is, and I could name
the hon. member the places if I felt like it.
Mr. Sopha: It certainly is not being done.
The problem is greater than that. If a
person has the physical plant, if he has in-
vested his money in it, he has faith in his
enterprise. If he and, as in most cases, his
wife and family are ready to take this on as
their life-work to earn their living, that
person by the very nature of his appearance.
of his activity, has demonstrated that he is
responsible enough to be able to handle liquor
and purvey it responsibly to those who come
and give him the custom of their business
and seek the benefits and privileges of the
inn which he keeps.
That is what he is, he is an innkeeper. An
innkeeper in the historic and common sense
of the calling.
One of the qualities historically of an inn
was that the traveller, the weary traveller or
the guests who stayed there, could have all
the benefits of the house including the par-
taking of a glass of spirituous beverage.
I only take the time of the House, I only
exercise my own vocal chords because I see
the imponderable good sense of it, that we
should, in this province, put aside some of our
puritanical notions. The government which
yet has the responsibility of office should
begin to realize that public sentiment is not
what it was a generation ago, that people are
more broadminded now. They view liquor-
well, at least we in Sudbury, view it— with
more broadmindedness than perhaps the hon.
member for St. Andrew (Mr. Grossman) does.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Tell it to the hon.
member's candidate in Eglinton.
Mr. Sopha: We will, sir. Life is full of
surprises; the hon. Minister may be surprised
in Eglinton.
An hon. member: Is it carried?
Mr. Sopha: No, it is not carried because
they have not changed their liquor policies.
Not carried at all.
The hon. member for York Centre (Mr.
Singer), who always is alert to developments,
reminds me of the tourist who was arrested,
convicted and fined for drinking beer in the
environs of his tent away back in the bush,
as I recall it. How silly can the laws get?
I make my final plea, I ask this government.
Our approach to the hon. Prime Minister is
going to be that we assume him to be a
broadminded man and he is going to revolu-
tionize the life of this province. We are
going to believe that about him until he
demonstrates he is just like the one that just
left.
An hon. member: The hon. member has
great faith.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I have great faith. I am
optimistic and I do have great faith in human
nature.
DECEMBER 5, 1961
221
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Imponderable good
sense! Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon.
member would tell me what imponderable
good sense means?
Mr. Sopha: That can be found in all of the
publications of the Ontario Liberal Associa-
tion.
Vote 2101 agreed to.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I have
one question which I would hke to ask the
hon. Minister who is responsible for this
department and I am prepared to ask it or
I am prepared to leave it until a further day,
at your suggestion. I know it is now 6:00
o'clock.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee
rise and report certain resolutions and asks
for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the
House, on Thursday afternoon we will go on
with these estimates and any of the orders
on the order paper— there are not very many
—and the Throne Speech.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6:04 o'clock, p.m.
>
No. 11
ONTARIO
ijija 1^
%t^Matmt of Ontario
Betiatejs
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Thursday, December 7, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, December 7, 1961
Reading and receiving petitions 225
Second report, standing committee on standing orders, Mr. Noden 225
First report, standing committee on legal bills, Mr. Lawrence 226
First report, standing committee on health and welfare, Mr. Downer 226
Department of Labom- Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 226
Registered Music Teachers' Association of Ontario, bill respecting, Mr. Gomme, first
reading 228
Vital Statistics Act, bill to amend, Mr. Yaremko, first reading 228
City of Ottawa, bill respecting, Mr. Morrow, first reading 228
Town of Orillia, bill respecting, Mr. Letherby, first reading 228
City of Windsor, bill respecting, Mr. Reaume, first reading 228
Corporations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Yaremko, first reading 228
Corporations Information Act, bill to amend, Mr. Yaremko, first reading 228
Income Tax Act, 1961-1962, bill intituled, Mr. Allan, first reading 229
City of Hamilton, bill respecting, Mr. R. C. Edwards, first reading 229
Metropolitan United Church of Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Lawrence, first reading 229
Town of Richmond Hill, bill respecting, Mr. Mackenzie, first reading 229
Township of Etobicoke, bill respecting, Mr. Lewis, first reading 229
United townships of Medora and Wood, bill respecting, Mr. Beyer, first reading 229
Sudbury high school district board, bill respecting, Mr. Boyer, first reading 229
City of London, bill respecting, Mr. White, first reading 229
County of Essex, town of Leamington and the public utilities commission of the town
of Leamington, bill respecting, Mr. Parry, first reading 229
Town of Oakville and township of Trafalgar, bill respecting, Mr. J. F. Edwards, first
reading 229
Town of Hearst, bill respecting, Mr. Brunelle, first reading 229
Township of Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, first reading 229
Estimates, Department of Travel and Publicity, continued, Mr. Cathcart 233
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. White 249
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Yaremko, agreed to 253
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 253
I
223
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, December 7, 1961
The House met at 3:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we wel-
come as guests students from the following
schools: in the east gallery, Northview Heights
Collegiate, Willowdale and Havergal College,
Toronto. In the west gallery Ryerson Public
School, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petition
has been received:
Of the corporation of the township of
Nepean praying that an Act may pass relating
to imposition of sewage and water rates.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Mr. W. G. Noden from the standing com-
mittee on standing orders presented the com-
mittee's second report which was read as
follows and adopted:
Your committee has carefully examined the
following petitions and finds the notices, as
published in each case, sufficient:
Of the corporation of the town of Hearst
praying that an Act may pass vesting certain
lands in one Joseph David Levesque.
Of the corporation of the town of Orillia
praying that an Act may pass enabling it and
the Orillia Water, Light and Power Commis-
sion to require owners of lots in subdivisions
to assume and pay their respective equitable
share of the cost of such improvements before
being entitled to the benefit thereof or obtain-
ing a permit to construct a building thereon.
Of the corporation of the city of London
praying that an Act may pass refunding
certain taxes on the premises of London Little
Theatre; and for other purposes.
By Metropolitan United Church, Toronto,
praying that an Act may pass enlarging a
trust to enable it to engage an organist who
is a graduate of a Canadian institution entitled
to grant degrees in music and who holds a
Fellowship in the Royal Canadian College of
Organists.
Of the corporation of the town of Oakville
and the corporation of the township of
Trafalgar praying that an Act may pass de-
fining an area, in the new muncipality created
by the amalgamation of the township and the
town, comprising all that part of the said
new muncipality lying south of the Upper
Middle Road; and for related purposes.
Of the corporation of the city of Ottawa
praying that an Act may pass authorizing the
necessary action for a re-development pro-
posal for part of the city of Ottawa; and for
other purposes.
Of the corporation of the city of Windsor
praying that an Act may pass authorizing the
inclusion on the Board of Governors of the
Metropolitan General Hospital of a member
appointed by the Essex County Council; and
for other purposes.
Of the corporation of the united townships
of Medora and Wood praying that an Act
may pass authorizing the division of the
township into three wards and the election of
the council by wards.
Of the corporations of the county of Essex,
the town of Leamington and the Public Utili-
ties Commission of the town of Leamington
praying that an Act may pass to confirm an
agreement for the supply of water and the
furnishing of fire protection to the Sun Par-
lour Home for Senior Citizens.
Of the Ontario Registered Music Teachers'
Association praying that an Act may pass
providing for a head office for the association
and increasing the council to not more than
fifteen.
Of the corporation of the Sudbury High
School District Board praying that an Act
may pass authorizing the execution of an
agreement with the Neelon-Garson and
Falconbridge District High School Board
relative to the operation and maintenance of
schools outside the jurisdiction of the Sudbury
board; and for related purposes.
226
ONTARIO I,EGISLATURE
Of the corporation of the town of Rich-
mond Hill praying that an Act may pass re-
constituting the council.
Of the corporation of the city of Hamilton
praying that an Act may pass respecting
charges for laying and repairing water service
pipes from the main pipe to owners' premises.
Supplementary petition of the corporation of
the city of Hamilton praying that an Act may
pass relating to assessment of cost of private
drain connections and to permit licensing and
regulating use of untravelled portions of the
highways.
Of the corporation of the township of
Etobicoke praying that an Act may pass pro-
viding that the provisions of The Public Parks
Act shall not apply to the township.
Of the corporation of the city of Hamilton
praying that an Act may pass incorporating
the board of governors of the Hamilton Civic
Hospitals; and for related purposes.
Of the corporation of the township of
Toronto praying that an Act may pass respect-
iiig payment for services installed in advance
of development of land.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence from the standing
committee on legal bills presents the com-
mittee's first report which was read as
follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill 14, An Act to amend The BailiflFs Act.
Bill 15, An Act to amend The Coroners
Act.
Bill 16, An Act to amend The Crown
Attorneys Act.
Bill 17, An Act to amend The Devolution
of Estates Act.
Bill 19, An Act to amend The Fire
Marshals Act.
Bill 20, An Act to amend The Jurors Act.
Bill 21, The Legitimacy Act, 1961-62.
Bill 22, An Act to amend The Master and
Servant Act.
Bill 23, An Act to amend The Mechanics'
Lien Act.
Bill 25, An Act to amend The Reciprocal
Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act.
Bill 27, An Act to amend The Summary
Convictions Act.
Bill 28, An Act to amend The Trustee
Act.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill 18, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Mr. A. W. Downer from the standing com-
mittee on health and welfare presents the
committee's first report which was read as
follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill 29, An Act to amend The Dentistry
Act.
Bill 30, An Act to amend The Sanatoria
for Consumptives Act.
Bill 31, An Act to amend The Air Pollution
Control Act.
Bill 32, An Act to amend The Cancer Act.
Bill 35, An Act to amend The Public
Health Act.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Labour)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
to amend The Department of Labour Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to create the Ontario Safety Council.
Before saying anything further about it I
should like to make a short explanation.
Hon. members will remember that a Royal
Commission on Industrial Safety was estab-
lished under the chairmanship of His Honour
Judge P. J. McAndrew, on April 7, 1960.
Their terms of reference were:
to inquire into and report upon all statutes
and regulations administered by The De-
partment of Labour that govern the safety
of workers with a view to the improvement,
simplification, clarification and moderniza-
tion of such statutes and regulations.
The commission held a number of public
meetings at Toronto, Windsor and Port
Arthur. It heard evidence from 118 witnesses
and studied 160 briefs and exhibits.
The report of the commission was sub-
mitted to the government on October 16 this
year, just seveJO-' weeks ago, after 18 months
of hearings and deliberations.
DECEMBER 7, 1961
227
The recommendations of the commission
have been studied and considered by myself
and members of my staff and we have come
to the conclusion that by establishing the
Ontario Safety Council at this time we shall
have the advantage of its advice and consulta-
tion in dealing with the many aspects of
safety considered by the Royal commission.
I want at this time, Mr. Speaker, to express
my appreciation for the exhaustive report the
commission has submitted to the government.
I would also, at this time, like to place
on record my personal thanks to His Honour
Judge McAndrew and the two commissioners,
Dr. J. Danvers Bateman and G. Russell
Harvey for the enthusiasm with which they
attacked the task assigned them by the
government and for the sincere desire they
have shown to bring down a report which will
assist the government in planning legislation
in the field of safety.
In their report the commission said that
although Ontario may well feel proud of its
legislation and splendid administration for
workmen's compensation and rehabilitation
following an accident, the area of greatest
importance is, and will remain, accident pre-
vention, and safety legislation enactment.
We have responded with the bill I now
present to the House, Mr. Speaker, for the
establishment of the Ontario Safety Council.
The membership of the council, which will
be announced as soon as possible, will com-
prise representation from labour and manage-
ment and from the medical, engineering and
other professions. It is my thought that the
council should be representative of all groups
who are vitally concerned with the growth
and welfare of our industries and of the
people who work in them.
The Ontario Safety Council will be directly
responsible to the Minister of Labour. The
council will inquire into and advise on any
matter concerning the safety of workers in
Ontario.
The council will also inquire into and report
upon any statute or regulation dealing with
safety with a view to the improvement, clari-
fication and amendment of any statute or
regulation which will facilitate and co-
ordinate the handling of any matter govern-
ing or concerning the safety of workers in
this province.
The establishment of the Ontario Safety
Council is proof that this government is
prepared to go forward in the field of acci-
dent prevention. Through the Ontario Safety
Council we will be able to co-ordinate
effectively accident prevention work with the
enforcement of safety legislation and with
the extensive field of voluntary safety effort
that now exists.
May I, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, re-
emphasize an important finding of the Royal
commission:
Safety consciousness cannot be imposed.
Attitudes cannot be legislated. Public
interest, education, integration of effort and
inspiration are the keys to future progress
above and beyond the basic legislated
minima of safety requirements.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
would the hon. Minister (Mr. Warrender)
permit a question?
In view of the compliments which the hon.
Minister quite properly paid to the Royal
commission on its very fine work, I wonder
if he would indicate to the House why he
has not been prepared, to date at any rate,
to accept its urgent recommendation for
immediate enactment of a construction safety
Act?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Speaker, may
I say in reply to the question that I consider
the setting up of the safety council the very
essence of the report itself. I feel that the
construction safety Act will come a little
later when the council members themselves
have had an opportunity to look into liie
whole situation.
I should rather, Mr. Speaker, delay this
matter a short time in order to be sure we
are on the right track, than rush into some-
thing which we may have to change later,
because it was not properly planned, or all
provisions were not made for those things
which may be recommended by the council
itself.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
department has been stalling for years.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): My ques-
tion to the hon. Minister deals directly with
the statement he made today. Will the an-
nual report of the safety council be tabled
regularly in this Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I rather doubt it,
Mr. Speaker. :
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Was that not a rec-
ommendation, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: That was a recom-
mendation, Mr. Speaker, but I am not fol-
lowing some of the recommendations con-
tained in the report.
228
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
the hon. Minister, by way of clarification,
whether this body is to take over the edu-
cational work that until now has been carried
on by the Accident Prevention Association?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: No, it will not take
that over because we feel that those people
in the accident prevention field have been
doing an excellent job.
There is, however, some evidence of over-
lapping; there is some evidence that there
is not a proper co-ordination of all their
accident-prevention functions. It will be
one of the functions of the council to co-
ordinate those many activities to see that
we are, shall we say, getting the full value
for the money being spent in that field.
As I think you all know, a large sum of
money — approximately $150,000 — is being
paid by the Workmen's Compensation Board
to the Accident Prevention Association. And
because that money comes from the board
—and therefore from industrialists— it is felt
that, through this council and through proper
co-ordination, the money can probably be
spent in a much more eflFective way than
at present.
But I still j^ay tribute to those who are
in this field. *
-] v.- ■
REGISTERED MUSIC TEACHERS
Mr. G. E. Gomme (Lanark) in the absence
of Mr. J. Morin, moves first reading of bill
intituled An Act respecting the Registered
Music Teachers' Association of Ontario.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE VITAL STATISTICS ACT
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary)
moves first reading of bill intituled An Act to
amend The Vital Statistics Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
«
CITY OF OTTAWA
Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West) moves
first reading of bill intituled An Act respect-
ing The City of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWN OF ORILLIA
Mr. L. Letherby (Simcoe East) moves first
reading of bill intituled An Act respecting
The Town of Orillia.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF WINDSOR
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North) moves first
reading of bill intituled An Act respecting The
City of Windsor.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Yaremko moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Act.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, would the hon. Minister explain
generally the principle of this bill?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
There are a number of amendments to various
sections of the Act, Mr. Speaker.
Section 1 is the clarification of the expres-
sion as to the coming into being of a corpora-
tion.
Section 2 is a rewording of the section
to clarify the intent.
Section 3 is designed to make clear that
property of a corporation includes, and always
has included, all property of the company,
both present and future.
Section 4 is a provision permitting Ontario
corporations to continue as if they had been
incorporated under other jurisdictions in
Canada.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE CORPORATIONS INFORMATION
ACT
Hon. Mr. Yaremko moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Information Act.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, could the hon.
Minister explain this bill as well, please?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: These are also various
amendments to the Act. The first section
provides for the filing of up-to-date informa-
tion in respect to changes in directorships of
corporations. Another section provides for
filing of up-to-date information as to changes
in authorized capital structure. And two
sections provide for extension of the principle
of filing of power of attorney— presently in
effect in respect of certain corporations— to
all corporations in Ontario.
Mr. Singer: If the hon. Minister would per-
mit a supplementary question— Do these dir-
ectorships that he is talking about, refer to
directors of charter clubs as well?
DECEMBER 7, 1961
229
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They refer to directors
of all corporations.
Mr. Singer: And are there penalties for
failure to file?
TOWNSHIP OF ETOBICOKE
Mr. W. B. Lewis (York-Humber) moves first
reading of bill intituled An Act respecting
The Township of Etobicoke.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961-1962
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer)
moves first reading of bill intituled The
Income Tax Act, 1961-1962.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, this Act imposes a tax on individual
residents of Ontario, calculated as a percen-
tage of the tax otherwise payable by the same
individuals of Canada under The Federal
Income Tax Act. It implements the fiscal
arrangements being negotiated between Can-
ada and Ontario, for the collection of indivi-
dual income taxes in Ontario. The Act pro-
vides the treasurer with authority to conclude
the agreement between Ontario and Canada,
whereby Canada will collect— on behalf of
Ontario— the taxes imposed by this Act.
This bill replaces The Income Tax Act,
1960-1961 and The Income Tax Agency
Agreement Act, 1960-1961 which were passed
at the last session of the Legislature. It is
designed to conform with the draft bill pre-
sented by Canada to all the provinces, as a
model that would permit Canada to act as
collection agency for the provinces. There
is no change in principle between this Act
and those Acts which were passed by the
Legislature last year.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF HAMILTON
Mr. R. C. Edwards moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act respecting The City
of Hamilton.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
METROPOLITAN UNITED CHURCH
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George) moves
first reading of bill intituled An Act respecting
Metropolitan United Church of Toronto.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL
Mr. A. A. Mackenzie (York North) moves
first reading of bill intituled An Act respecting
The Town of Richmond Hill.
TOWNSHIPS OF MEDORA AND WOOD
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka) moves first read-
ing of bill intituled An Act respecting The
United Townships of Medora and Wood.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
SUDBURY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Boyer moves first reading of bill in-
tituled An Act respecting Sudbury High
School District Board.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF LONDON
Mr. J. H. White (London South) moves first
reading of bill intituled An Act respecting
The City of London.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
ESSEX, LEAMINGTON PUBLIC
UTILITIES
Mr. G. W. Parry (Kent West) moves first
reading of bill intituled An Act respecting the
county of Essex, the town of Leamington and
The Public Utilities Commission of the town
of Leamington.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
OAKVILLE AND TRAFALGAR
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth), in the absence
of Mr. S. L. Hall (Halton), moves first reading
of bill intituled An Act respecting The Town
of Oakville and Township of Trafalgar.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWN OF HEARST
Mr. R. Brunelle (Cochrane North) moves
first reading of bill intituled An Act respect-
ing The Town of Hearst.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWNSHIP OF TORONTO
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park), in the
absence of Mr. W. G. Davis (Peel), moves
first reading of bill intituled An Act respecting
the Township of Toronto.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
230
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day I would like to
ask a question of the hon. Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Goodfellow) in regard to an article
in the London Free Press dated December 1,
1961, in which the Deputy Minister of High-
ways announces that that portion of Highway
401 between Tempo and Tilbury will be a
two-lane highway. It is also stated that plans
are in the offing to expand the Toronto by-
pass to 12 lanes.
Inasmuch as the government has promised
on various occasions to complete this four-
lane superhighway, why has it been an-
nounced that only one half of certain portions
are to be paved at this time?
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question
from the hon. member for Kent East (Mr.
Spence), I may say that I have heard a good
deal about this in the past two days. There
has been a great deal of discussion, par-
ticularly in southwestern Ontario. This is
quite natural realizing their keen interest in
this highway which is being constructed
across the province— the great freeway which
when completed will be the longest con-
tinuous freeway in the world. I think that is
worth just considering.
I note that Mr. Fulton, the Deputy Minis-
ter, according to the press made this state-
ment in London. What Mr. Fulton said was
that the highway would be open to traffic in
the fall of 1963. It is not physically possible
to complete the four lanes by the fall of 1963.
We could hold back the highway— the
opening of the two lanes, and open the four
lanes in 1964, if the hon. member for Kent
East thinks it is desirable to have all four
lanes opened at once. We can either open
two lanes in 1963 or four lanes in 1964.
We intend to proceed with the paving of
the other two lanes just as soon as it is
possible.
I would like hon. members to realize that
there are parts of this four-lane highway
which it is estimated will be carrying less
than 6,000 vehicles a day. The area of some
55 miles in length about which the hon.
member is asking the question, is one strip
on which it is estimated there will only be
6,000 vehicles a day. There is another strip
of 55 miles in eastern Ontario on which the
estimate is about 6,000 vehicles a day. This
is not very much traffic on a four-lane high-
way.
I assure the hon. member that it is our
intention that the programme proceed, but
I do not want to interfere with some other
very important highway projects up in the
Essex-Kent area in order to push this par-
ticular four-lane highway, which may not
be required as much as some other highways
to let some of the farmers out of the back
concessions.
There is another point. It is true it has
always been the plan to widen this by-pass
of Toronto. Perhaps some of the hon. mem-
bers read in the newspaper that yesterday
there was a tie-up on the 401 by-pass of
Toronto over 12 miles in length. It is the
intention over a five-year period to develop
a 12-lane by-pass at Toronto. I presume by
the time that develops, with the growth in
this area it will be necessary to make plans
for another 12-lane by-pass. It is a matter
of where the traffic is heaviest. We have to
keep commerce moving across this province;
it means a lot to the hon. Provincial Treasurer.
I like this editorial in the London Free
Press on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario.
This was an editorial in the London Free
Press on December 4, 1961.
Half a highway is better than none.
Before any more district chambers of
commerce sound oflF in indignation over
the decision to pave only one half of
Highway 401 between Tilbury and Tempo,
some thought should be given to The
Department of Highways' reasons.
This four-lane route is an enormously
expensive piece of construction. It will be
the longest superhighway in the world
and unlike its counterparts across the
border it is toll free. All sections cannot
be completed at once. It is now possible
to drive from London to a point near
Belleville on 401 without encountering a
stop light. Other stretches are being paved
as quickly as the provincial budgcjt permits.
While the new two-lane section from
Tempo to Tilbury may not be all that
western Ontario could wish, it will provide
a third route to Windsor paralleling No. 2
and No. 3 and will take considerable
pressure oflF those roads in the summer
months.
We can have only what we are willing
to pay for. Highway 401 will be completed
as fast as the budget permits and as soon
as it can be justified in view of all other
factors. We have fine roads in Ontario,
let us be grateful for them.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if the hon. Minister would allow
a supplementary question. He did mention
DECEMBER 7, 1961
231
that there was about 55 miles in the eastern
part of the province which would be only
paved on two lanes. I wonder if he would
tell the House just where that 55 miles is
situated in eastern Ontario. Also will he tell
the House whether it is the density of motor
vehicles on the highway or it it a matter
of dollars and cents that the government is
not going ahead and finishing the four lanes
at this time?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Speaker, I
assure you I am not an authority on all the
highways in the province of Ontario after
four weeks as the Minister. If hon. mem-
bers will give me another two weeks I hope
to know all about all the highways in Ontario.
I am not an overly intelligent fellow and it
takes time for things to sink in.
But I would say that there is about 55
miles in eastern Ontario. I know one strip
will be between Marysville and Cataraqui.
In 1963 two lanes will be open. The other
two are going to be paved as soon as pos-
sible. There is another strip, I think, from
Cornwall to the Quebec boxmdary. It is not
a matter of money, although that is impor-
tant, but actually if the tra£Bc density does
not warrant a four-lane highway for a year
or two, in this area, I think it is much better
even to consider a highway from Cornwall
to Ottawa.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask a supplementary question of the hon.
Minister of Highways in regard to this change
in the building of 401. The hon. Minister
has read an article from the London Free
Press. I wonder if he has read the editorial
in the Windsor Daily Star, December 2,
1961.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order! I would point
out to the hon. members that they may only
rise for the purpose of asking questions or
asking for information, not giving informa-
tion.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
are you not going to allow the hon. member
for Kent East (Mr. Spence) to read the edi-
torial? The hon. Minister gave a fairy story
and we want to tell you the truth.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member
asked the hon. Minister if he had read the
editorial in the Windsor Daily Star, and I
heard the hon. Minister answer "Yes."
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Speaker, would the hon. Minister permit me
to ask a supplementary question? Does he
agree with the content of the editorial in the
Windsor Daily Star?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Sure, I agree with
all the editorials.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day, I have a question to address to
the hon. Minister without Portfolio (Mr.
Grossman) of which notice has been given.
This year New Year's Eve falls on a
Sunday. Is it the intention of the Liquor
Control Board of Ontario to issue banquet
permits for New Year's Eve? If not, has the
board considered issuing permits for the time
commencing at 12:01 a.m. Monday, January
1, 1962? And if not, have any other arrange-
ments been decided upon?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for giving me notice, but actually he gave
the wrong Minister the notice. Banquet
permits come under the jurisdiction of the
Liquor Licence Board, which reports through
the hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr. Yaremko).
However, realizing the extreme urgency of
this matter, I immediately took it up with
the hon. Minister and I am sure he is ready
to give the answer.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If the hon. member for
York Centre had not been so generously
thanked, I would thank him for the question.
The answers are as follows: Sunday night
banquet permits: no. The answer to the
second part: consideration, yes; permits, no.
The answer to the third part, no.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I would like
to state the reasons for the placing of these
beautiful flowers on the desk of the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald).
Today, December 7, is the birthday of the
hon. member. How old he is, I do not know.
We in our group, of course, are impressed
with his vigour, and are very, very proud to
have him as our provincial leader. On behalf
of our group, we extend to him our best
wishes on this his birthday. I am sure I will
be joined by every hon. member of the
Legislature in the sincere hope and wish of
everyone, I think, that he will be an hon.
member of the Ontario Legislature for some
years to come.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day I have a question for the hon. Minister
232
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Labour (Mr. Warrender), a copy of which
has been forwarded to him.
Will the hon. Minister of Labour advise
this House what steps his department is
taking to facilitate settlement of the strike
at the Royal York Hotel?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Speaker, I have
spoken to representatives of both management
and labour in this strike. I intend to speak
to both sides again, but at this time I am sorry
to say I am not prepared to divulge any
details.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Before the orders of the
day, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts), a copy
of which has likewise been forwarded.
Newspapers on Tuesday, December 5, in-
dicated that the government intends to ap-
point a Royal commission to investigate
organized crime. I would like to know if
that story is true and if so, when will the
appointment of the Royal commission be
announced?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I have nothing to add to the state-
ment which I made on November 30, rela-
tive to the charges made by the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) which
will be dealt with in due course.
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I would like to draw attention of the hon.
members to the statement on their desks con-
cerning the draft bill of November 6, 1961,
to be passed by the Parliament of the United
Kingdom to permit The British North
America Act to be repealed, amended or
re-enacted by the Parliament of Canada. If
hon. members go through it, the first four
pages are the explanation and below that is
the bill itself.
This is a bill which will be enacted by
the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but
in order to bring it before this Assembly
and to give everyone a full opportunity to
examine it, it is my intention, with your
permission, to ask the hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts) to speak very briefly to it be-
fore the orders of the day today. We will
then leave a copy of it with each of the hon.
members and tlien probably by resolution
bring it onto the order paper when we re-
assemble after the Christmas recess. It can
then be debated after everyone has had an
opportunity to examine it and familiarize
themselves with it. Hon. members can ask
any questions tliey might have, but I would
ask, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that
the hon. Attorney-General speak to this for
a moment.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of the bill, which I
think is well known to all hon. members, is
to bring to Canada full rights to deal with its
own constitution for the future and at the
same time to provide for the amending pro-
cedures of the constitution herein.
I would point out that sections 1, 2, 3, 4
and 6 of the bill, in my view, do not intro-
duce any new principles or make any changes
in the present constitutional procedures.
Section 5, however, is new.
Section 5 provides that no law made under
the authority of this Act affecting any pro-
vision of the constitution of Canada not
coming within sections 2, 3 or 4 of the Act,
shall come into force unless it is concurred
in by the Legislatures of at least two-thirds
of the provinces representing at least 50 per
cent of the total population.
In very simple language, perhaps over-
simplification, the entrenched sections remain
as they were. At least in my view I should
think they do. Some constitutional lawyers
might have a different view, but in my view,
and I think in the view of the majority of
the constitutional advisors of the provinces
and the federal authority, they remain the
same. But whatever is not in the entrenched
sections of The BNA Act today would then
be amendable in that manner, by two-thirds
of the provinces, representing at least 50 per
cent of the population of Canada.
Then section 7 provides for application by
the Parliament of the United Kingdom in
relation to passing of any laws with respect
to Canada. That is in line. The phraseology
of this proposed U.K. bill is in line with a
number of constitutional bills respecting other
Commonwealth countries which have already
taken such steps.
The power of delegation— which is new and
is, I think, something that is going to be of
real value— is dealt with on page 3, 94(a), of
this memorandum. First, the power to
delegate by the federal authority of any of
its powers to at least four provinces. Hon.
members can see the provinces divided in
Canada— the four western provinces and the
four eastern ones and then the hard-core
central two. It is conceivable that the four in
the west might have some common problem—
or that two of those four might have; or four
in the east, or two of those four. The whole
four provinces would agree so that the
delegation could take effect and be effective
for one, two, three or all four of them.
DECEMBER 7, 1961
233
We in the central position would have to
go a little further afield to our three support-
ing provinces. But, with that qualification,
the bill would give the federal authority
power to delegate practically anything to the
provinces for as long as the federal authority
would wish. The granting authority would
have power to revoke this delegation at any
time.
The provinces would also have this power.
As long as four provinces consent to it, any
province would be able to delegate any of its
particular powers to the federal authority
and revoke that delegation of power in the
same manner. I think that future power of
delegation may be an extremely valuable one
and may tend to make the constitution, in
some regards, considerably more flexible.
Representatives from the different provinces
—I was the representative for Ontario— have
returned to their provinces and made their
reports, and in due course, as the hon. Prime
Minister has said, resolution will be intro-
duced into the House to deal with the matter
and have it debated.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Perhaps we
could be told in a word, Mr. Speaker,
whether it is necessary for all the provinces
to consent to this draft before it is forwarded
to the Parhament of the United Kingdom, and
whether or not Ontario has consented to this
draft.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: No. I thought I made
my language clear, especially—
Mr. Sopha: Well, I followed the hon.
Attorney-General very closely.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The federal authority is
now presenting a bill which the representa-
tives agreed upon in principle, and which
they agreed to take to their respective govern-
ments and to recommend their individual
approval. That may not apply entirely to
two provinces, but that is the general posi-
tion at the present time. It will eventually
require the approval of the great majority
—if not all the provinces— to move from that
position. I would not say it necessarily re-
quires all, but I would say that— to all intents
and purposes— we hope that all will agree.
The bill must have an overwhelming majority
before it could proceed.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
House moves into committee of supply,
Mr. K. Brown in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRAVEL AND PUBLICITY
On vote 2102:
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Chairman, at the close of the last session we
were discussing the matter of 2101, and I
was about to ask the hon. Minister whether
or not this department maintains a staff of
highly trained publicity people. I wonder if
the hon. Minister could tell me ff this is so,
and how many are on the staff.
Hon. B. L. Cathcart (Minister of Travel and
Pubhcity): We have a permanent staff of
seven under the direction of Mr. Hogarth.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, since
this is a department of publicity— and no
doubt these people in this department do
specialize in matters of publicity— has any
consideration been given to incorporating
the publicity releases for all branches of the
government, under this one department? It
seems to me there might now be consider-
able duplication. I wonder if the department
has considered this aspect of publicity. I
totalled the salaries and I noted that close
to three quarters of a million dollars of the
estimates of this department are spent on
staff salaries. If this situation is duplicated
through all the various branches of govern-
ment it seems to me that a considerable
amount of money is being spent in this way.
Has there been any thought of incorporating
it under one department?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I would reply to the
hon. member, Mr. Chairman, that the director
of publicity and his staff do assist— in quite a
large measure— the other departments of
government. As you can understand, our
publicity director has a great deal of informa-
tion in his office because he is continually
writing material on many subjects, but there
has been no thought given to centralizing that
particular department, or particular branch,
as a publicity branch for the government
entirely.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Are there publicity
men in the various other departments as well?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I would not be able to
answer that, I presume there are in most of
them. I see from the register that they have
a personnel and publicity-
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I find
it difficult to understand why the hon. Minis-
ter is unable to answer that when he has only
234
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
just told me that this particular department's
staff worked very closely with various other
government departments in preparing their
releases.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: That is right.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Surely, if they work
closely, they know whether or not there are
publicity men in these other departments. I
think the hon. Minister is being unduly
evasive.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I do not think I am
being unduly evasive and I am sorry that
the hon. member should think so. Our
director of publicity is approached by the
Minister or his deputy or his directors.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Or his PR
man—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Not necessarily. I
presume that the other departments approach
our director of publicity for the simple reason
that they do not have a pubhcity man
speciahzing in that area.
I explained originally that our director has
a great deal of material available and can be
helpful in preparing an advertisement that
covers a number of subjects. But the Deputy
Minister, or the directors of other departments
would approach our director asking him,
perhaps, to prepare a rough message that
they might give in reply; or perhaps they
will send over their material and ask our
director to include other items that he has
available.
As the hon. member will notice, the adver-
tisements—or the material for a message— will
often cover a number of subjects. I am not
trying to be evasive. That is a fact.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chair-
man, the estimate for the division of publicity
for the forthcoming year is $868,000. Now
according to the public accounts for the year
ending March, 1960, we find that the division
of publicity spent $929,169. I do not know
what the estimate was for that year, but I
am interested in some of the expenditures,
particularly in the matter of advertising. One
is the McKim Advertising $133,556; Stanfield,
Johnson & Hill $205,147, and McConnell
Eastman & Company $75,480. I would hke
to ask the hon. Minister how these contracts
are awarded. Are they given so much work
to do, and then send in their bill— or is a
tender invited? In what way do they arrive
at the estimate of the expenditure?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Perhaps I had better
start with the final question. In the first
place, as I explained last year, the tenders
are invited. In other words, the Queen's
Printer invites tenders on any particular job.
I might also explain that we used to present
the total of printing and advertising as one
amount in the estimates. We now present
them separately so that under "printing" for
the coming year, the estimate is $380,000;
under "advertising" it is $445,000. The point
I wanted to make was that it used to be in
the estimates as one item and now it is
divided; it is split.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I am sorry. Was that
a question?
In so far as the hon. member has named
the McKim Advertising, McConnell Eastman
& Co. and Stanfield Johnson & Hill, maybe
I could just read this and get it on the
record so that it is completely understandable.
We do not deal directly with the pubhshing
companies who produce the magazines and
the newspapers nor directly with the radio
stations. We place our programmes as
approved by us to four advertising agencies,
we pay the charges for space and production
to the agencies, the agencies in turn acting as
our agents pay the publishing companies, the
radio stations, etc., after deducting their 15
per cent commission from the total expendi-
ture. We do not pay the commission, I think
the hon. member realizes that; actually the
magazine or paper pays it.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, the direct
question I wanted to ask the hon. Minister
was this: There was a total of $929,000 spent
that year— the year 1960— of course that
would include the election year of 1959, and
I was wondering if the expenditure of that
year was above the estimate or below the
estimate?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The hon. member is
referring to two years ago?
Mr. Thomas: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: That is the latest
information we have got for the fiscal year
ending 1960. That is all we have. I am
reminded that was the year of the Queen's
visit and we did—
Mr. Bryden: It was also the year of the
election.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Yes, it was.
An hon. member: There were an awful
lot of advertisements and papers.
DECEMBER 7, 1961
235
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: We had no opportunity
to prepare for the visit until we were sure
Her Majesty was coming.
Mr. Thomas: You are not quite sure
whether that was above or below the esti-
mates?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Well, it would be
above; yes, that is right.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): You knew the Queen was coming,
you knew the election was coming!
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Her Majesty of all people
should have let me know.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): This year we are
going to have the northern span of the Com-
wall-Massena International Bridge completed.
The oflBcial opening will be in 1962. I notice
in the press that there is a promotion pro-
gramme going on to develop traflBc over the
new bridge. In making the announcement, a
bridge spokesman identified W. C. Harkman
advertising agency of Syracuse, New York,
and Rolph Clark Stone Benalack Ltd., of
Montreal, as the agencies retained to do the
work. The Syracuse company will supervise
the public relations account and the graphic
arts will be provided by the Montreal firm.
This newest link of the St. Lawrence valley
bridge system will be an important route for
both tourists and commercial users offering
access to the heart of the St. Lawrence Sea-
way development area and with the power
project locks, beaches, boat marina and camp-
ing facilities. In addition, the Long Sault
parkway, Upper Canada Village, Ottawa and
Montreal are within short driving distances.
What I want to ask the hon. Minister at
this time is whether they are taking any part
whatever in this promotion programme? While
I am on my feet, I would also like to ask him,
through you, Mr. Chairman, if there is any-
thing in his estimates or in the estimates of
Public Works to take care of a new reception
centre when this bridge is open or completed?
I might point out to the hon. Minister at
this time that the present reception centre is
near the present entry into that part of Can-
ada from the States, and I do not think it
lends itself as a reception centre at all; but
more than that, it is going to be so far out
of the way of the travelling public when the
new bridge is opened and Highway 401 is
completed that the relocation of the centre
should be considered very seriously. I would
like to have an answer from the hon. Minister
as to just what his department is planning
with regard to this programme and also the
reception centre in Cornwall.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: In answer to that we
are not taking a particular part in the pro-
gramme that you have outlined but we are
co-operating with those people in support of
it. In regard to the reception centre, as I
understand it. The Department of Public
Works are in the process of dealing with the
owners there. The property or the location
has been selected and they are in the process
of acquiring it.
Mr. Manley: For the new reception centre?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: We are proceeding with
that very quickly. As you have stated there
is going to be tremendous traffic across there,
particularly because of the St. Lawrence Sea-
way parks.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I
should like to ask the hon. Minister a ques-
tion on this matter of pubhcity. I have
here a copy of the latest report of The
Department of Travel and Pubhcity. As I
look on pages 11 and 12, I note considerable
publications which are published under the
authority of this department, together with
the distribution of each.
I wonder if the hon. Minister would tell
us the cost of each of these various publica-
tions? I am particularly concerned with &
couple of them. One of them is this pub-
lication known as Ontario Government Ser-
vices. I see that it continues to inform the
reader of the services performed by the
various departments of government; to which
Mr. Chairman, I would say it continues to
inform the reader of the various individuals
in government, because I have paid particu-
lar attention to this publication since I came
into this Legislature and it is my opinion that
it is used to promote the personalities in the
Tory party.
Hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I am amazed that at
the back it says the distribution is 105,000
copies per issue. Now, for the life of me,
Mr. Chairman, I do not know where they
would send 105,000 copies of this publica-
tion and do any goodi It contains very little
information with respect to the services be-
ing offered by government. I think that if
105,000 copies per issue are being distrib-
uted, they are being used for the Progressive-
Conservative Party machine more than for
the furtherance of the services of this
government.
236
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Would the hon. Minister tell me, gener-
ally, where these copies are distributed and
would he give me a run-down of the costs of
the various publications as set out in this
book?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Mr. Chairman, I have
to take some objection to part of the hon.
member's statement that this is a Tory or a
political paper. The average open-minded
man would realize that it does contain infor-
mation on services that are rendered by the
government. The government, which hap-
pens to be seated right here, is responsible
and its members hav« to stand on their own
feet for the things that are done in this prov-
ince. I would like the hon. member to show
me a government service paper which has
pointedly publicized the Tory Party.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I have one right here
that does.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The Tory party? The
Tory government, yes. I do not think I
have had my picture in the Ontario Govern-
ment Services paper since I sat in the House
with the hon. member a year ago and I am
the Minister and I would think—
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): That is a
good idea.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Yes, I agree with the
hon. member.
I agree with him, and that is one reason
I do not have it in there.
But that is a fact, I question if I have
been in the paper, although I have unveiled
pjaques and opened affairs and so on. I am
not anxious to get into the Ontario Govern-
ment Services paper lest hon. members might
think that, as the Minister of the department
responsible for the publication, I just want to
publicize Bryan Cathcart. My job, I feel, is
to publicize Ontario through The Department
of Travel and Publicity as much as I can, but
I am not there to promote Bryan Cathcart.
. Mr. Reaume: Or the party.
' Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The hon. member
asked me about the different publications
that were produced through this department.
Does he want me to list all of them, because
T })elieve there are some 20 or 25? I would
be very glad to give him the list, I would
be very glad to give him the quantity that
Svas purchased and the cost as I have it here
before me.
'Mri R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would
be very pleased to have the hon. Minister
send it to me. When he says it does not
promote the cause of the Tory party, I would
remind him that in one instance there was a
notation of the date of a future Conservative
party convention. I do not know if he would
call that promoting the cause of the party or
not.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Was that not a matter
of great importance to the people of this
province?
An hon. member: A very small minority.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Would the hon. mem-
ber like me to send him a copy of this?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Yes, that is what I
said.
Mr. Reaume: What is the hon. Minister
smiling about? This is no joke.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): I presume since
we are talking on pubhcity we are on 2102.
Are we on 2102?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Yes.
Mr. Troy: I noticed as I listened to the hon.
Minister in his review of his department that
he said his department promotes Ontario at
home and abroad. Does he promote it in the
other provinces of Canada too?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Very much so.
Mr. Troy: In what language then does he
send his publications to the province of
Quebec?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: A few years back we
started to publish some of our publications
in French for their benefit.
Mr. Troy: That is fine. I just wanted to
know if his department was also sending out
publications in French. Thanks very much.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, in speaking to the estimate on
publicity, does the department attempt to
sell Ontario to the students in the various
schools, to the educational system, at all?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I would say yes. We
get a great many requests from teachers or
principals of schools for some of our publica-
tions. Many of them, of course, are produced
in a way to encourage other people to come
and visit our province. Many of them have a
great deal of information in them.
The teachers and principals learn about it
DECEMBER 7, 1961
237
I
and write to us, and while we cannot send
out— if there is a population in a school of
150 we cannot send out 150 of them— we do
make a point to send them maybe half a
dozen or a few of the publications that they
are particularly interested in, so the teacher
can make use of them in teaching his class.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, that just goes
to prove that there is no attempt on the part
of the government actually to sell Ontario
through the school system. They are actually
waiting for the schools to request information
concerning the province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: We do have the one
publication in particular, called "Ontario
History," that is sent out to the schools.
Mr. Newman: I would like then strongly
to recommend to the hon. Minister that he
attempt to sell Ontario through the school
system.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The hon. member for
York Centre (Mr. Singer), myself and the hon.
member for another Toronto riding, did our
very best this morning. Did we not, sir? By
that I am referring to the two schools that
were here in the chamber together with their
principals, and all three of us were with
them.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman,
I understand the hon. Minister is sending
over the cost of Ontario Government Services.
I see that there are 105,000 copies issued per
month. I wonder if the hon. Minister could
tell us where the 105,000 copies go, it seems
to be an awful lot.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: In addition to the
distribution to all news media, to many of the
schools, trade organizations, business places,
chambers of commerce; we receive many
requests from smaller organizations and
communities which write in and say:
"Now, look, we have a club or a membership
in a club or association of 25 people, this is
the list of names." They are interested in
having this and we include them on the list
and send them out. That, generally, is the
distribution.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, just
following this one step further. Would the
hon. Minister advise us where in his estimates
is the amount which covers postage on this
very heavy distribution? If there are 105,000
copies of Ontario Government Services sent
out each month, that would be over a million
copies a year, which I think is money down
the drain. But the hon. Minister is entitled
to his opinion and he is running this depart-
ment temporarily.
I note that there are 160,000 camp sites
and road sites and parks publications issued,
and so it goes. What is the total cost for
postage on the distribution of these various
books?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I am afraid the hon.
member would have to ask the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) for that. It is paid
through his department.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Do I understand that
the cost of postage does not come out of The
Department of Travel and Publicity?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Other than where it is
urgent that a letter may have to go out
immediately and the post office were closed
in which case we may use some postage, but
generally speaking-
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Then could the hon.
Minister give me an idea of the total number
of pieces that are mailed annually of the
various publications that go out of his depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Our publications, and I
think in my talk— if I did not, it is in the
report— I indicated we replied to some
260,000 or 265,000 personal inquiries that
came into the information branch in the
department. We also have 16 reception
centres located around the province that re-
ceive inquiries and they reply directly with-
out getting in touch with our office. That
would be around 265,000 publications mailed
out directly.
Now I am talking about the publications
that we process, that would not be the
Ontario Government Services paper. We
mail them out, we send them out to chambers
of commerce who use them for people with
whom they have come in contact, we send
them out in bulk. I believe also that we send
publications out to other-
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, if I
might interrupt the hon. Minister, he is not
answering my question. I appreciate he is
sending out all this, but what I want is an
estimate of the number of mailing pieces
that leave his department each year. I am
not particularly interested in whether he
sends them to the reception centres or to the
chambers of commerce or who he sends
them to.
Mr. C. H. Lyons (Sault Ste. Marie): What
does the hon. member think?
238
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. R. C. Edwards: If the hon. member
would listen to mel I would remind the hon.
member that I am not over here to guess, I
am here to get the information and this is
the only time during the debate that we have
the opportunity to find out whether or not
this department is administering—
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Catfacart: May I answer the hon.
member?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I wish the hon.
Minister would.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Oh, do not be so
funnyl The hon. member is pretty clever,
really. It was a great asset when this House
got him. If he wants to have a nice quiet
conversation I will try to give him the answers
as we have them, but if he has got to come
in with his funny stuflF, let us have some fun
then.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I thank the hon.
Minister for the very gentlemanly way he is
discharging his oflBce as an hon. Minister of
the Crown.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Between five and six
million pieces of literature are sent out. Now,
a very large portion of that would go out in
bulk by express to those 16 reception centres,
and to many other places that are serving
as information bureaus. We have approved
of them doing this. We send that out in bulk.
What I was saying was that from our own
head oflBce 265,000 personal inquiries are
answered, plus the fact that the Ontario Gov-
ernment Services paper is mailed out to
100,000-odd people. But I have not here the
total number of pieces that have been mailed
out in one year or two years. I think that
it would be quite a job to arrive at that
because of the diversified way in which it
goes out from the department.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I will
leave the item at this point, but I would
remind the hon. Minister that he was in no
position to tell me the cost of the postage for
these various maihng pieces and the only way
I could get an estimate of what was being
expended was to find out from him the num-
ber of pieces that leave through the mail each
year.
Now, I still have not got it in deail. Per-
haps he would have time to get that; perhaps
he would undertake to send it to me. I
wonder if the hon. Minister would undertake
to do that?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Yes? Go aheadi The
hon. member has the floor if Mr. Chairman
says so.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, did the
hon. Minister say he would send that informa-
tion?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No, I did not say I
would send it because I just got through tell-
ing the hon. member I did not know whether
it was possible to get it for him. I will look
into it and if it is available, he will have it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I thank the hon. Min-
ister; and my final comment to him is I think
it is about time he found out what is going
on in his department.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: That is the repayment
for trying to be pleasant to the hon. member.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Mr.
Chairman, could I ask the hon. Minister:
Does he have any case in which people pay?
Is there any circumstance in which they pay
for any of the pamphlets or material sent out
to them from his department? In other
words, if I am buying a paper, or Macleans
magazine, or such, I have to pay for it. Has
the hon. Minister ever thought this might be
a test of readership and of interest if the
receiver has to pay for some of this material
from his department?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I do not think I have
ever given any thought to it, but I am very
happy to have that suggestion. I might con-
sider it.
Mr. Thompson: The reason I mention this
to the hon. Minister is that there was a depart-
ment in Ottawa, a federal department, which
was sending out material across the country,
somewhat similar to the hon. Minister's
department. Then they decided to see if
people really wanted this. They charged
them about 25 cents and they found that the
people did not want it because they were not
prepared to pay 25 cents. I think sometimes
this is the only way we can test material.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I think we derive a
great deal of benefit from the government
service paper. One fact alone is that it does
go to the newspapers. The news media, and
particularly weekly newspapers I find, use
articles out of the Ontario Government Serv-
ices paper. Because they just produce the
paper once a week, they find it newsworthy.
DECEMBER 7, 1961
239
Mr. Thompson: Thanks very much. I had
another question. I asked it last year and
I noted that another hon. member has also
asked this. It is in connection with the
advertising. I cannot help feehng— and I
am not a suspicious person by nature— but for
some reason it always strikes me as open to
suspicion, if I was suspicious, that McKim
Advertising get such a large hunk of your
advertising. He mentioned the time before
that he was going to be more liberal. I can
assure him that on our side of the House
we commend him heartily for having senti-
ments like that.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: How did I use that?
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Minister said he
was going to be more liberal in his adver-
tising. Could I ask him how far he has gone
in being Hberal? Does McKim only still get
the advertising, or is MacLaren going to get
some advertising?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: May I ask a question in
retmrn before I reply? The hon. member
mentioned that he was naturally of a suspici-
ous character-
Mr. Thompson: Unsuspicious!
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Is that not what he
said?
Mr. Thompson: No.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Is that not what he
said? He said if he was suspicious, and I
wondered what caused him to become that
way because I can imagine, looking at the
hon. member back in the other days, he was
a fine fellow and he would not think of being
suspicious of anybody. Would it be his
previous experience, before coming into the
Ontario Legislature that made him like that?
Mr. Newman: The hon. Minister's actions
lead him to that.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: We will get that one
straightened around.
Mr. Thompson: First of all, I did not say I
was suspicious by nature but I do feel this—
despite that there is a pleasant sort of
approach by the hon. Minister— that one woidd
have to be extremely naive not to realize that
some of this advertising is going to people
who helped during an election.
I think the government could have some
type of public tender with respect to adver-
tising, that it would then appear to us on this
side that they are really trying to do it on the
basis of the best job that they can do in
producing advertising, rather than on the best
job they might do in a political campaign.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Is the hon. member
suggesting that these advertising agencies are
not responsible people? That they do not
give value for money?
Mr. Thompson: I am suggesting, Mr. Chair-
man, that they are responsible in too many
fields.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Not one of them has
ever been in my riding or done one iota
for the responsible Minister. I do not know
them personally.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask the hon.
Minister whether McKim Advertising has any
connection with the Conservative party,
federally or provincially?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The advertising that
they do for us as an agency does not have
anything to do with it. They are working for
The Department of Travel and Publicity
through the Queen's Printer.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask the hon.
Minister that question all the same, sir? Does
McKim, to his knowledge have any contracts
with the Conservative party either federally
or provincially?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: To my knowledge, no.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chair-
man, in case anybody reads these debates, let
us get the figures on the record and show the
development of a nexus with the McKim
advertising agency. I might say by way of
addendum to my hon. friend that at least
down in Ottawa our counterparts and col-
leagues have always alleged— and I think with
a great deal of force and a great deal of evi-
dence—that there is very definite connection
between the McKim advertising agency and
the Conservative party.
Now, through the use of the figures, let
us show the development of this government's
affection for the McKim advertising agency.
In the public accounts for the year ending
1959, the amount of $113,993.91 was spent
with that agency. For the year ending
March 31, 1960, the amount of $133,556.79,
an increase of $20,000. For the year end-
ing March 31, 1961 the sum of $143,852.86.
So it is an increase of $20,000 the first
year and $10,000 in each of the subsequent
years.
One need only look at the figures to see
that in each case the increase with McKim
advertising agency was accompanied with a
240
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reduction of the allotment to other advertising
agencies. I do not know what the political
complexions of tliose others are, but it seems
that if this government is in power long
enough, which I doubt will be the case, that
eventually McKim advertising agency with
its connection and favouritism of the Tory
party will virtually get all the business in the
hon. Minister's department.
Nothing speaks with more truth and
realism, sir, penetrating good sense, than
do the figures, the cold figures that I have
just mentioned. It is just as well that we have
them on the record in case the people of this
X;rovince look at these debates.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, now that the
matter has come up, it might be just as well
to complete the record. I do not happen to
have the relevant record available where I
can put my finger on it, but when the Liberal
government was in power in Ottawa up until
a few years ago it was exactly the same situa-
tion, but the other way. The situation, Mr.
Chairman, which we may as well face up to
is that both of these old parties treat the
public treasury as if it were their own money-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, it is obvious how the Liberals like
the truth.
Mr. Bryden: I would just like to complete
what I had started to say, Mr. Chairman;
that it is unfortunate, although it is obviously
true, that accounts of this kind are used for
pohtical purposes to reward friends of the
government and no doubt friends who made
significant contributions to the party coffers at
election time. It is an old game that appears
not only in this department, but in many
departments; and whenever these gentlemen
on the official Opposition benches had a
chance, they were worse than the other
fellows, but both of them are bad enough;
Vote 2102 agreed to.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, we cannot
hear you at all. Let us start at the right
number.
Vote 2103 agreed to.
On vote 2104:
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I have a question with
respect to vote 2104, and I am referring
again to the report of the hon. Minister, the
latest report, on page 29. I note under section
seven that it states at several centres, several
free cups of tea were served to our guests and
the appreciation of this gesture of friendliness
was expressed on many occasions. It goes on
to state that local and long-distance tele-
phones are available where it is necessary to
call ahead to obtain accommodation for a
tourist, and that this is done at no expense
to the tourist. This service has proved a
public relations feature which has drawn a
great deal of good will for Ontario at small
cost.
Would the hon. Minister tell me on what
basis they make these telephone calls to
tourist resorts? Which ones do they select
and how do they go about making these
reservations?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Generally speaking— a
visitor crossing the border, may arrive there
in the evening or at a time when they are
a bit concerned whether they will have a
reservation or not. Maybe tiiey are going
to travel another 50 miles or so.
They may know the place they want to
stay because of the pubhcations that they
have read, and in that way they ask our
people: "Do you think I will get in there
when I get. there, will they have a space or
not?" So one of the staff call ahead to make
sure that they do have space for them, and
of course they go on with confidejice.
We do not have to put in too many calls.
I do not think the long-distance calls through
all of the centres amount to a great deal.
People are very considerate in asking for
those favours. We feel for the few we have
to provide, they create a lot of good will.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I was not questioning whether or not we
should make the telephone calls. I was
wondering on what basis these calls are made.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: At their request.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I realize that too,
but does the department in any way influ-
ence where those calls are made?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No, definitely not.
We are very careful about that. As a matter
of fact, we have an information bureau at
Point Edward, Samia, and the staff there are
told that they must not give any preference to
the operations locally. As a matter of fact
in the local area, they rather give preference
to those that are 25, 50 miles away.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: What I am trying to
find out is how would a tourist know where
he wanted to stay, if he is a newcomer? I
DECEMBER 7, 1961
241
have travelled some, I know that when you
get to a point in your travel you start to look
for a motel. Now how does that tourist
select the motel? Does he refer to a series
of advertising pamphlets he might—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: A where-to-stay book-
let.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I
think the backers of the government have
a right to their suggestions, I wish they
would get up and make them in a proper
way.
What I am trying to determine is this: it
might be possible, Mr. Chairman, that if the
selections are made from publications which
are available at the centre, that these other
citizens and taxpayers in the province might
not be accorded the same privileges as those
"who send in their advertising to these re-
ception centres. Now that is what I am try-
ing to find out from the hon. Minister. I
am sure they do not know where they are
going in most cases, because I have done a
little travelling too and I know that usually
you do not know where you are going to
stay. You have to get advice; that is why
you stop and ask for it.
Let us not make a farce of it, surely we
can get an answer to the question.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The information centres
that we have around the province are there
to be of assistance to our own people just
as well as to those who are visiting with us
from across the borders. The where-to-stay
publication is there in every reception centre
and is available to him. It is processed in
sections so that if you want to go to the
London area, the Parry Sound district, where-
ever it might be, you can have the separate
pages out of this booklet and look over them
yourself, make up your own mind as to the
accommodation that each one of them has
listed and decide whether you want to stay
at a place with rugs from wall to wall and
so on.
On that basis a visitor asks our information
girls about the accommodation as a result
of the description they can read in the book-
let. But they can even take them away. It
will be on a separate page, which is a loose-
leaf, and they can take it away with them.
Does that answer the question?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Pretty well, yes.
Would the hon. Minister advise me— this
where-to-stay publication he referred to,
this I presume lists all of the places hcensed
in Ontario? Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: All over the province.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Is it done without any
discrimination?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Oh, absolutely!
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, does the
department operate information services in
the United States in cities neighbouring the
border? I am referring to Buffalo, Niagara
Falls and Detroit? Take the tremendous con-
vention business that is found in these larger
centres.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No, we do not. In
Chicago and New York, where the federal
bureau has oflfices we place staffs for a period
in the summer in both those ofiBces for the
convenience of the public there.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, then I would
suggest to the hon. Minister that he consider
taking one or two members from the staffs
in the Windsor area and possibly having them
operate out of the conventions that frequent
the city of Detroit. It would certainly be to
the advantage of the tourist industry back
home if these people found out that immedi-
ately across the river from them was this
grand province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I think the state of
Michigan knows the grand province of
Ontario is over here. We placed some six or
eight exhibits in a number of U.S. cities. As
a matter of fact, we plan to be in Detroit
this coming spring or summer at some con-
ventions. I know that arrangements are
made.
As stated, we do place provincial exhibits
and then as well the outfitters association
and some of the other associations put on
exhibits in cities where we are not attending
with an Ontario government exhibit. In that
case we have sent over maybe one of our
inspectors from the field or a girl, if we have
one up in that neighbourhood, to assist that
particular association in their exhibit and to
sell Ontario. Our publications are always
available to them for all over the province,
not just-
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, being avail-
able to the individual is no good. We have to
take advantage of the individual being present
there and supply him with the information
rather than trying to find him.
Vote 2104 agreed to.
242
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On vote 2105:
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I
might ask a question in relation to this esti-
mate. The hon. member for Woodbine (Mr.
Bryden) raised a point, I think, of considerable
interest, as has another hon. member who
spoke about the political allegiance of various
advertising companies.
Some months ago it was said in the com-
mittee reviewing the public account in the
province of Saskatchewan that a Regina ad-
vertising agency— the George Bothwell Co.—
was getting most of the advertising of the
C.C.F. Party in Saskatchewan, and that the
head of the firm, Mr. Bothwell, is the director
for the National Co-operative Commonwealth
Federation in Saskatchewan. I would just
like to read to the House what Mr. Russell
Brown, the Saskatchewan Minister of Industry
and Information, said: that the agency was
competing with other advertising agencies;
the fact that the head of the firm was a
supporter of any political philosophy should
not rule the firm out of business, he added.
(Laughter).
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the hon. Minister a question? Is the advertis-
ing for this government placed by tender?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: By invitation tender.
Mr. MacDonald: By invitationl This is the
most fatuous description of tenders. We have
passed the stage of describing tenders **by
invitation." Here is the answer to the
question.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Since the hon. member
has asked me a question, will he be kind
enough to tell me whether advertising is not
dealt with in Saskatchewan in the same way?
Mr. MacDonald: I am sorry; I did not get
that.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I want to clear the
records. I thought the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) was referring to
printing; printing is done by invitation tender
through the Queen's Printer. Our advertising
in the newspapers, of course, is simply placed
with all the newspapers.
Vote 2105 agreed to.
On vote 2106:
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor Sandwich): Mr.
Chairman, with regard to 2106— the historical
branch— I would like to ask the hon. Minister
if he is aware of the correspondence La
Federation des Societes Saint-Jean Baptiste
de rOntario has had with the previous Prime
Minister of the province (Mr. Frost) concern-
ing the historical site near Hawkesbury— the
project going on between the province of
Ontario and the province of Quebec concern-
ing the falls and Hydro development. I have
had some correspondence with them— I do
not know whether the other French members
on the side of the government have received
the same correspondence— but I will say that
this society is certainly concerned with what
the developments are going to do to this
historical site at the present time. They want
to save this site and they have reason to be-
lieve, very good reason to believe, that this
historical site is authentic.
I do not want to go into the whole corres-
pondence they have had with the previous
Prime Minister but I will say that certain
paragraphs of their letter dated October 26
to the Prime Minister state:
Authorities on history maintain that there
is a remarkable historic site at this loca-
tion. However, under an agreement which
was passed between the governments of
Ontario and of Quebec, a portion of this
historic site is destined to be flooded,
following the building of a dam a few
miles down the stream. Our society
appealed to the Quebec government— and
in particular to the Quebec Hydro Com-
mission—in order that excavations be made
on the site before the construction of the
dam.
Three months ago we received a favour-
able reply to our request and the services
of Mr. Thomas E. Lee, an archaeologist of
international reputation, have been re-
tained. Mr. Lee was successful in finding a
great number of precious remains to deter-
mine the exact location of an old fort
which was the scene of a battle. Some
historians maintain that this was the site
of the battle fought by Vaudreuil, while
other historians and archaeologists are of
the opinion that this is the site of the Long
Sault battle where, in 1660, DoUard des
Dreneaux and 16 of his companions gave
their hves to save the French colony. Both
historians and archaeologists agree that
without any doubt there is an extremely
precious historic site at this location.
DECEMBER 7, 1961
243
We have heard from reHable sources
that your government proposes to develop
in this vicinit>' a large park area which
would include a portion of the Langvin
farm. However before the work is started
on that project there is danger that the
most precious portion of the land will be
flooded when a new Quebec Hydro-Electric
Power generating station goes into opera-
tion. We have been informed that this
might happen as soon as February next.
We know from experience that in such
circumstances the provincial government
has always taken a great interest in the
preservation of historic sites, for that reason
we hope that it may be possible to include
the above-described portion of land in a
proposed park area.
We take the liberty of stressing that tliis
matter is a particularly urgent one be-
cause of the agreement between the two
provinces of Ontario and Quebec, men-
tioned above. Engineers estimate that a
retaining wall of approximately 250 feet
in length and 20 feet high would be
necessary to save this remarkable historic
site being flooded. We hope you will be
able to give your kindest consideration to
this matter and we thank you in antici-
pation. . . . Yours very truly.
La Federation des Societes St Jean
Baptiste de I'Ontario
Signed: J. Farrell, secretary, 539 Dun-
brad Street, Ottawa, 2, Ontario.
And I have a photostat copy of the reply
of Mr. Frost as recent as November 5-
November 8, which states that:
Your letter of October 26 is at hand
and I have very carefully noted the prob-
lems you outlined. I am indeed greatly
interested in the preservation of historic
sites in the province and shall be pleased
to take this up with the proper authorities.
Sincerely yours,
Leslie M. Frost.
Now I would like to ask the hon. Minister
what the department is doing to preserve
this site and what are their plans?
Mr. G. Lavergne (Russell): Mr. Chairman,
may I be permitted to say a few words on
this particular matter? My hon. friend across
has mentioned Mr. Farrell, who is the sec-
retary of La Societe St Jean Baptiste de
rOntario, who lives right in my riding.
Apparently my hon. friend was not home
last week to receive the latest bit of informa-
tion that was sent out by Mr. Farrell be-
cause, as you say, this last letter was dated in
December. It was a letter sent to Mr. Far-
rell, over the signature of the hon. Minister
of Travel and Publicity and the footnote
that Mr. Farrell had on that is that they were
very, very happy with the progress being
made.
I thought to give this information to my
hon. friend from Windsor if he had not re-
ceived the letter. He will have another letter
at home, I am sure, because I had a letter.
They are very, very happy with the progress
made— both under the former hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost) and again under the
hon. Minister of Travel and Publicity (Mr.
Cathcart).
Mr. Belanger: I appreciate very much
the hon. member giving me that information,
but I would like to hear from the hon. Min-
ister—what are the plans? That letter may
be at home— I am not too sure— but I will
be home this week-end and find out. I
would like to hear from the hon. Minister—
what are the plans?
Mr. Lavergne: I would not like to answer
for the hon. Minister, I can assure you; I
am not capable. I just wanted to pass that
information on.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Mr. Chairman, I am
familiar with the matter the hon. member
has brought to our attention. It is a fact
that this letter went back to Mr. Farrell.
All I can say at the moment is that the
Archaeological and Historical Sites Board—
which is part of our department— is negotiat-
ing with the people that the hon. member
has referred to. They do have the matter
under study, I could not tell you at the
moment what the plans are.
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public Wel-
fare): That area is in my riding and is very
close to the town of Hawkesbury.
Mr. Chairman, for many, many years— as a
matter of fact as far back as 25 years ago—
the same Mr. Lee had done some research on
that very spot. However, the whole problem
seems to be what is it? I think the Quebec
government have also at the moment people
looking into the matter at their own expense
as well as Quebec Hydro. The historians
are not set as to what happened there. Was
it a trading post? Was it somewhere where
a battle happened to take place under a
certain general or between the heroes of Long
Sault and the Iroquois? or was it something
else?
I am sure that it is what La Federation is
trying to find out as well as everyone
244
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
interested in the historical matter of the site,
and as soon as that has been established I am
sure we will be informed so we know where
we stand. I have had many written and
verbal discussions with them— the different
presidents of the different groups of the
federation and the local association— and I
can assure the House that these have been
taken under very active advisement, I would
be rather afraid of recommending that any
public money should be spent unless we were
very sure of what did happen there.
Mr. Belanger: This dam might be in
operation by February, 1962 and if it is put
in operation there goes your historical site.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Decisions are delayed
for some considerable time because I can
assure the hon member that the advisory
board composed of nine members, archeolo-
gists and historians, will not approve of an
historical site until they are very sure in their
own minds. We have been estabhshing these
plaques for some five or six years and we may
have had an odd criticism of some wording
that was on a plaque, but certainly not of
great moment because this board is very
particular.
I wanted a plaque down in my riding where
my people tell me there was an old fort.
They looked into it and refused to put the
plaque up so the Minister has not much to
say on that one. I appreciate what you have
had to say; I know the concern of both the
Quebec government and our own and the
hon. Mr. Frost's interest, but it is under
study between the two bodies concerned. I
cannot tell you what they have in mind—
whether they are going to establish a plaque
or not.
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Mr. Chairman,
I would just Uke to relate an experience I
have had in connection with one of the
plaques in my own riding. It happens to be
in the township of Blanchford in Perth County
which I have the honour to represent, at the
birthplace of a former Prime Minister of
Canada, Hon. Arthur Meighen. It was well-
received and I think all the people of Perth
County are very happy about it. Co-operation
was received from the department, from the
women's institute groups and all concerned
with the history of our country and of the
riding of Perth.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon.
Minister has had, as I have, representations
from organizations in the province partic-
ularly from the riding of Nipissing through
which the original Trans-Canada Highway
runs, in regard to historical plaques. The
representation has been made that the plaques
in such an area should be bilingual because
many represent the feats of people of the
French race, as you very well know— along
the Champlain Trail, places known to Cham-
plain, Nicolet, Brule, the great Fathers
Brebeuf and Lalemant. I know the hon.
Minister has had these representations. Has
he given any consideration that on one side
of the plaques the inscription might be in the
French language?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: This is under con-
sideration.
Mr. Spencc: Mr. Chairman, while we are
on this subject of historical plaques— I believe
last session I brought to the attention of the
hon. Minister the historical spot of Shrews-
bury and he informed me that they were
going to look into it. I wonder what has
become of that?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Was there a request
made for us to look into it?
Mr. Spence: Well, I brought it up in the
Throne Speech and the hon. Minister nodded
that he would look after that.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I am sorry but we at
no time have gone out into a district or an
area or a municipality and asked them if they
would like to have the plaque established.
We prefer that the request should come from
a local association and then when the plaque
is established we ask the local association or
municipality to sponsor the opening ceremony
and the unveiling.
Mr. Spence: Well, Mr. Chairman, I thought
I made the request to look into this.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I made a similar
request to the board myself and they would
not pay any attention to me. They said: Get
your association to send in their request and
we will look into it. The hon. member
and I are on a par. Have them send it in
and I will be glad to pursue the matter.
Mr. Lawrence: The new item, at least I
think it is a new item, item 8. I was wonder-
ing which society is that? Obviously it is a
grant. Is it the Ontario society?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Yes, that is the Ontario
Archaeological Society.
Vote 2106 agreed to.
DECEMBER 7, 1961
245
On vote 2107:
Mr. Troy: Mr. Chairman, I have a number
of questions to direct to the hon. Minister
on 2107; particularly about the censor board.
How many members are there on this censor
board and how long have they served?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: There are five members
on the censor board.
Mr. Troy: And how long have they been
sitting as members of that board?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I think some of them
have served since the censor board was first
established.
Mr. Troy: Well, how many years would
it be?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: About twenty-five.
Mr. Troy: Twenty-five! Well, I strongly
suggest that the hon. Minister make some
changes. I think that it should be a rotating
board; that the members should not be on
there any more than four or five years. I am
sure that after looking at the films and the
smut and pornography and all these other
things for the last 25 years, these members*
sentiments and senses must be so calcified
and corroded that I am sure it would be—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: There are a couple of
ladies on the board.
Mr. Troy: Well, that is all the more reason
why you should relieve them from such a
situation. I notice, Mr. Chairman, that last
year 58 American films, 21 British films and
11 foreign films were classified as adult and
as restricted. Now surely, after looking at
those things year after year it would be an
act of charity for them to be relieved from
that particular situation. There is another—
now, this is nothing to laugh about, after all.
It is a very serious situation.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I am not laughing.
Mr. Troy: I did not say the hon. Minister
was laughing, but some of these other people
—I will not classify them—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I know, but it is going
on the record as though I am laughing about
it. I am not laughing.
Mr. Troy: I notice that the board itself in
its report said that there was a continuing
blast of unsavoury and sex-in-the-raw movies.
I find too, that the board has certain powers.
Has it got any power to suspend a licence
of a theatre if it allows youngsters to go in
there to adult entertainment?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Yes.
Mr. Troy: They have? Well, in the last
year— or even the last 25 years— how many
theatres have had their licences suspended
because of allowing the youngsters to go in
unaccompanied by adults to see a picture
that is classed as adult entertainment?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I could not answer
that. Is the hon. member saying that young
people go in to see a restricted film without
company?
Mr. Troy: Not even an adult film. I do not
know just what the hon. Minister means by
an adult film, either.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: An adult film means
that young persons can go in so long as they
are in the company of an older person.
Mr. Troy: I know that. I meant restricted
—18 years of age or more. In this edition of
one of the Toronto newspapers, most of the
films are either restricted or adult. The
other week I was in town and I saw an
advertisement for a film— I will not mention
the name; people might go and see it— but
the advertisement told us it was a very honest
picture, together with a whole lurid de-
scription of the film. It was a restricted
picture and on the very bottom line was "not
recommended for children". Now, if it was
a restricted picture, and knowing very
well-
Mr. Bryden: Would the hon. member have
recommended it for children?
Mr. Troy: No, I do not think so. I have
certain principles that I follow. There is
another point also. In regard to the advertise-
ment-
Mr. W. B. Lewis (York-Humber): Mr.
Chairman, can we deal with that point for
a moment? The hon. member-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Troy: Again, does the censor board
check these advertisements for these restricted
and adult films?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Yes, they do.
Mr. Troy: They do. Then I think the hon.
Minister must take a look at his censor board
because, coming from a hockey game the
other night, I saw an advertisement for one
246
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of these films. There were two people in a
clinch and one was half undressed. Does the
hon. Minister suppose that is the kind of
picture that youngsters should see? Does it
not stir up an emotion that they should not
have?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Troy: I am quite serious about this,
and I think hon. members should be serious,
because I recall the Detroit father whose
youngster was found mutilated and raped in
a field. He said he did not blame the man,
he blamed the society that allowed such
things to be developed. We are just touching
on films now because they do not have any-
diing to do with the "Tropic of Cancer" and
that sort of thing.
An hon. member: What about the parents?
Mr. Troy: That is right, what about the
parents? Sure, they are also involved in it,
but then most of these pictures invite them
to go. Some of the adults that go there are
adult in age— that is all. Once their emotions
are stirred up, it is hard to say what is going
to happen. So I suggest to the hon. Minister
that he recommend to his board of censors
that, where it is a restricted film, it just
should be the name of the film, the time of
the entertainment, and none of these lurid
pictures. Do they also censor-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Troy: I know; there is that problem
too, and we have the problem of the news-
papers, but do they also censor TV films?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No.
Mr. Troy: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Well, we would have to
go over to Washington-
Mr. Troy: It says in the statutes that the
board has the power to censor every film.
Now, does the hon. Minister mean to tell me
that the films presented on television are not
films in the category as covered by this
section?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: For the information of
the hon. member, that would be a federal
matter— things coming across the border. We
are away off the track.
Mr. Troy: Well, I am just asking for infor-
mation.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I think he is very much
on the track.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Insofar as a TV film?
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, not so far as TV
films are concerned, but the hon. Minister is
making a laughing stock of a serious problem.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I am not making a
laughing stock out of it; I have not laughed
at any time, and I paid particular attention
to what he had to say.
Mr. Troy: Does the censor board censor
advertisements over the radio or TV, or films?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No, it does not.
Mr. Troy: Nothing to do with it?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No.
Mr. Troy: I just asked that question
because—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, do I have the
floor now? May I ask tlie hon member for
Nipissing (Mr. Troy), in light of the fact
that the motion picture operators in this
country today— and especially the province of
Ontario— are having a tremendous job to get
along and make ends meet, does he have
any specific points, or moments of truth, or
facts, or violations where children are going
in to these adult films? Let him say so, so that
we can do something about it; but do not
let him persecute the motion picture industry
indiscriminately.
Mr. Troy: It is not a case of trying to
persecute the industry.
An hon. member: Well, what is the hon.
member doing?
Mr. Troy: What am I doing? My original
point was that the censor board, surely, after
looking at these films and all kinds of objec-
tionable material for 25, 20 or 15 years—
certainly their senses must be calcified and
corroded because of that, and I think we
should have some fresh stuff on the board.
Mr. Lewis: Nonsense. The hon. member
is preaching the good book without even
opening it.
Mr. Troy: I have seen this with my own
eyes, I have seen line-ups for adult enter-
tainment and not an adult there at all.
Mr. Lewis: Give us the names so we can
get after them.
Vote 2107 agreed to.
DECEMBER 7, 1961
247
On vote 2108:
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I want
to ask a question, but let me reiterate what
my colleague has said. I think some of the
films that are being shown in this country
are not fit for even adults, let alone children,
and I think the hon. Minister should take a
very serious view of the situation, if it be so,
that children are being allowed into these
adult film houses unescorted. I am not say-
ing that they are or are not, but some of the
films are not fit even for morons to watch,
let alone sensible, intelligent adults. My
friend across the way wants to know if we
have any suggestions for this depressed
picture industry. I would suggest that if they
clean up some of the filth they have on the
screens today, it might be possible to get a
few more patrons into their theatres.
But the thing that makes me wonder, Mr.
Chairman, is that I understand the theatre
business is depressed and that the number
of films being turned out are less than before.
I wonder if the hon. Minister would advise
the hon. members how many films have been
censored in the past year, and how that
figure compares with the past, say, three,
four years?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Four hundred and
ninety films; 210 U.S., 61 British and 219 of
others.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: That would be a
total of what?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Four hundred and
ninety.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: How does that com-
pare over the previous, say, five years;' or
some estimate over the past period of time?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: There is a difference
of five. There were 485, according to the
figures that I have, the previous year.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder then if maybe this department has
many other duties besides the censoring of
these films? Is that correct? I am wonder-
ing why this estimate of $118,000, if it is
simply to censor some 500 films a year?
Does the department have other duties?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Oh yes! We have
inspectors out in the field who inspect
theatres for fire hazards and so on; and act in
a supervisory capacity for the projection
operators in these theatres. Oh yes, the re-
sponsibilities are considerably more than
that. In many of these pictures that are
shown in censoring a film, it is not simply
a case of approval of disapproval, but parts
are cut out.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the
hon. member for York Humber (Mr. Lewis)
I have a letter that was sent to the—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Mr. Chairman, may I
correct that statement before the hon. mem-
ber goes on, please? Four hundred and
eighty-five the previous year— oh, I was right
—485 the previous year; 567 the previous
year to that and 490 this past year.
Mr. Troy: I have a letter to the London
Free Press, March 24, 1960. I will not
read the first name, but I can show the hon.
member the letter and:
In London on Saturday with time to
spare while my car was being serviced,
I dropped into a movie theatre. The first
picture was entitled Vice Raid and had
to do with the call girl racket. I presume
you understand what that is. Next was
The Pusher, about dope addicts. There
was news and other programmes that were
good. I am not criticizing the show which
was labelled outside as Adult Entertain-
ment, but I was disturbed to observe that
scores of children, many of them eight,
10 and 12 years of age, unaccompanied
by adults, were in attendance.
I will not state any more of the letter,
but I can show the hon. member the press
clipping with the man's name and his home
address.
Mr. Lewis: Did the hon. member report
it?
Mr. Troy: I did not report it, that hap-
pened in London. I live a long way from
London, I do not visit there very often.
Mr. Lewis: I do not know why the hon.
member could not do something about it.
Mr. Troy: I was not there; as I say it was
a press clipping.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
of the hon. Minister if all films entering the
province of Ontario are censored; or reviewed
by the censor board?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: All 35 millimetre films.
Mr. Newman: Thirty-five millimetre? Are
films used for television production 35 milli-
metres?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Pardon?
248
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Newman: For television viewing.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No.
Mr. Newman: They are not?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I think both 16 and 35
are shown on TV.
Mr. Newman: On TV screens? Then any
film, before it can enter the province of
Ontario, must be viewed by the censor board?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Films that are shown
in Ontario and to be shown in Ontario would
be censored by our censor board.
Mr. Newman: That is right, then likewise
the department would be censoring, or have
the opportunity to censor, films that are go-
ing to be shown on television, because they
must enter the province of Ontario first, must
they not?
Mr. Chairman, just this past year we have
allowed motion picture theatres to be open
on Sundays and as a result of that we find
that youth has the opportunity to visit these
theatres on a Sunday afternoon. This is all
the more reason why the censor board now
should take another look at their attitude to-
wards the motion picture films. There is the
need for more censoring as the result of the
fact that younger people are getting into the
shows on Sunday afternoons.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I might just say in
reply that I just happen to have a copy of a
report of the board and I would like to quote
a portion. I quote:
Again the board has reminded the indus-
try, both on this continent and abroad, that
the prime purpose of the motion picture
industry is to entertain, to permit its
patrons to forget their problems and to
relax for a couple of hours.
These are human beings who are serving
in this capacity and they too appreciate the
problems we are concerned about.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I may disagree
a little with the views of my colleagues in
this. I respect their views and respect the
views of the hon. Minister, but in the final
analysis, as anyone who has looked even in
cursory fashion at some of the criticisms
levelled at public entertainment by George
Bernard Shaw will agree, the final analysis
is the public good taste. If a production is
bad, the public will stay away from it in
droves; as they did the other night with the
pugilistic encounter at Maple Leaf Gardens
—and I am being very fair when I describe
it as that.
However, it is a pretty sad commentary on
our society that whenever we think of censor-
ship we think of the censors with their
magnifying glasses out scanning these films
and looking for such things as an obscene
treatment of sex or perhaps an obsession with
narcotics or some of the other base and lower
forms of the vices. Yet having read the re-
views of the film that is playing in this city
now and will be playing in centres no doubt
all across the country— I refer to the latest
extravaganza out of Hollywood dealing with
the life and death of Jesus Christ, which of
course was the greatest event in human
history— that the treatment of the subject
matter in that film as far as I know was
never touched by the censors. The treatment
of this subject verges on the blasphemous and
the irreligious. Not only does it fabricate
events in the life of Jesus Christ that never
took place; in order to get into the true
Hollywood tradition, they had to— out of their
own niinds, out of a piece of wholecloth— they
had to put in a couple of battles between the
Roman army—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): They did not follow the book?
Mr. Sopha: No, they did not follow the
book, they did not follow the script. Not
only did they not do that, but I am also told—
I have not gone to see the film and I doubt
if I will give them my $2.50 in order to go
and see it— that one of the most significant
scenes of the trial before Pontius Pilate, that
is where the mob is asked what they would
do between the two malefactors before them,
when the mob said "Give us Barrabas", they
left that one out entirely.
I say that it is a sad commentary on our
society and the board of censorship that when
—and I do not think it is too extreme a criti-
cism—Hollywood seeks to turn the sign of the
Cross into a dollar sign, it passes the board
of censors without any comment whatsoever.
Who is to say that if the board of censors
had looked at that film and said that this does
not depict in any true and accurate sense
the happening of the greatest event in human
history, take it back to Hollywood and put it
in the rubbish can; who is to say that the
public would not have supported the censors
in their decision?
But where censorship goes wrong— and I
would reduce the vote of this department to
a dollar, if I could persuade my colleagues
to go along with me— where the censors go
DECEMBER 7, 1961
249
wrong is the narrowness of their approach.
They look at the film and they see if Brigitte
Bardot is depicted in heroic stature, smuggling
dope into the country, and if none of that type
of thing is offered, then the film is fit for
human consumption.
On the other hand, as I point out, Cecil B.
DeMille, or whoever it is from Hollywood,
can treat the life of Jesus Christ in blas-
phemous and irreligious fashion, as I am told
that film does. No less reviewers than the
reviewer of Time magazine and the reviewer
in the Jesuit periodical Commentary has said
that; and yet the board of censors, perhaps
influenced by the vast amount of money that
was spent on its production and suspecting
that if it is given fair treatment that type of
thing must be allowed, make no criticism at
all.
In the final analysis if, as I say— and here
is my point— if the best judge is public good
taste, no matter what your board of censors
attempt to do, they or anyone like them, or
anyone presupposing that he can influence
human thinking along that way, will never
either add much to human morality or detract
much from it.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr. Chair-
man, is the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha) speaking for the Liberal Party when
he recommends that films and other media be
censored for accuracy?
Mr. Sopha: I would think that I speak for
the Liberal Party when I say that films ought
to be censored for blasphemy.
An hon. member: What about historical
content?
Mr. Sopha: Not accuracy, but blasphemy;
the two words are spelled differently.
Vote 2108 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the commit-
tee of supply rise and report that it has come
to certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr.
Speaker, may I extend my compliments to
you, sir, together with my thanks for the
many courtesies given me by you and your
office during the past year.
It is a pleasure to join previous debaters
in congratulating the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) and hon. members of his new
Cabinet; and particularly the hon. Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) and the new
hon. Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Mac-
Naughton ) both of whom are personal friends
of mine, the new hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions (Mr. Haskett) a desk mate of
mine during our first session in this House;
the hon. Minister without Portfoho (Mr.
Grossman), newly appointed chief commis-
sioner for the L.C.B.O., the hon. members
for St. George (Mr. Price), Renfrew North
(Mr. Hamilton), Peterborough (Mr. Brown)
and Peel (Mr. Davis) on their recent distinc-
tions and all other hon. members whose
appointments and accomplishments have been
saluted in recent weeks.
I, too, pay tribute to the hon. member for
Victoria (Mr. Frost) whose excellence as
Prime Minister will be recorded in song and
story for generations to come.
Before presenting personal comments and
suggestions for the consideration of the
Legislature, I should Hke to examine a few
of the remarks made by previous Opposition
speakers. Mr. Chairman, it was a week ago
yesterday that the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) paid a visit to
western Ontario. The next day he came back
into the Legislature and presumed to be an
expert on things agricultural, he presumed to
speak for the people in our part of the
country. Among other things, he drew atten-
tion to 1951 D.B.S. figures and he cited these
as evidence that the province was in pretty
poor shape. On page 138, the hon. member
for York South said:
It will be very interesting to see what
change has taken place in this decade.
And, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to
tell the House that I have certain figures for
the year 1960, which I should hke to read
to you now.
The hon. member for York South said that
18 per cent of the households in Ontario had
no piped water at all in 1951. He will be glad
to know that in 1960, this figure was 5.8 per
cent.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South):
Where did you get these figures?
Mr. White: These figures are taken from
the D.B.S. publication, catalogue 64-202,
issue May 1960, serial 9603-501-60, volume 8,
pages 15 and 16.
Mr. MacDonald: Based on what?
250
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. White: These are the D.B.S. figures,
based on their sample surveys which
apparently are carried out annually; and they
are total figures only. Incidentally, Mr.
Speaker, you will be interested to know that
while the figure has fallen from 18 per
cent to 5.8 per cent here in Ontario, the
figure in Saskatchewan is 43.6 per cent.
The hon. member for York South pointed
out that in 1951, 27 per cent of the house-
holds of Ontario had no bath or shower. He
will be glad to know that this figure has now
fallen to 11.9 per cent, compared to 50.2
per cent in the province of Saskatchewan.
The hon. member for York South told us
that in 1951, 22 per cent of the households
in Ontario had no toilets— either flush or
chemical— this has fallen to 8.7 per cent,
compared to 44 per cent in the province
of Saskatchewan.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that people
are leaving Saskatchewan? Is it any wonder
that while Ontario increased its population
from 3,432,00 in 1931 to 5,405,000 in 1956,
Saskatchewan's population fell from 922,000
to 881,000? Those are the D.B.S. figures too.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: They left while the
Liberals were in power. The population has
been rising under the C.C.F.
Mr. White: Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker,
that last year-1960-while 55,000 new Cana-
dians settled in Ontario, only 2,000 went to
the province of Saskatchewan? I would ask,
in concluding this section of my speech, sir,
that the hon. member for York South not
presume to speak for the farmers or the
other citizens of western Ontario. As a matter
of fact, perhaps he heard the newest saying
down in that part of the country— the N.D.P.
is N.D.G.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York
South dealt at some length about business
and union illegality, mentioning in particular
a court case against an electrical contractor.
And he threw out the challenge: "I look
forward to a Conservative to draw attention
to this kind of thing."
I am glad to do so now with one or two
constructive suggestions.
I think it is perfectly shameful when
industrialists and businessmen break the law.
I think it behooves the Canadian Manu-
facturers Association, the Canadian Chamber
of Commerce and trade organizations to
discipline the corporations and executives who
are found guilty-
Mr. MacDonald: They never do.
Mr. White: I am making the suggestion-
let me finish. I think it behooves these busi-
ness organizations to exert some discipline
on their members, and I think it likewise
behooves union leaders and those who pre-
sume to speak for them to discipline their
members-
Mr. MacDonald: They do.
Mr. White: —to discipline their members
when they carry out illegal strikes and such
like. They discipline them for raiding other
unions, but that is about the sum and sub-
stance of the discipline that goes on. There
was an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail
a week ago, headed "A Get Together— or A
Plague on Both Their Houses,^' which quotes
from a Royal commission report, written by
Mr. Justice Tritschler, and I would like to
make reference to this for a moment or two.
The report says:
Perhaps management and labour, to pre-
serve their way of free life, may be
persuaded to find larger areas of agree-
ment so that the now silently suffering
public will not arise to wish a plague on
both their houses. The conferring or im-
posing of corporate status and responsibility
upon trade unions is in the opinion of the
Commission a conditioned precedent to any
improvement in industrial relations.
On that very point, Mr. Speaker, I person-
ally would be reluctant to see this suggestion
implemented. I think there might be some-
thing a little less dangerous in application
and implication. I think perhaps that a half-
way step could be taken. Mr. Justice
Tritschler would put teeth in the law by
making a breach of the collective bargaining
agreement— by either party— actionable at the
suit of the other party. A trade union which
defaulted in obeying the judgment of any
court would be disqualified from acting as a
bargaining agent. I am reluctant to see unions
incorporated, and subject to law suits, because
I think that might place them at a distinct
disadvantage and, in fact, might lead to tlie
financial ruin of many good unions which are
serving their members well. I think that
unions and management should be subjected
to some kind of penalty if they deliberately
break the contract which they have made.
The hon. member for York South had
quite a lot of fun with the remark that the
hon. Prime Minister made, concerning the
difference in the Liberal and Conservative
Parties. Of course, this hon. member sought
to show that there was little if any difference
DECEMBER 7, 1961
251
between the two other parties. I suggest to
the hon. members of this House that such is
not the case.
As a matter of fact, I think there would
be more validity in saying that there is no
difference between the Liberal Party and the
N.D.P. as I will now seek to estabhsh. In
the Toronto Globe and Mail article dated
Saturday, July 1, an article about the Liberal
young people's meeting quoted liberally from
remarks made by the executives and members
of that organization.
Let me quote Jean David, president of the
National Young People's Federation: "It is
my opinion that this party is not as Liberal as
it should be".
The Globe and Mail article continues:
Ontario Liberal Leader John Winter-
meyer was among the party who heard Mr.
David's brief speech to the 100 delegates
at the final convention banquet. If the
reaction to Mr. David's presentation had
been merely polite, the statement could
merely have been dismissed as of little
import; but he brought down the house.
Linked with other developments, it con-
tributed to evidence of a growing tide of
leftism. A caucus of Liberal members in
Parliament had shown that the party was
the most reactionary in Canada on the
Cuban issue.
The president of the Toronto and York
Young Liberal Association said his party
should try to come to terms with the New
Party. It was Mr. H. Malcolmson who
introduced a resolution for an alliance with
the New Party. Consternation swept
through the top brackets of the party after
the motion passed. John Beckett of Hamil-
ton said people have been brainwashed by
the press, television and radio into be-
lieving that communism was the worst
thing in the world. We should pick things
from communism that could be used in
advocating control of industry.
When asking if that was not what the
CCF had been saying for years, Mr.
Beckett said: Yes, we are moving more to-
ward the left all the time.
These are the Liberals I am quoting, Mr.
Speaker.
Despite the shock that may be given
Liberal elders, the young Liberals appear
to be drawing closer to embracing some of
the planks in the current CCF policy
which, they contend, no longer is sociahsm.
And so time will prove, sir, that there is
very little if any difference between the two
left wing parties.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot take part in this
Throne debate without mentioning the sub-
ject of crime, because the challenge has been
made so clearly and so strongly that I for
one must comment on both the subject and
the way in which it was brought to the
attention of the people in this province. Of
course there is crime in Ontario. If there
were not we would have no police. Of course
some of this crime is organized. If it were
not we should not have the very large
organized forces that we find to be necessary.
Of course the criminals are using more
modern methods. If not, how could the
government justify the new police college,
announced about a year ago? There may well
be some increased activity in crime. How else
could the Attorney-General justify an increase
in the size of the Ontario Provincial Police?
It may be that there is serious evidence of
organized crime here in Toronto, or elsewhere
in the province. It may be. I do not know.
I think perhaps the government appointed a
pohce commission— or announced the appoint-
ment of such a commission— with that very
problem in mind, and perhaps this is the
answer.
Certainly responsible journals in the prov-
ince think this is the answer. Yes, the Toronto
Telegram, and the Toronto Globe and Mail,
the London Free Press and many other papers
think that this problem should be investi-
gated by the new Police Commission and, as
a matter of fact, the hon. leader of the
Opposition was not at all clear just a matter
of a few weeks ago as to how this problem
should be tackled.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. White: It was only a very short time
ago that the hon. leader of the Opposition
was suggesting a Kefauver-type committee
investigation. Now he says that only a Royal
commission will do. Why the change in the
recommendation? I suggest, Mr. Speaker,
that it has been changed because the Opposi-
tion wants to make it as difiBcult as possible
for the government to appoint a Royal com-
mission. They are doing it because of the
five by-elections in January. It seems to me
that decent-thinking, honest members of this
House, regardless of political affihation,
should support the police commission idea
which was announced in the Throne speech;
submit whatever evidence they may have,
and offer whatever proof they have available,
so that the problem can be tackled intelli-
gently and without injuring innocent parties.
I would like to review this matter, Mr.
Speaker, to put it in proper perspective.
252
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Last May, the hon. member for Sudbury
(Mr. Sopha) earned headlines all over the
province charging crime and corruption in
high places. He was challenged at that time
to put his facts and figures before a court
of law and he refused to do so. His own
leader, the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer), said this, as quoted in
the Toronto Telegram of May 20:
Liberal leader John Wintermeyer
seemed surprised by Mr. Sopha's charge
implicating a Cabinet minister. "My posi-
tion has been, is and will be that I will
not be any part of a speculation, accusa-
tion, innuendo that may or may not be
accurate," he said. He said these charges
might "weaken the whole cause of a broad
probe into the provincial crime picture."
I think that is right. But I think that is
exactly what the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion turned his back on when he stood up
and quoted hearsay evidence hour after hour.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that
while the hon. leader of the Opposition made
certain pious proclamations in his speech,
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am the leader of
the Opposition and I am prepared, Mr.
Speaker, to tell you now that I will vacate
any privilege I have; I am prepared to
waive any privilege I have in this House.
Further on at page 101 of Hansard:
1 will be responsible for everything I
have said and that I say from here on,
and I vacate any privilege I have as a
member of this House.
I thought when I heard those words that
it was a very hollow offer and I have since
confirmed with parliamentary experts that
those remarks were meaningless. Those re-
marks, and the hon. leader of the Opposition
as a lawyer should have known it, those
remarks in no way affected the immunity
which he had when he gave this speech in
this House.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): I intended it at the time.
Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, if he wants to
substantiate the remarks which he made
vacating the immunity which he had, why
does he not step out into the corridor and
read the speech again?
( Applause. )
The hon. leader of the Opposition said, as
quoted in the Toronto Telegram of May 16:
I will not be any part of a smear cam-
paign where I simply divulge all the
rumours that are in my possession in the
knowledge that such statements will pro-
duce headlines. Such tactics tend to in-
jure the characters and reputations of in-
dividuals.
At about that same time the Liberal hier-
archy apparently curtailed the activities of the
hon. member for Sudbury. Even the Toronto
Daily Star ran an editorial on May 23 as
follows, which said in part:
Let Mr. Sopha put up or shut up.
Mr. Sopha has questioned the govern-
ment's integrity in the most vital area, the
administration of justice. Mr. Sopha's
clear duty now as a citizen and as an
elected representative is to back up his
charge with evidence.
This is the Toronto Daily Star 1 am speak-
ing from, Mr. Speaker.
To put up or shut up. He should lay the
facts before the Attorney-General Kelso
Roberts.
But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Sudbury did not put up, he shut up. I sug-
gest, Mr. Speaker, and I am informed by
friends of the Liberal hierarchy, that the
charges made and the very intense speaking
campaign that was commenced at that time
was curtailed and postponed for political
reasons. I have reason to believe, Mr. Speaker,
that these charges would not have come for-
ward at this time had it not been that the
hon. Prime Minister called by-elections for
January 18.
I say, sir, that this approach to this very
grave subject of crime is almost criminally
irresponsible, if I may use the words that the
hon. member for York South ( Mr. Mac-
Donald) applied in a different context. Yes,
I think it is almost criminally irresponsible for
hon. members of the Opposition to undermine
the law enforcement agencies and the courts
of this province for political purposes.
Excuse me for a moment, Mr. Speaker,
while I consult some of the evidence which 1
have here. I have to abbreviate these remarks
because of the time at my disposal.
The Toronto Globe and Mail at about the
same time ran the following editorial which
I quote in part:
Mr. Sopha and Crime
Mr. Elmer Sopha, Liberal member of the
Legislature for Sudbury, is gravely irres-
ponsible when he refuses to inform police
officers of evidence of wrongdoing which
he says has come to his attention. He has
stated that he has evidence of bribery and
corruption. In refusing to disclose evidence
DECEMBER 7, 1961
253
to the poHce Mr. Sopha is also placing
himself in a position where Attorney-
General Kelso Roberts might be justified
in charging him with obstructing oflBcers of
the law.
The Criminal Code, section 110, reads-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. White: Well, my friend, I know Liberal
lawyers in London who think that the wild
charges which have been made and these
deliberate statements which are being made
by the Opposition that they have certain
facts which they will not divulge, are defin-
itely against the law and that a charge likely
should be laid in order to straighten the
matter out.
The Criminal Code, section 110, reads:
Everybody who resists or wilfully ob-
structs a police officer or peace officer in
the execution of his duty or any person
unlawfully acting in aid of such an officer
is guilty of an indictable offence and is
liable to imprisonment for two years.
Now, with the session on, of course, a
charge could not likely be laid. "It is time
for Mr. Sopha to place public duty ahead of
party"— and these remarks, it seems to me,
apply to all the hon. members of the Opposi-
tion—"and to co-operate fully with the police.
Continued refusal to do so will reflect seri-
ously on his fitness as a member of the Legis-
lature."
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Yes, and I did
offer to co-operate with the police, too, if
they did not run and tell the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) where the information
came from.
Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, why does he not
lay a charge in a court of law?
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Why does
the hon. member not lay a charge?
Mr. White: As a decent, honest, honourable
citizen ought to do, and is expected to do?
We are used to hearing irresponsible
charges from the leader of the C.C.F. and his
supporters. We are not used to this same
McCarthy-hke approach from the members of
the Liberal party. I say McCarthy-like,
deservedly, because Senator McCarthy stood
up in a place where his remarks were immune
to action and named names and repeated
hearsay and quoted third-hand evidence or
pretence at evidence, knowing full well that
the truth would never catch up with his
remarks. We see the same thing happening
here, I am sorry to say, and I say further,
Mr. Speaker, that Liberals in London who
are friends of mine find it perfectly shocking
to see the Opposition using these McCarthy-
like tactics. I would go so far as to say, Mr.
Speaker, that the Opposition parties will find
to their sorrow that the decent people of this
province in the five ridings in which there
are to be by-elections will not let these
unprovable, unsuable accusations deter them
from sending in five good Conservatives to
lead this province of ours to even greater
progress.
Applause.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary)
moves the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed with the
orders on the order paper and the Throne
debate, if there is time to continue.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6:00 o'clock, p.m.
M
No. 12
ONTARIO
Eegisilature of Ontario
Betiates!
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Friday, December 8, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, December 8, 1961
Co-operative Loans Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spence, first reading 257
Bailiffs Act, 1960-1961, bill to amend, reported 259
Coroners Act, bill to amend, reported 259
Crown Attorneys Act, bill to amend, reported 259
Devolution of Estates Act, bill to amend, reported 259
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, held 259
Jurors Act, bill to amend, reported 259
Legitimacy Act, 1961-1962, bill intituled, reported 259
Master and Servant Act, bill to amend, reported 259
Mechanics' Lien Act, bill to amend, reported 262
Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, bill to amend, reported 262
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, reported 262
Trustee Act, bill to amend, reported 262
Dentistry Act, bill to amend, reported 262
Sanatoria for Consumptives Act, bill to amend, reported 262
Air Pollution Control Act, bill to amend, reported 262
Cancer Act, bill to amend, reported 274
Public Health Act, bill to amend, reported 274
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. White 274
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Carruthers, agreed to 278
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 278
257
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, December 8, 1961
The House met at 10:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests in the east gallery, students
from St. Jerome's High School, Kitchener,
and in the west gallery, Galloway Road
School, West Hill. Also in the east gallery,
the Ontario Provincial Council, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters' and Joiners of
America.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE CO-OPERATIVE LOANS ACT
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East) moves first
reading of bill intituled An Act to amend The
Co-operative Loans Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before tlie orders of the day, in
view of the many inquiries that have been
made of me by individuals, hon. members
of the House and by the press, I would like
to say that I will present to this House on
Monday, the government's position in relation
to the matters of administration of justice
which have been discussed in the House in
the past week.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
questions to two of the hon. Ministers, both
of which were submitted yesterday.
First to the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts). With reference to Neville Shellard
of Cayuga, who has been held for some days
incommunicado and under police guard, the
hon. Attorney-General is reported to have said
that the police "could not hold a person
indefinitely unless some charge was laid
against him." My question to the hon.
Attorney-General is, how long is "indefinitely"
and would he care to make any further
explanation on the action of the police in this
instance?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, since the body— and there has been
a suspicion of murder in this particular case-
since the body was first discovered on Shel-
lard's farm, police have been scouring the
barn, the house and the immediate area for
clues that may help in identifying who may
be responsible for the death. Shellard has
remained in his home but, as he said to a
reporter from the Hamilton Spectator and as
reported in that paper in yesterday's issue,
he was free to leave it. He has not been
under arrest.
Section 438 of the Criminal Code provides
that a person under arrest shall, when a
justice is available, which is ordinarily the
case, be taken before a justice within 24
hours.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my second
question is to the hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Allan). I am informed that a certain
church in this city, which is selling Christmas
trees as a fund-raising venture, was first told
that sales tax would apply. Then they were
told that it would not be subject to the sales
tax. Later the decision was changed again,
that the tax would apply.
Would the hon. Provincial Treasurer state
what is the situation on church sales of
Christmas trees? Second, if the tax does
apply for church sales, what is the depart-
ment's reasoning that it does not apply to
Boy Scout sales? And let there be no mis-
interpretation, Mr. Speaker. I am not argu-
ing that it should apply to Boy Scout sales.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to reply to the
question of the hon. member. I suspect that
the situation as presented to the hon. member
may have involved some misunderstanding
258
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and so I think I will just make a statement
clarifying the whole situation.
A church which is selling Christmas trees
as a fund-raising venture may register as a
vendor and collect tax on the price charged
for the trees, in which case it can buy the
trees free of tax from its suppliers. Alter-
natively, inasmuch as fund raising is an
element in the transaction, it is acceptable to
the department that the church, instead of
collecting tax on the sale of the trees, might
be deemed to be the purchaser thereof, in
which case the church should pay the tax
to its suppliers or directly to the department
at the time of purchase on the price charged
by its suppliers. When this alternative is
accepted, the church may exchange the trees
for donations and collect no further tax.
This means that there must be a tax paid
on the trees at some level. Although the
church may feel it is better not to sell them
subject to tax, as a matter of fact when the
church sells the trees subject to tax the
church does not pay any tax at all; the
buyer, the consumer of the trees, pays the
tax; as he would if he bought them from
some business enterprise.
In other words, there is one tax to be paid
on Christmas trees when they are being
dealt with by charitable organizations. Either
the charitable organization will pay tlie tax
in relation to the price paid to its supplier,
or it will register as a vendor and collect
tax on the amounts its customers pay to the
charitable organization in exchange for the
trees.
Similar arrangements are applicable in the
case of the Boy Scouts. Boy Scouts sell
Christmas cards; they sell Christmas trees.
The Boy Scout troop may take out a vendor's
permit to collect tax, in which case the boys
will collect tax on the price they charge for
the Christmas trees, Christmas cards, or
whatever else they sell, and the troop will
remit the tax so collected to the department.
If the Boy Scout troop wishes, the troop may
pay tax on the price charged to the troop for
the trees or the Christmas cards by its
suppliers, and thus avoid taking out a vendor's
permit and collecting tax.
These can be temporary permits, they do
not cost anything and can be taken out with
very little inconvenience.
So the net effect is that a church or an
organization such as the Boy Scouts on
specific fund-raising campaigns have a choice;
either they operate as a consumer under the
Act and pay tax on the purchase price of the
goods they buy to exchange for donations, or
they register with the department as a vendor
and obtain a single event permit, in which
case they will levy and collect tax on the
amounts they receive for the sale of the goods.
Mr. A. J. Rcaume (Essex North): I wanted
to ask, Mr. Speaker, is there any way of boil-
ing this thing down a little? I get a lot of
calls from churches which are going to hold
rummage sales, pie sales, cake sales, and
there is some doubt in the minds of these
people as to just who is taxable and who is
not; and what is taxable and what is not.
With all the experts that the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) has in the depart-
ment—I know he has a large group of them,
competent PR men, etc.— if he might not boil
down some sort of a simple statement that he
might put in the press so people would know
exactly what they had to do. I am not con-
cerned if he wants to spend a little more
money-
Mr. Speaker: Order! I tliink the hon.
members are well aware that at this point
they are allowed to ask supplementary ques-
tions, but not to make statements. They are
asking for information, not giving it.
Mr. Reaume: In the way of asking a ques-
tion, will the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Allan) permit a question?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member can ask the
hon. Provincial Treasurer to clarify the things
he has already said.
Mr. Reaume: Well, all right, if he would,
please.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I may inform
the hon. member that there have been expla-
nations in connection with rummage sales,
bazaars, sales of home made baking and the
like. May I state here very simply that goods
and articles donated to charitable organiza-
tions holding such sales are exempt from sales
tax when sold. If, however, material to be
sold has been purchased by such organiza-
tions for resale, it is subject to tax either at
the time of the sale or when purchased by
the organization.
Perhaps I should make a news release— I
am always happy to do anything the hon.
members opposite suggest, if it is good!
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
House in committee of the whole, Mr. K.
Brown in the chair.
DECEMBER 8, 1961
259
THE BAILIFFS ACT, 1960-61
House in committee on Bill No. 14, An
Act to amend The Bailiffs Act, 1960-61.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 14 reported.
THE LEGITIMACY ACT, 1961-62
House in committee on Bill No. 21, The
Legitimacy Act, 1961-62.
Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 21 reported.
THE CORONERS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 15, An
Act to amend The Coroners Act.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): I
move that the following section be inserted
as section 2 of the bill.
2. This Act comes into force on the day it
receives Royal assent.
and that the present section 2 of the bill be
re-numbered as section 3.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3, formerly section 2, agreed to.
Bill No. 15 reported.
THE CROWN ATTORNEYS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 16, An
Act to amend The Crown Attorneys Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 16 reported.
THE DEVOLUTION OF ESTATES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 17, An
Act to amend The Devolution of Estates Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 17 reported.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 18, An
Act to amend The Division Courts Act.
Mr. Chairman: Bill No. 18 will be held.
THE JURORS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 20, An
Act to amend The Jurors Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 20 reported.
THE MASTER AND SERVANT ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 22, An
Act to amend The Master and Servant Act.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 carry?
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to raise some matters that I
dealt with briefly in regard to this section
when the bill was before the legal bills com-
mittee. I may say that I am in favour of
the section as far as it goes and would be
quite prepared to see it passed. The only
problem is that I think it is quite clear that
this proposed amendment to The Master and
Servant Act will not accomplish the pur-
pose which the government had in mind in
bringing it in. The purpose was quite ad-
mirable, but the method of achieving it, I
think, is very doubtful.
The problem as explained in the committee
on legal bills is that cases have arisen where
an employer who contracted to do certain
work— the specific case given related to agri-
cultural work— and then hired labour to do
the work, skipped out of the country after he
got his money from the farmer, but before he
paid his workmen.
Now under The Master and Servant Act as
it now stands, my understanding is that if
there is some apprehension that that sort of
thing may happen, a summons may be issued.
That procedure has been found to be ineffec-
tive. The amendment proposes to tighten it
up by providing that under certain circum-
stances the master or employer, as he is
described in the bill, may be subject to arrest
if a justice of the peace is satisfied "he is about
to quit the territorial jurisdiction of the justice
of the peace," to quote the legal terminology
of the bill.
The difficulty as I see it, Mr. Chairman, is
that if a man is about to quit the territorial
jurisdiction he is not very likely to announce
it. The situation could arise that he is paid
off on having completed the contract and
within an hour or two he departs. The em-
ployees who were expecting to receive the
wages that they were entitled to receive as
soon as their employer, the contractor, was
paid off, would not be aware of the fact
260
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that they were not going to get their wages
until the fellow had departed. It would then
be too late. Even the power to arrest will not
solve that situation.
We were told in the committee on legal
bills that, in the town of Simcoe, the actual
problem had arisen. Itinerant workers in
Simcoe were hired by an individual who had
a contract with a farmer to take oflF his
tobacco crop and the man beat it across the
border before he paid off his workers.
As I said I fully agree with what the gov-
ernment is trying to achieve here, but I sug-
gest, Mr. Chairman, that they will fail to
achieve it.
This problem does arise from time to time.
It is not a widespread problem as I under-
stand it. Most employers will pay off their
workers, but the situation does arise from time
to time and even if it arises in only a very
few cases, I certainly think it is important that
something be done to protect workmen who,
having contributed their labour, are then
cheated out of tlieir remuneration.
At this stage I am not going to suggest an
amendment to this bill because the problem
is too complicated to attempt to solve in a
brief span of time. I am quite prepared to
see the bill go through at this stage, as it
stands, but I would suggest to the govern-
ment that The Department of Labour, which
I think is the department most intimately con-
cerned in matters of this kind, should look
into this whole question of The Master and
Servant Act— which is a very ancient Act,
based on very ancient concepts. The depart-
ment should, perhaps, consider substituting
for it what might be called a payment of
wages Act— or something like that— which
would lay down certain reasonable rules
regarding payments of wages, not only in
situations of this kind but in other situations
as well.
In this specific type of situation, my sugges-
tion to the government is that legislation
should be considered, whereby employers— of
the type referred to in this proposed amend-
ment—would be required to post a bond; or
alternatively, that the money which they are
entitled to receive from the person with
whom they have entered into a contract,
should be paid into trust, and should not be
released until evidence has been produced
that the wage claims and other legitimate
claims have been satisfied.
I do not see how this problem can be con-
trolled by any other system. As I said at the
outset, I quite agree with the purpose the
government has in mind, but I submit to the
House that, on the face of it, the method
they are proposing in this bill simply will not
have any effect on the problem at all.
A man can skip out before anyone satisfies
a justice of the peace that he is likely to skip
out, just as easily as he can skip out before
a summons is issued to him. Once he gets the
money— especially in a town like Simcoe— it
is a matter of an hour at the outside, before
he would be across the border to Niagara
Falls or Buffalo. It seems to me that in this
type of situation where, shall I say, itinerant
contractors hire itinerant workers, there should
be some provision whereby the money due
to the contractor is held up until there is
evidence that he has satisfied wage claims
particularly, and other claims against him as
well.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources ) : Could I ask the hon. member a
question or two in this connection? He is
talking about something in which we all
have an interest.
There is, of course. The Mechanics' Lien
Act which does provide— where persons per-
form labour, or supply material— that the
owner who is going to pay the contractor
must hold back either 15 or 20 per cent of the
amount owing, depending on the size of the
project and the total cost of the project. This,
as I recall, is constituted a trust fund by sec-
tion 11 of that Act. Does the hon. member
propose that there might be a trust fund in
all cases where there is a relationship of
employment between A and B?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I see a battery
of four lawyers sitting on the Treasury bench
there and I am not going to try to serve as
their legal advisor, but what I had in mind
is the problem of the employer who has no
fixed assets at the spot where he is hiring
labour. Whether it can be handled under
The Mechanics' Lien Act or not, I am not
prepared to say; and I am perfectly prepared
to concede that it is not a simple problem.
I think the government will concede that it
is a real problem; they would not have
brought in this bill otherwise. Something
should be done to tighten up the law in a
situation such as one where the employer
simply moves in, hires labour, does the job
and moves out. Whether this can be done
by The Master and Servant Act or The
Mechanics' Lien Act, I do not know. But
it would appear, from the information given
to us in the committee on legal bills— in
explanation of this bill— that some tightening-
up has to be undertaken. My only submission
to the government is that the tightening-up
DECEMBER 8, 1961
261
proposed in this particular bill will cer-
tainly be inadequate.
I am quite prepared to confess that I am
not certain what should be done. I made
one proposal. I think it could be looked
into, in the light of the existing law, and
possible ways of improving it. I would agree
it is a matter which requires some study.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: What was the proposal
of the hon. member? I am sorry if I missed
it. Was it made today, or in the committee?
Mr. Bryden: I just made it about three
minutes ago while the hon. Minister was con-
templating more weighty matters, probably.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, I was contem-
plating the hon. member.
Mr. Bryden: I regret that I dazzled the
hon. Minister to the point where he was not
able to absorb the words of wisdom I was
conveying to the government. The proposal
was that the money due to the contractor—
or, at any rate, a portion of it— should be
paid into some sort of a trust fund— say, in a
bank— and should not be released until he
could produce evidence that he had satisfied
wage claims and other claims against him.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The difficulty with
that is: First of all, there is already legislation
to that effect in The Mechanics* Lien Act.
The second problem is: How do you supervise
whether the payments made by the owner—
or whoever is paying the contractor— is in fact,
going to be paid into the bank or into a trust
fund? It also means, presumably that he has
to pay money into an account before the
money is actually due and owing. This will
tend, it seems to me, to make an additional
hazard in terms of building, and I think it
is going to make building that much more
costly.
Mr. Bryden: This does not relate to build-
ing. The specific case I was dealing with,
relates to agricultural labour. I was not sug-
gesting it should be paid in advance, I was
suggesting merely that it should be paid when
it is due to the contractor, and that a re-
sponsibility should be placed upon the person
letting the contract, to pay it in so that, if
the contractor skipped out, the workmen who
have contributed their labour— and probably
have very little money— would have some re-
course. I think that it would not be un-
reasonable to say that a farmer, or any
other person who contracts for work to be
done, should be required at least to take the
reasonable precaution of paying the money to
some bank where it will be held, pending
settlement of claims. If he failed to do that,
then he should himself incur some liability.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: In addition to what
the hon. member has said, I cannot yet get
clearly in my mind what his objection is to
The Mechanics' Lien Act, which does pre-
cisely what the hon. member has been pro-
posing.
Mr. Bryden: My only objection is that it
has not worked, apparently. The law officers
of the Crown and officers of the department
of the hon. Attorney-General, who appeared
before the committee on legal bills, said that
they were bringing in this amendment be-
cause they had come across specific cases
where employers had skipped out without
paying wages to their employees. If there
were a remedy under the existing law I would
presume that the remedy would have been
adopted. I assume from what they told us
that whatever remedies exist were considered
to be inadequate; and therefore they were
proposing the additional remedy which they
include in this bill.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I think this is de-
signed really to improve another alternative.
That is to say, there is The Mechanics' Lien
Act on the one hand, and The Master and
Servant Act on the other. Now, The Master
and Servant Act itself is an alternative to The
Mechanics' Lien Act and when a claimant
has the choice he may take one or the other.
If he takes The Mechanics' Lien Act I think
he has protection. But there appears to be a
weakness in The Master and Servant Act; and
that is why this section is introduced, not
because The Mechanics' Lien Act is not
adequate but because there is a hole in the
other Act.
On the other hand, I think that The
Mechanics' Lien Act really only applies where
an employee has added value to something
that he has worked on. This does not deal
with the kind of situation that the hon.
member is talking about— say, somebody who
is harvesting or someone who has an em-
ployee in a shop and just simply worked for
the week. In that case it would be very
difficult to claim a lien against the real estate.
I think the hon. member's point is a good
one, but until he can come up with some
suggestion— a practical one— as to how this
can be corrected it would, perhaps, be worth-
while asking the committee on legal bills to
have a look at it.
262
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bryden: I would be satisfied if it was
merely studied further. Perhaps a broaden-
ing of the existing provisions of The
Mechanics* Lien Act might be the answer. I
do not know.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General)
moves that the following section be inserted
as section 3 of the bill:
3. That this Act comes into force on the
day it receives Royal assent.
and that the present section 3 of the bill be
renumbered as section 4.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4, formerly section 3, agreed to.
Bill No. 22 reported.
THE MECHANICS' LIEN ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 23, An Act
to Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 23 reported.
THE RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF
MAINTENANCE ORDERS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 25, An Act
to Amend The Reciprocal Enforcement of
Maintenance Orders Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 25 reported.
THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 27, An Act
to Amend The Summary Convictions Act.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves that the following
section be inserted as section 2 of the bill:
2. This Act comes into force on the day
it receives Royal assent,
and that the present section 2 of the bill be
renumbered as section 3.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3, formerly section 2, agreed to.
Bill No. 27 reported.
THE TRUSTEE ACT
House in committee on Bill No» 28, An Act
to Amend The Trustee Act.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves that the following
section be inserted as section 2 of the bill:
2. This Act comes into force on the day
it receives Royal assent.
and that the present section 2 of the bill
be renumbered as section 3.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3, formerly section 2, agreed to.
Bill No. 28 reported.
THE DENTISTRY ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 29, An
Act to Amend The Dentistry Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 29 reported.
THE SANATORIA FOR CONSUMPTIVES
ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 30, An
Act to Amend The Sanatoria for Consump-
tives Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 30 reported.
THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 31, An
Act to Amend The Air Pollution Control Act.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr. Chair-
man, I did not have the advantage of hear-
ing this bill discussed in committee. I
wonder why such broad powers should be
given. What is this advisory committee
really going to do? Are its powers and duties
going to be within the four walls of the Act?
Are they going to be more extensive? This
is a very broadly worded section, and it
causes me some concern to give this power
to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Ap-
parently, any powers and duties can be
given to this committee. It may be a good
idea for a committee to call in from time
to time, but to give them unlimited powers,
I think, is going too far.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Chairman, the bill does not state any-
thing about the powers that are to be given
to the advisory committee. This bill is an
amendment to give to the Lieutenant-Gover-
nor in Council the right to make regulations
providing for the establishment of this advis-
DECEMBER 8, 1961
263
ory committee on air pollution. This
committee will be an advisory committee to
the Minister.
Probably, if one goes back a little bit his-
torically—in 1956, I believe it was— a select
committee of this House after a very thor-
ough investigation into this whole matter,
submitted its report. One of the recom-
mendations of that report was that a com-
mission be set up. I have given a great deal
of thought to the advisability of such a
commission and, for many reasons, I deemed
it inadvisable to recommend to the govern-
ment that such a commission be set up.
I think the most important consideration
is that, while we have gone a long way in
this matter of air pollution control, we still
have a very long way to go. I am dread-
fully afraid of imposing sanctions on industry
to control— as someone has put it rather
crudely— belching smokestacks at the expense
of full lunch pails. If I had to make the
choice as an individual— and if I had to recom-
mend a choice to the government, as a mem-
ber of the government— I would choose the
belching smokestack, provided, mind you,
everything in our power was done to correct
and control that situation.
Industry is as concerned about this as the
government, I believe. Industrialists from
various parts of the province are most plagued
with this problem. I have been tremendously
impressed with their sincerity in seeking to
do all they possibly can to control this
problem.
While I could not recommend to the gov-
ernment the establishment of a commission
with broad regulatory and policy-making
powers, I did feel that it would be of great
value to me as the responsible Minister and
to the government as a whole, that we have
an advisory committee to the Minister, to look
into all the aspects of this. With their knowl-
edge, and on the basis of their investigations
and findings, they could recommend to me
certain courses of action that would be worth-
while, practicable and in the interests of the
public as a whole.
This committee can be considered to be,
I believe, composed of people with a good
deal of knowledge in the field. There will
be two representatives of industry, one repre-
sentative from the Ontario Chamber of Com-
merce, two representatives of labour and two
technical persons, skilled and experienced in
this field.
I would point out to the House that they
will have no policy-making or regulatory
powers, that they will simply be an advisory
committee to the Minister to help guide me
in proposing a policy to the government, and
legislation to this House.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I have very
little quarrel with what the hon. Minister has
said. My only concern is the wording of the
section. If the hon. Minister believes the
committee is going to be used for these pur-
poses, I think the committee is a good idea.
But I think the section should say that. I
am a little concerned about the necessity for
the last phrase in this section, prescribing its
powers and duties. If the government wanted
to change that to something like "to advise
the Minister" I would be quite satisfied, but
I do not like a general phrase of that sort
in this type of statute because it seems to open
the door too wide. What the hon. Minister
has said goes along with my objection, I think,
and if those words could be replaced with a
phrase like the one I suggested— or something
similar to it— I would be quite satisfied.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to have the right to suggest or recommend
to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council that
the powers and duties of such an advisory
committee could be laid down in the regula-
tions. It would seem to me, sir, that its
responsibilities and its duties, are inherent in
the very name, the Air Pollution Advisory
Committee; it is an advisory committee. And
an advisory committee, as I see it, is a com-
mittee set up to give advice to someone—
in this case, the Ministry of Health.
I do not really believe that anything would
be gained by changing those words. I must
say that I am not wholly inflexible in these
matters.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, with the
greatest respect, the hon. Minister and I part
company on this argument. I do not know
why— if the committee is to do what the hon.
Minister suggested it is to do— it needs any
more powers to be contained in the Act than
the power to advise the hon. Minister. That
is all the hon. Minister said he wants, so why
does he not say that in the statute? What
additional powers and duties will the commit-
tee have, other than to advise the hon. Min-
ister? If that is all, why does the statute not
say that?
I am forced to be suspicious because the
hon. Minister insists that these words remain;
or is he insisting? All right, if the hon. Min-
ister will be flexible enough— if he is not
insisting— let us change the words to what he
says he wants and then we will all be happy.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I have
no objection to deleting those words and
264
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
therefore I would move that the section be
amended to read:
The Lieutenant-Governor in Council
may make regulations providing for the
establishment of a committee to be known
as the Air Pollution Advisory Committee.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to say a word on this. As
the chairman of the select committee, I would
like to congratulate the hon. Minister on
setting up this advisory committee.
Although I do not feel we have gone far
enough in this thing, the hon. Minister has
pointed out the committee recommended set-
ting up a board or commission with broad
powers to do something about cleaning up the
air. This is certainly a step in the right direc-
tion. However, I cannot agree with the hon.
Minister of Health when he says that he
would rather see full lunch pails and
have the black smoke coming out of the
chimneys. We found out in our investiga-
tions, Mr. Chairman, that with modern meth-
ods of air pollution control, it is not necessary
to have the black smoke coming out of the
chimney. We can still have the full lunch
pails, we can have the factories working at
top speed, we can have them working effi-
ciently and they can do something—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: On a point of privilege,
Mr. Chairman, may I point out that the hon.
member (Mr. Cowling) has taken my words
out of context and has clothed them with a
meaning which was neither implied nor
intended?
Mr. Cowling: I thank the hon. Minister
very much. With these modern methods of
cleaning up the air, I repeat that we can still
have the full lunch pails. It is not necessary
to pollute the atmosphere with black smoke.
For example, we were in the great indus-
trial city of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh was
known for years as "the smoky city." And
believe me, you could see where the smoke
had completely covered the downtown build-
ings of Pittsburgh. Now they have on a very
effective air pollution control project. They
have set up a commission or a committee to
look into this matter and they have enacted
certain laws with teeth in them. They were
able to remove the smoky atmosphere of
Pittsburgh, practically. It was interesting to
note— and I know some of the hon. members
of the committee are here: the hon. member
for Brantford (Mr. Gordon), the hon. member
for Oshawa (Mr. Thomas) to name two— on
the tall buildings of Pittsburgh one could
actually see the mark where the black soot
had been washed down by the rain and the
snow, following the passing of the law, when
there was no further smoke in the atmos-
phere. Obviously, we can clean up the air.
I was very interested in an article that
appeared in the paper this week, which
reported that one of the officials in Washing-
ton—now he has become aware of a me-
chanical gadget for automobiles, which will
remove the carbon monoxide exhaust— is going
to recommend that it be made mandatory for
United States car manufacturers to install
the gadget on their cars in the same way as
they install windshield wipers and horns.
Thus, the great problem of exhaust fumes
will be eliminated.
You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that
was another one of the recommendations of
our committee, that when a proper mechan-
ical arrangement was devised to attach on
automobiles that they be made mandatory
in the province of Ontario. It looks as
though we are coming a little closer to that.
But this whole problem of air pollution, of
smoke, is a big one. It is something of which
we on the government side are very cog-
nizant; we now have our air pollution control
division with The Department of Health,
which has done much good work in assisting
the municipalities to set up their own by-laws,
and to do something about their local prob-
lems.
This advisory committee will do a good
job, and it may be, as the hon. Minister has
said, that eventually it will be necessary to
set up a special board or commission to look
after the whole problem. Certainly in the
meantime, this advisory committee will do
much good work in assisting the government
and the municipalities of the province of
Ontario. The province of Ontario can give
us some clean air and keep it that way.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Chairman, I should like to ask assurances
from the hon. Minister that this committee
will in fact get something done. When we
say that much has been done, or when the
hon. Minister says that much has been done
in this field; I do not wish to be critical of
him, but I certainly agree with him that
much is to be done. I wonder if we can have
any assurance that this committee will in
fact operate and we will see some results.
I hope this is not just another camouflage or
another committee being set up that will not
accomplish anything.
The hon. member opposite has just made
mention of this select committee which was
set up to study the matter of air pollution.
DECEMBER 8, 1961
265
That was a number of years ago. Yet it does
not take much imagination when we drive
down through the industrial areas of this city,
or the city from which I come, to reahze that
smoke and these chemicals and what-have-
you are being put into the atmosphere in far
too great a quantity. We are now fighting the
problem of water pollution because we were
negligent in placing control soon enough to
protect the waters of our land.
If one travels through the city of Los
Angeles where the smog is such a problem,
it does not take much imagination to know
that the health of tlie people there is being
endangered. I say the people are being
endangered here, and I should like to know
whether the hon. Minister can give us some
assurances that this committee will in fact
accomplish what we want done is it
something that might sit for another two or
three years before it gets around to report-
ing? I think this is a matter which should
be tackled early. I wonder if we can have
some assurances that this will get us some
results.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I
believe I can assure the hon. member that
this committee will be an actively working
committee. It is not a committee being set
up for a specific job; it is an on-going job.
It will continue to sit and consider all the
matters relative to this very important ques-
tion and advise us so we may be guided in
the policies and legislation which will ulti-
mately come to this House for consideration.
This is one of the things I have insisted
upon in asking for the opportunity and priv-
ilege of setting up this committee: that it be
a working committee.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I realize, of course,
that this is for the benefit of the hon. Min-
ister, and I appreciate that. I wonder if
there is any possibility that this committee
will be filing reports which might be available
to us as hon. members of the Legislature or
is this a committee which will be exclusively
for the use of the hon. Minister of Health?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The intention, Mr.
Chairman, is that it will be an advisory com-
mittee to the Minister.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Do I understand that
most of the information which is available
from this committee will not be available to
the hon. members of the Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Essentially that would
be it— to guide me. I do not expect that it
will be filing formal reports, but will be
giving me, from time to time, recommenda-
tions and advice to guide me in my pro-
gramme for the future.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: My only comment to
that, Mr. Chairman, is that I suppose this
is the prerogative of the hon. Minister. I
suggest to him that when these reports are
being set up— I do not know whether this is
to be a paid committee or not— but when he
takes the sole exclusive responsibility for this
report, he also takes responsibility for this
entire situation.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is quite right,
Mr. Chairman. I believe that is part of my
duty as a Minister. But on the other hand
any reports that are given to me, or any
questions that may be asked concerning the
matter by any hon. member of this House, I
would be prepared to answer to the best of
my ability with whatever knowledge and
information I have available to me.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I agree with the hon. member
for High Park (Mr. Cowling). I do this so
rarely that I want to record it for once.
This is a more important issue than is
sometimes realized. I am constantly impressed
by the number of times that constituents of
mine— friends, neighbours— raise this problem
with me. It is one of the nagging problems
that we live with. They try to get their
municipal council to do something about it,
but their council usually says they do not
have the power.
The thing that puzzles me, Mr. Chairman,
is why the government is taking so long in
coming to grips with this? In the first place
it is now six years since this select com-
mittee made a recommendation— 1955, was
it not?— 1956, I am sorry. It is five years
since the select committee made its recom-
mendations. So that we have had a five-
year lag while the hon. Minister is considering
whether he will establish a commission, or
whether he will set up a committee. Now
he comes up with a committee, which is
only an advisory committee.
It may be a working committee, it may
be that this committee will go out and look
into situations and come back and advise the
hon. Minister but if so, what the hon. Minister,
in effect, is saying is that he has been doing
nothing for five years, or alternatively, that
personnel in the department, for whom he
has the final responsibility, have been doing
nothing. Which, of course, I think is a
pretty accurate admission of the fact.
266
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Nothing has been done. It is not only
late, Mr. Chairman, but I agree once again
with the hon. member for High Park, it is
too little.
It is never too late if you have a serious
problem, I agree, it is never too late, but it
is certainly later than it should have been,
when the hon. Minister had this report on
his desk for a five-year period.
As the hon. member who chaired this
committee and looked into it points out, the
hon. Minister in some basic approaches to
the issue is fairly well off base. It is possible
to protect the full pail and at the same time
do something about thisi This is really a
red herring drawn across the trail, for the
hon. Minister to introduce this idea that he
is more interested in the full lunch pail.
The point that was raised by the hon.
member in the Liberal group seems to me
once again to be a very pertinent one. I
am increasingly disturbed about this business
of setting up advisory committees, because
the advisory committee presumably goes out
and does a job in getting facts which this
Legislature is entitled to.
Now the hon. Minister, with a gesture of
generosity, said, "I will be glad to give the
information to anybody who asks me". That
is not the point. The point is that this House
and its hon. members should be cognizant of
all the information which that committee gets
so that then they will be in a better position
to know what questions they should ask the
hon. Minister. They need this information as
a basis of working knowledge in coping with
this problem.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take
much more time. I agree that it is never
too late to come to grips with a problem,
but this bill certainly fits the old adage that
it is too little and too late in terms of the
seriousness of this whole issue.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I do not
really suppose and I do not believe it would
be possible for me to live long enough to
bring in any bill that would please my hon.
friends. However, I would hke to point out
that there are many factors that the hon.
member brought before us on which he
obviously is very much off base.
First of all, of course, I have not had the
privilege of being the Minister for five years.
I have been Minister for three years, just
about now. One of the first things I under-
took was a study of this matter of air
pollution control, because I was just as cog-
nizant of the problem as the hon. member
is and just as deeply concerned about the
matter, as is every hon. member on this side
of the House.
The first thing we did was produce a model
by-law, or what we believed was a model by-
law, and we did this on the basis of advice
given to us by experts, although they were
not formally constituted a commission. It
has worked very well. Many municipalities
have adopted it.
The hon. member speaks about the
nagging calls he gets from his constituents,
I can appreciate them and I can sympathize
with him, but I would like to point out that
Metropolitan Toronto is one of the munici-
palities that has not chosen to introduce or
to adopt the model by-law.
Mr. MacDonald: How many have?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I cannot give the hon.
member the exact number, but I undertook
before the committee the other day to be
able to give the exact number when my
estimates come in. It is becoming a sizeable
number and, rather interestingly, it is being
introduced by those communities most
affected by this problem. This is what we
anticipated, this is what we had hoped for.
Progress is being made.
As I said earlier, industry itself is very
much interested and very much concerned
about this and frankly is spending large sums
of money to do as much as it can do at the
present time.
Fortunately, and unfortunately at the same
time, it is not the black smoke that is causing
us the trouble, it is the many other substances
that are being let loose, so to speak, in our
atmosphere, substances which are largely
new. For this reason it is difficult to cope
with them, because we have to develop the
filters or the equipment or the appliances or
whatever it may be that is applicable to the
methods of precipitating these solutions that
are being released in the air.
The black smoke is still a problem, I am
not minimizing this by any means. Indeed it
is rather startling to know that some big
industries and big commercial buildings are
still among the worst offenders, because there
is a treatment for black smoke and it is being
brought under control very much. It is these
other chemical substances and other types of
smoke that bother us very greatly. Included
in these, of course, and becoming an increas-
ing factor in our environment all the time,
are the exhaust fumes from automobiles.
I must agree with the hon. member for
High Park (Mr. Cowling) that it is very
interesting to see that the automobile
DECEMBER 8, 1961
267
engineers have finally come up with some-
thing which they believe will be an effective
control for this great, and vexing problem.
The information from advisory committees,
as far as these committees in my department
are concerned, might very well be made
available to this House; but I would point
out to the hon. members that I have several
advisory committees. I have never, despite
the fact that some of the hon. members of
the Opposition have from time to time
suggested that I am somewhat dictatorial, I
have never been too proud, or considered my-
self too big or too smart, to seek the best
advice I could possibly get and to use it.
Indeed, I could not run this department with-
out seeking the best possible advice from
the best qualified sources. This I shall con-
tinue to do, because no one man can deal
with all of the complex problems which face
The Department of Health today, charged
as it is with the responsibility of the health of
all our people from the cradle to the tomb.
A great mass of advice comes to me from
many committees. I do not really know
exactly how many advisory committees there
are to my department at the present time,
but there is quite a sizeable number and
there will have to continue to be. This will
be a growing number because of the growing
complexity of the business of the health of
our people.
I frankly see no reason why the report
could not be made available to the hon.
members. It will add to the cost of govern-
ment, there is no doubt about it.
Much of the information that comes from
them is verbal, much of it comes to me
through personal contact with the chairmen
or the members of the various committees,
and therefore there is no record of it. We
have discussions from time to time. I have
discussions with these committees from time
to time and they tell me their ideas and
opinions and recommendations; so much of
the advice I get is not formally put down on
paper. But I have no objection in the wide
world to any hon. member in the House
getting all the information that is made avail-
able to me.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, I think I
should point out now that while I made ref-
erence to the belching smokestacks and the
full lunch pails, you will recall that I said
in the meantime they were doing everything
possible, steadily and continuously, to con-
trol and correct the causal situation or the
causal factor in this matter of air pollution
control.
I would repeat, sir, for the sake of em-
phasis if for no other reason, that we on this
side of the House are as equally exercised
about this problem as the hon. members
across the way.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the hon. Minister another ques-
tion.
Mr. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I think there
is something I should point out in support-
ing the hon. Minister— and I certainly appre-
ciate the kind remarks of the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald). The hon.
Liberal member for Wentworth (Mr. R. C.
Edwards) talks about the situation here in
industrial Toronto and I think we should
know, Mr. Chairman, that in Metropolitan
Toronto we have a very active, efficient and
well operating air pollution control division.
This was done in co-operation with the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond) and with
our new air pollution control legislation.
They have been very active, they have a
large staff of inspectors, and they have done
much to reduce the problem here in Metro-
politan Toronto.
I can give you a very definite example of
that, Mr. Chairman. I had several calls from
industry in my riding out in High Park com-
plaining about the fact that the inspectors
in the air pollution division of Metropolitan
Toronto are too tough on their industry and
too severe with them. That gives the other
side of the picture.
These people are on the job and they have
gone a long long way toward cutting down
the problem in Metropolitan Toronto. There
is a lot of work to be done and it takes a
great deal of study and investigation and
work to even keep up with the whole prob-
lem of air pollution because with the new
industries coming into this area we are go-
ing to have an increase in the problem. So
I say that we have done a lot; there is a lot
to be done; and I want to commend the
good work that our people are doing here in
Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the added
remarks of the hon. member for High Park
(Mr, Cowling) make my question even more
pertinent. The hon. Minister defended his
record in the last three years by saying that
he had produced this model by-law. He
used words that clearly indicated that he
was not quite happy with the fact that
Metropolitan Toronto was one of the areas
that had not seen fit to pass this by-law.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Not at all.
268
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Well, we will take a
look at the words of the hon. Minister when
they get into Hansard; and I hope they do
not get changed in the process, because I
heard it and I heard it very, very clearly.
Now we have the hon. member for High
Park saying that they have a committee that
is active and I am just a little bit puzzled.
If this committee is active in doing a job
so that industry is complaining to him, why
has the hon. Minister expressed dissatisfac-
tion or some milder form of objection to the
fact that the model by-law had not been
adopted in Toronto?
However, it brings me to the point that I
wanted to raise before the hon. member for
High Park added further facets to it. In
coming to grips with the question of water
pollution, for a time the responsibility was
left with the municipality. Then finally it
became very clear that this was not going
to solve the problem. Whether you call it
dictatorial or not, the government saw fit to
set up a water resources commission and it has
regulations which are now backed by the
courts of law with penalties and everything
else.
What I am interested in is why— with the
magnitude of this problem and with reluc-
tance that grows out of pressures on munici-
palities, leading to a municipality being
reluctant to the point of doing nothing at all
to come to grips with it in many instances-
why is the government not willing, either
through a commission comparable to the
water resources commission or some other
body, to act at the provincial level?
Now, for heaven's sake, do not start telling
me this would be treading on municipal au-
tonomy; that precious item that is used or
abused depending on how the government
wants to approach a topic. Because I think
the record is clear in the instance of the
water, and the parallel is clear with air
pollution where the government had to move
with laws laid down at the provincial level
which were superimposed over anything that
the municipality did or did not do.
I submit to the government that this is
ultimately what they are going to have to do
on air pollution. They have taken five or six
years to play around with it and now they are
going to take another five or six years with
an advisory committee.
So my question to the hon. Minister is this:
What is the reason for the reluctance in
duplicating at the provincial level the kind
of tougher approach that we found was
necessary in coping with water pollution to
also deal with air pollution?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, the two
subjects are so unrelated and so far apart
that it would take a long time to explain it
to the hon. member.
First of all, we have known how to control
pollution of water for many, many years—
I was going to say centuries, that is not quite
true, but for many, many years. We do not
yet know how to control the various pollutants
in the air—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We do not even know
what they are.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: —and it is because of
this that we hesitate to recommend that this
should be undertaken by a provincial body.
We believe that we are on the right track.
We believe that we are moving as swiftly as
is possible. There was no dissatisfaction im-
plied—the hon. member for York South has
the greatest capacity for reading into one's
words-
Mr. MacDonald: Do not malign me, just
deal with the issue.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Just keep quiet for a
minute and listen; as one of my hon. friends
said, if the hon. member would just keep quiet
he would learn something. If I kept my brain
out of gear as much as he does, I would never
say anything.
Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the issue instead
of-
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Just keep quiet! Mr.
Chairman, if the hon. member would stop
talking when someone else is trying to tell
him something-
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the issue.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
What does changing Hansard have to do with
air pollution when the hon. member is speak-
ing?
Mr. MacDonald: Nobody is asking the hon.
Minister.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: There was no reluctance
on the part of Metropolitan Toronto to adopt
the model by-law. Metropolitan Toronto and
a few other municipalities in Ontario for many
years have been controlling air pollution as
effectively as they could under a clause of
The Municipal Act. They believed that it
was more suitable—
DECEMBER 8, 1961
269
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Why don't
you make Metropohtan Toronto adopt the
model by-law?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The hon. member and
I do not live in Metropolitan Toronto! We
leave them die right to determine for them-
selves what they believe is best for their
people and for their municipalities.
Metropolitan Toronto, and the city of
Toronto before it and two or three other
municipalities, big municipalities in Ontario,
believe that they can control this matter and
have done an eflFective job, with the knowl-
edge available to them and to us over the
years, in controlling it under the terms of
The Municipal Act.
The other municipalities which come to us
now seeking advice— we recommend that they
adopt the broader powers available to them
under The Air Pollution Control Act and they
have done this without exception. No new
municipality in the last three years, to my
knowledge, has elected to try to control this
matter under the tenns in that clause in The
Municipal Act which permits it.
There is nothing implied or inherent in my
statement that Metropolitan Toronto had
chosen not to do it. They are doing a good
job.
The committee which my hon. friend from
High Park (Mr. Cowling) mentioned is a
committee charged with the responsibility of
controlling pollution in Metropolitan Toronto.
It has nothing to do with my department
except that we exchange notes, we exchange
advice, we counsel each other. When they
need help which we can give, we give it;
and when we need help that they can give,
we get it. This is the only close association
that exists between us and many municipal-
ities in the whole province of Ontario.
But I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman,
that there was no criticism of Metropolitan
Toronto. They are doing and have done, and
I am quite sure will continue to do, the best
possible job they can for their people.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, if I
may, I have been most interested in this
matter of air pollution because it was origin-
ally about 1955, I think-or 1954-that I felt
that my riding was so affected by it. At that
time, if the hon. members will remember,
the calculations were that in the sampling
stations in the riding of Riverdale the amount
of soot falling averaged two pounds per
person. , , .
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. Minister had
it figured out in tons.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. Minister had
it figured out in tons.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, I thought it
was two pounds per person, and the number
of tons that fell in a certain number of days
I reported-
Mr. MacDonald: Per year, or day or what?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Just a moment! Let
us be fair about this thing. This is really
what, to me, gave the impetus to encourage
the government to establish a crime or
rather—
This comes from the difficulty of trying
to read a newspaper on one side and give a
speech on another. The point, however, was
that it was a serious matter and we established
a special committee to look into it. There
were various reports made.
I want the hon. member for Wentworth
(Mr. R. C. Edwards) to be perfectly fair
about this when he talks about what has
taken place in the province of Ontario. There
has been a tremendous improvement from the
day that this matter first came into this
Legislature. The hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) has intimated that
nothing has been done in this field and that
a great deal could be done.
Now, just as a matter of interest, I would
like the hon. member to consider a very
serious problem and that is right in the city
of Sudbury where the International Nickel
Company is situated. The hon. member who
sits on the hon. member's immediate right
will recall the problems involved in the
question of smoke belching forth in Sudbury.
Here the whole countryside has been aff^ected
by the sulphur fumes. There is a— what is the
man called?— there is a sulphur fumes arbi-
trator, or something, there. But I think the
whole community of Sudbury has accepted
this simple fact and it goes back to the
point which the hon. Minister made; and I
do not think he wanted to be quoted out of
context, as he said. ! :! ; .. • .. r .
He said it is where one has to make, or he
would have to make, the choice of either
smoke or full lunch pails, he would pick
smoke. And so have the people in Sudbury
simply because, as I recall, the towers which
emit the sulphur fumes in the process of
treating the ore are something like 500 feet
high.
Are they not? They are very high in any
event.
270
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now this has been done, every conceivable
eflFort has been made by that company, to
mitigate the air pollution it has caused. But
on the other hand I think most experts would
come to the conclusion that they have done
all they can and that by raising these stacks
even higher all they are doing is distributing
the sulphur fumes over an ever-increasing
area.
I think it would be unfair for the hon.
member for York South to intimate, or to
leave the impression, that nothing has been
done, to people who have come here since
this matter, as I say, first came into the
House. There have been a great many things.
I think one of them is that in this city and
elsewhere in this province the public gener-
ally and commerce have become conscious
that this is a problem.
It is a social problem as well as an
economic problem. It is a social problem
because it affects our health; because it
deteriorates the public relations of the com-
pany involved. It is an economic problem
and a social problem to our people because
it affects their health. But it is also an eco-
nomic problem to some of these companies.
I remember, and I think the hon. member
for Oshawa (Mr. Thomas) will also recall,
that there were a number of companies on
Spadina Avenue which were in a metal
refining— or in the battery business, I cannot
remember. In any event, they were emitting
up their smokestacks a material which
was not smoke, and in fact I do not think
could be seen, but it was a by-product of
the process on which they were involved.
They were encouraged, as the results of our
efiForts, to install a collection agency in their
stacks. As a result, in my recollection, the
amount of recovery of this material which
they could sell more than paid for the
equipment which had been used to recover
it. This material, otherwise, was going loose
into the atmosphere.
I frankly think one wants to be fair about
this thing. We have gone a long way and
you just cannot be militant and adamant and
say that we can stop smoke, because there
are areas where this cannot be done.
I will tell hon. members, in my own riding,
which is a highly industrialized riding which
is criss-crossed by a railway, several railways
in fact, that there were always complaints
from the residents of my riding that the
smoke-belching engines were a terrible
menace to them. Now the railroads have
removed the smoke-belching engines and
use diesel engines and they are much more
concerned about the diesel exhaus's tlian
they ever were about the smoke. The smoke
was dirty but it was not as unhealthy as the
fumes which come from these diesel engines.
This is a very large problem, this problem
of diesel engine exhaust and I would not
want the impression left abroad that this
government, nor this Legislature, have not
interested themselves in this problem. When
it came to this Legislature in 1955 or 1956
and a committee was established we worked
very hard. We produced some regulations
and suggested by-laws and arrangements we
thought would be helpful. As a result of it
some very active steps were taken here in
the city of Toronto, sir, and a department
established. Is that not correct?
An hon. member: A division established.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: A division established
and they have done a great deal of work.
Tests are now being taken in my riding which
indicate that this has been reduced to almost
a fraction of what it was before, for, frankly,
it had one of the heaviest concentrations.
In terms of Hydro itself: Hydro has in-
stalled equipment at the Hearn plant and is
installing it at the Lakeview plant which runs
into many hundreds of dollars to collect the
soot, smoke and fumes and so forth which are
emitted through the stack. This is electrical
equipment, mechanical equipment and so
forth, and it is very expensive; but it is
Hydro's contribution to this very serious prob-
lem of air pollution.
The only reason I speak now just for a
moment on this, is I do not want the impres-
sion—I think there is a great deal to be done
but I think we have to be sensible about this
and just not leave abroad the impression that
all you need to do is set up a commission
and give them some power, like Bismark's
iron fist, to come clumping down on industry
because I can tell hon. members there are
various areas, in the north certainly— Sudbury
and others— where it simply would put the
whole community out of business. One has
to be very careful, I think, and be moderate
and understanding in this problem. Frankly
the problem changes almost every few months
with the advances in technological develop-
ment—both in terms of the fuel that is being
used and in terms of the machines that are
using these fuels.
I think the hon. Minister of Health is taking
a moderate, but a proper, step in establishing
this advisory committee, and I would not be
surprised if it gave us a much clearer impres-
sion of what the problem is. There is no
point in saying that, simply because one sees
DECEMBER 8, 1961
271
some dirt in the air, the problem is therefore
one of prescribing a medicine over the phone
for the patient. We simply have to get into
this thing. With the changes that constantly
take place, and with the staff that the hon.
Minister now has in his department, and with,
I think, the cognizance and awareness which
many of the municipalities have of this prob-
lem—which was not in existence some five
years ago— I think this Legislature has taken a
very noble role and has now made it a public
issue for which we all have some respon-
sibility.
It is not just enough, I think, to say to
everyone in this Legislature or in this govern-
ment, that we can cure air pollution, because
this is not true. One factor which contributes
greatly to air pollution is right in people's
Individual homes: whether they have their
stacks clean; the kind of equipment they have
to heat their homes; and whether they keep
it in good condition. In many cases smoke is
avoidable; it is not just a question of trapping
it, is a question of burning the fuel com-
pletely and efficiently.
This is a very broad problem and I think
the hon. Minister is approaching it in a
very sensible way.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, a
couple of references to my remarks have
been made. If the hon. members opposite
are satisfied with the situation in Toronto,
that is their business.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member
should not be so sarcastic every time he
gets up.
Mr. Singer: Temper! Temper!
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I was trying to be
kind to the hon. members, Mr. Chairman.
I am not satisfied with the situation in
Toronto, and I think there is still air pollu-
tion in Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We think there is
too.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: What I started to say,
Mr. Chairman, is that I think the goverrmient
is going at this thing in entirely the wrong
way; I think the approach as contained in
this whole Act— and I think this is only
amplifying the situation— is that they are say-
ing to the municipahties : "This is your
responsibility— to take care of this smoke."
One municipality sets up a by-law and
does all within its power to control the matter
of air pollution in its own area. The simple
fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that
polluted air merely moves into that munici-
pality from a neighbouring area. The
municipality which has gone to all of this
trouble has really no control over the air
they are breathing, which is being polluted
by their neighbours.
So I would have to take exception to the
statement that the government is doing all
it can. I do not think the government is
doing all it can, and I do not think the
government ever will do all that it can,
until it assumes the responsibility for the
air throughout the province, and ceases to
leave this to the matter of the individual
conscience of one municipality or another.
Mr. Cowling: What are we going to do
about the borders of the province?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I am sorry, Mr. Chair-
man, I did not hear the hon. member's
question.
Mr. Cowling: Would the hon. member like
to hear it a little more clearly?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Yes.
Mr. Cowling: I agree with the hon. mem-
ber about the polluted air coming across
the municipal borders but, if we do some-
thing about that, what are we going to do
about the border of Quebec and the border
of Manitoba? Just how far can you take
this thing?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I
think I might answer the hon. member for
High Park (Mr. Cowling) this way: I do
not know what we will do about the borders
of Manitoba and Quebec. But, if this govern-
ment is sincere in tackling this in part, per-
haps we might clear up Ontario; and then,
perhaps, we might have some negotiations
with the governments of the bordering prov-
inces. We might be able to do something
in that way if this is a problem.
I have read the report— I have read it from
beginning to end— of which the hon. member
was chairman, but I did not note in the
report that the bordering areas of Manitoba
and Quebec presented a problem. I do not
think it is, but if it becomes a problem I
think we could negotiate it very well with
those provinces.
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chair-
man, is that the addition of this committee
will not solve the problem. I think it is a
step forward and if it will add something to
the solution it is good, but I have to agree
272
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
—and it is not very often I agree with the
hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald)— that we are doing too little and too
late, and still we are not approaching the
thing as earnestly as we might. I think the
government might give some thought to
making some further admendments in this
Act, which would, in fact, make it the
municipalities* responsibility to clean up their
air if the government is going to insist on
autonomy of the various municipalities.
I have doubts about something else with
respect to this committee. I wonder what
type of people are going to be on the com-
mittee. It seems to me that, if it is going
to be composed of industrialists, we still
may continue to move slowly, because I agree
with the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
when he says that this is an economic
problem. I am quite well aware of the fact
that it probably will involve many millions
of dollars expended on the part of industry
to clean it up. We are concerned, as I
pointed out earher, with the waters of the
province— through our conservation authorities,
etc. We make grants to these authorities,
which, in part, go to help clean up these
waters. It may very well be— if this thing
is an economic situation, beyond the ability
of industry to treat it itself— that this govern-
ment should take a good look at it, possibly
even consider grants to clean up the situation.
I do not think it is something that can
be taken lightly. I believe that this com-
mittee, as it is constituted, is simply not
going to do the job; and I think the govern-
ment has to take another approach, or we
are going to be years and years even getting
to the problem, let alone solving it.
I do not think we could quarrel with
the one statement, which was made by the
hon. Minister of Energy Resources, that the
homes are contributing to this situation. But
I do think there are very many citizens in this
province who believe that the main contri-
butors of pollution to our atmosphere are the
industries themselves. And I think we cloud
the issue when we bring all these little things
into it. I think if we get at the big contri-
butors we will start to make some progress.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I think the hon.
member will realize that if he puts all the
fuel that is burned in all of the homes in
this province together — and the number of
appliances that make use of this fuel and
the dispersal of it — he will find that the
homes are the largest single contributor, not
the smallest, by any means. A more drama-
tic impression of the thing, I admit, is re-
ceived by seeing one or two smokestacks
such as those in Sudbury; but nevertheless,
it is not a correct impression; the homes con-
tribute the most.
Mr. Singer: Is The Department of Health
the next scalp the hon. Minister of Energy
Resources (Mr. Macaulay) is going to add to
his belt?
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister mentioned the visit of the mem-
bers of the committee to Sudbury. There
has been a very great problem throughout
the years in Sudbury; the council battled
with International Nickel and it got nowhere.
When the committee was there and the presi-
dent of International Nickel was questioned
on the sulphur problem, he said that they
would not do anything at all about it because
it was not profitable.
There has been some improvement in the
Sudbury situation in recent years, but surely
the hon. Minister is not going to take credit
for that?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: If the hon. member
wants us to be responsible for the rain we
will take credit for the sun.
Mr. Thomas: Wait a minute; the hon.
Minister cannot take credit for that, for
the simple reason that while it was not prof-
itable for International Nickel to filtrate
foundry fumes — sulphur, etc. — some five or
six years ago, the company has now found
it is profitable, because sulphur is required in
the purification of the ore for the produc-
tion of uranium. Since that time, they have
installed filtration equipment, because it is
now profitable— something they had refused
to do before.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say to the
hon. member that I said it was a matter
of economics. If the position he is now
taking is: that the company could have done
this and could have continued in business,
and kept all of their employees working as
they have in the past — this is something
which the company denied.
An hon. member: But they probably could.
Mr. Thomas: A council like that in the city
of Sudbury, which is dependent on one indus-
try alone, finds it difficult to stand up to a
giant corporation like International Nickel—
and while there have been some things which
have been done—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: There are some coun-
cils in Ontario that are very slow to act.
DECEMBER 8, 1961
273
Mr. Thomas: Some things have been done
in regard to a model by-law, but the greatest
problem in air pollution is the question of
enforcement. And I agree with the hon.
members who spoke previously in this debate:
The real answer to this great problem is a
commission that has the authority to go out
and enforce the regulations. Unless the gov-
ernment is prepared to do that, I am afraid
that an advisory committee will be of very,
very little use in the question of air pollution.
Mr. E. P. Momingstar (Welland): Mr.
Chairman, hon. members, this debate is quite
interesting. I just want to mention that we
had this problem in my riding, especially in
Humberstone township, with International
Nickel. There has been damage to the
farmers' crops there for years. The Inter-
national Nickel plant was paying damages to
various farmers throughout the area and, some
two or three years ago after, when I was on
the committee with the hon. member for
Oshawa (Mr. Thomas), the farmers came to
me with their grievances. Being on this com-
mittee, it gave me some idea of what was
probably required. So I went to The De-
partment of Health, The Department of
Mines and The Department of Agriculture
about the problem. These farmers were
getting paid; they thought the damage was
caused by sulphur dioxide. Recording in-
struments were put in and, through the in-
vestigation of these three departments, the
cause was found to be nickel dust. Today
the International Nickel plant has installed
dust collectors. Last year, I am told, they
did not have these collectors in operation
for a full year— I think they started some-
time in April, or so. The equipment was
collecting about 75 per cent of the nickel
dust which was destroying the crops; this
year they expect much better results.
I want to congratulate the hon. Minister
of Health (Mr. Dymond) and The Depart-
ment of Health for the wonderful work
it is doing along with The Departments of
Mines and Agriculture. I think we will have
the nuisance licked.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to add to some of the comments made by
my colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa
(Mr. Thomas), because I think he put his
finger on the crux of this problem.
He spoke specifically with relation to the
International Nickel Company. We heard
from the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
(Mr. Macaulay) quite a long and very
interesting story about how the company
had done everything it possibly could but
found it simply uneconomical to refine the
sulphur out of the smoke. The hon. mem-
ber for Oshawa then pointed out that they
very quickly discovered a method of doing
it when they found a way of selling the sul-
phur at a profit. Now, I have no doubt that
the hon. Minister would reply: Of course,
that changed the economic picture, it made
it economically possible to do something
that they could not previously do. I would
like to submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that a
company, which for many years has been
making net profits, after taxes, of anywhere
from $50,000,000 to $75,000,000 a year,
could have done something about that sul-
phur a long time ago.
Several hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bryden: This was not a starving little
company that was going to go out of busi-
ness, if it tried to correct the damage it was
creating— not only to the city of Sudbury but
to the countryside for miles and miles
around. There have been more depredations
created by that company than by almost any-
one else that one could think of. It is a
very wealthy company, making very large
profits, and it should have done something
about this long ago.
The reason I raise this matter and revert
to it, Mr. Chairman, is because of my objec-
tion to the sort of attitude that says: Well,
the companies are trying hard but they have
a lot of problems. That is the sort of atti-
tude that leads to laxness. I will agree with
the hon. Minister that there are many situa-
tions which are very difficult to solve but
they are not nearly as difiBcult in many cases
as they are alleged to be. The very example
the hon. Minister gave in his introductory
remarks, with regard to the lunch pail and
the smokestack— I am not going to quote
him because I may misquote him or quote
him out of context, but I will merely refer
to his own reference— that remark is the sort
of thing that leads to laxity. We are not
faced with this sort of choice nearly as often
as is alleged. Let me point out to the hon.
Minister, Mr. Chairman, that there are other
choices involved, that affect the lunch pail,
too. For example, in my constituency, there
has been quite a serious problem of smoke
pollution— particularly in the southern end.
The hon. Minister of Energy Resources will
know about it because one of the worst
problems— as far as I am concerned— arises
from a factory over the border in his constitu-
ency but, unfortunately the smoke comes
across, or the fumes— I do not think it is
smoke in the ordinary sense— come across the
border into my constituency.
274
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
There has been a real problem with respect
to property values. An area which has been
a good residential area for working people
has been threatened. The living conditions
there on occasions have been so unpleasant
the people want to move out but, naturally,
who is going to buy their properties from
them?
So the working man finds that his lunch
pail is affected because the value of his
property declines.
I submit, sir, that a great deal— far too
much— emphasis is placed on the difficulties
in the situation. There have been difficulties;
there will continue to be difficulties. But
any business man, just like any other indi-
vidual, is going to avoid costs if he can. That
is not casting any reflection on him, but
he is going to avoid them if he can.
If he is creating a problem of pollution,
he is going to say it is too difficult to cure it;
it is going to cost too much, he is going to go
out of business, the lunch pail will be affected.
That is the old threat used in almost every
context from minimum wages to labour re-
lations to smoke abatement or control of
water pollution. I do not think we should
put too much stress on that argument.
I think we should look at the problem from
the positive point of view, that in most cases
there are ways and means of alleviating it.
That is the approach we should take. In this
specific case of International Nickel I would
submit to you, sir, that they could have done
something about it long before they actually
did. But they did not do anything about it
until they found that it was profitable to do
so.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill No. 31 reported.
THE CANCER ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 32, An Act
to amend The Cancer Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 32 reported.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 35, An
Act to amend The Public Health Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 35 reported.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee
of the whole House rise, report certain bills
without amendment and certain bills with
certain amendments and ask for leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole begs to report certain bills
without amendment and certain bills with
certain amendments and asks leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr.
Speaker, I would now like to make certain
comments and suggestions concerning a num-
ber of matters of interest perhaps to the
Legislature and to the government.
The first of these points has to do with
technical and technological education. I, for
one, was delighted with the announcement of
the $1 million technical training programme
a year ago and I am glad to say that the
announcement of this programme has taken
very dramatic effect, certainly in my part of
the country.
For instance, it was just a few days ago
that I noticed tiiis page, the front page of the
second section of the London Free Press. I do
not think this is likely typical, but certainly
pages like this appear not infrequently detail-
ing the enormous expansion in technical
training facilities in western Ontario. But
this is remarkable. The headline on the page
is:
o.k. new vocational school to serve
Walkerton area
The Department of Education has
granted permission to school boards in
Walkerton and area to go along with plans
for a 17-room vocational school addition
to Walkerville district high school.
Here is the second article on the page:
See approval for Hanover vocational
SITE
The Ontario Department of Education
will approve the location of a proposed
vocational wing to Hanover district high
school. The wing will provide vocational
training for students for three community
areas.
1
DECEMBER 8, 1961
275
Here is another article on the same page,
the headline of:
20 SCHOOL ADDITIONS SEEN SAVING AREA
MONEY
Taxpayers in the eight municipalities in
the Clinton District Collegiate Institute
school area were told at a meeting that a
proposed vocational addition would save
them money. Total cost of construction
would be borne by federal and provincial
grants.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, there is no
more important matter before us here in the
Legislature than this matter of technical
training.
On Wednesday, May 24, in the London
Free Press there was a Canadian Press
dispatch, a few paragraphs of which I would
like to read. It is a Canadian Press report
written by John Byrd, datelined Ottawa. The
headline is Settlers seem better educated
THAN THE AVERAGE CANADIAN.
A survey of 7,000 immigrants who be-
came citizens in 1959 shows a generally
higher level of education than the average
Canadian, relatively little unemployment
and a rapid increase in annual income.
The survey shows: (1) Few of the
immigrants surveyed had any great trouble
finding jobs after their arrival and keeping
them; (2) On the average they were better
educated than Canadians; ( 3 ) They tended
to stick at their jobs longer and their
annual income increased more quickly than
the average Canadian; (4) As with native
Canadians, however, immigrants without
crafts and skills had difficulty getting and
holding jobs.
Tlie average period of unemployment
for the group was under two weeks a year.
Immigrants with skills and professions had
only 3.2 weeks of unemployment over a six-
year period. Those with less than eight
years of schooling averaged 16 weeks out
of work in that period.
There was an interesting article in Time
magazine, I have not got the date but it
was some time last spring, which said in
part:
For U.S. industry the rise in unemploy-
ment to new highs last week underlined a
startling paradox. All around the nation,
even in such critical jobless areas as Detroit,
jobs are going begging for lack of skilled
workers to fill them. Industry is hard put
to find enough trained craftsmen but the
problem is getting worse. For every hun-
dred skilled workers that the nation had
in 1955 it will need 122 in 1965 and 145
in 1975.
It goes on to talk about one very important
aspect of technical training, namely, that in
the United States, and I think this is true in
Canada, it lacks a certain prestige in the
minds of both students and parents and this
diverts young men and women into courses
of training that do not fit them for a particular
job on graduation.
The article suggests:
High scholastic requirements can give
the schools new prestige. In a Chicago
vocational school, assistant principal Frank
J. Daley says, "We have completely upset
the idea that only stoops should go to
vocational school. It is now recognized
that a poor student is a poor craftsman."
The school superintendent of Cleveland
believes that vocational high schools are on
their way out altogether; that the need is
for a system of junior colleges and technical
institutions providing training for industry
advanced well beyond high school levels.
Industry today is demanding greater skills
than we can produce in high schools. One
big obstacle to all training programmes is
the prevailing view among parents that a
blue-collared technician has a less desirable
job than a white-collar worker, even if he
earns more money. Industry has done little
to counteract it.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon.
members of this House and other civic-minded
leaders could have an enormous influence on
the future success of young men and women
if they would on every opportunity stress
the importance of these children and young
men and women getting more schooling and
better training. It seems to me that we would
be doing the young people concerned a great
favour if we did everything possible to direct
them into vocational courses of study.
I am glad to say that in the London area
we have made quite a lot of progress in
this direction.
A few months ago the grade 13 technical
school, at H. B. Beal Tech, was accepted at
Ryerson Institute here in Toronto as being
the equivalent of first-year Ryerson. Whereas
a year ago they only had about eight or ten
students in their grade 13 tech, this increased
prestige— and I might add it was accompanied
by a tightening up of the curriculum by the
addition of engineering faculty members and
by the addition of improved equipment, the
whole course was strengthened— and as a
result of this, Mr. Speaker, this year they
have 35 or 40 members. My hope is tliat
276
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
grade 13 tech in London will continue to
succeed and that it will be possible, indeed
essential, for a Ryerson-type institute to be
built in London some time in the future.
May I speak for a moment or two about
mental health and the facilities which this
government is providing. There have been
three or four new mental health institutions
opened in our part of the country during the
past six months, the largest of which was
at Cedar Springs.
I am glad to say that the Ontario hospital
right in London has been substantially im-
proved. They have large quantities of new
furniture which make the institution more
agreeable to the patients being treated and
which I suggest will have an efficacious result
in the healing of these patients. They have
provided additional service facilities at con-
siderable cost. I am assured just very recently,
by the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond)
that the architectural plans for the new
Ontario hospital to be located in London are
going ahead as scheduled and that no undue
delay is anticipated.
By the way, this new hospital has been
promised to the citizens of London for 30
years, starting with Premier Hepburn. It has
been almost an annual thing. I am most
anxious, Mr. Speaker, that there should be no
further delay and I have every confidence that
the hon. Minister of Health will push these
plans and this new building to the best of
his ability.
I have a resolution in my hand from tlie
city of London dated May 17, 1961, that the
provincial hon. Minister of Health and the
Hospital Services Commission be asked to give
consideration to an amendment of the regula-
tions under The Hospital Services Commission
Act to broaden the coverage under such regu-
lations to provide that insured persons dis-
charged from active treatment hospitals shall
be covered under the plan for tlie cost of
drugs and nursing care required by such per-
sons while undergoing recovery from the ill-
ness for which they had been confined in
hospital for a post-hospital period of approxi-
mately 15 days, or such time as may be
considered desirable or necessary by the dis-
charging hospital authorities; and that copies
be provided to the following members, et
cetera.
This idea has great merit and I would like
to support it. Without question, humanitarian
doctors are putting patients in hospital and
keeping patients in hospital longer than is
necessary because they know these patients
cannot pay for the drug bill if they remain
out of hospital. I cannot blame the doctors
for that. It is perfectly understandable to me
that a man who has dedicated his life to the
care of sick people would not want to injure
these people, particularly in the lower income
brackets.
But it has a most unfortunate result, as
hon. members know. It means that hospital
beds are plugged up— they have waiting lists
for them— that extensive new bed facilities
must be created by the taxpayers and by tlie
insurance premium payers in this province.
I think that it might even save the people of
this province money if the city of London
resolution which I have read were adopted. I
am most hopeful, sir, that the hon. Minister of
Health and the government will give that
resolution careful consideration.
During the meetings which we held on the
cost of drugs, one of the witnesses mentioned
an Australian drug plan. I wrote to the
Australian High Commissioner in Ottawa and
he was good enough to send mo certain com-
ments on the plan as well as a copy of the
legislation and copy of the regulations. In
his letter of March 14 he says as follows:
As from March 1, 1960, a charge of five
shillings per prescription has been made to
members of the general public; other than
pensioners who are in possession of a pen-
sioner medical service entitlement card, to
whom no charge is made.
Prior to March, 1960, no charge was
made to members of the general public for
certain life-saving and disease-preventing
drugs upon the presentation of a doctor's
prescription. However, the list of drugs
available as from March 1, 1960, is much
more comprehensive.
The items available both to the pen-
sioners and the general public are set out
in the chemists' and doctors' booklets. The
drugs are distributed by pharmaceutical
chemists on the presentation of a doctor's
prescription. Distribution is also made by
approved hospitals to persons receiving
treatment in or at those hospitals and in
some isolated areas by approved doctors.
The chemist purchases his supply of
drugs and claims reimbursement from this
department at a price determined by the
Minister of Health after consultation with
the Federated Pharmaceutical Service Guild
of Australia. An amount of five shillings is
deducted in respect of each prescription,
other than those written for pensioners who
are in possession of a pensioner's medical
service entitlement card where no deduction
is made. He supports his claim on the
department with a receipted prescription in
each instance.
DECEMBER 8, 1961
277
This is a programme that we would be well
advised to investigate with some care. As a
matter of fact, while it is not generally
known, the Ontario government now is pro-
viding enormous quantities of drugs for tuber-
cular and mental care and certain other
specialized diseases. If a plan similar to the
Australian plan— and I must confess I have
not studied the legislation or the regulations,
so I cannot advise this House to accept the
Australian plan as is— but it seems to me that
a plan similar to the Australian drug plan
might fill a very serious need for health care
in the lives of our citizens, while costing the
taxpayers of the province very little indeed.
Going back to what I said a moment ago,
it would relieve the pressure for new, expen-
sive bed space.
I would like to commend the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) on the almost
miraculous work which he and his staflF did in
setting up the new sales tax regulations and
all the machinery which was necessary to
implement the tax which this Legislature
passed last spring. It was a fantastic job.
There were certain minor difficulties, no
question about it, but taken as a whole and
considering the period of time available to
him and to his staflF, I think they did a most
remarkable job and rendered a great service
to the citizens of this province.
I do not want to detract from that compli-
ment by pointing out one or two weaknesses
now. As a matter of fact, the first of these
weaknesses is being acted upon by the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) and his staflF.
That is the very serious difficulty which small
variety shopkeepers and small counter lunch-
room operators are experiencing in collecting
the very small amounts of tax involved in
their limited transactions. I know that one
London lunchcounter owner calculated-
charging his time at two dollars an hour— that
it was costing him $35 a month to collect $18
in tax. And there are other examples which
I could quote.
I am not going to spend a long time on it
because I know that the hon. Provincial
Treasurer is devising a formula method by
which the proprietor's gross sales can be
multiplied by a certain factor at the end of
each month and tax paid on that basis, sub-
ject, of course, to regular audit and certain
scrutiny by the department. This will com-
pletely eliminate those difficulties, if I am not
mistaken.
I have a letter here from a distinguished
businessman in the city of London dealing
with another rather complicated complaint.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I am
going to read it to the House in the hope that
this problem can be solved as the last one
which I discussed has been solved.
Dear Sir:
When discussing retail sales tax Act
with you a month or so ago you suggested
I might drop you a line, etc.—
Although we are a relatively small com-
pany we act as wholesaler, retailer, im-
porter, manufacturers, lessor; and handle
quite a quantity of machinery implements
which are both unconditionally exempt and
exempt for specific use. In addition, we
also have one other branch in the province.
We therefore manage to become involved
in almost all aspects of the Act.
One of my main objections to the present
administration of the Act is the use of the
purchase exemption certificate. It seems to
me that the use of this certificate is un-
necessary and burdensome and could be
easily replaced by the federal government's
method of quoting permit number when
purchasing items on an exempt basis.
As I now understand it, purchase exemp-
tion certificates do not become void within
a time limit. We have every expectation
that this Act will remain in force for many
years to come and I foresee in tlie future
a very real problem in trying to decide
what to do with the purchase exemption
certificates which are inactive but could
become of use if a purchaser should renew
from our company.
I now expect that in the normal course
of events I shall have to maintain a file
of somewhere between 700 and 1,000
exemption certificates wliich will be reason-
ably active as the years progress. How
big this file will become I am afraid to
calculate.
Where branches are involved it becomes
almost necessary to maintain a complete
duplication of the purchase exemption
certificates at each branch. We have
customers who will call into our branch for
parts where they normally deal directly
with head office and if they claim that they
have a purchase exemption certificate on
file with our head office, our branch can
only accept their word for it. Where many
branches are involved this must be a major
problem.
On tlie other side of the transaction, we
are already finding that when we wish to
buy items from some of our suppliers on a
non-exempt basis, that where we have an
278
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
exemption certificate on file tliere is a
tendency for the supplier to ship the goods
tax exempt. This means tliat we must then
go through tlie necessary procedures to have
them re-invoice us.
That is the crux of his argument, I think
it has validity.
I say that with some assurance because we
are encountering a problem almost identical
with this in our own company and I do hope
that the hon. Provincial Treasurer and his
staff find it possible to eliminate that problem.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, foreign affairs
are the responsibility of the federal govern-
ment and for that reason anything that is
done in foreign lands or for foreign lands
must be considered Ottawa's responsibility.
That does not mean, of course, that this
Legislature cannot take an interest in one or
two aspects of foreign relations, any more
than it means that the citizen cannot take an
interest in some foreign programme which
attracts his support.
I am very glad to be able to tell this
House that the Ontario government has under-
taken to sponsor ten African students. This is
of personal interest to me because the London
Chapter of the African Students Foundation
has been good enough to invite me to their
meetings and to keep me posted on their
progress. I think it is a wonderful thing that
the Ontario government has gone ahead with
tliis.
And by the way, Mr. Speaker, I have never
heard or seen this news in the newspapers. I
think this is just one of the hundreds of
things this government has undertaken with-
out expecting to reap any reward in the way
of public relations or anything else.
I have seen absolutely nothing about it in
the papers nor have I been advised by any-
body in the government about it. I have
this information from the minutes of a meet-
ing of the African Students Foundation,
London Chapter, dated September 8, 1961.
It is interesting to me to see-
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Could
I ask the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, what
the government role is in that? It was my
understanding this was organized by a group
of private people. They worked very hard
at it, made substantial contributions; per-
haps there have been some government grants
but I have not heard about them.
Mr. White: Well, I will be glad to answer
that question. This London chapter was
founded as an independent group initially
by a very able, talented and vigorous high
school teacher in London by the name of Mr.
Donald Simpson. He had been in Africa as
part of the "Operation Crossroads" and he
came back to London, very excited about the
idea of helping underdeveloped countries.
He spoke to service clubs and to his amaze-
ment and delight people came forward and
said, how can we help you? And they
organized this with a number of other
Londoners. They have since associated with
other chapters across the province and their
whole idea is to help underdeveloped countries
on a people to people basis.
They are not asking the government to take
them over, that is not the idea at all, but
they are seeking sponsors and I am glad to
say that the Ontario government, through the
goodness of its heart, through a recognition
of its wide responsibilities, has undertaken
to pay the way for 10 of these African
students.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. White: If the hon. members opposite
are suggesting that the government should
take over this association, I know that it
would meet with very firm resistance from
the people who are dedicating their lives to
it.
Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with three of
14 matters which I thought would be of
interest to the House but, disappointing as
it may be to my hon. friends opposite, I am
going to hold the balance of these for the
budget debate after the recess.
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham) moves the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the
House, we will proceed on Monday with
some of the second readings on the order
paper and with the Throne Debate. I intend
to call night sessions on Tuesday and Thurs-
day nights of next week.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
when is it the intention to call the estimates
of The Department of Insurance?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, I had not really
considered it, but I will give the hon. member
notice in any event.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 12.58 o'clock, p.m.
No. 13
ONTARIO
%tQislatmt of Ontario
Betiateisi
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Monday, December 11, 1961
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis^ Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
^ Monday, December 11, 1961
Election Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wintermeyer, first reading 281
Legislative Assembly Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wintermeyer, first reading 281
Retail Sales Tax Act, 1960-1961, bill to amend, Mr. Wintermeyer, first reading 281
Milk Industry Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 281
Ontario Agricultural College, Ontario Veterinary College and MacDonald Institute,
bill respecting, Mr. Stewart, first reading 281
Establishment of the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, bill to provide for,
Mr. Stewart, first reading 281
Statement re appointment of Royal commission on organized crime, Mr. Robarts 282
Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1960, bill to confirm, third reading 290
Fish Inspection Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
BailiflFs Act, 1960-1961, bill to amend, third reading 290
Coroners Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Crown Attorneys Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Devolution of Estates Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Jurors Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Legitimacy Act, 1961-1962, bill intituled, third reading 290
Master and Servant Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Mechanics' Lien Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1960, bill to confirm, third reading 290
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Trustee Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Dentistry Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Sanatoria for Consumptives Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Air Pollution Control Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Cancer Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Public Health Act, bill to amend, third reading 290
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Carruthers, Mr. Singer,
Mr. Nickle 290
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Nickle, agreed to ...;/.....;....:......../. ;. 309
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to .......: 309
281
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests, in the east gallery,
students from Havergal College, Toronto.
Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE ELECTION ACT
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition) moves first reading of bill in-
tituled An Act to amend The Election Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT
Mr. Wintermeyer moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to amend The Legisla-
tive Assembly Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE RETAIL SALES TAX ACT, 1960-61
Mr. Wintermeyer moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to amend The Retail
Sales Act, 1960-61.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
may I inquire if notice of this bill was given?
There is a notice of a bill entitled An Act
to amend The Retail Sales Act, 1960-61 on
the order paper, but I do not see any notice
of a bill to amend The Retail Sales Tax Act.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your ruling
on this point, sir. As I understand the rules,
notice of bills must be given, and the title
given in the notice must be exactly the same
Monday, December 11, 1961
as the title of the bill, which is not the case
here.
Mr. Speaker: It is presumed by the Speaker
to be the same bill.
THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture) moves first reading of bill intituled An
Act to amend The Milk Industry Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): May I ask
the hon. Minister to explain this bill, please?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: This bill, Mr. Speaker,
is to clarify certain points in the Milk Industry
bill and to provide for the collection of fees
for testing and grading of milk by depart-
mental officials. It is also designed to assist
in bringing the co-operative trucking of milk
into line with the requirements of The Public
Commercial Vehicles Act under The Depart-
ment of Transport. It will go to the com-
mittee on agriculture.
ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE,
ONTARIO VETERINARY COLLEGE
AND MACDONALD INSTITUTE
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act respecting Ontario Agri-
cultural College, The Ontario Veterinary
College and the MacDonald Institute.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
OF ONTARIO
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of
bill intituled An Act to Provide for the
Establishment of the Agricultural Research
Institute of Ontario.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Speaker,
would the hon. Minister explain the nature of
the last two bills?
282
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The purpose of the first
bill has to do with the federation of the Agri-
cultural College, the Veterinary College and
MacDonald Institute at Guelph to bring them
under one administration and co-ordinate all
of the administrations there. The bill will
be dealt with on second reading and will be
sent to the committee on agriculture.
The second bill has to do with research; it
co-ordinates all of the research projects in
the Ontario Agricultural College— and every
other research project in the province of
Ontario dealing with agriculture— under the
agricultural research institute; it will be dealt
with in second reading and sent to the
committee on agriculture.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish
to make a -statement to this House which I
believe to be of great concern and importance
to the people of this province.
On November 29, 1961, the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) delivered
a long address in which he covered at great
length various matters concerning allegations
of organized crime; in addition, he made
what I consider to be very serious charges
against certain people. On the following day
I informed the House that it would be my
objective to ensure that our laws are admin-
istered with integrity, fairness, with vigour
and justice. I also informed the House that
I would have a complete analysis of this
statement made, and that I would compare
the statement with the action which had been
taken in and out of the courts. I said
further, that upon the results of this personal
investigation I would make my judgment and
recommend a course of action to the govern-
ment.
A detailed study of this statement indicates
that it contains little, if any, evidence that
has not already been uncovered by the work
of the provincial police. Certainly the larger
percentage of the material of any importance
comes from pohce and prosecution files,
dossiers and briefs. In this material are
matters which might or might not be evidence
in a court of law. Also included among the
material is a great deal of background infor-
mation compiled for police and prosecution
use which might or might not be true and a
good deal of which cannot be considered as
even remotely constituting evidence which
would be admissible in a court of law.
An examination of most police and prosecu-
tion dossiers would reveal plenty of infor-
matipi> of this type which is so necessary to
the police in conducting their work of investi-
gation—all of which must be examined with
great care when the question of prosecution
arises.
I would like to sketch very briefly the facts
surrounding the gathering and documenting of
this information by the police. I must point
out that there are cases presently before the
courts to which I will refer, and which involve
to a very great extent, matters mentioned and
charges made by the hon. leader of the
Opposition. Many of these matters, there-
fore, are under consideration by the courts
of this province. One of the rules of debate
in this House is that a member may not
allude to matters awaiting a judicial decision.
Matters that are before our courts should not
be discussed, in order that we may preserve
the fundamental rule of our criminal law:
that every individual is innocent until proven
guilty. Due attention to this rule places my-
self and the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Rob-
erts) under very serious disability in giving
explanations, even though this rule apparently
imposes no responsibility upon the hon. leader
of the Opposition.
However, I will describe briefly the course
of events and will avoid specific references
which might be prejudicial to any matter
presently being considered by our courts.
Early in February, 1960— as a result of certain
information which reached the ears of the
provincial police— the Commissioner of the
provincial police detailed Provincial Con-
stable George Scott to conduct certain under-
cover investigations in connection with an
investigation of gambling activities. During
the course of these investigations. Constable
Scott associated with many individuals sus-
pected of being involved in criminal activity,
and to record his experiences he kept a diary.
He obtained certain evidence, as a result of
which a charge of bribery was laid against one
Constable Wright on May 27. On June 27,
1960, Wright was committed for trial and the
investigation was continued.
On July 22, 1960, as a result of these con-
tinuing investigations, charges of keeping a
common gaming house were laid against cer-
tain other persons. The police investigation
continued past this time.
In December, 1960— as a result of further
information that had been received— a charge
of conspiracy to bribe was directed to be laid
against certain of these individuals. This
charge came about as a result of further inten-
sive police investigation, subsequent to the
laying of the charges of keeping a common
gaming house. An independent Crown pros-
ecutor was appointed to conduct prosecution
of these chargeSj . . , ,..,. ,.,;.: .,;
DECEMBER 11, 1961
283
The preliminary hearing was held between
March 21 and 27, 1961, and the accused on
the more serious charge, namely, conspiracy
to bribe, were committed for trial. This trial
took place in the Svipreme Court of Ontario
before the Honourable Mr. Justice Spence
and a jury, between May 19 and June 9, 1961,
when the accused were acquitted.
On June 12, 1961, it was announced that
an appeal would be launched against the
verdict of acquittal and on June 29, a notice
of appeal was prepared, served and filed. One
might expect that the appeal in this matter
would be heard some time early in January.
I might also point out that there are other
counts in the indictment still outstanding
against these accused persons, which will be
dealt with after the disposition of the Crown
appeal.
I give this history of the investigation,
the charges, and the court procedure in these
cases so that we may all understand very
clearly just what action is presently being
taken. I wovdd point that the original inves-
tigations were commenced on the instruc-
tions of the Commissioner of the provincial
police in February, 1960. As a result of
these investigations, Mr. W. B. Common,
the Deputy Attorney-General, advised the hon.
Attorney-General of the evidence that had
been obtained; the investigation then con-
tinued, with the decision to lay charges be-
ing reached— on May 21, 1960— to issue on
May 27. This decision was made by the
hon. Attorney-General upon the advice of his
legal staff.
I might point out that the diaries referred
to in the statement of the hon. leader of the
Opposition were compiled by Police Con-
stable George Scott, who had been directed
to carry out this work by his superiors. I
would point out also that the work which he
was doing was of the most dangerous nature
to himself, personally. The notes which he
put in these diaries were bound to incjude
some things which were factual, some things
which were pure gossip, and some which
were boasting. The people with whom he
was associating and investigating use, as their
stock in trade, names, assertions of acquain-
tanceship and indications of familiarity. And
yet, to the investigator, all these matters
had to be recorded— not as matters of truth
in themselves— but as a record of the mere
fact of conversation, and in the hope that
from them would be developed and sifted
evidence which might be used in court.
In connection with the ordering of the
prosecutions, I can say that the Deputy
Attorney-General advised the hon. Attorney-
General, early in May, to lay charges as a
result of the information received. There
was, however, a request that the investiga-
tion be continued and, therefore, the laying
of the charge was deferred until May 27.
This was done upon the recommendation
of, and with the full knowledge of, senior
members of the legal department of the hon.
Attorney-General. They were fully aware
of the contents of the diaries and were fully
aware that these diaries would be turned
over to an independent Crown counsel— with
instructions to use the information in the
diaries as he saw fit— to prosecute the ac-
cused.
In the course of the preparation for trial,
certain junior solicitors were engaged to
assist the Crown counsel. I am satisfied tliat
it is from one or more of these solicitors—
who were engaged and retained on a highly
confidential basis— that a great deal of infor-
mation was handed to the hon. leader of the
Opposition. I do not intend to elaborate
on the ethics of this conduct other than to
say that it did happen. Furthermore, I
would point out that, when certain charges
were heard in the preliminary hearing, the
unrevised and uncensored contents of the
diary were made available to defence coun-
sel, and within a very short time certain
parts of these diaries became common
knowledge and gossip, and reached the ears
of various people. I can only point out that,
as a result of these events, information which
was actually the result of Crown investigations
going back for some very considerable period,
is now being used in an attempt to impugn the
integrity of the very persons under whose
direction the investigations were conducted,
and under whose direction the material was
gathered and the dossiers were prepared.
I would like to make clear my own personal
position in this matter. I have been given the
responsibility of setting up a new administra-
tion in the province and I have no intention
of disregarding charges such as have been
levelled at two of the departments of the
government, and at the senior administrative
personnel of those departments. On the other
hand, I must bear in mind that investigations
into the conduct of public officials and police
officers can be very destructive of morale. In
addition, such investigations can be used to
disclose to the criminal elements of our com-
munity, information and facts which would
otherwise be denied them. This aspect of the
matter must be borne in mind.
It is the intention of the government, as
indicated by Bill No. 24— which is An Act to
amend The Police Act— to introduce a new
284
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
body into the administration of justice, to be
known as the Ontario Police Commission.
While I do not intend to debate the principles
of this bill, I would like to refer to the broad
aspects of what we intend to achieve, and
how this body will affect the broad pattern
of law enforcement in this province.
The new Ontario Police Commission, as
contemplated, will be composed of three per-
sons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council witli power to investigate, inquire
into and report upon the conduct of, or the
performance of duties of, any policemen in
the province and the general administration
of any police force. It also has power to carry
out general investigation. The commission is
designed to be completely independent of any
control by any department of government—
along with its obligation to report yearly to
the Attorney-General, to the Lieutenant-
Governor in Council and to this assembly.
In addition, this commission will have all the
powers that may be conferred under The
Public Inquiries Act.
It is our intention that this commission will
examine on a continuing basis, over a period
of time, all matters having to do with crime
in Ontario and all matters having to do with
the administration of the various police forces.
One can see the advantages in such a body.
In the first place, it is completely free from
all external influence and will operate on a
continuing basis over a period of years and
thus will develop a knowledge of the organi-
zation of our police and the enforcement of
our laws over a long period of time. In
addition, it will develop a continuing knowl-
edge of die broader trends of criminal activity
—not only in this jurisdiction, but in the juris-
dictions that surround us.
Despite the obvious advantages which will
accrue as a result of the creation of this body,
I am none the less very concerned, as I have
said, about the charges that have been made
in this House. I am concerned because
of my position, as I have mentioned, with a
new administration. I am additionally con-
cerned because I feel that these charges have
served to disturb public opinion, and to create
in the minds of the people of the province
some doubts and fears regarding the extent of
crime in this province.
A week ago last Thursday I stated that it
would be my objective that the administration
of justice in the operation of our law enforce-
ment agencies— such as our police forces-
would be operated with integrity, and on the
highest planes of both justice and efficiency.
I have no intention of altering these objectives
in any way. I have received two letters which
I intend to read to you and which clearly
express the concern of certain senior per-
sonnel. The first letter reads as follows:
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto 2,
December 6, 1961.
The Honourable John P. Robarts, q.c.
Prime Minister of Ontario,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
My Dear Mr. Robarts,
With reference to the recent statements in the
Legislature reflecting upon the honesty and integrity
of senior officials of this department, with respect,
I cannot urge too strongly that an inquiry be neld
at the earliest possible moment.
It is my opinion, however, that consideration must
be given to the fact that the prosecution in question
is still sub judice.
Yours faithfully,
( signed )
W. B. Common
Deputy Attorney-General.
The second letter reads as follows:
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto 2,
December 6, 1961.
The Honourable John P. Robarts, q.c.
Prime Minister of Ontario,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
My Dear Mr. Robarts,
In view of the statements made in the Legislature
at the present session clearly reflecting upon the
integrity of senior officials of the Attorney-General's
department, I would, as Director of Public Prosecu-
tions, urge that an inquiry into the matter be held
as soon as possible.
Yours faithfully,
( signed )
W. C. Bowman,
Director of Public Prosecutions
I might say, in considering the insinuations
and charges of the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition—and, for that matter, the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald)— I have had
to bear in mind the necessity for immediate
and complete investigation.
I have also come to the opinion that while
the Ontario Police Commission, which I have
described to hon. members will serve a very
great purpose over a continuing period of
time, it will not serve to dispel the worries
and fears which I feel exist among our people
as a result of the many charges and accusa-
tions.
I therefore feel that in order to discharge
my own responsibility to the people of the
province and to satisfy myself in these early
days of a new administration, and to ensure
to all of us that the standards of conduct and
investigation and administration of justice in
all its phases are the highest in our province,
I have decided to establish a Royal com-
mission and I so recommend to the Govern-
ment. I have asked th§ Hon. Mr. Justice
DECEMBER 11, 1961
285
Roach and he has agreed to act as com-
missioner.
The terms of the commission are as follows:
To inquire into and report upon
1. the administration of the laws and
regulations regarding the incorporation and
operations of social clubs, having regard to
allegations made by the hon. leader of the
Opposition in his speech of November 29,
1961.
2. any improper relationships— as alleged
by the hon. leader of the Opposition in his
speech of November 29, 1961— between
senior officials of the legal staff of The
Department of the Attorney-General and
any person or persons— and more partic-
ularly relating to
(a) the termination of investigations;
(b) the suppression of evidence;
(c) the payment of money.
3. the extent of crime in Ontario and the
sufficiency of the law enforcement agencies
to deal with it.
Mr. Justice Roach is a man of great ability,
of great and varied experience and a man in
whom the people of Ontario may have every
confidence. I will welcome the results of his
investigations and I hope that the hon. mem-
bers opposite will bring forth their charges—
and any information they may have to sub-
stantiate them— in order that we may obtain
and view all the facts of these matters.
I would like to repeat that I feel it is of
the utmost importance that there be no doubt
in anyone's mind in this province concerning
the honesty and integrity of our officials, the
sufficiency of our laws and the adequacy of
our enforcement agencies to deal with the
criminal elements that exist in every society.
More particularly must we have confidence
that we can deal with any criminal element
that may choose to attempt to cross our bor-
ders from another jurisdiction. We can all
be certain that a most complete and impartial
investigation will take place, and that the
necessary machinery will be established to
deal with these matters in an efficient and
complete way. I can assure the hon. mem-
bers of this House and the people of the prov-
ince that I and this administration will be
satisfied with nothing but the best in the
administration of justice and the maintenance
of law and order. We will welcome the report
of this Royal commission, and if any action
is necessary as a result of the report, we will
be standing ready and able to take it. And
if these many accusations and imputations fall
short we will leave to the court of public
opinion the decision as to their propriety. Our
purpose and intent is clear, and we will abide
by the result.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I recognize the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) for his
question.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, are you suggesting
that I am limited to one question only in
conjunction with it?
Then, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr.
F. R. Oliver (Grey South), the adjournment of
the House to discuss a matter of urgent pub-
lic importance— that is, the policy of this
government to cope with organized crime in
Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wintermeyer moves, sec-
onded by Mr. Oliver, the adjournment of the
House to discuss a matter of urgent public
importance— that is, the policy of this govern-
ment to cope with organized crime in Ontario.
I have had no notice of this motion, so there-
fore, I—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, may I sug-
gest that this motion specifically does not
require notice.
Mr. Speaker: I had not got that far. I
said I had no notice of the motion, and as
the hon. member points out I do not require
one, but it is possible that I could rule the
motion out of order.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to
you that the motion I have made is very
much in order. Firstly, as you said, no notice
is required; and, secondly, Mr. Speaker, this
is a matter of great public urgency and impor-
tance; a matter, Mr. Speaker-
Interjection by Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Min-
ister of Mines).
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Minister of Mines,
I have never in my life taken a position to
which I am more dedicated and you are one
man who will not distract me.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that on November 29, I did outline a request
for a Royal commission, and specifically,
Mr. Speaker, I outlined six conditions that I
suggested were prerequisite—
286
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would point out
to the hon. members of the House that, in
these matters of moving the adjournment of
the House to discuss a matter of urgent pub-
he importance, in the first place we know
that no member shall speak to such motions
for more than 10 minutes. And, of course,
it mentions here in our book of rules that
a motion to adjourn the House or the de-
bate shall always be in order, except that,
without leave of the House, no such motion
for the adjournment of the House shall be
made until the orders of the day have been
entered upon— unless a member rising in his
place shall propose to move the adjournment
of the House for the purpose of discussing
a definite matter of urgent public impor-
tance, which matter has previously been sub-
mitted to, and approved by, the Speaker. I
therefore rule the motion out of order.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders-
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Look, George,
will you sit down for a while?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We will deal with
this matter.
An hon. member: It is quite in order.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, sir, if you would
give me your indulgence on this for a
moment. I looked into the authorities on
this matter and it is quite clear; first, Mr.
Speaker, as you have pointed out, the sub-
ject matter of the motion need only be
handed to you in writing; this the hon. leader
of the Opposition has done. However, Sir
Erskine May says quite clearly that upon
such a motion— usually with the indulgence
of the House, and your permission, sir— the
person who moves such a motion is given
an opportunity to make a few remarks in
connection with its character. Now, I would
ask you, Mr. Speaker, just to reconsider your
decision— and, permit the hon. leader of the
Opposition to make a few personal remarks.
An hon. member: Away out of order!
Mr. Sopha: How would you know?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. G. Lavergne (Russell): That is right.
Mr. Speaker: I state once again that I
consider the motion out of order and unac-
ceptable. I consider, too, that plenty of time
has been given to this matter and since the
whole question was the appointment of a
commission it seems to have been dealt with
on that basis.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, with re-
spect—with great respect— I must challenge
your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member like
to challenge the ruling of the Speaker?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Speaker: As many as are in favour
of the Speaker's ruling will please say "aye."
As many as are opposed say "nay."
The Speaker's ruling was upheld on the
following division:
YEAS
NAYS
Allan (Haldimand-
Belanger
Norfolk)
Bryden
Allen (Middlesex
Bukator
South)
Chappie
Auld
Davison
Beckett
Edwards
Brown
(Wentworth)
Brunelle
. Gisborn
Carruthers
Gordon
Cass
Gould
Cathcart
Innes
Cecile
Manley
Connell
Newman
Cowling
Oliver
Daley
Reaume
Downer
Singer
Dymond
Sopha
Edwards (Perth)
Spence
Evans
Thomas
Frost
Thompson
Gomme
Trotter
Goodfellow
Troy
Grossman
Whicher
Guindon
Wintermeyer
Hall
Worton
Hanna
-24
Haskett
Hoffman
Johnston
(Parry Sound)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Lavergne
Lawrence
Letherby
Lewis
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morningstar
Myers
McNeil;?;' !'ui<^u^ ■
Nickle ■ .^tm. ■-■•;
, • : - " " f ;, ; ■'■;•-
DECEMBER 11, 1961
287
YEAS
Noden
Parry
Price
Robarts
Roberts
Rollins
Root
Rowntree
Sandercock
Simonett
Spooner
Stewart
Sutton
Wardrope
Warrender
Whitney
Yaremko
-55
Mr. Speaker: I recognize the hon. Minister
of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) if he has a question.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day, I wish to make a state-
ment to this House with respect to certain
allegations made by the hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald) on Friday,
December 1, relative to the Big Duck Lake
area, Thunder Bay district, with particular
reference to KRNO Mines Limited. I have
thoroughly investigated the matter of the
geological studies undertaken in that area
and I can assure the House that they were
made in the ordinary course of business and
procedures. Every year geological field
bodies are sent to various parts of the prov-
ince by The Ontario Department of Mines.
Mr. Wintermeyer: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I have the floor, Mr.
Speaker. The Opposition does not want to
hear the truth. All they want to do is make
allegations.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I understood the hon.
Minister wished to ask a question. Now I
realize that there may be a question to be
asked of the previous speaker and I think to
keep the business of the House in order we
should proceed on that basis. However, I
was not eager to let the ambition of the
Minister go entirely unrewarded, and I see
my view is not unanimous at this time.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): I would like to
ask a question of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts), arising out of his statement; this
would be the appropriate opportunity if he
would permit me to ask it. I did not have
an opportunity because the hon. leader of
the Opposition-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, may I state
my point of order?
Mr. Speaker: An hon. member can state
his point of order at any time.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, the point
of order that I want to make is this: If a
Royal commission has been appointed, then
the matter that the hon. Minister of Mines
is alluding to is, presumably, sub judice and
I would like your ruling now in respect of
whether or not any member can talk on this
subject.
Mr. Speaker: I will deal with that matter
when we come to it. At this time I would
say that if an hon. member wishes to ask
a question arising out of the statement of
the hon. Prime Minister, that is perfectly
in order at this time.
Mr. Bryden: May I proceed with my ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker? I would like to ask the
hon. Prime Minister if in view of the fact
that the announcement he has just made
represents—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wood-
bine (Mr. Bryden) has a question which is
perfectly in order.
Mr. Bryden: Thank you, sir. My question
to the hon. Prime Minister is this: If, in view
of the fact that the statement he has just
made— and the announcement of policy he
has just made— represents a complete reversal
of the policy which the hon. Attorney-Gen-
eral stubbornly adhered to throughout—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The hon.
member knows perfectly well that a ques-
tion is for the purpose of seeking informa-
tion, not for the purpose of giving it. If
the hon. member cannot observe this rule I
will not observe the hon member.
Mr. Bryden: Thank you, sir. My question
is this—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Speaker, may I
carry on?
Mr. Bryden: Is it to be anticipated that the
resignation of the hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts) will be forthcoming?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
288
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day— when I was so rudely
interrupted— I wished to make a statement
to this House with respect to certain allega-
tions made by the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) on F'-iday, Decem-
ber 1, relative to the Big Duck Lake area,
Thunder Bay district, with particular refer-
ence to KRNO Mines Limited. I have thor-
oughly investigated the matter of the
geological studies undertaken in that area-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order-
Mr. Speaker: Order! We are going to
consider all statements relative to the matters
mentioned by the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition and by the hon. Prime Minister as
sub judice at this time; a Royal commission
has been appointed and therefore such
matters are considered sub judice at this
point.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day, I have a question which seeks
information, directed to the hon. Minister
without Portfolio (Mr. Grossman).
Interjections by hon members.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question;
do I not have the floor, sir?
Mr. Speaker: Order! Hon. members will
recognize the speaker and realize that we are
trying to do business which is before the
House. I am quite sure that the hon. Min-
ister's statement has something to do with
the matter immediately before the House and
I am assuming that what the hon. member
(Mr. Troy) is rising for, is something new— am
I right about that?
Mr. Troy: It is, sir.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I wanted
only to say to the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Wintermeyer) that the statement
that the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Ward-
rope) is attempting to make concerns only
administrative procedure in his department
and does not concern any of these matters
that we have discussed in either the address
of the hon. leader of the Opposition or in
anything that I had to say. I just tell him
that as a matter of information in order to
get down to the business of the House.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) has been very kind in his
explanation but I would ask him simply this:
Does the Royal commission that he has ap-
pointed limit itself— in respect to the social
clubs and the department of the hon.
Attorney-General and the department of the
hon. Minister of Mines— to the so-called alle-
gations that I made on November 29?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: For the information of
the hon. leader of the Opposition, I will read
the terms of reference again, Mr. Speaker.
There are three paragraphs and the third
one is: The extent of crime in Ontario and
the sufficiency of the law enforcement agen-
cies to deal with it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is the third one.
This is a point of great seriousness to the
House. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime Minister
has referred to the third observation or para-
graph. My interpretation of the first two
paragraphs was that they were limited to
the so-called allegations that I have made.
Now is that right or wrong, Mr. Speaker?
Surely we have a right to ask that question
in specific terms?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. members realize
that they do have the privilege of asking ques-
tions; hon. members are also privileged not
to answer those questions.
Mr. Sopha: May I ask the hon. Prime Min-
ister whether commission counsel has been
appointed and, if so, his identity?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, he has not
yet been appointed.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Will there be an investi-
gating branch associated with, or attached to,
the Royal commission?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, these mat-
ters will be dealt with—
Mr. Wintermeyer: They are of the greatest
importance, Mr. Speaker, and should be deter-
mined now.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question.
It is not as cold where I was, as it was in
Port Arthur. My question is to the hon.
Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Grossman), the
chief commissioner of the Liquor Control
Board of Ontario: What is the policy of the
Liquor Control Board of Ontario in regard
to part-time employment of personnel in retail
outlets at any time— and particularly during
the Christmas rush? My second question is,
does the board in its policy comply with
the provisions of the veterans' preference as
permitted in Ontario?
DECEMBER 11, 1961
289
Mr. Lavergne: Would the hon. member
repeat that? I did not hear it.
Mr. Troy: The question was not directed
to the hon. member for Russell.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for giving me notice of this question, but I
thought that question No. 1 was somewhat
ambiguous because it refers to a policy in
regard to part-time employment in retail out-
lets at any time— and particularly the Christ-
mas rush. I wanted to know what specific
question he really wanted answered, such as
the recruitment policy or remuneration, etc.
I attempted to reach the hon. member some
time early this afternoon to get him to clarify
it and I spoke to him before the orders. He
agreed to ask a specific question along the
lines I suggested to him. If he cares to do
that now, it is all right with me, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Troy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The second
question, of course, had to do with veterans'
preference. I knew that the hon. Minister
had the answer to that because I know there
was a change in the post of chief commis-
sioner; I thought there might also be a change
in policy in that regard. The first question
was prompted by the fact that I find in
certain areas—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with all
due respect, I was trying to do the courteous
thing to the hon. member and give him an
opportunity to ask a specific question that
could be answered specifically. Apparently
he wants to get up and make a speech on
that. In that case I will say that I will take
question No. 1 as notice and that if the hon.
member wishes to clarify it at some future
date I weuld be glad to give a specific
answer.
In respect of his question No. 2: Does the
board in its policy comply with the provisions
of veterans' preference— my officials tell me
that the answer to that is "Yes."
Mr. Troy: I will clarify the first question
then. The hon. Minister asked me to clarify
the first question.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, I was going to
clarify the question.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I would ask
the hon. members when the Speaker is on
his feet, that this House give order to the
Speaker's chair. Hon. members will see the
difficulty we get into when we have explana-
tions of questions, rather than direct questions
at this point. Certainly the hon. member
could ask more questions tomorrow, but at
this point the hon. member for Woodbine (Mr.
Bryden) has the floor.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day I would like to direct a question
to the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts),
who I believe is the proper person to answer
on behalf of the government.
In view of reports appearing in Saturday's
press to the effect that the automobile insur-
ance rates charged in Ontario by private
companies will be increased by as much as
15 per cent in some cases and by an average
of 8 per cent effective January 1, 1962, will
the government indicate if it is prepared to
take action before the Christmas recess of
the Legislature to prevent rates from being
increased over their present level until there
has been an opportunity to consider the rec-
ommendation made by the select committee
on automobile insurance in its interim report
that machinery for regulating rates be estab-
lished?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, my understanding is that there is no
report of the select committee before the
House at the present time.
Mr. Bryden: This report is public knowl-
edge.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: But I would say this: I
think perhaps I might outline the normal
procedures with respect to rates under section
335 of The Insurance Act:
The superintendent may require a rating
bureau to file notice of changes in its
schedule of rates.
Each year the Canadian Underwriters'
Association, which actually represents or is
composed of what is known as the so-called
warrant companies— doing something less, I
believe, than 50 per cent of the total
business— these people forw^ard to the super-
intendent a copy of the statistics prepared
annually on all automobile insurance written
in Canada divided by territories in the various
rating classes.
The latest statistics filed cover policies
written in the five years, 1956 to 1960, which
290
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
show a steady increase in the average cost
of public liabihty and property damage
claims. On the basis of these statistics they
have discussed witli the superintendent of
insurance the changes in automobile rates
considered necessary for 1962 in the different
automobile classifications. He has considered
with care the proposed rate changes and the
statistical basis therefor, and he is of the
opinion that the proposed rate changes are
justified by the experience.
It is anticipated that the adjusted rates
will be no more than sufficient, according to
his statement— that is the superintendent's
statement— to allow the companies a profit on
automobile insurance of a maximum of 2V2
per cent of premiums, and in the superinten-
dent's opinion the proposed rates are not
excessive.
It might be pointed out that some 30
years ago, section 339 of The Insurance Act
was in a series of sections, unproclaimed sec-
tions, they never have been proclaimed
certain sections. In practice the submissions
by this board of the Canadian Underwriters'
Association of proposed rates is made to the
superintendent and analyzed by him. But
section 339 of The Insurance Act, which has
never been proclaimed, allows the super-
intendent to order an adjustment of auto-
mobile insurance rates whenever it is found
by him that such rates are excessive, inade-
quate, unfairly discriminatory or otherwise
unreasonable. Under the present arrange-
ment, however, whereby the Canadian Under-
writers' Association in effect gets approval
to the changes, this proclamation has never
been considered necessary. That is the
position, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
■^ THIRD READINGS
Tlie following bills were given third read-
ing upon motions:
Bill No. 1, An Act to confirm the Revised
Statutes of Ontario, 1960.
Bill No. 12, An Act to amend The Fish
Inspection Act.
Bill No. 14, An Act to amend Tlie Bailiffs
Act, 1960-61.
Bill No. 15, An Act to amend The Cor-
oners Act.
Bill No. 16, An Act to amend The Crown
Attorneys Act.
Bill No. 17, An Act to amend The Devolu-
tion of Estates Act.
Bill No. 20, An Act to amend The Jurors
Act.
Bill No. 21, The Legitimacy Act, 1961-62.
Bill No. 22, An Act to amend The Master
and Servant Act.
Bill No. 23, An Act to amend Tlie Me-
chanics' Lien Act.
Bill No. 25, An Act to amend The Recipro-
cal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders
Act.
Bill No. 26, An Act to confirm the Revised
Regulations of Ontario, 1960.
Bill No. 27, An Act to amend The Sum-
mary Convictions Act.
Bill No. 28, An Act to amend The Trustee
Act.
Bill No. 29, An Act to amend The Den-
tistry Act.
Bill No. 30, An Act to amend The Sanatoria
for Consumptives Act.
Bill No. 31, An Act to amend The Air Pol-
Ivition Control Act.
Bill No. 32, An Act to amend The Cancer
Act.
Bill No. 35, An Act to amend The Public
Health Act.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to participate in this debate it is
again a matter of pride for me that I do so
on behalf of the good people of Durham
county— that historic riding which has played
such an important part, and is playing such
an important part in the economic and cul-
tural life of Ontario.
May I first take the opportunity of con-
gratulating the mover, the hon. member for
Toronto-St. George (Mr. Lawrence), and the
seconder, the hon. member for Renfrew
North (Mr. Hamilton), for the motion for an
address in reply to the Speech from the
Throne. Their speeches are typical of those
we are accustomed to hearing from the gov-
ernment benches, Mr. Speaker, in that they
were refreshing, informative, challenging and
delivered in a very capable manner. I con-
gratulate them both very sincerely.
May I also at this time, Mr. Speaker, join
with the other hon. members of this House
in expressing my sincere regrets on the loss
to this Legislature in the deaths of Mr.
Maloney, Mr. Nixon, and Mr. Wren— three
hon. members for whom I had great respect
DECEMBER 11, 1961
291
and whose passing since we last met, breaks
that chain of friendship that transcends all
political ties and imposes a loss on all of us;
a loss we share in sincere sympathy with
their families.
It is always a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to
show my appreciation to those who serve
this Legislature in important roles. It gives
me great pleasure at this time, therefore, to
once more express my thanks to you for
your kindness and your thoughtfulness on so
many occasions and to congratulate you on
the dignified and unbiased manner in which
you continue to fulfil the duties of your high
and important ofiice.
It is also a pleasure at this time to have
the opportunity of congratulating all those
who have assumed new and important duties
of office. I will not take the time of this
House to congratulate them individually but
in oflfering my felicitations collectively, for
the recognition which has come to them as
a result of their ability and their services,
I would echo the sentiments expressed so
capably by the mover and seconder of the
motion of thanks in reply to the Speech
from the Throne.
May I, however, be granted the privilege
of expressing my sincere congratulations to
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) on his
election by the largest and most enthusias-
tic convention ever held in this province,
to the most responsible and important posi-
tion he now holds. His fine record in the
service of Her Majesty's forces, his dedicated
service to the people of his riding and the
capable manner in which he has fulfilled
his duties of office have won for him the
respect and admiration of all.
The confidence which the rank and file
of our party have placed in him, Mr. Speaker,
will be reflected in the days to come, not
only in continued support for the policies
of this government but by support from
areas which have not adhered to them in the
past. In the changes which have taken place,
Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed the passing
of one era and the introduction of another.
In the passing of the former we pause to
pay tribute to the then Prime Minister of
this province (Mr. Frost), who, I am sure,
wishes to be recognized as the unassuming
but none the less devoted representative of
Victoria. History will record his adminis-
tration as one of unprecedented progress in
the development of this province and his
almost quarter-of-a-century of service to the
people of Ontario, 12 years of which were as
Prime Minister, is reflected in the physical
expansion of our resources. The greatest
monument to his outstanding leadership will
be found, Mr. Speaker, not in the physical
accomplishments, but in the enviable position
he has established in the hearts and minds
of the people of this province.
In the ushering in of a new administration
we witness, I am sure, the advent of a new
era of prosperity for this province under new
and dynamic leadership. This debate always
affords a private member an opportunity of
expressing and reflecting in some measure the
opinions and the ideas of the constituents
whom he represents, and in the limited re--
marks which I wish to make I will endeavour
to keep that in mind.
In doing so my task is made easier by the
opinions expressed editorially and presswise
by the various newspapers serving my riding.
These include the Port Hope Guide, one of
the few daily papers, Mr. Speaker, published
in towns of tliat size; the Canadian Statesman
of Bowmanville, regarded across Canada as
one of the outstanding weeklies and winner
of various awards over the years; the Orono
Times and in addition the Oshawa Times, and
the Peterborough Examiner, all of which
provide excellent news coverage for that
area.
Agriculture is still the basic industry of
Durham, and my county has shared in the
general rise of farm income in this province,
Mr. Speaker, which has reached an overall
total of some $883 million. When that
amount is related to the income of industries
associated with agriculture, the total would
reach a figure double or triple that size.
The county of Durham is blessed by Provi-
dence with a great variety of soil and other
conditions which lend themselves to the estab-
lishment of many branches of the industry.
The healthy condition of agriculture in Dur-
ham is reflected not only in the high quality
of agricultural products but in the strength
of our farm organizations, the Federation of
Agriculture, the Farmers Union, the junior
farm groups, Durham County Tobacco Grow-
ers Association and others.
The members of these groups have recorded
outstanding achievements in competition with
other areas of the province. Durham county
farmers realize the importance of marketing
upon the future prosperity of the industry
and they are appreciative of the government's
legislation in this respect. Practically every
branch of agriculture is in the process of
forming marketing boards. The success of
the hog marketing plan has pioneered this
type of marketing with the result that the
egg producers, the milk producers and the
corn producers are now about to vote on
similar plans.
292
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Great credit is due to the former hon. Min-
ister of Agriculture (Mr. Goodfellow) and his
department in respect to this form of legisla-
tion. The Co-operative Association Act, which
will be introduced this session, will, I am sure,
be of great assistance to the co-operative
movement in Durham by assisting in the
marketing and transportation of agricultural
products.
In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I feel that
every effort should be made to bring into
closer relationship the compulsory form of
marketing adopted by various commodity
groups and the voluntary marketing policies
of the co-operatives.
The tobacco industry, which has brought
a great new source of income and employ-
ment to Durham county, is at the present time
enjoying a period of prosperity, but like other
branches of agriculture, faces certain problems
in the future; not the least of these will be
the effect of the growth of the European
economic community on our export trade in
that product.
The tobacco industry is faced at the present
time with a demand on one hand for increased
acreage by growers and prospective growers,
and on the other by the necessity to provide
markets for increased production. I would
therefore urge the government, in co-opera-
tion with the federal administration, to give
serious consideration to the proposals which
I understand are to be made by the industry
in that respect.
Ontario has been fortunate, Mr. Speaker, in
having men of high calibre as Ministers of
Agriculture. The contribution of the former
hon. Minister in assistance to agriculture has
been immeasurable, and the hon. Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts) is to be congratulated on
choosing the hon. member for Middlesex
North (Mr. Stewart) as a worthy successor.
His ability and successful experience in the
field of agriculture make him well qualified
to fulfill the duties of that important port-
folio.
I wish to thank and commend the former
hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Cass) and the
present hon. Minister (Mr. Goodfellow) for
the continued development of the highway
system throughout our riding. The comple-
tion and opening of Highway 401 through
the riding will, I hope, bring needed indus-
trial and commercial development to that
area.
The proposed establishment of service
centres on Highway 401 is of concern to the
business people of Port Hope, however; the
general feehng is, Mr. Speaker, that they
are a necessity and cannot be avoided. We
have, however, numerous attractions in our
lakeshore towns of interest to tourists, and I
would ask that consideration be given to
establishing facilities at these centres for the
promotion of the attractions, in co-operation
with the local boards of trade, chambers of
commerce and other bodies. In this respect
I am sure we have the full co-operation of
the hon. Minister of Travel and Publicity
(Mr. Cathcart) and his department.
I appreciate the co-operation of the de-
partment in the erection of an overhead sign
at the junction of Highway 401 and No. 2.
This has been of great assistance in designat-
ing the cut-off at this point and in correcting
a rather dangerous situation. Further con-
sideration should be given, I feel however,
to establishing a decelerating lane at this
point in order to make it a perfectly safe
intersection.
The further development of Highway 7A
in the county from Highway 35 will provide
an excellent artery to the northern part of
the riding for the travelling public and resi-
dents of that area. The steadily increasing
traffic on Highway 115 will warrant widen-
ing at least a section of that highway in the
foreseeable future and no doubt the depart-
ment is giving consideration to this fact at
the present time.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that at
the intersection of this highway and the New-
castle road a serious traffic hazard has devel-
oped. This will be intensified by the
completion of the new Clarke district high
school because this intersection is the cross-
ing point for children going to the local
school. It is also the pick-up point for the
children going to another school in Bowman-
ville and it will be the focal point for the
school buses serving the new district high
school. I will be asking for assistance in
remedying a situation which already has been
the scene of three serious accidents.
I would also ask that consideration be
given to improving the entrances from 115
to the village of Orono. Both of these
entrances in my opinion, and in the opinion
of the local people, are dangerous, particu-
larly with the increased traffic on 115 and
they are not in keeping with the flourishing
business life of that beautiful village.
Last season saw the opening in Bowman-
ville, Mr. Speaker, of one of the finest local
museums to be found anywhere in the prov-
ince of Ontario, located in beautiful sur-
roundings and made possible largely by the
generosity of Mrs. Williams of that town.
This museum houses an excellent display of
pioneer life, much of it of such a unique
DECEMBER 11, 1961
293
I
character that it cannot be found elsewhere
in the province.
I strongly recommend this fine tourist
attraction when visiting the town of Bow-
manville. The town has been assisted greatly
in developing this project through the advice
and financial assistance of The Department
of Travel and Publicity.
In no field of our economic development
has this government been more zealous than
in the field of education. It is hard to real-
ize the vast changes that are taking place to
meet the requirements of a rapidly expand-
ing school population and to maintain our
position in the struggle for economic suprem-
acy. Durham county has taken every ad-
vantage of the assistance offered by this
government.
The past season saw the opening of sev-
eral new elementary schools in the county
through the consolidation of many one-room
schools. In October of this year, the present
hon. Prime Minister officially opened the
new secondary school at Courtice, which has
relieved crowded conditions at Bowmanville
and has provided a modern and beautiful
building for the education of the youth in
that area.
As soon as an announcement was made that
a programme of vocational training was to be
introduced, to the cost of which the federal
government would contribute 75 per cent and
the provincial government 25 per cent, the
enterprising citizens of Port Hope in conjunc-
tion with the Durham District High School
board, immediately took action with the
result that plans have been completed and
approved for a new composite wing to the
present secondary school in that town. This
school will serve a large area, Mr. Speaker,
and will provide four courses including a
five-year course leading to university; a four-
year course which will provide needed train-
ing for responsible business positions, a
two-year terminal course for those planning
to leave school at age 16, and a one-year
occupational course for those who have not
been promoted from grade 8.
This programme, Mr. Speaker, will do
much in providing a maximum of education
for our young people, consistent with their
abilities and ambitions.
There is always a danger, Mr. Speaker, that
in providing a programme such as this, there
is a tendency on the part of many students
to take the course which will require the
least work. I am pleased to note that the
department has taken the precaution in this
respect to make each of these courses truly
challenging. In otlier words, the courses
are designed to fit the academic ability of the
student but the amount of work required
remains constant.
I am also pleased to see the introduction
this term of a guidance programme in our
elementary schools in grade seven and eight.
I would suggest that this programme be
directed also towards the parents, who must
assume a great deal of the responsibility for
the guidance of their children in these
formative years.
I would also like to add a word of com-
mendation, Mr. Speaker, for the work of
The Department of Lands and Forests,
particularly in respect to the continued devel-
opment of the Darlington Provincial Park.
This park, on the outskirts of Oshawa, and
Bowmanville, is providing excellent recrea-
tional and camping facilities for thousands
of visitors each season and its situation lends
itself very readily to use as an area for winter
sports as well.
I wish at this time, Mr. Speaker, to read
into the record a letter which I have received
from the Canadian chapter of the National
Shade Tree Conference with respect to the
spread of the Dutch elm disease.
Mr. Alex Carruthers, m.p.p.,
Queen's Park.
Dear Sir:
Today thousands of beautiful elm trees stand dead
across the province due to the spread of Dutch ehn
disease. If these diseased trees are allowed to remain
standing to be the host of the beetle which spreads
the disease it is quite possible that the elm will
disappear completely from our landscape. What a
tragedy this would be.
With this problem before us the Canadian Chapter
of the International Shade Tree Conference wish to
appeal to you and to your colleagues to take what-
ever measures are necessary to prevent this loss to
the people of this province. If all dead elms were
removed and the wood destroyed, the elm beetle
would have no place to reproduce. Reducing the
number of elm bark beetles is the most important
factor in controlling the spread of this disease.
The cost of removing dead elms in a community
could become too great a burden, and it is because
of this expense that many municipalities are not
removing their dead elms, and each year the problem
becomes more serious. If the communities could be
assisted in meeting this cost the main obstacle would
be removed in the control of this disease. It is the
hope of this association and all who understand the
value of our trees to the well-being of our people
that our government will recognize the necessity to
assist in saving the elm trees of Ontario.
I do wish to thank you for your interest in this
problem.
Yours very truly,
J. HiMMEL,
President.
The destruction caused by this disease, Mr.
Speaker, is the concern of all, but I am partic-
ularly concerned in this respect as the elm is
one of the most common and most beautiful
shade trees in our county, and I would ask
therefore that every assistance be given to our
municipalities in controlling this dread disease.
294
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
May I suggest that it could be very readily
made part of a winter works programme, and
a very fine example could be set by attacking
the spread of this plague in the elms which
add so much beauty to the grounds around
many of our government institutions?
We in Durham county, Mr. Speaker, are
deeply appreciative of the many forms of
assistance provided by this government and I
have referred to but a few of them. I should
mention the substantial assistance given to the
town of Bowmanville in the addition of a
large new wing to the Memorial Hospital
of that town; to the generous offers of assist-
ance to the Port Hope Hospital Board in the
building of a new hospital to serve that area.
The building of a new hospital in Port Hope
involves the sale and future use of the present
hospital; and here again I would ask for the
assistance of various departments of the
government— in any way that they may be
able to provide— in making use of this building
which is still in excellent condition.
The vast majority of the people in my
riding, Mr. Speaker, accept private enterprise
as basic and indispensable to their well-being
and progress, and in doing so they have
demonstrated those qualities of citizenship
and responsibility so requisite in the building
of good community life. One of the interest-
ing and exciting features of my riding is that
it consists of people who differ widely in their
backgrounds, in their ideas as to problems
and in their methods of solving them. The
variety of cultures, customs, crafts and ideals
has resulted in a spirit of tolerance on the
part of our people.
This is why I believe the county of Durham
is a progressive county in which the freedom
of ideas and the pooling of those ideas has
prevented democratic stagnation. They are
people who believe in good citizenship; they
understand that good citizenship demands
independence of thought and action. Although
the welfare state, which our socialist friends
so strongly proclaim, may be noble in its
purpose, it does provide more and more of
those things which men once provided for
themselves.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): That is what
they said about the hospital programme before
they introduced it.
Mr. Carruthers: This includes, Mr. Speaker,
the making of decisions for people which they
once made for themselves, and the assumption
of responsibilities which were once theirs.
Such a system does something to the moral
fibre of our people, which is not good. It
takes away some of those qualities, Mr.
Speaker, which have— down through the cen-
turies—distinguished men from animals. Pater-
nalism in government— such as our socialist
friends propose so strongly, aims to elevate
man socially and individually by protecting
him; but in protecting him, it subdues him
and robs him of those qualities of independ-
ence so necessary to good citizenship and to
national survival. The building of a nation
does not depend on a detailed blueprint or
a master plan, it is founded on the spirit of
its people, and if that spirit is subdued, so
likewise will the nation be subdued.
The citizens of Durham county— as in other
parts of this province— do not simply live and
earn a living in their respective areas, but in
their freedom of enterprise, within a free
society, they have the opportunity of contri-
buting to the community of which they are a
part, and in that contribution they have
achieved dignity and respect. The greatest
weakness of socialism, I feel, Mr. Speaker, is
that no individual— neither the leader or any of
his followers— assumes any sense of responsi-
bility or accountability. As has been so
apparent on so many occasions in this Legis-
lature, the blame is always put on someone
else.
I am thankful, Mr. Speaker, that I represent
a people who believe in and practice the spirit
of free enterprise within a framework which
provides security for those who— through no
fault of their own— are unable to take advan-
tage of the opportunities available.
We have seen what socialist planning can
do to people in Saskatchewan where, in the
past year, some 13,000 people left that prov-
ince with few replacements. The majority
of these people are coming to Ontario, where
the social philosophy is one of opportunity
based on reward for eflFort, rather than the
negative pursuit of the welfare state.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. member is talking
a lot of nonsense now.
Mr. Carruthers: The hon. member can
speak after I am through. The state in which
socialist planning puts more and more people
on the public payroll, a state which resembles
a hive of bees, in which— contrary to the
natural law of the hive— the drones multiply
and starve the workers, so that the idlers con-
sume the food and the workers perish.
Mr. Thomas: Who wrote that?
Mr. Carruthers: I wrote it myself.
Mr. Thomas: I should have known the
hon. member wrote it himself.
DECEMBER 11, 1961
295
Mr. Carruthers: Thanks. I firmly believe
that no government can operate business as
efficiently as private enterprise. Every time
governments start experimenting in the busi-
ness field the victim of their experiment is
the public. This was clearly illustrated on
more than one occasion in the province of
Saskatchewan.
Private enterprise today pays most of the
taxes, it provides most of the jobs, it has
done most to raise wages, and has given us
all our factories and our jobs. It has built
the ships that ply our waters, it has devel-
oped the railways that span our continent, it
develops inventors and builders of business
through the free association of ideas. It
originated the principles of efficiency so vital
in the operation of any business. It has done
most to lower costs and prices through com-
petition. It alone can raise the standard of
living, and it alone is the hope of our people.
We are going to see in the days to come,
Mr. Speaker, that political philosophy is going
to crystallize into two main groups— that of
private enterprise and that of socialism.
Therefore I appeal to our friends, the hon.
leader of the Opposition and his followers, to
forsake that middle road along the mountain
of progress, lest their feet continue to slip
into the lush green valley of socialism. A
valley where life appears free of difficulty,
where labour is secure and planned for ail-
but where there is a lack of initiative, Mr.
Speaker, and where the gas of economic stag-
nation pollutes the air, crushing the virility
and creative power of its people.
Leave that middle road I say to you, scale
with us— in the strength of private enterprise—
the heights where the challenge is great, but
where vision is boundless, where the breath
of freedom freshens the air, where opportun-
ities are unlimited and progress is the goal.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, as I rise to join in this debate I
want to compliment the office which you
hold, sir, and the way in which you rule the
order of this House. I want to join witli the
other hon. members who have paid tribute
to those of our colleagues who have passed
away since we last met, and say with them
that we shall miss each and every one who
is not here with us today.
Mr. Speaker, certain events have transpired
this afternoon which, I think, deserve a little
comment. Bearing in mind your ruling
earlier this afternoon, I cannot quarrel with
the rules and the vote that was taken in the
House, supporting those rules. I do, however,
suggest, sir, that it would only have been
fair had the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
risen in his place, consented to the motion put
by the hon, leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer) and allowed him to speak when
the hon. Prime Minister had made his an-
nouncement.
Certainly the hon. leader of the Opposition
has made his position abundantly clear
throughout the length and breadth of this
province over the past nine months, and
certainly this is a matter which is deserving
of great and substantial pubfic comment. Mr.
Speaker, I think it was most unfair that the
hon. Prime Minister of the province— by a
deliberate manoeuvre enrolling the hon. Min-
ister of Mines as his supporter— shut off the
comments of the hon. leader of the Opposition
and did not allow his statement on this
important issue.
Mr. Speaker, since the government members
have spoken so glowingly of a certain con-
vention which took place in this city, I
thought it might be worthwhile to say a few
words about that convention. We have heard
it was the greatest convention ever— that a
new era has come to the province of Ontario—
but for those of us who sit over here and have
looked with eagerness and hope for some
changes to take place over there, I must admit
it has been very disappointing.
We have a new premier. One of my hon.
colleagues described him as a rose between
two thorns, one of the thorns is missing this
afternoon and I am a little sorry about that
because I want to talk about him in a little
while. But, by and large, Mr. Speaker, we
have the same old faces, some of them in
new places, and this parades as the Cabinet
of Ontario. Very little has been changed—
nominally, in any event. However, Mr.
Speaker, I am going to suggest that there
have been some changes.
We do not really have one Cabinet any
more as we used to have in the old days, when
the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost)
was ruling the roost. I think, in fact, we have
three cabinets.
We have the Cabinet who bear the titles,
the hon. gentlemen who sit opposite us— the
old faces, some of them, as I say, in new
places; then, Mr. Speaker, I think there is
another cabinet; the hon. Minister of Energy
Resources (Mr. Macaulay) figures very
largely and prominently in that cabinet. As
we listened to the various bills that were
brought in early in this session it became
reasonably obvious that he was trying to
gatlier unto himself as many portfolios as he
could swallow quickly, and in a very brief
period of time.
296
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As we listened to the debate just the other
afternoon in connection with air poHution, we
watched with interest of course, Mr, Speaker,
his ejBFort, his designed effort to hang another
scalp on his belt— the scalp of The Depart-
ment of Health.
Mr. Speaker, we have in tlie city of To-
ronto a gentleman who describes himself as
"the mayor of all the people." I would sug-
gest to you that in the government of On-
tario, we have a gentleman who, even if he
does not attach the title to himself, can be
reasonably described as the "cabinet minis-
ter of all the departments!"
That is cabinet number two.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has become reason-
ably obvious to us on this side of the House
that we have a third cabinet. These per-
haps are people who do not bear any titles
but might be referred to as "the kitchen
cabinet." The hon. member for London
South (Mr. White), I think, figures as a very
prominent member of that "kitchen cabinet."
It has been very interesting to note the
authority with which he makes his great pro-
nouncements—particularly the pronouncement
he made the other afternoon which resulted
in such disastrous occurrences so far as gov-
ernment fortunes were concerned. It is very
interesting to see, and it will be of continu-
ing interest to the people of Ontario to see,
just who is the boss over there.
Mr. Speaker, the old days have gone, and
the old fox from Victoria no longer rules
the roost. Apparently there is no one over
there who rules the roost. This government
is collapsing.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is
rather a pity that the hon. members of the
government party cannot appreciate what is
really happening. Not too many years ago
a strong Prime Minister— his name was How-
ard Ferguson — was succeeded by a man
named George Henry, and it did not take
long before the bitterness that was engen-
dered at that convention ruined the Tory
party in Ontario, just as the bitterness,
which grew up out of the convention re-
cently held in this city, is ruining this party
here today.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to deal with a few
of the remarks that were made by the hon.
member for London South (Mr. White). I
am sorry he is not here this afternoon, but
I am certain some of his colleagues will be
able to convey to him the import of my mes-
sage. I regard him as a bright, intelligent,
unusual Tory, and up to this time I think he
has handled himself very well in the House.
Somewhere along the line— and I do not
know why the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) says he knows nothing about it-
he took it upon himself— if we accept the
Prime Minister at his word— to challenge our
hon. leader. And, Mr. Speaker, he made the
most serious mistake of his life.
In our hon. leader, as all hon. members
of this House know, we have a man of hon-
esty and integrity, who has put forward his
ideas and ideals and advanced the purposes
of the people of Ontario. Everything he
said, leading up to the hon. Prime Minister's
announcement this afternoon, was said in the
best interests of the people of Ontario, and
in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it lay badly in
the mouth of the hon. member for London
South to make the nasty, inconsequential,
untrue statements that he did in this House
on Friday afternoon.
He said— if he is correctly quoted in the
Globe and Mail, and I presume he is: "But
I know Mr. Wintermeyer's oflFer is a hollow
offer- 1 challenge him to step out." Well
there is no point in dealing with that chal-
lenge; the challenge was taken, as the hon.
member for London South should have
known it would be taken. He tried to explain
away the idea of a Royal commission and
his hon. leader this afternoon has disowned
his statement that a police commission would
be enough. His stay in the "kitchen cabinet"
might not be so long.
Speaking of the "kitchen cabinet," Mr.
Speaker, I thought it might be of interest to
the House to note that even London can
have too many Cabinet ministers. I suppose
that some of the resentment that wells forth
from the mouth of this young man is caused
by this fact of life. You can only have a
fixed number of Cabinet ministers from the
city of London.
Mr. Speaker, he made some charges-
allegations addressed to my hon. colleagues.
He suggested people had told him that what
my hon. colleague from Sudbury (Mr. Sopha)
had done was chargeable in the criminal
courts of this province. I suggest to him, Mr.
Speaker— if he is convinced that this is in
fact so— that he, as an hon, member of this
House, has but one course to take, and that is
to go out and lay those charges, either against
my hon, colleague from Sudbury or against
my hon, leader or against any one of us. And
if he has not got the courage to lay charges
where he thinks charges should be laid, then
the hon. member for London South has no
business talking like this either here or any-
where else in this province of Ontario.
DECEMBER 11, 1961
297
Then, Mr. Speaker, I thought that the
lowest point he reached in his speech was
when he talked about McCarthyism; and
again, if the Globe and Mail report is correct,
he said this:
Mr. White said that the House was
accustomed to unsubstantiated charges from
the New Democratic Party but did not
expect the methods of McCarthyism from
the Liberals.
I use those words deliberately, and I say
to you, Mr. Speaker, if ever an hon. member
of this House should be thoroughly and com-
pletely ashamed of anything he has said, the
hon. member for London South should be in
that position when he hurls charges of
McCarthyism either at the hon. leader of
the Opposition or any of my hon. colleagues
here on this side of the House.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that I am a
little hemmed in by the announcement of the
hon. Prime Minister this afternoon and so I
will go on now to another subject.
Mr. Speaker, we had in the city of Toronto
a few days ago a so-called prize fight for the
championship of the world. This fight was
run under the auspices, or under the control
at least, certainly under the supervision of the
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Warrender)
through his athletic commissioner. A man by
the name of Patterson was fighting with
another man by the name of McNeeley.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that
the city of Boston had said: "We really do not
want any part of your fight, get it out of here
because you will not abide by our rules and
regulations." The city of Toronto, the athletic
commissioner and through him the hon. Min-
ister of Labour, welcomed these people with
open arms and allowed this fight to be billed
as a world championship fight.
There was some discussion, Mr. Speaker, as
to who the judges were going to be. The
athletic commissioner said: "I will appoint all
three judges." A gentleman by the name of
Cus D'Amato the manager of Patterson, said:
"Oh, no, I am going to appeal to the Minister
of Labour"; and appeal he did. And Cus
D'Amato won! The hon. Minister of Labour
overruled the athletic commissioner and Cus
D'Amato was allowed to appoint one of the
judges.
Mr. Speaker, it seems a little ridiculous to
me to have our government participating in
such a fraud on the people of Ontario.
Here we have a so-called championship
fight taking place between one gentleman
who is very capable— and his capability was
illustrated by the fact that in four rounds he
knocked down his opponent 11 times— and
another gentleman whose apparent claim to
fame was that he had never been beaten by
anybody, but nobody had ever heard of him
before. His name did not appear in any of
the ratings of any of the ring authorities, he
had not beaten anyone who was rated. The
athletic commissioner, and through him the
hon. Minister of Labour, and through him the
government of Ontario, said: "Come in; we
welcome you with open arms."
Mr. Speaker, I have no objection if people
want to pay $50 a seat for an exhibition fight.
That is their privilege. But when the govern-
ment of Ontario lends itself to a phoney
promotion of this type, which has been
thrown out of the State of Massachusetts, the
city of Boston, and when they allow them-
selves to be influenced by the promoters of
these fights, then I say that we are misleading
the people of Ontario and using this ofiice to
the wrong extent and for the wrong purpose.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago one of my hon.
colleagues dealt at great length with what
might be the role of the Ontario athletic com-
missioner and I suggest to hon. members he
was correct. If the Ontario government
should have any role in controlling prize
fights, surely they should do the same thing as
they have done with wrestling. When they
see a phoney as obvious as the Patterson-
McNeeley fight on the horizon, they should
bill it as they do wrestHng matches, as an
exhibition. Then if anybody wants to go it
is their privilege. The government lends itself
to this false and misleading promotion and
should be thoroughly condemned for it.
Mr. Speaker, I now want to deal with an
incident that I think is of very substantial
interest to the hon. members of this House
and in so doing I want to lay a little of the
background. I want to quote very briefly
from The Department of Municipal Affairs
Act, and particularly sections 17, 18, 19 and
20 of it. These sections deal with the method
by which an audit can be held.
On the complaint of a group of ratepayers
an audit of the financial affairs of a munici-
pality can be ordered. Section 22 particularly
says:
After the audit has been done, the
department may fix fees and allowances for
expenses payable with respect to any audit
of the affairs of a municipality under this
part and the fees shall be forthwith paid
by the municipality.
This is very important. From time to time,
occasions arise when petitions are addressed
298
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to the government asking that audits of the
affairs of a municipahty be made. In 1956,
this government received from some rate-
payers in the municipality of the township
of Clarence a request that an audit be made
of their municipality's affairs. A little later,
the government asked a firm of auditors-
need I add, a Conservative firm of auditors—
from the city of Sudbury, called Demarais
and Parisienne, to conduct this audit, to look
into the affairs of the township of Clarence.
Mr. Speaker, on October 3, 1956, Demarais
and Parisienne produced this report.
It is not a long report, it runs through
some nine and a half pages. I am not going
to burden the House with reading the whole
report, but it is interesting to note that the
report says that under highway expenses
honorariums were given to various people.
Travelling, banquets, honorariums, travelling,
and so on; these were things that went on in
the township of Clarence. There is some
question about machinery rentals, sales of
crushed stone, directors* salaries, and so on.
Needless to say, aU was not fine in the town-
ship of Clarence.
This report is a little difficult to follow, it
is not perhaps as clear as I would have liked
to have seen it. In any event, Mr. Speaker,
the auditing firm of Demarais and Parisienne
did make this report.
The inquiry did disclose that certain
schemes had been worked out to defraud the
province by obtaining subsidies for such
things, as I say, as honorariums and banquets.
Apparently there were invoices which could
not be traced. Subsequently, The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs, I am advised,
cancelled the auditor's licence.
I am advised that The Department of Agri-
culture lost about $900 and has not recovered
any of it. I am advised that after this report
came out The Department of Highways con-
ducted its own audit and came to the con-
clusion that some $25,000 in subsidies were
paid improperly. I understand that they were
able to recover these subsidies by denying to
the township of Clarence future grants. I
understand, too, that The Department of
Education lost about $5,500; whether they
got that back or not I do not know.
Mr. Speaker, it should be emphasized that
section 20 of The Department of Municipal
Affairs Act says when the department has
certified the costs of such an audit they shall
be forthwith paid by the municipality.
On July 2, 1957, a letter went forward
from The Department of Municipal Affairs to
Reeve R. LaBrache and the council of the
township of Clarence, at Bourget post oflBce.
The letter said:
As a result of this audit costs of some
$12,579.88 were run up. Would you please
pay these?
This was in accordance with the section of
The Department of Municipal Affairs Act
that I have already read. Nothing apparently
has been heard in reply from the council or
the reeve of the township of Clarence from
that date to this.
A few months ago, Mr. Speaker, you will
recall there was a similar type of investiga-
tion into York township. Granted it was
under a different section of a different Act,
but there is a similar provision to the one
I read in The Department of Municipal
Affairs Act in The Municipal Act. Section
320 says that the costs shall be paid in the
same way when they have been fixed and
when a request has been made. There has
been a discussion, led by the representatives
of the council of the township of York, as to
whether or not they should pay them. On
August 9, this article appeared in the Toronto
Globe and Mail, and I will quote briefly
from it:
Reeve Frederick Taylor said the revised
statement resulted from a meeting witli
Premier Frost. He said the Premier had
been informed that the township did not
have the money in the budget to pay the
cost of the inquiry. Township Clerk H. G.
Courtman said Premier Frost told the town-
ship delegation that under The Municipal
Act it was the responsibility of the muni-
cipality to pay for an inquiry. What Mr.
Frost said is quite correct. The Premier
informed the delegation it would not be fair
for taxpayers throughout the province to
pay for an inquiry in a particular munici-
pality.
This is the government's attitude, and cer-
tainly it is in accord with what is in the
statutes.
A few days later an editorial appeared in
the Globe and Mail and, just quoting a
sentence from it, it says this:
Mr. Frost said quite correctly that The
Municipal Act makes the township respon-
sible for the cost of the inquiry and that
in any case it would be unfair to make the
whole of Ontario pay for straightening out
illegality, incompetence and neglect in York
township's own affairs.
That sentence makes some sense, Mr, Speaker.
Mr, Speaker, you vdll recall I referred you
to a letter written by K. Grant Crawford, the
then Deputy Minister of The Department of
DECEMBER 11, 1961
299
Municipal Affairs, to Reeve LaBrache and the
council of the township of Clarence. In that
letter he asks that the money be paid, some
$12,000. I suggest that no reply was ever
received.
Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, in the pub-
lic accounts of the province of Ontario for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 1957, at page
L 5, this entry appears:
Commission investigation, Demarais and
Parisienne, $12,579.88.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder who on the govern-
ment side of the House took it upon himself
to breach the statutes of Ontario? I wonder
by what right anyone on the government side
of the House can set himself above the law
of the province of Ontario? I wonder if it
is more than a coincidence that the township
of Clarence is in a riding represented by an
lion. Minister of the Crown and the township
of York is in a riding represented by the
hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDon-
ald)?
Whether that had anything to do with the
decision or not, I do not know, but I suggest
to you, Mr. Speaker, that no one in this
House has a right to set himself above and
beyond the law. If the law applies, as the
then hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) said it
did in the case of York township, surely it
should have applied in the case of the town-
ship of Clarence.
Mr. Speaker, I thought that the time
might be appropriate to say a few words
about civil defence. Recently we had an
exercise called Tocsin B. It was gratifying
to find that certain members of the Cabi-
net could be saved, if they could get to
Camp Borden. Similar arrangements appar-
ently have been made to save certain mem-
bers of the federal government if they can
get to a place called Carp which is near
Ottawa.
But really, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there
is any point in having governments if there
is going to be nobody left to govern. I know
that the Prime Minister of Canada has said
that to criticize civil defence or emergency
)neasures is to give aid to the Communists;
but I am prepared to do this and I am pre-
pared to run this risk, because I do not think
that what we have parading under the head
of civil defence or emergency measures is
of any use at all to the people of this prov-
ince. It is one of the most asinine and hys-
terical moves that any government has ever
taken. I think it should be condemned as
loudly as it possibly can be.
Certain basic questions must be asked.
Is there any defence in an atomic war?
The United Kingdom and Russia apparently
do not think that anything can be done
along civil defence lines. There is some hys-
teria, some substantial hysteria, here in North
America— shelter-crazy, if hon. members want
to call it that.
Are the shelters any good? Some scien-
tists say yes, they are; and some say no, they
are not. Who is right?
I presume that the government has re-
ceived the correct advice and has taken the
advice of those scientists who know what
they are talking about. For as many author-
ities as say that shelters are good, an equal
group on the other side say that they are
no good.
What sort of a civil defence scheme have
we got? Is it not true that the whole civil
defence scheme is being based on the drop-
ping of one bomb? What happens if two
bombs are dropped? Nobody has put for-
ward an answer to that!
Mr. Speaker, we have the fascinating
moral and philosophical discussion as to
whether or not it is right for one to shoot
one's neighbour who might try to get into
one's air raid shelter.
The Toronto Daily Star, in a cartoon a few
days ago, set this out very well, I thought.
It showed a picture of three youngsters
playing, two boys and a little girl. The two
boys were dressed up like soldiers and they
built a little hut, which presumably was sup-
posed to be an air raid shelter. The little
girl was standing off in front of them, cry-
ing bitterly, and complaining that she did
not like to play civil defence any more be-
cause she did not want to be the neighbour
who was always getting shot.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have reached a
sad state in our way of life when this is a
topic that intelligent people argue about and
discuss.
Let us then accept, for the sake of argu-
ment, that shelters might save somebody.
When people come out of the shelters where
do they go, what do they eat, what do they
have to drink?
For a while we heard about evacuation
schemes and everyone in Metro was going
to be evacuated to the riding of the hon.
member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). That idea
seems to have been abandoned. In Tocsin
B apparently there was further talk about
evacuation. Nobody seemed to know quite
how it was going to work. Small wonder,
because if hon. members know the condition
of the roads in the Toronto area on any
300
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
holiday weekend when people going on holi-
days cannot even get out, what is going to
happen in the case of an emergency?
Let us talk about shelters for a minute, Mr.
Speaker. We presume that a bomb is going
to be dropped, I suppose, when everybody is
at home and preferably in the summer time;
and that by the time it is dropped everyone
will have his own self-contained shelter. This
is just not so. What happens to people in
offices? What happens to people in churches,
in schools, in apartments, in shops and fac-
tories, in hospitals?
The hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond)
was quoted a few days ago, when he was
asked about what was going to happen to the
mental patients, as having replied to the
reporter who asked the question: "That was
a good question not to ask."
Surely we have reached a pretty poor and
low condition in our approach to human wel-
fare when an hon. Minister of the Crown has
to say it is a better question not to ask on
an inquiry as to how the patients in mental
hospitals are going to be saved in the event
of a disaster.
Mr. Speaker, there is a document I have
here in my hand—
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
May I rise on a point of privilege? May I
advise the hon. member that if he had read
the rest of that article, he would have got the
direct answer I gave to the reporter's ques-
tion.
Mr. Singer: I have the article here, Mr.
Speaker, and I have gone through it carefully.
I am unable to find anything more than that
reference. It is an article by Mr. Bertin, the
science editor of the Toronto Daily Star.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Read the remainder of
the article.
Mr. Singer: I have read it several times.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I categorically deny,
Mr. Speaker, that I gave that answer as I
have gone through the report.
Mr* Singer: It may be that the hon. Min-
ister is misquoted.
Mr. Speaker, I was going to say I had a
document here in my hands which I think is
of sufficient importance that it should be read
in detail here in the House. This is a tran-
script of a broadcast called "Toronto File."
It was aired by the C.B.C., in a television
broadcast, on May 4, 1961, and it goes this
way:
Toronto on a sunny day in May. Life
goes on as usual with traffic on the down-
town streets, and in residential areas
children play in school yards. Suddenly
a siren screams, screams the signal that a
hydrogen bomb will hit Toronto soon.
Anxious faces; can they survive?
Then there are siren noises and sounds of
bombs dropping.
The threat of nuclear attack on Toronto
is a threat we have been living with for
many years. To help meet that threat,
Metropolitan Toronto Civil Defence Organ-
ization was formed in 1953. In practice,
Metro Civil Defence has exercised authority
over all 13 Toronto municipalities ever
since, although legal control was final only
a few weeks ago. How effective is Metro
Civil Defence in helping us survive a nu-
clear attack? Well, tonight we will try and
find out.
First, Reeve Waffle of Etobicoke, chair-
man of Metro's Civil Defence Committee,
tells us about recent bad publicity civil
defence has been receiving in the press:
Waffle: I do not think it has been justi-
fied because with a better understanding of
the survival plan I believe it is the re-
sponsibility now of people who are in
charge of the news media, the newspapers,
the TV and the radio to get the true story
across to the people rather than hysterical
reporting or something that has been taken
out of context. They, the news media,
have a tremendous responsibility in assist-
ing us— and I say us, you and I, the
citizens— in understanding better the plans
that we have to follow in case something
is going to happen.
Q. What are your problems?
A. Our problem is that I do not believe
sufficient numbers of people understand
civil defence and what we are trying to do.
Q. What is Metro Civil Defence trying
to do?
A. Well, these are the boundaries of
Metro Toronto.
and I presume that they were indicated on a
map.
If a hydrogen bomb were dropped in
Toronto, the damage might be extensive
but not completely destructive. For ex-
ample, if a bomb fell here, at approximately
Yonge and St. Clair, the total destruction
would be only this area— about six miles
DECEMBER 11, 1961
301
across— and unless residents evacuated this
area first, nothing, or no one would survive.
But across this larger area, outside the im-
mediate bomb blast zone, people could
survive, in fact most of us might survive
a nuclear attack— but survive only if we
knew what to expect and what to do.
Announcer: Metro Civil Defence was de-
signed to make sure that each of us, you
and I, would have the best possible chance
of survival. A man charged with this
tremendous responsibility is the co-ordinator
of Metro Civil Defence, H. H. Atkinson.
I may say, Mr, Speaker, that Mr. Atkinson
has since resigned and has now been replaced
by another gentleman.
Atkinson: The policy and public educa-
tion is set by Ottawa which publishes most
of the public education material. Up to
now that has been very sparse, but it is
starting to come in and by the end of next
month we expect quite a bit of it to be
available for public education.
Q. Why do you think the material has
been sparse? Civil defence has been in
operation for, what, since 1953?
A. Yes, but the system was all changed
from mass evacuation to voluntary evacua-
tion and shelter, just a year and a half to
two years ago, which changes practically
everything they had done.
Q. How many bodies, trained bodies, will
be required to carry out any civil defence
plan in the event of a strike here?
A. Oh, to carry out a complete plan for
a city of this size, an area of this size,
would need approximately 90,000 people.
Q. That is in addition to personnel now
operating in utilities or municipality offices?
A. Yes.
Q. How many have you trained?
And remember, Mr. Speaker, this is May,
1961.
A. Up to February we had trained
approximately 23,000, which leaves us
67,000 to go. The people we have trained
are mostly key personnel.
Announcer: We are going to pursue that
in a moment. Last summer to assist the
administration of civil defence in Toronto,
Civil Defence headquarters organized Metro
into four zones, each with a separate zone
controller— the east zone covers the town-
ship of Scarborough, the north zone covers
the township of North York and Leaside,
the west zone covers Etobicoke and the
central zone extends over the downtown
area of the city. Now, because civil
defence estimates a nuclear attack will
probably destroy the central part of the
city, the most vital zones in terms of aiding
in survival lie in the perimeter zones of the
city. We talked with the three controllers
of the perimeter zones; first, Pat Johnson of
the east zone.
Q. How many trained volunteers in your
zone?
Johnson: By trained, you mean the
people who have had that personal survival
training, first aid and all that? It goes well
over 1,000.
Q. How many do you think you will be
able to call on in the event of an emer-
gency?
A. In specialized training in an emer-
gency, I imagine, almost anywhere from
250 to 300 people.
Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the
Metropolitan controller said that he needed
90,000 people to conduct a proper defence
scheme here in Metropolitan Toronto. In one
zone, tlie zone controller says from 250 to 300
people.
Q. Paul Tuz is the controller of the north
zone; how many trained volunteers in your
zone?
A. Trained specialists, approximately 750.
Q. And you could call on all of these
and get them out?
A. Well in the case of a disaster, if
necessary, I could probably count on 250.
Announcer: Bill Wilson, is the controller
of the west zone. How many trained
volunteers in your zone now?
A. At the present time, I could muster
150.
Q. How many do you think you will
need?
A. Well I think we would need in the
neighbourhood of 10,000 to 14,000-
and he has 150!
Q. How long do you think it will take
to reach this complement?
A. Well, I do not feel under the present
conditions, under which we are working, it
is possible to reach this.
Q. Ever?
A. No.
Announcer: In the central zone the avail-
able trained volunteers, as Mr. Atkinson
302
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
mentioned, stood at about 1,200. We
should mention here that in preparing the
programme we talked to the zone controllers
and the co-ordinators separately. They have
no knowledge of what the other said. We
also talked with a man dedicated to training
you and me to survive, and how we can
help others to survive, Metro's chief civil
defence instructor, Reg. Johnson.
Q. What message do you have for getting
information to the public?
Johnson: Mainly by personal contact with
organizations. Home and school groups,
churches, I.O.D.Es, and any existing organi-
zations.
Q. Do you think personal contact is
adequate?
A. Personal contact alone, definitely not.
No.
Q. What else do you need?
A. To do the job properly as far as
public education is concerned, you must
have what you would eventually call an
advertising programme— TV, radio, booklets,
newspapers, pamphlets— and I suggest some-
thing in every home in Metro.
Q. Why is this not being done?
A. It is just incomprehensible to me, I
do not know.
Q. Do you have a public information
office?
A. No, we do not.
Announcer: The purpose of civil defence
as outlined in this civil defence report is to
educate the public in ways and means of
surviving. In last year's budget Metro's
civil defence received $25,000 to spend on
public education. On public education they
spent only $5,000. The second duty of civil
defence is to help voluntary evacuation of
the city. In the event of an impending attack
it is still conceivable that we should have
some warning, perhaps three hours or per-
haps three days. Civil defence was designed
to assist any one of us who wish to leave
the city to do so before the attack occurs.
Evacuation is voluntary— that means I could
go if I wish or stay if I wish. Let us assume
that I am one of several hundred families
who decide to go, will I be able to get out?
A. You will, under a certain amount of
traffic control. Which means the same as
any traffic control. In the case you have
just quoted the roads will be pretty well
filled. Persons would have to be directed
to the various roads, according to road
capacity, to keep the traffic rolling.
Q. What are your plans for traffic control
and voluntary evacuation in your zone?
A. Well, we have no specific laid-down
plans because it is something we are not
in a position to do ourselves.
Q. As well as getting people out of the
city, civil defence must be prepared to
keep some people in the city, Mr. Atkinson
explains. Some people would have to re-
main in the city in the event of voluntary
or mass evacuation. Who would have to
remain and how many people would have
to remain?
A. They are labelled as "chief personnel".
They are the people who would maintain
public utilities which cannot be left with-
out attention; also certain essential indus-
tries which are vital to any emergency
proposition would have to be kept going.
For instance, a foundry; you just could not
walk out at a minute's notice and leave a
foundry. The same with public utilities,
your water, pumping system and that sort
of stuff, would have to be manned.
Q. How many people would be required
to stay?
A. That is up to the individual utility,
and up to the individual commercial
organization.
Q. What part does civil defence organi-
zation play in the maintenance of public
utilities?
A. Merely the co-ordination of planning.
Each one makes his own plan, and these
plans have to be co-ordinated here.
Q. What is the plan?
A. I do not follow the question.
Q. I mean, what is the plan for main-
taining services in the area?
A. Well, there has been a lot of dis-
cussion on it but the plans are not actually
completed yet.
Q. When did civil defence headquarters
last call a meeting of all Metro municipal
services, existing services, with all the
various departments of Metro Civil
Defence?
A. All the various departments— you mean
the existing departments?
Q. Yes.
A. To my knowledge there has never
been one that I know of.
Announcer: Although in a natural emer-
gency civil defence works in conjunction
with the Army, its responsibilities never
DECEMBER 11, 1961
303
I
cease. To carry out this responsibility, civil
defence needs facilities and equipment.
What equipment is needed by civil defence
in this area to face the possibilities of an
attack?
A. Well, generally there is enough equip-
ment outside of one or two special types
available in Metro to cope with most phases
of disaster. You would need some specialist
equipment, like geiger counter equipment
and that sort of stuff, which will either have
to be bought or obtained from the federal
government.
Q. As late as May, 1961, an important
man in the civil defence set-up said he had
no geiger counters. When will these be
available?
A. Well, the policy has not yet been
decided.
Q. Does this mean that if a strike were
registered here, within the next six months,
we would certainly not be prepared?
A. We would be fairly well prepared.
Q. We would not be prepared before
six months?
A. Yes, I think we are in pretty good
shape now.
Q. What about equipment — training
equipment — radio sets, trucks; have you
sufficient equipment in this respect for
training purposes?
A. For training purposes, no, not by any
means,
Q. What about operational equipment?
A. That is not my field, but the equip-
ment we have is training equipment only;
it is not operational equipment.
A great set-up, Mr. Speaker, they have
not even enough equipment for training pur-
poses, let alone operational purposes.
0- Have you asked for more training
equipment?
A. Within the limits of our budget— as
far as I understand— I have asked for more
equipment.
Q. Why has it not been forthcoming?
A. I could not say.
Announcer: The key to co-ordination of
all civil defence communities lies with a
plan. Now a plan may not be perfect; in
faet, under constant changing conditions it
can never be perfect. Yet a plan provides
the necessary basis for any civil defence
co-ordination. And so we come to Metro's
plan for survival, the plan for your survival.
Q. These volunteers in your zone can
be co-ordinated along with volunteers in
other zones in the event of a nuclear dis-
aster? In other words, is tliere a Metro
plan?
A. To the best of my knowledge, not at
the present time.
Q. In the event of disaster what is the
plan for the volunteers you now have?
A. Well, actually, to my knowledge there
has not been laid down— and this is to my
knowledge— any particular plan, any over-
all plan.
Q. Why not?
A. I have often wondered.
This is the controller of civil defence,
have often wondered."
T
Q. Have you asked why not?
A. Yes, I have asked.
Q. What answer did you receive?
A. That, when a plan has been developed
that they felt was what they were looking
for or needed, we would be notified in due
course.
Q, When you say "they," are you refer-
ring to Metro headquarters?
A. I am referring to the higher echelons
in Metro civil defence.
Q. Is there a plan, an overall plan, in
the event of nuclear disaster?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Is a plan necessary for you to carry
your work out?
A. Oh, absolutely; as a training officer
you must have some knowledge of an
operational plan before you can do your
training.
Q. You have asked for such a plan?
A. Definitely.
Q. Was any answer received?
A. It will be forthcoming.
Q. For how long have you been getting
this type of answer?
A. Well, I have been with the organiza-
tion five and a half years.
Q. Has civil defence any overall plan?
A. No. All sorts of plans have been
worked on, are now being formulated.
The overall plan will finally rest on co-
ordination by the municipal, provincial
and federal authorities. That will become
the overall plan.
304
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Q. If we have no overall plan how ef-
fective can the organization be?
A. Just as effective as the plan— as far
as planning has gone.
Q. And the planning has really gone
nowhere?
A. I would say there has been a lot of
discussion on it, and a lot of thinking on
it; but as for a complete plan, I do not
know of any plan that has been completed
yet. However, some planning has been
done by eager civil defence personnel.
At this point the announcer introduces
the east zone controller, Johnson, who
explains the plan he is considering; and
there is a man by the name of Dr. Mc-
Callum who, apparently, has a plan for the
east. They were thinking seriously about Dr.
McCallum's plan and some training took
place along that line. There are then ques-
tions about this.
Q. You said you hope it [and that is
Dr. McCallum's plan] will be accepted by
whom?
A. By the Metro civil defence commit-
tee or authority.
Q. Have they been exposed to the plan?
A. Yes, they have been exposed to it
by the doctor himself.
Q. Have they accepted it or rejected
it?
A. It is undecided. It is under con-
stant review.
Q. How long has this been going on?
A. Since 1956, actually.
Q. The final decision for all plans-
correct me if I am wrong— rests with
Ottawa?
A. That's right.
Q. Then Ottawa must have local plans
submitted to them before they can co-
ordinate and finalize them?
A. Yes.
Q. Now why are they held up at a
local level in submitting their plan to
Ottawa?
A. Well, there is quite a bit of informa-
tion that is not available to us to complete
our plan. . \,
Q. Who is responsible for holding up
this information?
A. Oh, it isn't a matter of holding it up;
it is just that the information is not forth-
coming; it has not been decided on yet.
Q. Well, how does one go about decid-
ing on these things?
A. Well, there are three various levels
of government. I would like to give you
an example of how they hold them up.
We will take the policy of traffic control
here. Any plan that they make must be
compatible with the plan of the provin-
cial police going from our borders out,
otherwise one is going to plug the other.
Now, we have not received that plan yet.
I know they are working on a completed
plan for mass evacuation and that is pretty
workable.
Q. Again this seems to be a provincial
responsibility?
A. Yes, that would be natural because
we deal with the province and not directly
with the federal government.
Q. I see. How long have these plans
been held up? How long have you been
working on them, trying to get informa-
tion from the provincial level? That you
need to make the final decision?
A. Well, actually we have not gone
after the province on the policy plan, I
just gave that as an example. When they
get their plan drawn up they will let us
have it.
Q. So that nothing can be finalized here?
A. We can finalize our own plan and
submit it.
Q. Have we finalized our own plan?
A. No.
Q. What then has been the hold-up?
A. Well, the hold-up has been, since the
change we have been depending on a lot
of information which has not been forth-
coming yet. We know that their planning
is coming, there is no use asking for the
impossible.
Announcer: But without pubhc informa-
tion, without enough equipment, without
even a plan, there is still the trained indi-
vidual. Key civil defence personnel,
properly trained in fundamental civil
defence are in a better position to ensure
our survival; and such training is available
at the federal civil defence college at Arn-
prior. The three perimeters' own con-
trollers have met with Metro civil defence
since last September.
Question to the first zone controller:
When were you last at the civil defence
college at Arnprior?
A. Well, I haven't been.
DECEMBER 11, 1961
305
Q. You haven't been?
A. No.
Q. Have you been asked to be given the
training?
A. Yes.
Q. You think the training is necessary?
A. I felt it would be helpful.
Question to second zone controller: When
were you last at the federal civil defence
college at Arnprior?
A. Very good question; I have never
been.
Q. You haven't?
Question to third zone controller: When
were you last at the civil defence college
at Arnprior?
A. I have not had the privilege of attend-
ing at Arnprior.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that since May,
and since this broadcast, that some of these
gentlemen may have been to Arnprior. The
headquarters personnel at civil defence have
been trained at Arnprior.
Announcer: It is imj)ortant to note that,
since we made these films two weeks ago,
the zone controllers have been informed
that they, too, would be sent. In fact, two
of them have already gone. But now the
question: What else is needed to make civil
defence more efficient? Have you any sug-
gested improvements for civil defence as it
exists now in the area that could be imple-
mented?
A, It is a very difficult question to answer
until you have the plan fully formulated.
The plans are not formulated.
Q. What is your job? You are the co-
ordinator of civil defence in the area. What
is the role of the co-ordinator?
A. To be responsible for everything that
happens in civil defence.
Announcer: Perhaps the large part of the
civil defence story could be summed up in
the civil defence budget. Last year Metro
civil defence received $334,000, they spent
only $215,000, there is still $118,000 re-
maining unspent. $25,000 of this sum
was not received until last December when
it was possibly too late to include in the
expenses of the fiscal year, but the money
is available. Volunteers are available and
dedicated staff is available. Because of the
importance of civil defence, the nature of
civil defence, we have asked Ozzie Waffle,
chairman of the Metro civil defence com-
mittee, to be with us to have a last word.
Then Mr. Waffle comes on, Mr. Speaker,
and says that everything is going to be fine and
there are funds available, and certainly there
is going to be a plan— some day. Well, the
postscript on this, Mr. Speaker, is the closing
announcement that was made:
Tomorrow morning at 11 a.m. Prime
Minister Diefenbaker and many provincial
premiers will be heard on CJBC and CBL
in Operation Tocsin 1961. A programme
designed to inform the public in emergency
planning for civil defence, stresses the im-
portance of learning personal survival meth-
ods. Hear Operation Tocsin on CBL and
CJBC.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such
nonsense!
Here we have two responsible levels of
government— or at least they like to class
themselves as responsible levels of govern-
ment—here we have a very carefully re-
searched television broadcast conducted by
our C.B.C.! The gentlemen who are respon-
sible for survival plans in this area have been
asked what are they supposed to do, what
trained personnel are there, what plans are
there; and almost 100 per cent the batting
is zero, zero, zero.
Have hon. members ever heard of such a
farce, have they ever heard of such nonsense?
And this government calls itself a responsible
government!
A year ago, Mr. Speaker, when they were
shuffling around the department that used to
be called The Department of Planning and
Development and changed it into The De-
partment of Commerce and Development—
now they have changed it into something
else again— I understood that one gentleman
was going to be deputy minister in charge of
civil defence. In the reshuffling and the new
bills we have seen this year I have not heard
him mentioned at all.
Somewhere along the line I gathered from
the newspapers, not from the speeches of the
hon. Prime Minister or of any of his hon.
colleagues in the Cabinet, that civil defence
is going to find its way to the hon. Attorney-
General's department. If so, why have we
not had a bill about it? Why have we
not had some remarks about it in the Throne
speech? Why have we not got a plan? What
sort of nonsense is this government trying to
perpetrate on the people of Ontario?
Mr. Speaker, let us be honest with the
people of Ontario. I do not think that civil
defence is possible, but I am certainly willing
to be shown. If it is, let us have a programme
for all of the people of Ontario, not just for
306
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the wealthy people who can afford to build a
shelter, and ignore the poor people. Let us
look after the school children and the people
in offices and the people in apartment build-
ings. Let us look after the people in hospitals.
Let us do all these things and let us do it
as a part of a government programme. Let us
stop the hysteria that this programme is pro-
ducing and let us build up the morale of the
people of the province rather than tear it
down.
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Speaker, last August, exercising
my wisdom and good common sense, for
which I am well known, I stated in Kingston
that enjoying as I did good health and having
had the opportunity to serve this historic
riding of Kingston both as a private member
and as a member of the Frost government;
enjoying also as my wife did good health, I
indicated at that time that come the next
general provincial election I did not again
intend to run in Kingston.
I had a little difficulty after having made
that statement when I met the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) in
Renfrew at a time when he was present there,
on a very sad occasion, with his political
executive adviser. Dr. Boyd Upper. He even
at that time thought I had some sinister
motive in going there, in that I was going
to be appointed to some other office. We had
breakfast together, as he will remember, and
I thought perhaps— I was in good form and
so was he— that he might pick up the chit,
because I was going out of public life. But
no, sir; every man for himself that morning.
I assured him I was going to do exactly
what my father did after he had represented
Kingston, not only in this Legislature but
indeed in the House of Commons, at one time
having been the Attorney-General when
Mr. Ferguson was the Prime Minister. I am
going to do exactly what he did and when
the time presents itself, come the next general
provincial election, I am going to return to
Kingston and practise my first love, my chosen
profession, the law.
Now I can quite understand the hon. Prime
Minister, being a member of the legal pro-
fession, perhaps might even frown if I were
to make any comment this afternoon about
when I intended to start, so I will say it
depends on when my hon. leader calls the
election. But to those of the legal profession
who are in this House this afternoon, I would
indicate to them without reservation— I am
not unmindful of the fact since I entered this
House some ten years ago that there may have
been a little inflation— but when I return to
Kingston I will be in the old stand, at the old
address and at the old prices. Anything that
the hon. members of this House can with
dignity and sincerity refer to me, I shall be
glad to attend to on a reasonable agency
basis.
Mr. Speaker, there have been suggestions
in tliis chamber of a congratulatory nature
concerning your occupying your present posi-
tion at this time. Many people ha\e stopped
short and simply said they wished you well.
But as I consider and think of some of the
exciting moments we have had in the first
two or three weeks of this session and if what
lias happened in that time is going to be
indicative of what takes place when we meet
again in January or February— then, sir, I
go a bit further than some of my hon.
colleagues and with all reverence and humility
I will say I will give you my Presbyterian
prayers and wish you good health to cany
on to discharge in fairness in the future, as
you have in the past, all that goes with your
very great office.
Tributes of respect, of sympathy and under-
standing have been made in this House in
connection with the death of three of our
members, Mr. Maloney, Mr. Nixon and Mr.
Wren. I lived for years, when I was in
Toronto, in the Royal York with these three
gentlemen. Two of them had a political
philosophy different to mine, but at this time I
would like to say that on a tremendous number
of occasions, sir, we had breakfast together, we
had dinner together. I am the only one of
the four that is left, still living at the Royal
York— and I want to say that those who haxe
not lived there, who did not get to know Mr.
Maloney, Mr. Nixon and Mr. Wren as I did,
as friends rather than just political acquaint-
ances, that I have missed probably more than
anybody in this House, the sincere, basic
understanding that went and existed between
gentlemen of a different political philosophy
when we had an opportunity to break bread
and discuss the problems of the pro\ince,
always with a basic thought that we were
all, each in our own way, proud to call
Ontario home.
There have been references to my hon.
leader since he has taken over his position
as the hon. Prime Minister of this province.
I am satisfied, I think as all hon. members of
tliis House will be satisfied tiiat since he has
taken over the leadership of the government,
the leadership of the Con.servative Party, he
has handled himself extremely well. If I am
DECEMBER 11, 1961
307
any judge of public opinion, when the ballots
are counted come the next provincial by-
election-
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Careful
now! That is where the hon. Minister made
his first— better not go too far.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Just give me a chance to
finish! If the hon. member is honest, and I
think he is, he will agree with me that in
his riding, as a result of certain things that
have happened, he is very apprehensive about
a majority of those by-elections; and he knows
that just as well as I do.
I want to say something more. The hon.
leader of the Opposition, if he is going into
the ridings where these five by-elections are
going to be held, will have to be a little more
careful in connection with his utterances than
he may have been in the immediate past.
At this opportunity, which may perhaps
be my last opportunity, because I am not the
man to say when the next provincial general
election is going to take place: a great many
references have been made concerning the
hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost), the
former Prime Minister, in regard to the very
outstanding administration he headed as the
Prime Minister of Ontario for 12 years.
The responsibilities incidental to his high
office demanded his presence throughout the
length and breadth of the province and indeed
of other jurisdictions, and for the purpose of
the record and speaking on behalf of the
women of this province, I think this is indeed
the time and forum to pay tribute to Mrs.
Leslie M. Frost, a gracious, charming and
attractive woman who was just as much a
public servant of the people of this province
as was her husband and who, in her official
capacity, discharged her duties with dignity
and credit as the wife of the Prime Minister.
She shall always be respected and loved by
the good citizens of this province and to her
I say, thank you, Mrs. Frost, for a job well
and thoroughly done. To Mrs. Frost I say,
we shall miss you, as we shall miss your
husband, in reference to the political life of
this province.
There is a saying, in relation to a family,
that where a son does well and succeeds his
father, it is a compliment to say of him that
he is a worthy son of a worthy sire. I would
change that just a little bit and say that the
present leader of the Conservative Party is
a man who has been trained at the knee of
a very great sire and will prove very worthy
in the administration which he leads.
Of course I can say that with all the
sincerity in the world, because I want to
make it crystal clear, hon. members know that
as well as I, that there is nothing I want
except to return in good health to the great
city of Kingston and with my wife enjoy our
friends.
A very recent dinner which I attended at
the Royal York was that of the War Amputees
of Canada. These people came from one end
of this country to the other. At this time I
would like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and
through you to the hon. members of the
government, that these people who attended
that function; men who in two wars had lost
an arm or a leg, or some of them two arms;
some both legs— that these people have their
problems.
When we talk in a sinister way about some
of the problems to protect the little people
come a third world war then, I say, we must
try to use such protective measures, sir, that
if bombs drop— people of our vintage, people
of our age on both sides of the House have
had an opportunity to enjoy our way of life—
but in relation to our children I do say this,
that if there is a conflict then we should not
laugh ofiF the problem and the challenge of
any administration, irrespective of its political
point of view, in trying to protect the children.
After all, when everythng is said and done,
the child of today is our best asset for
tomorrow.
I would hke to direct a few remarks in
connection with a matter which concerns the
city of Kingston. I asked the support of the
hon. Prime Minister and indeed of my col-
league the hon. Minister of Travel and
Publicity (Mr. Cathcart). In presenting his
estimates to this House a few days ago, he
made mention of the plaques that had been
erected in Ontario by the Ontario Archaeo-
logical and Historic Sites Board and I am
very happy to say that among the memorials
that have gone up in Kingston, one is in
reference to the building of Fort Henry.
Fort Henry— The present Fort was built
1832-36, as part of a larger scheme of
fortifications for the defence of the Kingston
Dockyard and the Rideau Canal.
The Stone Frigate, 1820— To store gear
from the Lake Fleet. It was the first dormi-
tory building at the Royal Military College.
Heathfield— This house, erected prior to
1841 and purchased by Professor James Wil-
liamson of Queen's, was used by the William-
sons and Sir John A. Macdonald's sister,
Louisa.
Bishop Alexander Macdonell, 1762-1840—
Born 1762 at Glen Urquhart, Scotland, he was
308
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
educated for the priesthood in Paris and
Spain. In 1826 he was consecrated Bishop of
Kingston, the first Catholic Bishop in Upper
Canada. In 1831 he became a Member of
the Legislative Council; and in his portrait in
the Bishop's house in Kingston he will be
seen wearing two rings, his episcopal ring
and the ring of office as a Legislative
Councillor. In 1837 he founded RegiopoHs
College. He is buried in St. Mary's Cathedral
in Kingston.
At this point, I want to pay tribute to
George F. G. Stanley, dean of the faculty
of arts and head of the department of history
at the Royal Military College, and formerly
deputy-director of the historical section of
the general staff. He is a member of the
Ontario Archaeological and Historic Sites
Board since its inception. As the member of
this board from eastern Ontario, his particular
responsibility is for historic sites in that part
of the province.
Today I want to recommend for the
favourable consideration of my hon. col-
leagues in the government, the erection of a
further plaque in Kingston in memory of
that great Liberal leader of yesterday, a
former resident of Kingston, Sir Oliver Mowat,
who held office as leader of the government
longer than any other man in our history.
The house in which Sir Oliver was born and
lived still stands in a very excellent residential
section of Kingston and although other
plaques have been erected, the time has now
come when the memory of Sir Oliver Mowat
should be perpetuated. I give you this great
man's history: "A Presbyterian with a
sincerely reUgious bent— a Christian states-
man"—this was Sir Oliver Mowat's self-
valuation.
Bom in Kingston July 20, 1820-both his
parents being Scottish born— Oliver Mowat
was educated in Kingston district schools and
at the age of 16 became articled to a promi-
nent Kingston lawyer, John A. Macdonald.
In 1840 he left Kingston for Toronto and
the next year was called to the Bar of
Upper Canada. The year 1856 was an event-
ful one for Mowat as it brought his appoint-
ment as a Q.C., appointment as one of the
commissioners to revise and consolidate the
statutes of Upper Canada and election as an
alderman for the City of Toronto.
Implementing one of the recommendations
of Lord Durham's historic report, the British
Parliament in 1840 passed the Act of Union,
uniting Upper and Lower Canada under one
Legislature. Mowat was first elected to this
Legislature in 1857 by the riding of South
Ontario and the next year he accepted the
post of Provincial Secretary in the short-lived
Brown-Dorion administration.
In 1861 the former student-at-law ran for
election against a formidable opponent— his
one-time teacher, John A. Macdonald— but
lost, as the voters of Kingston endorsed
Macdonald.
During the John Sandfield Macdonald-
Dorion administration of 1863 and the great
coalition of 1864, Mowat served as Post-
master General. In those momentous years
when men of vision met to discuss the con-
federation of Canada, Oliver Mowat was the
delegate from Upper Canada at the Quebec
Conference of 1864.
Taking leave of politics, Oliver Mowat in
November, 1864, was raised to the bench
as one of the Vice-Chancellors of Ontario.
The British North America Act, 1867,
which created the federal union of Canada,
also established Ontario and Quebec as
separate provinces. Returning to the Ontario
political scene in 1872, he succeeded Ed-
ward Blake as leader of the Ontario Liberal
Party. Elected by the constituency of Ox-
ford North, Mowat was sworn in as Prime
Minister and Attorney-General of Ontario,
October 25, 1872. Mowat was Ontario's
third post-confederation Prime Minister, being
preceded by the Hon. John Sandfield Mac-
donald (July 16, 1867-December 19, 1871)
and the Hon. Edward Blake (December 20,
1871-October 25, 1872).
Mowat served the people of Ontario as
Prime Minister and Attorney-General from
1872 continuously through to 1896. He then
resigned to enter federal politics as a sup-
porter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Appointed
to the Senate where he became the govern-
ment leader, he also held the portfolio of
Minister of Justice in the Laurier Cabinet.
A fighter for provincial rights. Sir Oliver
Mowat, while in the Ontario Legislature, in-
troduced the ballot system of voting into
both provincial and municipal elections.
Knighted in 1892 as a Knight Commander
of the Order of St. Michael and St. George,
he was later named a Knight Grand Cross
of the Order.
Sir Oliver Mowat retired from political
campaigning in 1897 but continued his dis-
tinguished career of public service as Lieuten-
ant-Governor of Ontario from 1897 until his
death, April 19, 1903.
From the first day of his first election to
the Legislature of Canada in 1857 until his
death at Government House, Toronto in
1903, this "Christian statesman" from Kings-
ton served his home city, his province and
DECEMBER 11, 1961
309
his country in many capacities for 46 years
—nearly half a century.
Records of the day attribute many qual-
ities to explain his success as a party leader
—"tactful, politically sagacious and of high
integrity" are terms which were applied by
his contemporaries.
As concerns this province, he left behind
—among other important Acts— The Ballot Act
of 1874 and The Manhood Suffrage Act of
1888. The University of Toronto and
Queen's University tendered honorary de-
grees and Toronto University honoured him
as a member of their senate (1852-1872).
Sir Oliver Mowat was born in an exciting
time in Upper Canada's history— he was part
of the formation of Canada— he served this
new country in its difficult early years— and
he saw the early years of this 20th century
—the century that "belongs to Canada" be-
cause of the efforts of her faithful public
servants of the last 100 years.
I might say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there
are some in this House who have never really
understood or appreciated why, from the
time I came here until this very hour, I
have always sat in seat number 2. The
reason is that the leaders of the government,
from the time I came here some ten years
ago, have always given me seat number 2
because it was the seat my father occupied
when he came into the House and was the
Attorney-General under Mr. Ferguson.
But I am not going to run in the next
provincial election and I may say, Mr.
Speaker, when I retire from public life, I
will be leaving seat No. 2.
Speaking of Sir Oliver Mowat—
An hon. member: May I have it?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: What, this seat? Well,
I am very sure the hon. member would like
it. I would wish him well, but he will never
make it unless he changes his tactics. I will
tell the hon. member something else to give
him some Christmas comfort. I suppose
today, as a member of that great regiment—
the Algonquin Regiment, is that not it, from
which all the men who served in distinction
are working for the Ontario Northland Rail-
way up in his riding the hon. member and
I were there one day— and there came the
call for liquor help from Kingston. I turned
the request for the extra help over to the
president of the Canadian Legion— allow me
to finish, because this is really worthwhile—
I turned the request for extra help in the
liquor stores at Christmas over to the presi-
dent of the Canadian Legion and I told him to
try to get men who had long and faithful
active service in some theatre of war, either
the First War or the Second War. Hon.
members will at least know what I do in
Kingston.
On a personal basis, I find in going through
the papers of my father, who died a few years
ago, this parchment which any lawyer will
appreciate and recognize as the occasion of
his appointment, the appointment of William
Folger Nickle, as a notary public in the year
1900. A man who in the opinion of the then
Lieutenant-Governor possessed loyalty,
integrity and ability. The man who signed
the parchment and named my father as the
notary public in and for the province of
Ontario was none other than Sir Oliver
Mowat.
I will continue tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Nickle moves the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will go on with second
readings that are on the order paper and the
Throne Debate. We will have a night session
tomorrow night and Thursday night.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.55 o'clock, p.m.
'' ", 4'^'t:;j;'i-; •.' . -V
.Kg
No. 14
ONTARIO
BiV'
Ht^Matuvt of ((Ontario
debates;
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Tuesday, December 12, 1961
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C*
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
/•V^Vf^^
CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 12, 1961
First report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Gomme 313
Second report, select committee on expropriation of land, Mr. Cass 313
Hospital Services Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 314
Public Hospitals Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 314
Fair Employment Practices Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davidson, first reading 314
Income Tax Act, 1961-1962, bill intituled, Mr. Allan, second reading 316
Milk Industry Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, second reading 323
Ontario Agricultural College, Ontario Veterinary College and MacDonald Institute,
. bill respecting, Mr. Stewart, second reading 323
Establishment of the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, bill to provide for,
Mr. Stewart, second reading 323
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Nickle, Mr. Daley,
Mr. Bryden 323
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Bryden, agreed to 339
Recess, 6 o'clock 339
:• J ; ; .; ,'
313
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. G. E. Gomme, from the standing com-
mittee on private bills, presented the com-
mittee's first report which was read as
follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. Prl, An Act respecting Greater
Oshawa Community Chest.
Bill No. Pr3, An Act respecting the City of
Belleville.
Bill No. Pr4, An Act respecting The Queen
Elizabeth Hospital for Incurables, Toronto.
Bill No. Pr8, An Act respecting the Village
of Markham.
Bill No. Prl3, An Act respecting the Town-
ship of Nepean.
Bill No. Prl5, An Act respecting The High
School Board of the Township of Nepean
and The Collegiate Institute Board of the
City of Ottawa.
Bill No. Pr23, An Act respecting the Young
Men's- Young Women's Christian Association
of Cornwall.
Hon. F. M. Cass presents the second
interim report of the select committee ap-
pointed on April 12, 1960 and re-appointed
on March 23, 1961 to inquire into and review
all provincial legislation and regulations re-
specting expropriation of land by public
authority and moves, seconded by Hon. J. P.
Robarts, that the committee be re-appointed
and continue with the same membership and
with the same powers and duties as hereto-
fore; also, that the said committee be author-
ized to sit during the Christmas-New Year
adjournment of this session and that the
same allowances for expenses to the chairman
and members thereof be payable for such
Tuesday, December 12, 1961
meetings as are provided by section 65 of The
Legislative Assembly Act, R.S.O. 1960, chap-
ter 308, for meetings held during the interval
between sessions.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
report just tabled, I would like to say it:
is as usual the unanimous report of the
committee which has now finished its public
sessions and public hearings and is in the
process of considering the very many serious
and important problems connected with
powers of expropriation by public authorities.
I think, sir, that it is the opinion of the
committee— I know it is the opinion of many
of us at least, and it certainly is the opinion of
this House, I am quite sure— that as soon
as possible there should be some concrete
results from this committee by way of recom-
mendation and report to this House so that
the many very obvious inequities which
presently exist in the law may be corrected.
For that reason, the committee was very
anxious that they should be re-appointed by
this hon. House and be free to continue as
soon as possible their further research and
if possible to produce some good recom-
mendations for the consideration of this
House.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts moves that the select
committees on the cost of drugs and on crop
insurance be authorized to sit during the
Christmas-New Year adjournment of this ses-
sion and that the same allowances for expenses
to the chairman and members thereof be
payable for such meetings as are provided
by section 65 of The Legislative Assembly
Act, R.S.O. 1960, chapter 308, for meetings
held during the interval between sessions.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, by way of explanation, this is just
a motion to permit these committees to carry
on between the time we adjourn and the
time we resume in the hopes that perhaps we
316
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that we will not be blocked at his level as we
were in the instance of a previous Royal
commission?
'Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, what a
questionl All I can say is this: I will deal
with that when the commissioner consults me.
Mr. MacDonald: I hope the hon. Prime
Minister deals with it differently than his
predecessor.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): I would
like to offer an apology. I made a very grave
error the other day and I have a letter here
that I would like to read to correct the error.
It was during the discussion of the estimates
of The Department of Travel and Publicity
and my colleague, the hon. member for Park-
dale (Mr. Trotter). It has to do with the
Scottish people and I want to apologize to
them for the mistake I made.
Here is the letter:
During the debate on the estimates of
The Department of Travel and Publicity
Tuesday, December 5, A. Cowling, member
for High Park, referred to Tobermory as a
beautiful Irish name, Hansard, page 217. I
agree that Tobermory is a beautiful name,
but I cannot allow even a fellow P.C. to
alienate it by calling it Irish. Tobermory
is as Scotch as the Highlands themselves.
In the Encyclopedia Canadiana, volume
10, page 91, it states:
Tobermory, Ontario, named after Tober-
mory, Scotland. The original Tobermory is
located near the northern end of the Island
of Mull in the Inner Hebrides.
A few years ago the Rank film called
"I Know Where I'm Going" the locale of
which was Tobermory, Scotland, had its
. North American premiere at Tobermory,
Ontario.
Incidentally, old country locals pronounce
the name "Tubmury", both "u's" being pro-
nounced as in the "Tub". As a matter of
fact, many of the localities in Tobermory
refer to it now as "The Tub".
(Signed) Ogden Hershaw.
There is my apology, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day I would like to speak just for
a moment about the procedure that we will
follow for the balance of the week. Tomor-
row there are two committees meeting, both
of them in the morning. I would like to meet
here at 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, 2
o'clock Thursday afternoon, 10.30 o'clock on
Friday morning until 1.00 o'clock in the after-
noon, and if it is necessary to resume Friday
afternoon.
I would like to get as much work done as
possible prior to the Christmas adjournment
which I would like to reach on Friday. If it
is possible to reach it on Friday we will
adjourn Friday, if not we may have to come
back next week.
That is the programme that I propose for
the balance of the week. We will have a
night session tonight but none tomorrow night,
Wednesday, and a night session Thursday. If
there is a motion necessary for this I will
revert to the orders of the day later on and
make it.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961-62
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer)
moves second reading of Bill No. 43, The
Income Tax Act, 1961-62.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
In moving second reading of Bill 43, The
Income Tax Act, 1961-62, I would like first
to outline briefly to the House the new fed-
eral-provincial fiscal arrangements that have
been negotiated with the federal govern-
ment. Under these arrangements— which will
replace the existing arrangements due to
expire on March 31, 1962— the tax rental sys-
tem will be discontinued and the provinces
will be free to impose, adjust and vary their
tax rates in the major fields of direct taxa-
tion, in accordance with what they deem
necessary to meet their own requirements.
Effective January 1, 1962, the federal gov-
ernment will withdraw from the corporation
income tax field, to the extent of the exist-
ing standard rate or abatement of nine per-
centage points of taxable income; and from
the personal income tax field by 16 per cent
of federal rates of tax— thereby raising the
provincial share by about two percentage
points over the existing standard rate of
approximately 14 per cent of 1960 federal
rates of tax. In each of the following four
years, the federal withdrawal from the per-
sonal income tax field will be increased by
one additional percentage point so that, in
the fifth year, the federal withdrawal will
be equal to 20 per cent of its gross rates of
tax. In the succession duty field, the fed-
eral government will continue the present
system of allowing an abatement of 50 i>er
cent of its estate tax in any province whiV:];»
elects to impose its own succession dutie?*
DECEMBER 12, 1961
317
or of paying an amount equal to half the
yield of the federal tax to any province
which chooses not to levy its own succession
duties.
The federal government has offered to
collect, free of charge, the individual income
tax or corporation income tax, or both, for
any province, provided the provincial legis-
lation imposing such tax or taxes, conforms
with the draft bill presented by the federal
government to all the provinces as a model
that would permit the federal government
to act as a collection agent for the provinces.
Under a collection agreement, the provincial
individual income tax must be expressed as a
percentage of the federal tax rather than as a
schedule of rates imposed on taxable income,
and this percentage must remain constant
throughout a taxation year. The corporation
income tax must be expressed as a percentage
of taxable income as defined for federal
income tax purposes.
I should point out that the proposed collec-
tion arrangements are a substantial improve-
ment over the type of collection arrangements
offered to the provinces— as an alternative to
tax rental arrangements— for the period 1957-
1962. Under the collection arrangement of-
fered in 1957, the provincial rate of tax could
not exceed the standard rate of tax employed
in the tax rental arrangements and a province
was required to pay the cost of collection.
The collection arrangement at that time
offered no financial advantage over tax rental
arrangements, since it did not allow an agree-
ing province to obtain more revenue from the
tax fields than it could, under a rental arrange-
ment—and required a province to pay a
collection fee as well. The new arrangements
overcome those defects of the earlier offer
of tax collection agreements and, at the same
time, retain the advantage of a consolidated
and simplified tax system. They also retain
the advantage of allowing provinces to enter
into collection agreements for either the per-
sonal income tax field, the corporation income
tax field, or both— a flexibility which was not
available under the tax rental arrangements
until 1957.
Under the new arrangements, the method
of dealing with succession duties will be
identical with that under the present agree-
ments. The federal government is not pre-
pared to collect succession duties under
legislation which is different from its own
and the provinces are constitutionally unable
to enact legislation comparable to The Federal
2state Tax Act.
The federal government will continue to
Vnake equalisation payments under the new
arrangements, although the method of com-
puting them will differ from the present
formula in two principal respects: First, the
new equalisation formula will be based on
the yield from standard rates of tax in the
three major direct tax fields— as at present-
plus one-half of the three-year moving average
of gross natural resource revenue. Secondly,
the revenue over this broader base will be
equalized to the national average per capita
yield in all provinces rather than the average
per capita yield in the two highest yield
provinces. Thus, in each of the five fiscal
years, 1962-63 to 1966-67, a province will
receive a basic equalisation payment sufficient
to bring its combined per capita yield from
standard taxes at the proposed rates and one-
half of the three-year moving average of its
gross natural resource revenue up to the
average per capita yield of all provinces from
these sources. This formula is supplemented
by two guarantees:
(a) No province entitled to equalisation
under the national average formula will
receive less in total— under the new arrange-
ments—than the amount that would be pay-
able under the 1957-62 arrangements, if
extended, for standard taxes, equahsation and
Atlantic Provinces Adjustment Grants; and
(b) No province will receive less in total
than it received in the final year, or on the
average in the final two years, of the 1957-62
arrangements, whichever is the greater.
While the equalisation provisions of the
new arrangements do not benefit the province
of Ontario, they represent an improved means
of distributing fiscal assistance to the prov-
inces accurately and equitably in accordance
with relative need. It has been unrealistic
under the present formula to ignore revenues
from natural resources which vary widely
from province to province, and account for
such an important source of revenue in some
provinces. Moreover, the adoption of the
national average per capita yield as the
equalisation level— rather than the per capita
yield in the two highest yield provinces— has
the advantage of channelling a larger pro-
portion of the equalisation payments to the
most needy provinces. In addition, the
federal government has undertaken to increase
the special Atlantic Provinces Adjustment
Grants from $25 million to $35 million, and
to continue the special grant to Newfoundland
of $8 million per annum.
Under these new tax-sharing arrangements,
the province of Ontario will continue to
collect its own corporation taxes and succes-
sion duties. In the individual income tax field,
the present arrangement under which the
318
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
province has surrendered its tax rights to the
federal government— in return for a rental
payment— will be discontinued. The province
will now exercise its own tax powers, and
will enter into a tax collection agreement
under which the federal government will
collect, free of charge, an individual income
tax to be imposed at rates of tax equivalent
to the federal withdrawal from this field.
Under this arrangement, there will be no
increase in the burden of taxation on indivi-
duals.
The Act wliich we have before us will
implement the new fiscal arrangements that
have been negotiated with the federal govern-
ment. It will impose an income tax on indivi-
duals resident or carrying on business in
Ontario. The basis upon which the tax is
to be calculated is that the rate of tax, payable
by an Ontario resident to Ontario, will be a
percentage of the tax otherwise payable by
that resident to Canada, under The Income
Tax Act of Canada. The rates of tax provided
are the same percentages that Canada has
proposed to abate from its gross rates, so that
each province might impose its own tax up to
the amount of those abatements without
imposing duplicate taxation. Thus, when this
Act becomes efi^ective, the total of the taxes
payable by an Ontario resident under The
Federal Income Tax Act and under this Act,
will equal the amount of tax that would have
been payable by the same taxpayer under The
Federal Act alone, had this arrangement not
been made. In other words, this bill does
not increase the amount of the total tax an
Ontario resident will be required to pay on
his income beyond that which he now pays.
It merely divides the total tax between Canada
and Ontario in the following proportions:
axation
Year
Ontario
Canac
1962
16%
84%
1963
17%
83%
1964
18%
82%
1965
19%
81%
1966
20%
80%
No Ontario resident will be required under
this bill to pay more tax to Ontario than
the indicated share of the total income tax
payable for the year to both Canada and the
province.
This bill is arranged so that all the pro-
visions of The Income Tax Act of Canada,
that affect the calculation of the amount of
the tax payable under the Act, will apply in
exactly the same way under The Ontario Act.
Thus, the calculation of the incomes of resi-
dents of Ontario— for the purpose of deter-
mining the amount of tax payable under this
bill— will always be the same as that under
The Federal Income Tax Act.
This bill follows precisely the form and
content of the model bill presented by Canada
to the provinces in offering to collect provin-
cial income taxes on behalf of the provinces.
It provides authority to the Treasurer to con-
clude a collection agreement with Canada,
whereby Canada will collect— on behalf of
Ontario— the tax imposed by this Act, and
pay it over to the province at stated inter-
vals. The agreement will permit Ontario
residents to pay their income taxes to Can-
ada and Ontario together, with single returns
and remittances.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I might inform the
House at this time that the federal govern-
ment has offered to collect Ontario corpora-
tion income tax assessable— with respect to
the calendar years 1962 to 1966, inclusive— at
any rate of tax the province wishes to impose.
While there is a decided advantage for the
province to enter into a tax collection agree-
ment with respect to the individual income
tax field, it is a very different matter with
respect to the corporation tax field.
In the first place, the collection of the
corporation income tax is quite different from
that of the individual income tax. The collec-
tion of the latter tax would involve the
processing of close to 2.5 million returns,
whereas in the case of the corporation income
tax only about 60,000 returns are required
to be processed. The province of Ontario is
large enough and important enough to collect
its own corporation income tax efficiently and
economically. The present cost of collecting
Ontario corporation taxes, including capital,
place of business and special taxes as well
as the tax on income, amounts to approxi-
mately $650,000 or about four tenths of one
per cent. This is the lowest administrative
cost of any tax levied by Ontario, and is less
than half as expensive as the next least
costly, which is the gasoline tax at one per
cent. Furthermore, there i? very little dupli-
cation or inconvenience to the taxpayer. The
same allocation of corporation profits among
the provinces is required whether the federal
government or the province collects the tax.
Secondly, the federal government is not
prepared to collect the taxes now levied by
Ontario on capital and places of business of
ordinary corporations and on banks, railways,
express companies, telegraph companies and ^^ >,
insurance companies. These taxes now yield'
a revenue of $17 million per year. As I have
mentioned, the total cost of collecting the^jK
DECEMBER 12, 1961
319
province's corporation tax revenue is approxi-
mately $650,000, and this amount includes
the cost of collecting these special taxes. If
the province entered into a corporation
income tax collection agreement, the cost to
the province of collecting the special taxes
could be reduced very little, if only these
taxes were collected.
Thirdly, the entry into a corporation tax
collection agreement would require the tax to
be levied under the model corporate income
tax bill drafted by federal officials. Under
this bill, the tax would be levied on a
corporation's taxable income earned in the
taxation year in Ontario. This is different
from that employed in The Corporations Tax
Act of Ontario, which levies the tax on the
world income of corporations operating in
Ontario— whether such profits are earned in
Ontario or elsewhere. Under the Ontario
Act, an abatement of tax is given on those
portions of income deemed to be earned out-
side Ontario from the tax levied on world
income. There are situations where the latter
form of taxation provides greater certainty
and security of collecting the revenue than
the basis upon which the model corporate
income tax bill applies the tax. On the
basis of the collection agreement that has
been indicated to us, our own administration
should bring us a greater amount of tax
revenue than would be collected and remitted
by the federal government. We are not only
closer to our taxpayers, and can give their
accounts scrutiny when necessary, but the
form of our legislation— which has been ac-
cepted by the corporate fraternity— brings us
additional revenue, because of the imposition
of the tax on the world income of corpora-
tions with tax abatements for business trans-
acted outside Ontario.
Fourthly, the entry into a corporate tax
collection agreement would initially result in
a considerable amount of confusion. The
agreement would apply only to profits earned
in Ontario following January 1, 1962. This
means that the new income tax bill that
would provide for this tax, would allow de-
ductions from tlie tax imposed with respect
to all those fiscal years, of corporations that
do not coincide with the calendar year which
commenced in 1961. Correspondingly, The
Corporations Tax Act would have to be
amended to allow abatements to all corpora-
tions with fiscal years that do not coincide
with the calendar year, but end in 1962— to
the extent that such fiscal years pass after
January 1, 1962. Thus, all corporations, the
fiscal years of which do not coincide with the
calendar year, would have to be assessed by
Ontario and given refunds if they have over-
paid the tax on the basis of a full year's
operation, or be assessed at the net amount;
and the same corporations would have to be
assessed by Canada for the same fiscal year
and the opposite proportion of the fiscal year
subjected to tax. Undoubtedly a considerable
amount of confusion would result, because
Ontario would be refunding to corporations
tax that the same corporations would have to
pay to Canada for the account of Ontario;
and even if it were arranged for Ontario to
pay Canada in order for the matter to be
kept straight, a tremendous amount of arith-
metic would have to be done to ensure that
the two bases properly corresponded with
each other.
It should be noted in this regard that a
large number of corporations— the fiscal years
of which end in 1962— have already paid full
instalments under the Ontario Act. All of
these amounts would have to be taken into
account and, where necessary, refunded. If
the province repealed its capital and place-of-
business taxes and special taxes, the large
portions of these taxes that have already been
paid with respect to corporations— the fiscal
years of which end in 1962— would also have
to be refunded. Furthermore, it should be
noted that all corporations— the fiscal years
of which end in 1962 and the last is
November 30, 1962— are allowed six months
from the close of such fiscal year to file
returns. The last of these returns will not be
filed until May, 1963. This means that the
present staff would have to be maintained, or
largely maintained, until all these returns
have been assessed.
Another disadvantage of a corporation tax
collection agreement is that The Treasury
Department would lose the ability to obtain
the information it can now obtain from cor-
poration tax returns, of a statistical character
regarding the economic growth and develop-
ment of Ontario. The data that the province
now receives from most of the large national
companies, and all of the smaller companies
operating in Ontario, would no longer be
available.
Finally, and most important, we believe
that the province would weaken its position
in subsequent negotiations with the federal
government, if it dismantled its tax collection
machinery. The history of tax agreements
with the federal government provides little
assurance that there will be any more per-
manency in the new arrangements, than there
has been in former agreements. Just as the
previous five-year arrangements were altered
upon their termination, the new set of five-
318
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
province has surrendered its tax rights to the
federal government— in return for a rental
payment— will be discontinued. The province
will now exercise its own tax powers, and
will enter into a tax collection agreement
under which the federal government will
collect, free of charge, an individual income
tax to be imposed at rates of tax equivalent
to the federal withdrawal from this field.
Under this arrangement, there will be no
increase in the burden of taxation on indivi-
duals.
The Act which we have before us will
implement the new fiscal arrangements that
have been negotiated with the federal govern-
ment. It will impose an income tax on indivi-
duals resident or carrying on business in
Ontario. The basis upon which the tax is
to be calculated is that the rate of tax, payable
by an Ontario resident to Ontario, will be a
percentage of the tax otherwise payable by
that resident to Canada, under The Income
Tax Act of Canada. The rates of tax provided
are the same percentages that Canada has
proposed to abate from its gross rates, so that
each province might impose its own tax up to
the amount of those abatements without
imposing duplicate taxation. Thus, when this
Act becomes effective, the total of the taxes
payable by an Ontario resident under The
Federal Income Tax Act and under this Act,
will equal the amount of tax that would have
been payable by the same taxpayer under The
Federal Act alone, had this arrangement not
been made. In other words, this bill does
not increase the amount of the total tax an
Ontario resident will be required to pay on
his income beyond that which he now pays.
It merely divides the total tax between Canada
and Ontario in the following proportions:
Taxation
Year
Ontario
Canac
1962
16%
84%
1963
17%
83%
1964
18%
82%
1965
19%
81%
1966
20%
80%
No Ontario resident will be required under
this bill to pay more tax to Ontario than
the indicated share of the total income tax
payable for the year to both Canada and the
province.
This bill is arranged so that all the pro-
visions of The Income Tax Act of Canada,
that affect the calcidation of the amount of
the tax payable under the Act, will apply in
exactly the same way under The Ontario Act.
Thus, the calculation of the incomes of resi-
dents of Ontario— for the purpose of deter-
mining the amount of tax payable under this
bill— will always be the same as that under
The Federal Income Tax Act.
This bill follows precisely the form and
content of the model bill presented by Canada
to the provinces in offering to collect provin-
cial income taxes on behalf of the provinces.
It provides authority to the Treasurer to con-
clude a collection agreement with Canada,
whereby Canada will collect— on behalf of
Ontario— the tax imposed by this Act, and
pay it over to the province at stated inter-
vals. The agreement will permit Ontario
residents to pay their income taxes to Can-
ada and Ontario together, with single returns
and remittances.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I might inform the
House at this time that the federal govern-
ment has offered to collect Ontario corpora-
tion income tax assessable— with respect to
the calendar years 1962 to 1966, inclusive— at
any rate of tax the province wishes to impose.
While there is a decided advantage for the
province to enter into a tax collection agree-
ment with respect to the individual income
tax field, it is a very different matter with
respect to the corporation tax field.
In the first place, the collection of the
corporation income tax is quite different from
that of the individual income tax. The collec-
tion of the latter tax would involve the
processing of close to 2.5 million returns,
whereas in the case of the corporation income
tax only about 60,000 returns are required
to be processed. The province of Ontario is
large enough and important enough to collect
its own corporation income tax eflBciently and
economically. The present cost of collecting
Ontario corporation taxes, including capital,
place of business and special taxes as well
as the tax on income, amounts to approxi-
mately $650,000 or about four tenths of one
per cent. This is the lowest administrative
cost of any tax levied by Ontario, and is less
than half as expensive as the next least
costly, which is the gasoline tax at one per
cent. Furthermore, there i»s very little dupli-
cation or inconvenience to the taxpayer. The
same allocation of corporation profits among
the provinces is required whether the federal
government or the province collects the tax.
Secondly, the federal government is not
prepared to collect the taxes now levied by
Ontario on capital and places of business of
ordinary corporations and on banks, railways,
express companies, telegraph companies and^^>,
insurance companies. These taxes now yield*
a revenue of $17 million per year. As I have
mentioned, the total cost of collecting the^«
1
DECEMBER 12, 1961
319
province's corporation tax revenue is approxi-
mately $650,000, and this amount includes
the cost of collecting these special taxes. If
the province entered into a corporation
income tax collection agreement, the cost to
the province of collecting the special taxes
could be reduced very little, if only these
taxes were collected.
Thirdly, the entry into a corporation tax
collection agreement would require the tax to
be levied under the model corporate income
tax bill drafted by federal officials. Under
this bill, the tax would be levied on a
corporation's taxable income earned in the
taxation year in Ontario. This is different
from that employed in The Corporations Tax
Act of Ontario, which levies the tax on the
world income of corporations operating in
Ontario— whether such profits are earned in
Ontario or elsewhere. Under the Ontario
Act, an abatement of tax is given on those
portions of income deemed to be earned out-
side Ontario from the tax levied on world
income. There are situations where the latter
form of taxation provides greater certainty
and security of collecting the revenue than
the basis upon which the model corporate
income tax bill applies the tax. On the
basis of the collection agreement that has
been indicated to us, our own administration
should bring us a greater amount of tax
revenue than would be collected and remitted
by the federal government. We are not only
closer to our taxpayers, and can give their
accounts sci-utiny when necessary, but tlie
form of our legislation— which has been ac-
cepted by the corporate fraternity— brings us
additional revenue, because of the imposition
of the tax on the world income of corpora-
tions with tax abatements for business trans-
acted outside Ontario.
Fourthly, the entry into a corporate tax
collection agreement would initially result in
a considerable amount of confusion. The
agreement would apply only to profits earned
in Ontario following January 1, 1962. This
means that the new income tax bill that
would provide for this tax, would allow de-
ductions from the tax imposed with respect
to all those fiscal years, of corporations that
do not coincide with the calendar year which
commenced in 1961. Correspondingly, The
Corporations Tax Act would have to be
amended to allow abatements to all corpora-
tions with fiscal years that do not coincide
with the calendar year, but end in 1962— to
the extent that such fiscal years pass after
January 1, 1962. Thus, all corporations, the
fiscal years of which do not coincide with the
calendar year, would have to be assessed by
Ontario and given refunds if they have over-
paid the tax on the basis of a full year's
operation, or be assessed at the net amount;
and the same corporations would have to be
assessed by Canada for the same fiscal year
and the opposite proportion of the fiscal year
subjected to tax. Undoubtedly a considerable
amount of confusion would result, because
Ontario would be refunding to corporations
tax that the same corporations would have to
pay to Canada for the account of Ontario;
and even if it were arranged for Ontario to
pay Canada in order for the matter to be
kept straight, a tremendous amount of arith-
metic would have to be done to ensure that
the two bases properly corresponded with
each other.
It should be noted in this regard that a
large number of corporations— the fiscal years
of which end in 1962— have already paid full
instalments under the Ontario Act. All of
these amounts would have to be taken into
account and, where necessary, refunded. If
the province repealed its capital and place-of-
business taxes and special taxes, the large
portions of these taxes that have already been
paid with respect to corporations— the fiscal
years of which end in 1962— would also have
to be refunded. Furthermore, it should be
noted that all corporations— the fiscal years
of which end in 1962 and the last is
November 30, 1962— are allowed six months
from the close of such fiscal year to file
returns. The last of these returns will not be
filed until May, 1963. This means that the
present staff would have to be maintained, or
largely maintained, until all these returns
have been assessed.
Another disadvantage of a corporation tax
collection agreement is that The Treasury
Department would lose the ability to obtain
the information it can now obtain from cor-
poration tax returns, of a statistical character
regarding the economic growth and develop-
ment of Ontario. The data that the province
now receives from most of the large national
companies, and all of the smaller companies
operating in Ontario, would no longer be
available.
Finally, and most important, we believe
that the province would weaken its position
in subsequent negotiations with the federal
government, if it dismantled its tax collection
machinery. The history of tax agreements
with the federal government provides little
assurance that there will be any more per-
manency in the new arrangements, than there
has been in former agreements. Just as the
previous five-year arrangements were altered
upon their termination, the new set of five-
320
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
year arrangements might be completely re-
vised upon its termination. With the excep-
tion of the five years, 1952 to 1956 inclusive,
we have collected our own corporation tax
in the post-war period. We would have re-
mained in the corporation tax field in those
years had it not been for the fact that the
federal government insisted upon renting, in
one parcel, both personal income tax and
corporation income tax. This was the only
way at that time in which we could obtain
the revenue represented by individual income
tax without imposing and collecting our own
individual income tax. In 1957 we re-entered
the corporation tax field because we were able
to negotiate a separate individual income tax
rental agreement from 1957 to 1961. The
present situation is exactly the same, in that
we have the option of entering into a separate
individual income tax collection agreement;
we are not obliged to enter into an agreement
for the federal collection of both individual
and corporate income taxes. We can see little
value in altering our position and dismantling
our corporation tax collection machinery,
particularly when the province might be faced
with the task of re-instituting it five or ten
years hence. The province should not at this
time be placed in a position where it could
not negotiate from strength. Ontario is big
enough to be master in its own house and we
do not believe that the cost of collection is an
excessive price to pay for the stronger bar-
gaining position the province achieves in its
negotiations with the federal government by
remaining in the corporation tax field.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
this bill landed on our desks just a few
minutes ago and, as far as I am concerned at
any rate, I have not had a chance to study
it. I am not complaining about that because
I believe it is substantially a repeat of the
bill that was before us last year. But perhaps
the hon. Treasurer will forgive me if I am not
too familiar with its contents. I would like
to have one point clarified by him: with
respect to the percentages of federal tax that
Ontario taxpayers will be called upon to pay
—are those specifically stated in the bill or
are they to be provided for by regulation?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, it is stated in
the bill. I might point out to the hon.
member that those rates could, of course, be
changed by giving sufficient notice in any
year.
Mr. Bryden: It would require a further Act
of the Legislature, as well as notice to the
federal government, to change them.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
I followed with close attention the lengthy
statement made by the hon. Provincial
Treasurer. I am in the same position as the
hon. member for Woodbine insofar as we
only received this bill today. I note that in
the final section but two of The Act, it repeals
The Income Tax Act 1960-61, as well as a
number of other statutes. Are we to take it
that this will be an annual statute?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr, Speaker, I would say
"no." I think the hon. members realize we
had thought, at the time of the last session,
that we had passed an Income Tax Act which
would be adequate. We have learned, how-
ever, that the federal government requires us
to pass this Act, which in reality, is an Act
to collect income taxes by the province of
Ontario; it is based on a model bill provided
by the federal government. After we have
such authority we will enter into an agree-
ment with the federal government to collect
this tax for us. It is not necessary to pass the
Act each year.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, you, sir, I know,
will appreciate this. In the normal course of
events— and I do not know whether "in the
fullness of time" is still a popular phrase
around here— these bills do not go to a
committee where we have an opportunity to
ask these questions, so perhaps hon. mem-
bers will grant me their indulgence to ask
them.
Last year I asked whether the administra-
tion of the machinery— I think that is the best
way to put it— insofar as the " appellate
tribunals, the complaints of the taxpayer, the
question of assessability and quantum of tax
were concerned, will be provided by both the
Ontario and the federal governments, insofar
as it affects the proportion paid to the
province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, the taxpayer will deal
entirely with the federal government.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I think that is a very good
thing. Somebody once said, Mr. Speaker, that
governments which are paid a portion of tax,
should have the responsibility of collecting
them; but I think it is a very good thing if
the taxpayer needs to complain, that he com-
plain about the federal government, because
I venture to say that the majority of tax-
payers in this province view the matter in
this way: that they pay income tax to the
federal government, and if they blame the
federal government, that suits our purposes
over here, being one united whole; and if they
DECEMBER 12, 1961
321
blame the provincial government we will take
care of the blame on the provincial govern-
ment here.
I did detect, sir, that there was at least
an element of suspicion in the remarks of the
hon. Provincial Treasurer about the future
behaviour of the federal government. Now,
it may be that the hon. Provincial Treasurer
is not quite sure, from the point of view of
prediction, who is going to be in power down
there. We have reason to believe that the
complexion is going to change in other centres
of government. He did not say this: that it
would weaken their position; it would weaken
the position of the provincial government with
the federal government if it dismantled its
tax collecting machinery.
Now, sir, that is devastating frankness that
he articulates this afternoon. I am not sure
that I understand precisely what it means;
whether or not this government intends to
approach the federal government and ask
for a greater share. I am only guided by the
newspaper accounts because we never did get
a very full report on this side of the House
as to what went on in the last Dominion-
provincial financial conference— all of those
things, of course, were held in camera. That
is the fashion in Ottawa; to hold things in
camera.
At a later day perhaps you will permit me,
sir, to address some words, from the point
of view of one who would like to be a con-
stitutional lawyer, about another little meet-
ing in camera down there monkeying around—
that is not a very nice phrase, monkeying
around— with the constitution, fooling around
with the constitution—
An Hon. member: Horsing around!
Mr. Sopha: Yes— with the constitution of
this country. But we will reserve that for
another date.
As I say, we never got a very full report
about what went on. Are we to presume that
it is the intention of this government to go
back to the authorities at Ottawa and ask
them for a greater share before the agreement
expires in 1966? Or when he speaks of not
dismantling the tax collecting machinery, is
he, by inference— and I detected this in other
parts of his remarks, as I say, sir, I followed
him very closely in what he said— saying that
it is the intention of this government, or it is
anticipated, that these percentages of income
tax intended to be collected by the province
through this machinery are going to be
increased? I suppose that is sufficient to
cause anxiety among the public of this
province.
This government is— and I do not want to
get into the budget debate but permit me
to make this comment— this government, ac-
cording to their own financial statement
which they published, is running in the red
for this fiscal year to the extent of $180 mil-
lion or more. Not withstanding that they
anticipate collecting in the neighbourhood
of $150 million under The Retail Sales Tax
Act, we are still going to run in the red $180
million more. Now that is an increase, a
progressive increase— in The Department of
Economics they would call that a geometric
progression, I think—
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): At least the
Conservatives would.
Mr. Sopha: Yes.
Mr. C. H. Lyons (Sault Ste. Marie): How
much of an increase is it?
Mr. Sopha: Well it is quite an increase.
Mr. Lyons: How much of an increase?
Mr. Sopha: Let me put it this way.
Mr. Lyons: How much of an increase, does
the hon. member know?
Mr. Sopha: Let me put it this way, that
in the three years, sir, that I have been in
this House it has been a dramatic, startling
and anxious increase every year— every year
it has been more than the preceding year.
I take it— or at least are we to take the in-
ference—tliat it is intended, because the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) did refer to
that-
Mr. Lyons: How much is it?
Mr. Sopha: Is it intended that they are
going to increase the percentage? I just for-
get the exact words he used, I would not
want to paraphrase him incorrectly, but he
did make some allusion in his remarks to
the case where the provincial government
wished to increase their proportion?
Well, he shakes his head, sir. I will have
to read his remarks whenever they come out.
But he made some reference to it, that if
they wished to increase their percentage
this year, the 1962 taxation year would be
16 per cent of the federal tax with 84 per
cent going to the federal government. I for
one am wondering, as no doubt a great many
other people in the province are wondering,
in view of this increase in the provincial debt
whether it is their intention to increase that
322
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
percentage and, if so, to ask the federal gov-
ernment to collect the increase.
It may not be that they intend to in-
crease it this year, but do they anticipate in
view— I wish I could think of another word
than increase to satisfy tlie hon. member
for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Lyons), but one
has to call a spade a spade-
Mr. Lyons: I am wondering what is the
figure at which the hon. member is aiming.
An Hon. member: Balanced budget?
Mr. Sopha: Balanced budget? Yes! Thanks.
Mr. Whicher: Is that the government's
policy? Something they have never even
heard of.
Mr. Sopha: Put it this way. I am a man
who always likes to state things in the
simplest terms possible.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I have noticed that.
Mr. Sopha: But when we get into hun-
dreds of millions of dollars, to the aerie
heights of high finance, one can admit to
being a bit confused.
To put it this way, they are running $180
million in the red this year. Now supposing
next year, and they act like they are the
last group of great spenders of all time, sup-
posing it were to go to $225 million, the
amount they run in the red. Do they antici-
pate that they will have to go to the federal
government and say: "Instead of collecting 17
per cent in taxation year 1963, we want to
increase that by five per cent; we want you
to collect what will be the equivalent, let us
say, of 22 per cent of the federal government
taxes." Now, I hope, sir, that puts it in as
clear terms as possible; if the hon. Treasurer
will look back in his remarks he will see some
allusion he made to that very situation arising.
Let me conclude this way. In my humble
opinion, sir, I have always felt— knowing as
little about it as I do— that when this govern-
ment were dealing with our colleagues in
Ottawa, as they were for many years, they
did better in the amount of money they
brought back after a pilgrimage to Ottawa
to ask for assistance in tax-sharing from the
federal government. And notwithstanding—
and I hesitate to refer to the hon. member for
Victoria (Mr. Frost) in anything but the most
glowing terms— we, sir, on this side of the
House have anxious memories of that famous
speech in Massey Hall during which he and
John had their arms around each other—
An hon. member: Big John.
Mr. Sopha: —and he said— I do not know
who said it to whom, but they certainly put
the message across— that if you elect John
at Ottawa we are going to give you $100
million.
An hon. member: A hundred and fifty.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I think it was 100— nice
round figures. He never got it. I do not
know whether he is even calling him John
any more—
An hon. member: He is calling him Bad
John.
Mr. Sopha: —or John calls him Les. I do
not know; but he never got it.
An hon. member: He is not paying too
much attention.
Mr. Sopha: But that is the whole point.
Although I may allude to it in facetious
terms, the stark reality of the financial picture
of this province remains that the government
has not got enough money; and the deal they
made with the federal government the last
time they were there, which was last year,
was not a very good one. I, sir, would not
employ any of them as my lawyers to con-
clude any financial transaction in which I had
an interest. Let me put it this way. I would
prefer— instead of the country lawyer— a down-
town slicker from Bay Street.
An hon. member: Perhaps he would not get
anything either.
Mr. Sopha: That is the situation; that is the
gist of my query. Now, I say to the hon.
Treasurer before I sit down that he did make
some allusion to this situation in his remarks
—and far be it from me to accuse him of
saying something he did not say. I would
not sleep this night if I thought that I—
An hon. member: We want you to sleep.
Mr. Sopha: I am asking the hon. Treasurer
whether he anticipates that he will have to ask
the federal government to collect more than
is provided for in Section 3, subsection (3)a
to (e) inclusive.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I want to
say first of all that I appreciate the sincerity
of the hon. member for Sudbury, especially
when he said that we would be down in
Ottawa, negotiating in 1966. I believe, Mr.
Speaker, he faces situations fairly and squarely
and that he is honest in his statements.
DECEMBER 12, 1961
32S
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
hon. Treasurer is really on the bit today.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): We
used a magnet.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I am just as
anxious to inform the hon. member with
respect to anything in this Act. I was en-
deavouring to indicate to the House through
you, Mr. Speaker, that there was flexibility in
this Act which will provide for the collection
of additional income tax, if a province so
desired. However, the rate of abatement is
set for the five-year period, I can say that we
presently have no thought of increasing the
percentage that we will ask Ottawa to collect
for us. I would like to inform the hon. mem-
ber—because of his intense interest in the
welfare of this province— that we will be
getting the greatest amount of money from
our share of the income tax— personal income
tax paid in this province— that we have ever
received when this new agreement comes into
eflFect.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. Provincial Treasurer, in saying that he
will be getting the greatest amount of money
in history, considers that amount to be suffi-
cient? Does he? Perhaps he had better not
answer that one.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture) moves second reading of Bill No. 48,
An Act to amend The Milk Industry Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE,
ONTARIO VETERINARY COLLEGE AND
MACDONALD INSTITUTE
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of
Bill No. 49, An Act respecting the Ontario
Agricultural College, Ontario Veterinary
College and MacDonald Institute.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have been
searching feverishly for this bill in my book
and I still have not found it.
Mr. Speaker: I am informed that the bill
has arrived but has not yet been put in the
book; it will be in there before it goes to
committee. Is that acceptable to the hon.
members?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, we
can have a complete debate for the benefit
of the hon. member when it goes through
the House in committee of the whole. I
thought they were here because they are
marked as printed on the order paper.
Mr. Bryden: I would just like to get a look
at it.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
INSTITUTE OF ONTARIO
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of
Bill No. 50, An Act to provide for the estab-
lishment of the Agricultural Research Insti-
tute of Ontario.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Speaker, when the House
adjourned last evening there were still a few
remarks I wanted to make, having regard to
my contribution to this debate. One of the
things I would like to bring to your attention,
Mr. Speaker, is the trip last fall from North
Bay to Moosonee by the Lieutenant-Governor
of Ontario and his wife, Mrs. Mackay. The
arrangements in connection with that tour
were approved by me at the time when I was
the responsible Minister. The tour started at
North Bay and I think the hon. member for
Nipissing (Mr. Troy) will agree that he and
other hon. members of this House, who were
in that vinicity at the time of the visit of His
Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, had every
opportunity to meet with him and his wife,
and to go with him to the diflFerent schools
from, as I say. North Bay to Moosonee where
His Honour spoke to the children.
There were times when the weather, for
instance at Kirkland Lake and Kapuskasing,
was very, very bad— snow and rain. But
when the celebrations could not be held out-
side, then His Honour went to the diflFerent
schools, and spoke to the children. As a re-
sult of a conversation I had with His Honour,
I understand he spoke to about 50 or 60
children in this part of Ontario. This fact
should be known because, as I recall it, I
saw nothing in the Toronto papers indicating
this very wonderful visit which meant so
much to the people of that district.
324
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Yesterday when I was speaking, Mr.
Speaker, I could not put my hand on a copy
of tlie Renfrew Advance from which I wanted
to read an editorial dated October 5, 1961,
in reference to the death of my friend and
colleague, the late hon. James A. Maloney.
I would not want when I sit down to have
somebody quip and say that I had chosen a
paper owned and published by my son-in-law,
Mr. Donald W. McCuaig; but the fact is
that he is the owner and publisher of this
paper, and for posterity I want to read today
into the records of this House, his editorial
tribute to my late colleague. This is what he
says:
When he stood up to speak or move to
the front of the platform a change came
over the audience. If the people listening
were from his own riding; a ripple of
excitement preceded his opening phrase. In
other places the first sentence was enough
to tell that he was an orator. The Hon.
James A. Maloney who died Sunday night
was in the tradition of his century of
Canadian political speakers, and he came
by this fluency and forcefulness and plat-
form power through both inheritance and
exposure in his birth place of Eganville,
^- where the art of politics is ingrained.
Jim Maloney was every inch a politician.
.: He loved public life and he worked hard
at it. Probably few people, outside close
associates and family, have any idea of the
demands made of a man in his position.
He was a fighter and never veered away
from the rough and tumble, either in the
courtroom or in the Legislature. But he
,. ; loved life too, and lived it to the fullest.
After his first try at election as a candi-
date he waited several years before running
again. When he succeeded the late James
Dempsey in the Ontario Legislature, he
was not left with the back benchers for
long. In quick succession he was named
chairman of the private bills committee and
Cabinet Minister with a portfolio of Mines.
As Minister and member he worked hard
for his riding of South Renfrew, with a
great natural ability, astuteness and a
practical sense of the facts of political hfe.
There is no one around who will take Jim
Maloney's colourful place in the history of
this riding. Other men have and will serve
in other ways but none the same as this
one. To his wife and family we extend our
deepest sympathy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, last June when the
then hon. Prime Minister of Ontario (Mr.
Frost) opened up Upper Canada Village at
Morrisburg, we in the province of Ontario had
as our guests, Field Marshal Sir Gerald W. R.
Templer, representing the British Army; the
Honourable Douglas Harkness, representing
the federal government; and Major General
P. D. Scott, Colonel of tlie Irish Guards. And
I think the hon. member for Stormont (Mr.
Manley) will go along with my comment
when I say that this development has meant
a very great deal to the eastern part of the
province of Ontario. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker,
this Legislature would be interested to know
that, although Upper Canada Village has not
been completed, a great deal has been accom-
plished; a great deal more has yet to be done
but this year, this current season, we had
221,000 visitors, which indicates the wisdom,
the foresight and the judgment of the admin-
istration in making this development possible
for the people who tour eastern Ontario. They
have brought a great deal of money to my
part of the country and I think their contri-
bution to the grocer, the merchant, the motel
operator, the hotels, every way of life, has
been enhanced as a result of this very big
development.
Now, Mr. Speaker, at this time I would
like to pay my respects to Mrs. Jeanne
Minhinnick, who has looked after all the
furnishings in the houses. She has arranged
the gardens, the purchasing of the silver, the
glass and the textiles to bring the homes of
yesteryear to life so that tlie newcomer may
know the way of hfe of our forefathers who
hewed their way through the roughness of
Ontario as it was a century ago.
I also want to pay my respects to Mrs.
Duncan Boucher of Kingston who, free of
charge, has looked after all the landscaping.
Another remark, Mr. Speaker, which I
wanted to make today is this: that in con-
nection with the reorganization of my former
department of government— wherever my
people may go who at one time served under
me— I want to say that whoever gets them,
whatever hon. Minister may get them will find
he is getting loyal, enthusiastic, capable
people; and he will find that they will serve
faithfully and well with my successors as
they have with me.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a point I would
like to make, an opinion I would like to
express as my own. Frankly I think that, if
the United Kingdom goes into the European
common market, governments of all levels-
federal, provincial and municipal— are going
to. have some trials and tribulations by way
of adjustment while this change takes place.
I have read statements in the newspapers,
by people who perhaps in my philosophy are
DECEMBER 12, 1961
325
easily oflFended and who say that, if the
United Kingdom goes into the common
market, it will be the first step towards the
disintegration of the Commonwealth.
My submission is simply this: Since when
did the dollar take the place of the blood of
the old land that flows in our veins? And
I am satisfied, though industry may for a time
have to make readjustments, that the Com-
monwealth will stand in the future as in the
past— a bulwark for freedom, representing
what we think is a worthwhile heritage to
leave to our children when our time comes
to get off the stage of public opinion.
I am not prepared to consent, nor accept,
nor subscribe, to the dollar against British
blood. I take the position of the man who
once represented Kingston, the first Prime
Minister of this country: "A British subject
I was born, a British subject I will die."
That will be the point of view throughout
the Commonwealth.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had, when I
was a responsible Minister, Dominion-pro-
vincial conferences. We had one in London,
we had one in Kingston, and latterly we
had one in Toronto. I think these confer-
ences are worthwhile and, quite frankly, I
want to pay my respects today to the Min-
ister of Trade and Commerce of the federal
government in that he has arranged that all
his trade commissioners— as and when they
return from any part of the world— come to
the difFerent provinces and tell the respon-
sible Ministers and the industrial officers
what they found there; what they, in their
opinion, think that we— from oiu: raw mate-
rials—can make and sell to other countries.
Mr. Speaker, I am not so naive as to take
the position that we have not in this country
today the very serious problem of unemploy-
ment. That is caused in two ways, first by
automation, and secondly by the tremendous
number of our young men who have a very,
very poor education. Many of them did not
go past the primary schools, with the result
that, when opportunities present themselves,
they are not able to accept them. One of
the things that we have to face up to is this
fact: that in the next 10 years we will have
to find for our people 500,000 jobs— in other
words, 50,000 jobs per year. Now, it is fair
to say that Ontario is the workshop of the
nation. We manufacture here today, more
than 50 per cent of all the goods that are
made in the nation; and, sir, we make in
this province today more goods than were
made in the whole of Canada prior to the
outbreak of World War II. But what con-
cerns me is this: that between 1950 and
1960 our manufacturing output increased by
40 per cent, but our employment only in-
creased by six per cent. Anybody who has
any sense of arithmetic at all will realize
and appreciate that, when our output is be-
ing increased and our employment is going
down, all levels of government have a very
great problem to face in connection with the
employment of so many of our people.
We have to sell our products in the
market, Mr. Speaker— in foreign markets. A
year ago this summer I was in the United
Kingdom and in Europe with my wife— I
always hke to protect myself a little bit, we
went there at our own expense. When we
were there we met some of the industrial
people. There has been a great deal of
publicity, sir, in connection with the St.
Lawrence Seaway. People in foreign coun-
tries tell me they have saved a very great
deal— in relation to the cost of the manufac-
tured product which they ship here— by not
having to reload their produce at Montreal as
they used to do in years gone by when we had
the canal system in the River St. Lawrence.
What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is this:
When I stand on the south boundary of my
riding of Kingston and look out into Lake
Ontario, I see the ships from foreign countries
sailing up, going westward, loaded to the
Plimsolls, loaded with all they can carry.
They are going to the Lakehead, maybe going
to Duluth, but what bothers me is that,
although I see these same ships going up
loaded, they are coming back light.
My definition of trade is that it is a two-
way bargain, and I hope that the day is not
far distant when these ships that come over
with their products will take back to their
different jurisdictions, things we make in this
country. I am one who believes, sir, that if
we can ship less of our natural resources out
in order to buy the goods that are made in
other countries back again, we would be
further ahead if we could make those goods
in this country. Every time a person in a
foreign jurisdiction makes a product from our
natural resources, then, in my judgment, we
are, what I might call, exporting jobs.
1 would like to say a word this afternoon in
connection with the industrial branch of the
former Department of Commerce and
Development. We have our agency in
London headed by the agent general, Mr.
J. A. Armstrong, who, in relation to public
relations, carries on an admirable and out-
standing service. From time to time he enter-
tains those who register at Ontario House;
he holds receptions, he attends receptions,
and I think he does a very outstanding job.
326
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He has, associated with him in charge of his
industrial branch, an industrial commissioner
of great ability, Mr. Webster Thompson, and
with his immigration branch, Mr. Donald
Donaldson. These are the people who do, in
my judgment, an outstanding administrative
job. Working in close co-operation with the
head of the branch in Toronto, Mr. S. J. Lyle
and Mr. Richard Stapleford, in my opinion,
are co-ordinating the potential market for our
people in connection, not only with the
United Kingdom, but indeed with Europe.
Through the vision of the former hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) an economic
council was constituted. A twelve man team
of top men in the fields of banking, manu-
facturing, retailing, utilities, atomic power,
the press, labour relations, and the oil indus-
try is already functioning to solve the major
problems of industrial productivity.
Captained by Mr. O. D. Vaughan, and with
eleven other names no less illustrious in
varied fields of economic activity, this crack
team has a two-fold purpose—
1. To review industrial employment
problems which in the opinion of the com-
mittee are important to the industrial life
of the province.
2. To deal with specific problems re-
ferred by government.
I say this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that in
my considered opinion— and it is only my
opinion— that the point of view of the exporter
from Europe and the United Kingdom is this:
They are going to try to make what we need,
as good as we can make it, and put it on our
shelves and sell it for less. The one thing we
have got to appraise ourselves of is this: that
we are careful that we do not price ourselves
out of the market, and make our goods and
put them on our shelves, available for export
which will not be purchased because they
cost too much in other jurisdictions.
Now, at this time, Mr. Speaker, if I had
a text it would be this: "and if any man
compels me to go with him a mile, I will go
with him twain." We have done the first
industrial mile together, let us continue that
second mile for we find we are a goodly
company.
Business today is highly competitive. The
grade grows steeper and more and more of
our strength will be called upon, but I have
no doubt that the view from the peak that
we most certainly will reach, will be
splendidly rewarding, and what we then
survey will be the results of our own united
endeavour directed for the Prime Minister
of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion at this time I
would like to say to you and Mrs. Murdoch,
the hon. leader of the government and Mrs.
Robarts, to the hon. leader of the Opposition
and Mrs. Wintermeyer, to the hon. leader of
the New Democratic Party and Mrs. Mac-
Donald, to your families and to those who
support you in your house— the time is run-
ning out. December 25 is not far away— and
at this time let me be the first in this House
to wish you, one and all, a very merry
Christmas and a happy New Year.
Hon. C. Daley (Minister without Portfolio):
Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the
debate of this House, I do so for the purpose
of bringing to the Legislature some informa-
tion with regard to the progress and the
development of our parks system of Ontario.
However, before doing that I would like
to make a very brief comment and be per-
mitted by you, Mr. Speaker, to reminisce for
a moment about The Department of Labour—
which I had the honour to administer for
some 18 years.
Back in 1943 when the Hon. George Drew
was elected to lead the government, he
phoned me in St. Catharines in the mayor's
office— I happened to be the mayor at that
time— and asked me if I would come over
and be sworn in as Minister of Labour. It
came as quite a surprise to me, I can assure
you, but I was honoured and pleased that I—
and my riding— had been so honoured to be
asked to assume this position. I immediately
resigned as mayor so that I could devote my
full time to my new responsibilities.
At that time my friends said to me; "You
are taking an awful chance taking that job.
You are sticking your head into a hornet's
nest. They will tear you to pieces. They
will defeat you," and many other things.
One fellow added "The job will never last."
I met that fellow the other day and he
reminded me; he said: "I told you that job
would never last."
Everyone knows, at least a great many
people who were in politics at that time-
there are not so many left in this House who
were in the House at that time— that there
was a very limited amount of labour legisla-
tion on the statute books: Principally the
establishment of a labour court at that time.
This functioned reasonably satisfactorily but
it was subsequently decided that it was not
what was needed and a Labour Relations
Board came into being. I am not going into
any details of this but I thought that on
leaving that position I would like to draw
something of it to the attention of this House.
DECEMBER 12, 1961
327
Long before my time a Building Construc-
tion Trades Protection Act was enacted and
the responsibility for the administration was
placed on the municipality. We have heard
a great deal about the Building Construction
Trades Protection Act in the last year or so
and I thought I would like to make a little
bit of explanation in that regard.
That Act was not completely ignored by
the municipalities. A great many municipal-
ities did do what they felt they could— what
their finances would permit them to do at
that time. Some of the smaller municipalities,
I must admit, did not fulfill their entire
obligations. The Act did accomplish a great
deal, and in the larger centres of Toronto,
for instance, and in many of the more
financially-able municipalities also, an excel-
lent job was done under that Act. But as
things went on from year to year, new Acts
came into being which rendered that Act
not so necessary as it had been at the outset.
Right from the start in my administration—
and it has been said by me publicly and in
the papers— I have always maintained there
should be a minimum amount of labour
legislation. I believe that labour legislation
should certainly be fair and impartial and
that it should be clear and understandable.
Labour and management should accept the
responsibility to negotiate their differences
over the bargaining table. That is where the
deals are made; they are not made because
of some legislation— they are made right at
the bargaining table.
Labour should be given the right to
bargain after certification procedures have
been followed and bargaining rights acquired;
the right to organize without discrimination
and, after all the procedures are followed, the
right to strike. Management rights, on the
other hand, should certainly be preserved.
To everyone's surprise at that time there
was a tremendous expansion of industry:
more services demanded, more staff, more
conciliation and so the labour department
grew. From about 125 members when I
took over, the staff has grown to something
around 400 at the present time.
I think I can say that this province with
this explosive industrial expansion had pos-
sibly less industrial disruption of any place
with equal industrial expansion.
I was fortunate enough to have some very
experienced people on my staff, Mr. Speaker.
I had— not at the outset but shortly after-
Mr. Metzler as my deputy. I had Mr.
Finkelman as the chairman of the Labour
Relations Board, who has consistently been
there with the exception of three or four
years when he resigned to return as professor
at the university— but we were fortunate
enough to get him back— and Mr. Louis Fine,
who is well known across this country and
other countries as a chief conciliation officer.
I adopted at that time a policy— because
certainly I admit that I was not familiar
with this sort of business— of meeting with
these three men on the staff monthly— some-
times weekly— to review every phase of the
Act— its administrative problems that devel-
oped—and from our collective opinions to
bring to this Legislature amendments to the
Act— with the result, I believe. The Ontario
Labour Relations Act was considered on a
par or even better than most jurisdictions in
Canada and copied by quite a few. We all
know The Department of Labour, Mr.
Speaker, cannot be free of criticism, and I
do not expect it to be, I do not object to
criticism, for constructive criticism often leads
to improvements.
Throughout the years I have personally
sponsored and had passed by this Legislature
many Acts to improve conditions affecting the
safety and welfare of the workers in the
province: Hours of Work and Vacations with
Pay Act, Trench Excavation, Construction
Hoist Act, Elevator Inspection Act and some
others.
With the help, again, of some very fine,
competent people in the department, I was
able to evolve and write regulations on these
various Acts: Mr. Gibson, down there, who is
the Director of Technical Services, Mr.
Ehmke, boiler inspection, and many others;
we would meet and devise these things that
we thought would improve the safety and
welfare of the worker in this province.
Much criticism of me has arisen in this
House or other places on the fact that we
have not made regulations covering the foun-
dries of this province. Mr. Speaker, I worked
with my people for years endeavouring to
make regulations, but we always came up
with the stark fact that to incorporate, and
put into a statute, regulations concerning the
foundries would simply have eliminated about
90 per cent of the small foundries in this
province. Men who had worked in them for
years and knew nothing else but foundry
work would certainly have been out of jobs,
because competition has become awfully keen
between the small foundries and the big ones.
We had no trouble with the big foundries,
they did not need regulations or anything.
They built according to the regulations that
we had designed. So I decided rather than
implement regulations I would get some good
328
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
foundry men, practical men, to go into these
foundries and by some pressure and some
education and encouragement get them to
follow out what would have been in regula-
tions had they been enacted and to improve
tlieir plants, improve their housekeeping, im-
prove their ventilation and do many things.
That proved extremely successful. It did
not put these people out of business and it
did make the plants healthier and cleaner and
better to work in. It was very satisfactory, I
thought, but of course one can never allay
criticism.
I did not want to see all the foundry work
in this province going to the big plants. The
number of these shops has reduced for com-
petitive reasons to not over half what there
were 10 years ago. I think big business is
essential in our economy, but I still think the
little fellow should have every protection. So,
as it has been said, I have always endeavoured
to protect the little fellow and to that I will
have to plead guilty.
Safety has been constantly under review,
particularly The Operating Engineers and The
Boiler Pressure Vessels Act.
Next, in labour relations, came the revolu-
tion, shall I say, the select committee. This
committee sat for over two years and The
Department of Labour was stymied. For that
particular length of time, we could not sug-
gest amendments because we had to wait.
So we waited. The report came down and
the report was a very well studied report and
in the opinion of the select committee was
a very worthwhile document. But when it
became public, when the information got out,
I attended with the then hon. Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Frost) meetings with both manage-
ment and labour. They advocated that the
hon. Prime Minister leave the Act alone. It
was a good Act as it was.
Well, he said, you people have been
criticizing this Act for years— now you tell
me it is all right, it is all right and leave
it alone. But changes were made, Mr.
Speaker. The difference has been that the
Labour Relations Board's work has been
tripled, they are operating in panels now—
at least three and maybe four panels. It
is harder to get a decision.
The Labour Relations Board today is a
legalistic battlefield, it is a lawyers' paradise,
shall I say, where they are contesting every
decision now. Decisions used to be made
quickly, speedily. It now takes about four
times the length of time to get a decision.
' I have spoken to the professor at different
times, asking why we cannot get these deci-
sions out quicker; it is because the lawyers are
contesting the interpretations of the new
sections that have been put in the Act and
it is a very complicated piece of legislation.
As I have said, in my opinion, I always
thought that labour legislation should be
simple and not too complicated.
Mr. Speaker, from suggestions and talk in
this House I rather got the impression, and
I thought the public might, that The Depart-
ment of Labour is like the song, "The Old
House Has Fallen Down," it is not going
to last. But that is not so. I say to you, Mr.
Speaker, that The Department of Labour
today is well housed in a fine building, able
to do actual, eflBcient administration and
manned with competent people.
I am going to name a few of them: Mr.
McNeill, apprenticeship training; Mr. Ehmke,
elevator inspection; Mr. Turton, factory
inspection; Mr. Hutchinson, boiler inspection;
Mr. Lacey, operating engineers, who has just
recently been presented by the Operating
Engineers of Ontario with a life membership
for outstanding service to the operating
engineers of this province; Professor Finkel-
man, the Labour Relations Board; Mr. Fine,
conciliation; Mr. Gibson, technical advisor
and Mr. Metzler the Deputy Minister of
Labour.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if there are more
competent people to do the kind of work
that these men are doing and are so skilled
in, I simply do not know them. Each of these
men graduated from the ranks of the depart-
ment, because it has been our policy over the
years to promote from within.
Mr. Speaker, 18 years ago this was just
a small department, almost insignificant in
the affairs of this province. Today it is a
live, active department which makes a good
contribution to the affairs of this province.
I do not want the impression to go out that
I am handing over to my successor a broken-
down department. I speak for him, and I
know he will get the conscientious support
of the excellent personnel that I have been
favoured to have worked with all these years.
I would say that the government of Ontario
all these years has been most considerate and
most generous with moral support and
financial support to carry on the work of The
Department of Labour.
The purpose of my getting up here was
to acquaint hon. members, because I believe
it is of some interest, with the developments
in the parks field in which I have the honour
to play a part.
Niagara Falls— During this year the number
of park visitors shown on our traffic meters
DECEMBER 12, 1961
329
is recorded as slightly less, contrary to opinion,
than it was in 1960. The traffic count is taken
at the three main entrances to Queen Victoria
Park, also one of the north parkways and one
of the south parkways and into Queenston
Heights Park. Traffic count through the year
Avas 3,188,350 cars. That is slightly less than
in 1960.
This would be a logical place, I think, to
mention the traffic survey presently being
made by the city of Niagara Falls and the
township of Stamford. This is being done by
H. G. Acres and Company, Limited, at an
estimated cost of $65,000. The Niagara Parks
Commission pays $4,400 toward this and the
Niagara Falls Bridge Commission $1,500 and
under existing legislation, The Department
of Highways contributes 75 per cent of the
balance. The traffic into Queen Victoria Park
is of considerable interest in the overall traffic
and transportation survey.
Two years ago the commission, at some
considerable expense, installed on a trial basis
special landscape illumination in Queenston
Heights Park covering an area of about 10
acres. This advanced lighting treatment is new
on this continent as far as public parks are
concerned. This year we decided to carry this
further and proceeded with the same sort of
lighting in Queen Victoria Park. If hon.
TJiembers have not seen it, I suggest that some
day when they are in the area they visit there.
It is very attractive and draws a lot of interest
from the public. The lighting enhances the
natural colouring and contributes to the en-
joyment of the people in tlie park. This was
a capital expenditure and, I think, ran in the
neighbourhood of some $125,000 to complete
this work. But it gives a very beautiful
effect.
We had to build a new 20,000 gallon water
tank at Queenston in order to keep our water
supply there sufficient to operate. From that
line we also supplied water to the township of
Niagara.
There was a great deal of work done at
the Hydro intake near Chippawa. When the
Hydro completed their work, they turned the
land back to us and we have had to do a lot
of work in this connection.
Now we are erecting a new building at the
school of horticulture which will provide
lecture rooms, administrative offices, labora-
tory, herbarium and other facilities badly
needed. The building is 40 by 100 ft. and
replaces an old frame building which has
been there since 1935. This school is of
interest; it has been mentioned here for many
years, and I think it is one of the attractions
of the area. It is certainly a beauty spot and
the students, who are carefully selected, come
not only from the province of Ontario but
from other provinces, of which we are glad.
We believe it is a contribution that the
Ontario Parks Commission has made to the
beauty of Canada as a whole because these
students eventually accept positions— very fine
positions— all over this country and even in
the United States.
Of the new projects we have taken on this
last year: When the Queen Elizabeth Way
was built through the township of Louth in
Lincoln county, the beaches along there-
about three-quarters of a mile long— were, in
a practical sense, deprived of access by the
general public. Our new beach park is located
at the effluence of the Fifteen and Sixteen
Mile Creeks. There are about nine acres of
land and the plan developed for this area
includes a parking area for about 500 cars,
a service road into it was built by The Depart-
ment of Highways, running from Gregory
Road west to the new park, and included a
bridge.
The land was purchased from Mr. Jeffery,
the farmer who owned it, for $55,000. The
contracts for the parking area and the grad-
ing totalled about $55,000, and the contracts
for the new buildings which we are establish-
ing there, changing-houses and various neces-
sary facilities, are running about $53,000. We
feel that this is going to be a great addition
to the parks system in the area and it is the
first time that the Niagara Parks Commission
has extended its activities beyond the borders
of the Niagara River.
During the year, our commission, with the
approval of the Ontario Parks Integration
Board— and at the suggestion of the Welland
county council— undertook to search out
possible beach areas along Lake Erie. Two
of these have been inspected by the integra-
tion board, namely a beach at Sherkston,
about five-eighths of a mile long; and a
property near Fort Erie, close to the south
end of the Niagara parks system. This latter
property was formerly the old Erie Beach
amusement park and comprises about 50
acres. It is owned by the Bardol family.
In line with government policy, The
Department of Public Works land valuators
are presently negotiating with the owners of
these two areas, seeking to establish whether
the properties are for sale and the price for
which they can be purchased. When this has
been established, the matter will be reviewed
again by the Ontario Parks Integration Board.
Beach areas have, over the years, fallen
mostly into private hands in that area. This
is an endeavour to get back some public
ado
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
beach and places of recreation for the use
of the general public.
There is also another area of land, a vacant
area of about 140 acres, owned by Welland
Securities Limited. This property occupies a
prominent position along the parkway near
the Hydro intake area at Chippawa. In the
long-term planning of the parks at Niagara,
it is considered by the commission that this
property is important as it provides, for one
thing, parking areas to service the many
visitors to Niagara Falls who come to view the
falls and Queen Victoria Park, and who pres-
ently find great diflSculty. Similar negotia-
tions are proceeding with the owners with
regard to this property.
Our commission owns a substantial acreage
at the shipyards about five miles north of Fort
Erie, and also has under lease a substantial
acreage at the north end of the parks system—
the former ordnance lands in the town of
Niagara. These lands I have mentioned will
be very costly to procure for the parks system
which presently works on a budget; the sys-
tem will have to have these lands acquired by
the provincial government. But the commis-
sion and myself feel that we have to look with
some vision into the future. These lands are
very necessary for the continuance and main-
tenance of that great attraction.
There is great commercial development
taking place over there along the fringe of the
Niagara parks system. One of these is going
to be a great tower which is presently being
built some 300 feet high overlooking the falls,
with restaurant and sightseeing facilities— 300
feet in the air. It is being located there now.
They have had a bit of trouble; hon. members
might have read there was a fire the other
night, during the construction. But there is
another building planned, supposed to cost
$25 million, being located on the escarpment
just above the falls. All these great expan-
sions on the fringe of tlie Niagara park will
make it necessary for the park to keep alive
and protect its interests and the interests of
the people in that area.
Another new project for the Niagara parks
commission is the Stoney Creek battlefield.
During the year negotiations were carried out
between the provincial government and the
federal government. They have an interest
in that monument at Stoney Creek, and the
Wentworth Women's Historical Society and
The Department of Northern Affairs desire
that this monument be perpetuated. It is
a historic battlefield but has fallen into some
disrepair.
The suggestion was made that the monu-
ment be taken over by the Niagara Parks
Commission. This we have agreed to do
under certain circumstances. It was necessary
to secure some additional land there at a cost
of $55,000, and the federal government are
going to put up $25,000 and the provincial
government are paying the balance. The
federal government are going to rehabilitate
the monument which needs some consider-
able stone work, and the Niagara Parks Com-
mission are going to take on the job of land-
scaping and the maintenance of this area.
I am sure that when it is completed, the
people in Wentworth will be quite pleased
with what has been accomplished there, and
the main thing is that it will perpetuate
another very worthwhile historical monument
in this province. The historical society have
had this monument under their care since
1890, and never really had enough funds to
do a proper job on it; they all seem to be
very pleased that at last this historical area
is going to be properly looked after.
The revenue producing facilities— the com-
mission is engaged in commercial operations
in a substantial way. We have about 10
revenue producing facilities from Old Fort
Erie to Fort George and Navy Hall at
Niagara-on-the-Lake. Chief among these are
the Refectory restaurant, Table Rock House
with the scenic tunnels, the Princess Eliza-
beth building in Queen Victoria Park, the
Niagara Glen restaurant and the Queenston
Heights restaurant.
The commission also has agreements with
three private concerns, namely, the Maid of
the Mist Steamboat Company, the Niagara
Concessions Limited and the Spanish Aero-
car, over the whirlpool. With the exception
of these last three, all other commercial opera-
tions are operated directly by the commission
and this has been true since early in the
century.
The commission's gross income runs now to
about $2% million, with a net profit of about
$850,000 annually. This, with the water
rentals from Hydro and the Canadian Power
Company, totalling $800,000, provides the
revenue to operate Niagara parks and to make
any capital expenditures considered necessary.
These capital expenditures will run to a figure
of about $450,000 during the current year.
An 18-hole golf course near Niagara Glen
continues to operate on a satisfactory financial
basis and to the enjoyment and enrichment
of the lives of about 45,000 people each year
who play there.
The matter of the water levels in the
Niagara River is something that is giving us
and the people in the area some considerable
concern. This is a subject that has engaged
DECEMBER 12, 1961
331
the attention of the commission, particularly
in recent times, when the flow over Niagara
Falls, the combined flow, was reduced to
50,000 cubic feet per second on November 1,
1961. This is in line with what is permissible
imder the 1950 diversion treaty, but the
general appearance of the Falls and par-
ticularly the upper rapids and the lower river
has caused public and government concern.
All of this is being studied by the Inter-
national Joint Commission and by the Hydro
and by the Power Authority of the State of
New York. Some months ago, the two
governments authorized the International
Joint Commission to proceed with an exten-
sion of the Niagara control structure, and this
work is going on now. Generally speaking, it
is designed to preserve the level of water in
what is known as the Grass Island pool and
also to facilitate the passage of ice through
the structure and downstream.
In 1950 a treaty between the United States
government and Canada was enacted divid-
ing the use of water equally between these
countries and stipulating that there should be
100,000 cu. ft. per second flowing over the
Falls with lesser amounts during the night
and certain hours in the winter time in the
day time. This called for certain remedial
work to be carried out— which has been
largely completed— to provide for an even
curtain of water flowing over the falls. This
wonderful engineering feat was very success-
ful and the beauty of the falls was not
seriously impaired in tlie season when millions
of visitors come to view this wonderful sight.
However, in the river below the falls where
the Maid of the Mist operates, the picturesque
rapids have deteriorated to a considerable
extent. I mention this because there is a
movement on foot to permit the power com-
panies to utilize a greater amount of water,
which would certainly lead to a change in
the treaty. I, and my commission, and in fact
the people of the area including Buffalo and
Niagara Falls, New York, are convinced the
maximum is presently being taken.
A story in the Buffalo newspaper reads, and
I quote:
Sorry, but we can find little reassurance
in the Robert Moses protest that no plot
is afoot to mar the majesty of Niagara
Falls. "There will be no ambivalence" in
the minds of powermakers, said the State
Power Authority chairman, because they
know "the beauty of the Falls comes first."
"After all," said Mr. Moses, "we are the
watchmen. We do not carry water on both
shoulders." So far, well spoken.
In the next breath, however, Mr. Moses
conceded that the power people in New
York and across the river are seeking— "for
experimentation" only— to divert from the
Niagara, more water for power purposes
than permitted in the 1950 international
treaty guaranteeing the cataract's beauty.
This is not carrying water on both
shoulders? What is the "experimentation"
for if it is not leading up to a clamour for
revision of the 1950 treaty for a greater
power diversion? All Mr. Moses had to do
—and all he has to do now— to prove how
good a watchman he is, is to say flatly that
he opposes any further diversion of water
beyond that allowed by the 1950 treaty.
In view of this I personally went to New
York to discuss this problem with Mr. Moses,
and I can say in fairness to him that he
assured me that he was equally concerned
along with myself about the preservation of
the cataract.
On the other hand, Mr. Moses stated, and
one must agree, that if further water can
be taken and used rather than wasted without
further deterioration of the majesty of the
Falls, then it should find favour. My com-
mission has authorized me, as chairman, to
take all steps possible to prevent any further
deterioration unless it can be proven beyond
the question of a doubt, by actual tests on the
site, that there is additional water available
for the making of electrical energy without
causing greater damage to this world-famous
spectacle.
I bring this to the attention of the House
because I am sure there will be a great deal
of discussion about it. It is a very important
thing.
In regard to the staff on the Niagara Parks
Commission, they are civil servants; they
enjoy all the benefits similar to other civil
servants in the province with the exception
of the students at the school of horticulture.
Our year-round staff totals about 260 and in
the summer season the number reaches about
775.
That is a brief outline of the activities of
the Niagara Falls Parks Commission. I am
very serious when I say, Mr. Speaker, I think
the people would be, should be, greatly con-
cerned about the question of water, additional
water, being taken from the Falls. It is, as I
have pointed out by reference to the millions
of people who have come there, by the
revenue that it produces for the province and
by the great opportunity that so many have
for relaxation using its 35 miles of parkways,
332
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
vital that nothing should ever be allowed
that would permit the deterioration of that
great spectacle.
Next a brief outline of the Parks Integra-
tion Board. I have had the honour to be
chairman of this board since it became a
board, that is for five years now. I think
the board has played an important part in
park development in the province of Ontario.
We have, during this time, taken a very
active part in the co-ordination of parks ad-
ministration and development. We have
been, in fact as well as in name, an integra-
tion board.
My colleagues, the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Spooner), who is vice-
chairman; the hon. Minister without Portfolio
(Mr. Nickle); the hon. member for Leeds (Mr.
Auld) and the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr.
Warrender), have been diligent in their obli-
gations in serving as members of the board.
We feel we have accomplished something.
Recent changes in the government have
necessitated the introduction by the hon.
Minister of Energy Resources (Mr, Macaulay)
just the other day of Bill No. 6, An Act to
amend The Ontario Parks Integration Board
Act, which received its third reading on
Monday of this week. The amendment pro-
vides for the hon. Minister of Economics and
Development (Mr. Macaulay) to replace the
Minister of Planning and Development as a
member of this board. This change will
enable us to operate effectively in the future.
There is no necessity, Mr. Speaker, for me
to tell you all the details of the operations of
this board, but I can tell hon. members that
the parks system of the province of Ontario
is becoming more and more useful and
worthwhile within our province.
It is an important subject which is dis-
cussed almost daily by a great number of
people, and I speak with reference to
1,026,836 persons who visited the St.
Lawrence Development Commission historic
sites between mid-May and mid-October of
this year; the 6,600,000 who visited the
Niagara Parks Commission sites during
roughly the same period, the 6,250,000 who
visited the provincial parks and the 1,750,000
who visited conservation authority parks. I
do not wish to dwell on these figures, but
they do indicate most dramatically the im-
portance and popularity of parks. Every-
where I go I am told by many who have made
use of these parks, how much they enjoyed
them and how the parks made possible more
memorable holidays which otherwise could
not have been considered. People are be-
coming more park- and recreation-minded.
Mr. Speaker. With shorter hours of work
and more financial ability, many of our
people who have never enjoyed, or had the
opportunity to enjoy, these parks are now
taking advantage of them. In these parks,,
of course, a man can take his whole family
and enjoy the various activities, and it cer-
tainly gives me a great deal of satisfaction
to know that the people who take advantage
of this are appreciative of it. You hear it
all over and I think the Ontario government
is to be commended for the money it is
pouring into park development.
We have held 23 regular meetings of the
integration board, and as the board members
are Ministers, hon. members will recognize
that they had to be fitted in between their
other activities. I would say that the regu-
larity with which the members attended the
meetings was outstanding. During the course
of these 23 meetings we dealt with 133
separate items of business, involving many
phases of park development and administra-
tion. We approved the acquisition of 40
pieces of property of various sizes for park-
land, four of these were for the establish-
ment of new parks, the rest were for addi-
tions to existing parks. One of the new
parks was for the Niagara Parks Commission,
one for the St. Lawrence Development Com-
mission, one for a provincial park and one
for a conservation authority park.
We now have under investigation 14 sites
for possible new parks. No doubt many of
these will be found to be unsatisfactory, but
they are of sufiicient interest to warrant a
thorough investigation. There are nine
pieces of property being studied for addi-
tions to existing parks, the enlargement of
which will make for more efficient operation.
Seven new parks were proposed during the
past year but after careful study they were
turned down for reasons of unsuitable ter-
rain, poor location or even prohibitive cost.
We approved the closing of a small park
at Mazinaw Lake provincial park on High-
way 41 because the 1,450-acre Bon Echo
provincial park is located on the same lake
only six miles to the south. The action was
taken to avoid unnecessary duplication and
to eliminate a small inefficient unit.
Recently we have given favourable consid-
eration to the resolution passed by the coun-
cil of the municipality of Shuniah, located
about five miles east of Port Arthur on High-
way 17. In the resolution they requested
that the 16-acre Shuniah provincial park be
transferred to the municipaUty, and be oper-
ated as an improved park under The Parks
Assistance Act. This park will soon become
DECEMBER 12, 1961
333
the property of the people of the area and
when the transfer is completed, application
will be made for assistance under the Act.
If they agree to meet the requirements as
outlined in the Act and regulations, they will
be eligible for a grant of one-half of the cost
of the development up to a maximum of
$50,000.
This action, Mr. Speaker, will release The
Department of Lands and Forests from a small
project and permit them to concentrate their
energies on the development of large parks
in the area; at the same time it will provide
the stimulus for this progressive municipahty
to take an active and important part in our
expanding park programme.
During the past year we have dealt with
11 applications for aid under The Parks
Assistance Act, from cities, towns, villages
and townships. These 11, we approved
immediately as we were certain that the
conditions of the Act and regulations had
been met and agreed upon. In order to be-
come eligible for this assistance they must
comply with certain regulations. Many others
have not as yet completed their applications
or met the requirements to the satisfaction of
the board.
One new conservation authority park was
approved for purchase and development
during the past year and one very small area
was turned down because it was not con-
sidered to be in the best interests of the whole
authority area. These conservation authority
parks are serving a very useful and important
function. Therefore, the board gives them
very close attention in order to assure that
they will be as effective as possible in the
overall park picture.
In recent years, the development of parks
has caused a great increase in the traffic on
some of the roads leading to the parks. This
increase in traffic has caused many problems
in maintenance, especially for townships,
where road standards are not high. The local
governments found themselves unable to cope
with the situation and sought help from the
province. The board was instrumental in the
introduction of section 5 to The Provincial
Parks Act, by which the hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests could enter into agreements
with local governments for the improvement
and reconstruction of roads leading to pro-
vincial parks. -i : '-%' i^
The agreements are on a share basis. The
amounts to be borne by the province are
determined by a careful study of the traffic
flow. When an agreement has been reached,
it is then submitted to the board for study,
and if it is found in order, it is given
approval for the hon. Minister of Lands and
Forests' acceptance.
We dealt with three of these agreements
during the past year, involving a total of some
11 miles of road. Provision is also in legis-
lation for this help to be given in the case
of commission parks and conservation
authority parks.
The Wasaga Beach area has presented a
problem for several years, and members of
the board have visited the area on several
occasions. Some of the members were there
early in the summer and met with the local
councils to discuss the matter and as a result
we are now moving on land acquisition
according to plans submitted by the hon.
Minister of Lands and Forests' department.
I know, sir, that you can look for much
improvement in this area in the near future.
Development was greatly hampered by space,
but this problem will be lessened by land
purchases now underway.
Hon. members are no doubt aware of the
problems in which we became involved at
Stoney Creek. I think I have made sufficient
explanation of what is being done at Stoney
Creek Memorial.
On June 24 of this year, Crysler Farm
Battlefield Memorial Park and Upper Canada
Village were dedicated and opened to the
public. Since that date, 212,494 people have
visited the area. There is considerable to
be said about that, but I think one of our
commission, Mr. Speaker, would probably
give a better explanation of what has gone
on in that great new park area than I could.
We have under study the advertising and
publicity given to parks which come under
our terms of reference. This will be com-
pleted in the near future and our recommen-
dations may clear up some confusion which
is now prevalent among the public at large.
We have underway an intensive study of
the recreation lands within a radius of 50
miles from the Toronto-Hamilton region. This
project has taken more time than was antici-
pated. We were obliged to wait for replies to
our questionnaires from municipalities, clubs
and associations before we could start our
compilations and assessments. We now know
that there is in excess of 44,443 acres of land
used for recreation in this area.
The parks integration board feel that
parks should be developed even more
intensely in areas where the population is
located rather than far afield to areas which
are difficult to reach. A great deal of study
is being done on areas where there is heavy
population.
334
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, I have outlined to you the
main functions and operations of the Ontario
Parks Integration Board during the past year.
You will notice tliat all of these boards have
been far from idle.
I am now, of course, going to have a little
more time to deal with these matters. I do
appreciate being given the opportunity to
make this presentation to the House.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): In rising to
make my contribution to this traditional
Throne Speech debate, I would like first of
all to join with others in extending through
you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my continued
appreciation of the fine work which our
Speaker has done in guiding the deliberations
of this assembly.
While you are in the chair, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, I would also like to extend my con-
gratulations to you on your elevation to this
very important post of Deputy Speaker and
chairman of the committee of the whole
House.
I would also like to join with others in
congratulating those Cabinet Ministers who
are on their way up, apparently, in the
hierarchy, and my condolences to those who
appear to be on the way out.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I followed
with very great interest that event which—
shall we say— preceded the quite significant
Cabinet shuflfle that has taken place recently,
namely, the great circus known as the Ontario
Progressive Conservative leadership conven-
tion. I followed with particular interest the
speeches made by the various candidates for
the leadership of the party. I was not at the
convention, but I followed the speeches as
they were reproduced on C.B.C. television-
most of them reproduced live.
I regret that the hon. member for DuflFerin-
Simcoe (Mr. Downer) is not in his seat at the
moment because I would like to extend to him
my congratulations on what I consider was
quite a remarkable achievement in having
outlasted two Cabinet ministers in the race
that took place at that convention. The hon.
member's success demonstrated that un-
regenerate, moss encrusted Toryism still has
considerable appeal to delegates at Con-
servative conventions.
The other candidates had been worked over
by the public relations people sufficiently that
they couched their reactionary ideas in— shall
we say— language somewhat more acceptable
in this day and age. I will say for the hon.
member for Dufferin-Simcoe that he says what
he thinks and he says it in a forthright and
honest manner; and although I agree with
mighty little of what he says, I admire him
for it.
I would also like to extend my congratula-
tions to the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond). In my opinion he made by far
the best speech of all the candidates for the
leadership. In fact, I would say it was really
the only good one. It was a good speech;
his delivery as usual was eflFective— perhaps
even more effective than usual— and the con-
tent of the speech was thought-provoking.
That of course was his fatal error. He asked
the delegates to think and they turfed him
out on the second ballot.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) who was
the only one who went out of the race before
the hon. Minister of Health, made the second
best speech. I will say that he did not give
any credit to the author but he did have a
very good manuscript which he delivered in
a loud, clear voice. Furthermore, Mr.
Speaker, he did not make the mistake that
some other candidates made of trying to look
up from his manuscript.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): He spoke to
the ladies, too; remember that.
Mr. Bryden: Yes, he spoke to the ladies too,
as the hon. member for Sudbury has reminded
me.
These were the best speeches, but the
speech that I enjoyed better than any of the
others was that of the hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts). Unfortunately, most of these
gentlemen are absent when I attempt to pay
compliments to them. However, I will pro-
ceed with my compliments nevertheless, Mr.
Speaker. The hon. Attorney-General was at
his uninhibited fumbling best.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Is the
hon. member surprised they are not here to
hear him?
Mr. Bryden: Well, not exactly. At any rate
he certainly fumbled better than usual; he
sprayed his fire in all directions, trying to
pick fights with everybody. As a matter of
fact, I thought he was going to come out with
the slogan "Roberts for Rhubarbs" but he did
not quite make it. The gong was rung, time
ran out, and even then he did not have
enough sense to sit down. It was quite clear
all through his address that he was waiting
for divine guidance, but unfortunately that
guidance did not come until after the time
limit had expired.
The hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) as
he now is, but the hon. Minister of Education
DECEMBER 12, 1961
335
as he was then, made a speech which was a
masterpiece of dullness. But I will say this,
he did not make the mistake of trying to say
anything. He lulled the delegates to sleep
and thereby caught the mood of the conven-
tion perfectly. There was no doubt in my
mind after having seen all the performances
—and very interesting performances they were
—that the hon. Prime Minister was the best
choice. The delegates made the best choice,
there Is no doubt about it at all. He had no
programme, the delegates had no programme;
he is therefore a perfect spokesman for tliem.
Mr, Sopha: Does the hon. member think
they were better than the Flintstones?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: At least there was some
choice; the hon. member must admit that.
Mr. Bryden: I thought it was somewhat
significant, Mr. Speaker, that the registered
delegates at the convention apparently could
not work up enough enthusiasm for any of
the candidates that they were willing to
participate in any of the quite elaborate and
highly contrived demonstrations that were
put on, ostensibly in support of the candidates.
The result of that was that the candidates
had to seek out university students and others
who could be induced to synthesize enthusi-
asm by offers of free drinks and other similar
benefits. The convention was not particularly
colourful because, in my opinion, the demon-
strations were so highly contrived. But I will
say that it had its colourful aspects. A
reporter for the Toronto Daily Star, writing
in the issue of October 25, 1961, managed to
catch some of the colour in the following
story which I would like to read to the House.
I am sure that the delegates to the conven-
tion did not have time to read it.
This reporter, who is unnamed, said:
The Conservative convention held at the
University of Toronto has produced a new
type of campus operator— the slave dealer.
With seven candidates vying for support,
hospitality is flowing freely at the nearby
Park Plaza Hotel. Prominent among the
delegates, lurching from room to room
uttering candidate slogans and college yells
(and sometimes garbled mixtures of both)
are enough youths to make up a basket-
ball league.
"But that is nothing really," explained a
senior student. "For years college boys
have been drifting into cocktail parties and
meetings wherever nourishment is being
dispensed on a not-too-security-conscious
basis. This year we have done even better."
So at least one can say that some benefit
came out of the convention.
Last week, he said, a member of the com-
mittee of one of the candidates phoned a
fraternity house and said his group needed
some labour. The senior fraternity mem-
bers conferred and after a polite amount of
haggling they came to terms. "We'll pro-
vide 15 husky, willing fraternity pledges
for the three-day convention and you will
put $150 into the frat funds."
The candidate's committee delegates
what tasks are to be done— placards to be
carried, cheering sections suddenly pro-
duced in this or that area of Varsity Arena,
handbills to be distributed— then repair to
the committee to await progress reports.
And I would like also to quote briefly from
the Globe and Mail— a story of some of the
colour of the convention— which also appeared
on October 25.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): The hon.
member was very interested in the conven-
tion.
Mr. Bryden: Oh, I was indeed, as I said at
the outset.
About 50 male University of Toronto
students paraded last night for Conserva-
tive candidates but they claimed they did
it to demonstrate—
and this is in quotes:
The Corruption of the Convention
Some students said that though they
are not Conservatives, they were promised
free liquor as a reward for wearing paper
hats, carrying banners and staging "spon-
taneous"—
"spontaneous" is in quotes, Mr. Speaker.
—"spontaneous" demonstrations in Varsity
Arena.
As one student put on a campaign hat
he said, "I want to make it clear that I am
not for or against this guy, I just want to
protest against the whole silly system."
One student said workers for a candidate
approached him Monday and asked if he
could round up a group of students to
demonstrate at tlie arena. The workers,
he claimed, stressed the quantities of free
liquor that would be available for the
students if they agreed. Yesterday a worker
for another candidate made a similar pro-
posal to another student, he said.
So much for the colour of the convention,
Mr. Speaker. It was my impression from
336
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
having taken what I described previously as
an avid interest in this convention, that most
of the colour and tlie programme at the
convention came inherently from those em-
poria that are under the jurisdiction of the
newly-appointed minister of refreshments.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): We
should have a Royal commission to investigate
that convention; to see how many laws were
broken.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would now
like to turn to some of the matters that have
arisen in connection with the debate on the
speech from the Throne.
Some time ago my hon. leader placed on
the order paper of this House a sub-amend-
ment to the address in reply to the Throne
speech which contained eight very sensible
and valuable suggestions to the government.
I am not going to cover all eight of those
points, but there are two that I would Hke
to deal with at some length.
The first to which I would like to call
attention is item two of the points which the
hon. leader of my group proposes should
be added to the main amendment. That item
reads as follows: ,•;*;;
And this House further regrets:
2. That the government has failed to
act decisively and with a due sense of
urgency to remedy the gross neglects of
adequate safety precautions in important
sections of Ontario industry, particularly
the construction industry, and has thereby
permitted the safety and even the lives
of countless workmen to remain in jeop-
ardy.
Now, whenever one starts to talk about
industrial safety, Mr. Speaker, at this time
at any rate, he inevitably refers to the report
of the Royal commission on industrial safety
which was submitted in the middle of Octo-
ber. That report, though expressed in
carefully measured and deliberately unsen-
sational language, is a stinging indictment
of The Department of Labour and the gov-
ernment.
I must say that I appreciated the speech
made just before I got up by the retired
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Daley)— I
thought it most interesting, certainly some
of his reminiscences of his department were
—but it surprised me that he apparently was
completely unperturbed by the report on
safety that has come down relating to one
very important phase of the responsibility
of the department which he administered
until very recently.
I would just like to quote a few extracts
which can be found on pages three to five
of that report.
Considerable evidence was heard re-
garding the function of the accident pre-
vention association estabUshed under the
authority of The Workmen's Compensation
Act, and your commissioners have con-
cluded that the present system would
function more effectively by placing the
associations under the jurisdiction of the
Workmen's Compensation Board and
operating through an executive adminis-
trative committee of the associations re-
sponsible to the board.
Then a little further down, speaking in
general terms of the Acts and regulations
administered by the department, the report
says:
Some of the Acts and regulations were
found to be archaic and outmoded. This
is particularly true of The Building Trades
Protection Act which is almost unknown
and unenforced.
Then another sentence a httle further
down on page four:
The Factory, Shop and OfiBce Building
Act is generally antedeluvian.
Then the next paragraph:
Evidence of defective construction of
arenas is the basis for a recommendation
that the plans for public buildings be sub-
mitted for departmental approval and that
such buildings be subject to periodic in-
spection.
The Operating Engineers Act dates from
1907 and subsequent amendments have
been largely for the purpose of clarifica-
tion rather than modernization.
Safety regulations relating to foundries
and ionizing radiation have been formu-
lated but not promulgated, and workers
in these fields are not at present protected
by legislation.
Your commissioners recommended that
regulations covering these fields be imple-
mented at an early date.
Apparently that recommendation had no
ejffect at all upon the retiring hon. Minister.
Then on page five:
The highest accident frequency rate in
the province is in the logging industry, yet
there is no legislation for the protection of
workers in this field as in sawmills.
Revision of regulations relating to
workers in compressed air is recommended.
DECEMBER 12, 1961
337
based upon medical evidence and a com-
parative study of similar regulations in
other jurisdictions.
Particular reference is made to "bone
death" as a consequence of caisson disease.
Then again:
Considerable evidence was heard on the
explosive hazards of agricultural dust in
grain elevators and flour mills.
And so on.
I would just like to make one more refer-
ence to the report, Mr. Chairman, and that is
a paragraph on page seven:
The testimony of the officers of The
Department of Labour generally with re-
spect to the adequacy of the Acts, their
enforcement and the number of inspections
and inspectors required indicates a degree
of satisfaction-
notice these words:
—indicates a degree of satisfaction that is
inconsistent with the requirements of keep-
ing pace with a rapidly growing industrial
technology.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from this report
—and I am not relying on any information
that I have on my own and that I have
brought to the attention of this House in the
past, I am relying entirely on the Royal com-
mission which investigated this matter most
exhaustively over a period of 18 months— it
is quite obvious from this report that we have
a most serious situation.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question, please?
What is the date of that report?
Mr. Bryden: I would have thought—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: This year? Is it this
year?
Mr. Bryden: I would have thought that the
hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) would
have been sufficiently aware of what was go-
ing on in the government of which he is a
member that he would be familiar with this.
It is about October 15. It is a report that was
handed down—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: This year?
Mr. Bryden: Certainly.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Is the hon. member
aware that millions and millions of dollars
have been spent by the grain elevators at the
Lakehead to prevent dust explosion and to
ensure the safety of workers there? Does it
say that in the report?
Hon. C. Daley (Minister without Portfolio):
Because of our regulations!
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Because of the regula-
tions of this department!
Mr. Bryden: Certainly it says that in the
report. I was reading their general con-
clusions.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Why does the hon.
member not bring that out?
Mr. Bryden: Perhaps the hon. Minister
could bring that out in due course. He
apparently has not even heard of the report.
I would suggest to him that before he asks
questions he take the trouble to read the
report because it is a very instructive public
document.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I know that. But the
hon. member is not being truthful about it.
Mr. Bryden: I have just finished reading
extracts from the report. Apparently it came
to the poor hon. Minister as a great surprise.
I think that the commission's own summary
is a fair portion to read from, I think that
they are quite capable of summarizing their
findings.
There is no doubt that a considerable
amount of work has been done trying to
improve this very difficult problem of dust
hazard in elevators. I may say that very little
was done until there was a terrible explosion
up there. That is one of the difficulties with
regard to administration of safety legislation
at all times— nothing ever gets done until
several people are killed. There is never any
foresight, and in fact hindsight is frequently
very, very slow in operating.
However, I am not particularly concerned
to deal with dust hazards in elevators,
because, although I consider it an important
problem, there are some others that, in my
opinion, are more urgent.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the situation
that we now have in this province is that the
health and safety and even the lives of
countless workmen are in jeopardy and yet
the attitude of the department as revealed
by statements made in this session— and
indeed today— is one of supreme complacency
reaching even to the point of total indiffer-
ence.
The Royal commission renders a very fine
service in summarizing information for the
338
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
benefit of the public and of anyone who
may be interested. But I think we should
bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the basic
information contained in that report is not
new. It has been well known for a long
time that there is a serious lack of safety
precautions in many important industries in
this province.
Indeed, the hon. leader of my party and
other hon. members of this group have
called the attention of this House on frequent
occasions to urgent safety problems in the
province. Invariably, the answer of the then
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Daley) was
that we were a bunch of troublemakers who
were interested in nothing but trying to stir
up trouble.
However, that excuse became tragically
inadequate after the Hogg's Hollow tunnel
disaster a year and a half or almost two
years ago and the scathing report of the
coroner's jury which inquired into that
disaster. As a result of the disaster and the
coroner's jury's report, a situation was created
which the government could no longer ignore.
However, did it act, Mr. Speaker? Did it
do something, even on a temporary basis, to
remedy the sort of situation, the kind of
abuses, that had given rise to the Hogg's
Hollow tunnel disaster and to the serious
problems in industrial health that had been
created on the Coxwell Avenue tunnel proj-
ect and other similar projects? It did not, it
did nothing! It has set up a Royal commission
so it could shelve the whole problem for
another year or two. It took no action of any
kind to improve any regulation on even an
interim basis, it just threw the whole thing off
to the Royal commission and said, "We will
deal with this subject after the Royal com-
mission has reported."
Mr. Speaker, the Royal commission has
reported, it has made a number of valuable
recommendations and most of them, I think,
should be implemented. In particular it has
laid stress on the urgent need for remedial
action in the construction industry, and here
is exactly what it says on that subject at page
39 of its report;
Finally, the commission wishes to re-
iterate that a modern, well enforced Con-
struction Safety Act is vital to the safety
of the hundreds of thousands of construc-
tion employees in Ontario, and the need
for such legislation is so urgent that we
recommend that such an Act be pro-
claimed at the earhest possible date.
Now, surely that language is plain enough
even for this government, Mr. Speaker. When
I read it I felt that here at last we had
something that would shake this government
out of its complacency and galvanize it into
action. Clearly I failed— even I failed— to
comprehend the depths of complacency of
which the government is capable. The hon.
Minister of Labour is in absolutely no hurry
at all. The commission said that it is an
urgent situation requiring action at the
earliest possible date but the hon. Minister
could not possibly be hurried by that. Men
are being killed and seriously injured on
construction work with appalling regularity
but that does not appear to bother the hon.
Minister even a little bit.
I raised the matter with him in a question
before the orders of the day on November 18
—in connection with the death of a man
called Luigi Trevisiol— and the most the hon.
Minister could bring himself to say at that
time was that: ". . . arising out of the
McAndrew report we shall do our best to
devise something which we hope will
adequately cover the situation."
We heard nothing more from him on the
subject until nine or ten days later on
December 7, when he moved first reading
of a bill to amend The Department of Labour
Act for the purpose of setting up an Ontario
Safety Council.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We did not sit until
November 22.
Mr. Bryden: If I said November 18, I
meant November 28; I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
An hon. member: Ten days difference.
Mr. Bryden: My question was on November
28 and the first reading of the bill to amend
The Department of Labour Act was on
December 7. I will let the mathematicians
worry about whether it was nine or ten days,
or how many days it was; but it was an
unnecessarily great number of days, in my
opinion, Mr. Speaker, especially for the small
mouse that was produced on that day.
When the hon. Minister introduced or
moved first reading of the bill I asked him
again about construction safety, and the
import of his answer was he did not intend
to do anything about it at all, he was just
going to pass the buck to the Ontario Safety
Council. That council probably will not even
come into existence for some substantial time,
and we will have to wait until it has had a
chance to study this highly urgent problem
of safety in the construction industry. I might
just say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Minister,
in introducing the bill to amend The Depart-
ment of Labour Act, certainly created the
DECEMBER 12, 1961
339
impression in my mind that this bill would
implement the heart of the Royal commission's
recommendations. I would agree with him
that establishment of a safety council was
tlie heart of the commission's recommenda-
tions; but I will say now I have had an
opportunity to read the bill— and I did not
have an opportunity to do that until today—
that it is a real phony, it does not implement
the recommendation of the Royal commission
at all. I will have more to say about that
when the bill comes up for second reading.
Certainly it does not set up a body such as
was envisaged in the Royal commission report
at all. Even if it had, I submit that it is no
excuse for delaying action on construction
safety. Certainly the commission itself did
not envisage that action— with regard to a
construction safety Act— should have to wait
the establishment of an Ontario Safety
Council. The government has simply per-
verted the recommendation, the very fine
recommendation, that the commission made
on this point and has turned the safety
council into another device for stalling— even
before it has been set up.
My contention, Mr. Speaker, is that if the
department had been even moderately im-
pressed by the need for modern safety
regulations in the construction industry, it
could have made a concerted effort in the
five weeks between the presentation of the
report and the opening of the Legislature
to prepare legislation along the lines recom-
mended by the commission— that is, a con-
struction safety Act. Indeed it could have
been working on such legislation even before
the commission reported, because if the
department was alive to its responsibihty at
all, surely it knew that a serious safety
situation existed in this industry without
having to be told that by a Royal commission.
If it had followed this course— if it had
given priority as priority should have been
given to the drafting of proper legislation—
that legislation could have been introduced
at the beginning of this session. I am certain
that every member would have been prepared
to give it priority so that, by now, it could
be law, so that the recommendation of the
Royal commission could have been carried out,
that such an Act be proclaimed at the earliest
possible date. It could have been proclaimed
by now, but, far from this being the case,
the hon. Minister's answer of November 28
indicated that on that date he was still in the
process of devising something that he hoped
might be adequate. And his statement on
December 7 indicated that he had given up
even trying to devise anything; he was simply
passing the buck to the safety council.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker— and I am
now using the terms used in the Royal com-
mission report—
The safety of hundreds of thousands of
construction employees in Ontario remains
in jeopardy.
I submit to you, sir, that we have reached
a sad state of affairs in the administration of
this province when we have a government
which is so indolent that it apparently does
not even care about human life.
I would now like to refer in somewhat
greater detail—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: May I interrupt for a
moment? May I ask my hon. friend if he
would adjourn the debate? He seems to
have reached a natural break.
What I propose to do after we re-assemble
is to revert to motions to cover the sitting
of the House and to call one more second
reading and come back into the Throne
debate. So if my hon. friend would adjourn
the debate now, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bryden moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: It being 6 o'clock, I do
now leave the chair and will resume at
8 p.m.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, before we leave,
may I ask the hon. Prime Minister what
second reading he intends to call?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): The
second reading of The Police Act. It is
Order No. 5, on the order paper.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is this The Police
Commission Act?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Second reading. Bill
No. 24, An Act to amend The Police Act.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
I
No. 15
ONTARIO
Hegisflature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
•i^;
Tuesday, December 12, 1961
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $2.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 12, 1961
Police Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 343
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Bryden 364
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Auld, agreed to 373
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 373
r-^J^o'"^
343
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that this House meet at 2:00 o'clock p.m.
tomorrow, Wednesday, and also on Thursday
next, December 14, and that rule two be
suspended so far as it applies to this motion.
Motion agreed to.
THE POLICE ACT, 1961-62
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General)
moves second reading of Bill No. 24, An Act
to amend The Police Act, 1961-62.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, in moving this bill, I would
point out that I did, by way of information,
make a statement on first reading. The bill
is in my opinion a very important one. The
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) re-
ferred to it yesterday in his remarks. It
provides for the establishment of an Ontario
Police Commission which will have the
powers I mentioned on first reading, includ-
ing powers of direction, overseeing and lead-
ing of the Ontario Provincial Police force
which will be directly under the Commis-
sioner of Ontario Provincial Police, Commis-
sioner Clarke, a man with the highest
integrity and sincerity of purpose, I am con-
vinced.
The Police Act as it now stands— I am
referring now not to the amendment, the
amending Act, but the Act as it now stands
—makes provision for police commissions at
the local level. I might point out by way
of example, section 7 of the Act under the
heading "Part 2— Municipal Pohce Force,"
requires every city to have a pohce commis-
sion and provides the procedure whereby
any county or town or any other municipal-
ity may constitute such a board. The sta-
tute requires the board, to be composed
of the head of the council, a judge for the
county or district court and such person as
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council desig-
nates.
Tuesday, December 12, 1961
There is also presently provided by The
Police Act, means for obtaining joint boards
for two or more municipalities. I may say
that for the most part where we do have
local police commissions, they are composed
of a judge, a magistrate and the head of
council. It will be noted, however, that it
is not necessary to have a magistrate and
there have been some instances, particularly
in the last few years, where the third mem-
ber appointed has not been a magistrate.
I might say here too that what I might
term the Silk report has considerable inter-
esting information and suggestions in con-
nection with this particular work so far as
it applies to both magistrates and judges.
It is my view that the Ontario Police
Commission, if it lives up to the expecta-
tions I have for it— and I am confident that
it will exceed them— will be a very fine senior
body which may be of very considerable
help, in accordance with the terms of the
bill now before the House, to many local
boards and one of the ways in which it can
help is to assist in getting more uniformity
at the local level in connection with a num-
ber of the problems of enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I expect this new commission
will attack with vigour the many problems
in relation to law and order in this ever-
growing and expanding province. It will have
the power to inaugurate beneficial changes
and improvements resulting from its research
and its constant day-to-day contacts with the
problems involved.
One at least of these three proposed mem-
bers will be a full-time member— and it may
be that two will be full-time members. Cer-
tainly this commission is going to have a lot
of work and we should give it every oppor-
tunity to function to the best of its ability in
an impartial, detached, non-partisan atmos-
phere.
It will be particularly noted that the bill
provides, authorizes and requires the Ontario
Police Commission to advise the Legislature
of the problems it has faced and what it has
done during the preceding year. The
mechanics of presenting the report follow the
344
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
recommendation which was made in the 1959
report on government agencies, commissions
and so forth and reiterated in the interim
report of the select committee dealing with
these matters presented at the last sitting of
the Legislature; which select committee is
still in being.
I would point out that under section 48 of
The Police Act as amended by section 6 of
the bill before the House, this new commis-
sion is given the widest powers to make
inquiry into law enforcement. In order that
matters between sessions may be attended to
without delay where requiring action, the
commission would report on any such inquiry
as provided in the bill.
It could, of course, report and comment on
the same matter in its report to the Legis-
lature. However, that report would come
later when the Legislature is in session.
These provisions are all designed to give
the board an independence of action and of
reporting commensurate with the importance
which is attached to the creation and func-
tioning of such a commission.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the per-
sonnel of this board will be of such strength
and experience as to give to it a very exten-
sive insight into the varied and complex prob-
lems with which it will be dealing. As I see
the proposed commission, it will have vision,
it will play an important part in improving
public relations of our police, improving the
education and training of our police, and as
time goes on, it will grow in the public
estimation and will have an ever-increasing
good influence upon the police and their
work, and upon law enforcement in the prov-
ince. It will also serve as an excellent body
for co-operation and for confidential inter-
change of views and information with com-
parable, or other high-level, police and crime
investigatory bodies in other jurisdictions.
I am hopeful that there will be unanimous
agreement upon the principle of the bill.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in rising to take
part in this debate I would ask for some
indulgence in view of the fact that, until we
adjourned at 6:00 o'clock, I did not realize
that this particular and very important bill
would come before us tonight.
Now I am not making any complaint in any
respect, except that I would ask your indul-
gence in conjunction with the presentation
that I make tonight.
Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would say that
there is no question in the world that the bill
does embody certain very worthwhile features.
But I would ask the very fundamental ques-
tion: why a police commission at this partic-
ular juncture in the history of Ontario? I
think that it is quite apparent to all that,
over the period of the last seven or eight
months— during the prolonged discussions
about the extent of organized crime in
Ontario— there have been many suggestions
about the solution of this problem; one of
them has been this very pohce commission.
My recollection of the historical development
of the police commission concept is that it
was offered to the public of Ontario— partic-
ularly by the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts)— as an answer to a Royal commission.
My recollection is that the primary signifi-
cance and distinctiveness about the bill was
detailed and underscored by the hon. At-
torney-General when he first introduced it
and first started to talk about it.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Before the hon. leader
of the Opposition made his address.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh, that is right; no
question about that. But during that period
of time, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Attorney-
General laid particular emphasis on section
6 of the bill— the investigation aspect and the
investigation facilities, if you will, of the
bill.
I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that
section 6, and particularly one of the sub-
sections thereof, provides that the Ontario
police commission may investigate, inquire
into and report to the Attorney-General
upon any matter relating to the maintenance
of law and order in the province of Ontario.
Now, certainly that is very wide and all-
inclusive authorization. It is the type of
authorization that I personally had expected
would be included in the Royal commission
investigation. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker,
that if this bill is founded on the hypothetical
presumption that it is primarily an investiga-
tion body, then I suggest that it is in con-
flict with the Royal commission that has just
been appointed— a commission which I pre-
sume, and certainly hope, is not designed or
intended to be a witch hunt of any sort, is
not designed or intended to be determinative
simply of the comments that I have made in
respect to organized crime or any part there-
of. That commission should and must func-
tion as an authoritative body to investigate,
in its widest possible ramifications, all aspects
of crime, and particularly the organization of
crime, in the province of Ontario.
Now, if my presumption be correct— that
this is the authority we in this government
DECEMBER 12, 1961
345
have given to the Royal commission— then I
say that this particular bill is presumptive.
Surely it is in conflict with the intent of the
Royal commission, and I say that we are pre-
mature in bringing forth this type of legisla-
tion when we have a Royal commission de-
signed and intended to study this problem
of organized crime, and supposedly make
worthwhile recommendations to this very
body at a later date.
Now, the recommendations that the Royal
commission make may be entirely different
from what is suggested here, and I can see
no need for hurrying this particular piece of
legislation. I am inclined to think that there
is great danger that this legislation, designed
and intended to be implemented some time
ago, as the hon. Attorney-General has said,
is now unnecessary. At this particular junc-
ture in the historical development of the
province, it is unnecessary.
On the other hand, if this bill is founded
on the presumption that it is primarily an
administrative facility instead of an investiga-
tory body, then I would ask, what need is
there to substitute for the worthwhile work
that the hon. Attorney-General has said the
commissioner has done? And I believe him.
Three men instead of one— is this a good
administrative principle? I am doubtful of it.
As an administrative problem, Mr. Speaker,
I am not speaking of investigation, but if the
bill founds itself in administrative perfection,
then I question the advisability of substituting
the administrative wisdom or facility of three
men for one man. I simply ask this: Have we
by virtue of this bill denuded the commis-
sioner of police of all his real authority? Are
we substituting his knowledge and his per-
ception for three unknown men?
This brings me to my next point. At the
present time we do not know the personnel
of the new body or commission. I think it is
imperative that we do. I do not see how we
can intelligently discuss this without knowing
the personnel of the commission.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that the
New York State Crime Commission, as it is
normally called— its technical name is some-
what different, but you will identify it
immediately by virtue of the abbreviated
reference— is a wholly independent body, in-
dependent of the law enforcement agencies,
and I question the advisability of setting up
a commission of this sort under the jurisdiction
of the chief law enforcement agency of the
province. If the primary purpose of this legis-
lation is to investigate independently and on
a non-political basis, then—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Well,
the primary purpose is not that. The primary
purpose of this is to improve and keep the
police of this province on top of all their
problems.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, a few days
ago that was not the explanation that was
made.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I just gave it. The hon.
leader of the Opposition was not listening.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, at this junc-
ture let me draw to your attention that this
is the inconsistent position in which the gov-
ernment finds itself. Some days, some weeks
ago, a different explanation for the motivation
behind this legislation was given. And I say
today, tonight, a Royal commisison having
been instituted— a Royal commisison which I
suggest the hon. Prime Minister of this prov-
ince will have to clarify tonight once and for
all— if that commission has the broad powers
that I think it was intended to have, then I
commend him for it; I certainly do. And I
very much commend him for the appointment
of Mr. Justice Roach, a man of unquestioned
ability and integrity. I hope he will not cur-
tail the activity of that Royal commission by
appointing— as a result of this piece of legisla-
tion—another investigatory body that will be
duplicating in many respects what I believe
to be the authority of that commission.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
A permanent body. What is the hon. leader
of the Opposition talking about?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Minister of Mines suggests that this is a per-
manent body. Certainly it is, but I suggest
to you, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well, thanks for get-
ting the right Ministry tonight.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Let us
debate instead of chit-chatting.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, Mr. Speaker, let
me demonstrate to you the inconsistency of
the hon. Minister. On a number of occasions
he berated me as a witch hunter, and it was
said that there was no need for a Royal com-
mission—this was just political manoeuvring
on my part. Now he is in the position of
supporting a Royal commission. Then I say
he must re-examine himself—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
346
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Wintermeyer: Some time ago, Mr.
Speaker, we had— I believe in this very ses-
sion, surely it was in this session— a report
of the hon. Attorney-General's committee on
the enforcement of law relating to gambling;
a report by two eminent gentlemen, the
report commonly known as the Morton
Report. Let me read for your consideration,
Mr. Speaker, the conclusions of the Morton
Report. They are very brief, two pages is all
that the conclusion section provides. Mr.
Speaker, the conclusions are as follows:
From an examination of the problems re-
ported above, the committee is satisfied
that there is a grave danger, if the present
illegal gambling operation is permitted to
continue, that either domestic or foreign
criminal elements will prosper to such an
extent as to undermine the very nature of
our society. With this real and imminent
danger in mind the committee presents this
report in all modesty as a basis for an
attack upon these grave problems.
The committee has earlier propounded
the theory that the criminal law must be
realistic if it is to be enforceable. We have
attempted in the short space of this report
to show how such realism might be
achieved in terms both of tolerance and of
enforcement.
To quote once again from the report of
the New Zealand Royal commission: We
are only too conscious in respect of all such
topics as are now under discussion of the
possibility that our conclusions may prove
fallacious. The whole history of gaming
has demonstrated that the best considered
conclusions either prove erroneous, or prove
productive of unexpected and detrimental
consequences.
Discretion dictates, therefore, that any-
thing we propose or recommend in this
relation should be regarded as tentative and
that some authority should be created,
charged with the responsibility of watch-
ing results so that not only variations and
improvements can be given effect, but
radical alterations may be made where the
indications are that a radical change is
necessary.
The committee concludes by recommend-
ing the creation of two such new authorities:
Control of Legal Gambling
In view of the earlier recommendations
as to the creation of a licensing system for
legal gambling, the committee recommends
that, if those earlier recommendations be
accepted, a provincial gambling control
board be set up. Such board would be
charged with the supervision and control
of all legal gambling within the province.
Control of Illegal Gambling
Whether or not any of the other recom-
mendations of the committee be accepted,
the committee strongly recommends the
creation of a new authority charged with
general supervision of the control of crime.
In view of the international character of
criminal activities in the North American
continent, it appears to the committee that
such authority should be national in char-
acter and form part of the machinery of
the Dominion government.
It is the considered view of the commit-
tee that problems of law enforcement and
crime demand not the temporary scrutiny
of an ad hoc Royal commission but per-
petual scrutiny by an independent body of
a permanent character.
The committee considers that the con-
stitution of such a body should be political
or **bi-partisan" and that its main func-
tion—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Non-political.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker,
I am subject to correction here. My copy says
"political—"
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Non-political.
Mr. Wintermeyer: It does not say that at
all, really; now I am subject to correction,
maybe it means—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: What page is the hon.
leader of the Opposition on?
Mr. Wintermeyer: On page 111. I think it
is "political" or "bi-partisan."
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think it is a different
word altogether.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, no, it is "political, *bi-
partisan*, representing all groups."
An hon. member: If it were non-political
how could it represent all groups?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Page 111.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Do not tell me
the hon. member is wrong again?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I have not got that page
in my copy. I think this is the original, and
that you are reading from a mimeograph
copy.
DECEMBER 12, 1961
847
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am
of course subject to correction, but the copy
I have certainly reads as follows, Mr.
Speaker:
The committee considers that the con-
stitution of such a body should be deliber-
ately political or "bi-partisan".
It would seem, therefore, that the intent
of this recommendation would be that the
body should be political, in that it had repre-
sentation of a bi-partisan nature-
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Was the
hon. Attorney-General wrong again?
Mr. Whicher: He is always wrong.
Mr. Wintermeyer: And that its main func-
tion would be to observe and, if necessary,
investigate the process of law enforcement
in Canada. As in the case of the temporary
commission of investigation in New York
State— and this is the committee that I made
reference to earlier— it should have power
neither of administrative control nor prose-
cution.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That is the federal
body.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I know, but just a
minute:
Rather, it should operate by way of in-
quiry and report; leaving it to those at
present charged with the responsibility
for legislation and law enforcement to
withstand such impartial scrutiny.
Mr. Speaker, the point I make is simply
this: That here is the report of the Attorney-
General's committee; it is not on all fours
with this bill at all. That report suggests,
if I may paraphrase, that first, if you do
have a clearing house— and I think there is
real need for a clearing house in relation-
ship to criminal information—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Would he go so far as
to agree at the federal level?
Mr. Wintermeyer: At the federal level;
the clearing house, I think, should be at
the federal level. By clearing house, Mr.
Speaker, I simply mean a central agency
where all data relating to criminal activities
is filed. That, I think, should be at the
national level. Note, however, that this re-
port does not substantiate this type of legis-
lation at all. I suggest therefore, that in
view of the fact that the hon. Attorney-
General's committee does not support this
legislation; in view of the fact that we have
a Royal commission now, which will, in all
probability, make recommendations which
may or may not support this type of legisla-
tion; in view of the fact that the personnel
of this new commission is unknown to us
tonight, and in view of the fact that the
experiences in New York State dictate that
an investigation branch, such as is set up
here, should be independent of the law
enforcement agencies, I suggest that this
legislation is premature and inadvisable for
general acceptance by this legislative body
tonight.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
want to say at the outset, by way of a con-
text in which I am going to make my com-
ments, that this is so complex— and I would
add confusing— a situation at the moment,
that I think it is rather difficult to come to
final conclusions.
I find that as I was listening to both the
hon. Attorney-General and then the hon.
leader of the Opposition, I was agreeing with
them at one moment and disagreeing with
them at other times. For example, let me
take one point which I think is rather a
major point of consideration that has been
raised by the hon. leader of the Opposition.
He feels that the bringing in of this bill
to establish an Ontario police commission
at the present time is presuming to encroach
upon the job that has now been given to
the Royal commission. On this, Mr. Speaker,
I want to say emphatically I do not agree.
I think it would have been suicide as far as
this body is concerned— in terms of future
effectiveness— if it were handed the job at
the very outset of cleaning up the mess that
we have got at the moment, because this—
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh well, I did not—
Mr. MacDonald: Well, do not let me get
into an argument with the hon. leader of the
Opposition.
The job that the Royal commission has
at the moment is partly a job of looking
into the full ramifications of organized crime;
but it is partly a job of looking into this
government, and the compromising position
that it has got into in organized crime. Now
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, it would be
impossible for a body that has got to be a
continuing body to have to start out investi-
gating the government of the province.
Further, I submit that, by the time it has
got into all its investigations it may find it
has got to investigate other law enforcement
agencies across the province. The result
348
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
would be the kind of relationship that would
make it impossible for it to be a continuing
effective body. Therefore, basically, I dis-
agree with the hon. leader of the Opposition
on this point.
Mr. Wintermeyer: On a point of order,
may I make this point?
Mr. MacDonald: No, I am making my
speech now.
Mr. Wintermeyer: May I make this point?
I did not make that point at all. I never
suggested or inferred in any way that this
legislation would substitute for the Royal
commission.
Mr. MacDonald: All I can say, Mr. Speaker,
is that obviously the speech of the hon.
leader of the Opposition was as confusing
as that of the hon. Attorney-General; we
also have to sort out what he was talking
about.
An hon. member: You are all mixed up.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I hope to
deal with this in a serious manner and I am
certain as I listened to the hon. leader of the
Opposition that I was not interpreting him
wrongly. The hon. leader of the Opposition
feels that we should not have this bill now
because the Royal commission has got a job
to do. What I am saying is that we should
have this bill now, assuming we have the right
kind of a body, because there are two different
jobs to do. The Royal commission's job is to
clean up the mess at the moment; the police
commission's job is to do continuing work.
. An hon. member: That is right.
Mr. MacDonald: And that is not what the
hon. leader of the Opposition said. I wish
the hon. member would not try to confuse
my speech so that it will be as bad as his.
An hon. member: It could not be that bad.
Mr. MacDonald: Having emphasized, Mr.
Speaker, why I believe the Royal commission
has got a certain job to do and it is the
kind of job that the police commission cannot
do, let me now proceed to examine the
principle of the bill underlying the appoint-
ment of this body.
I agree with the principle. Now, if the
hon. Attorney-General wants unanimity, I
can perhaps meet him to a certain degree
here. I agree with the principle of estabhsh-
ing this body. I will add immediately— and
explain why, in a moment— that I have some
serious misgivings as to the implementation
of this principle.
The principle is that we need some over-
seeing body in the province of Ontario to
co-ordinate the law enforcement agencies at
the provincial level with the various local
police forces and presumably to co-operate
with the body at Ottawa. This is a job
which is so tedious and so exhausting in its
demands that it is unfair to expect that The
Department of the Attorney-General can do
this job— and if you have got an Attorney-
General like our present hon. Attorney-General
who cannot see facts when they are right in
front of his face— there is double need for
this kind of a commission.
I am not surprised that even he brought
in the bill before the hon. leader of the
Opposition spelled out the ramifications of
organized crime in this province; it was very
obvious that we had to have some sort of a
body to assume responsibility for the enforce-
ment of law in this province because the
hon. Attorney-General has failed completely.
However, Mr. Speaker, I will go one step
beyond that. Even if our present hon.
Attorney-General was out of his position, as
I said he should be after his whole policy
has been reversed in the last 24 hours, I still
submit as a theoretical proposition—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Wait. The hon. member
can just bide his time. He will have plenty
of time.
Mr. MacDonald: I still submit as a
theoretical proposition—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: It may be his last, too.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): When is the
hon. Attorney-General going to resign?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: After the people defeat
me.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I would point
out to hon. members that we are getting along
very nicely. Now, I can guarantee the hon.
members that if they keep quiet while other
hon. members are speaking, that every hon.
member who has something to say will have
his opportunity later.
Mr. MacDonald: I am glad this stormy
scene looked peaceful from your vantage
point, Mr. Speaker.
DECEMBER 12, 1961
349
What I was going to say was that even as
a theoretical proposition clearly there is a
need for this police commission in the long
run because of the size of the job that now
faces law enforcement agencies and the gov-
ernment in keeping up with the activities of
organized crime, and I think that the oflBcers
in The Department of the Attorney-General
who have many other responsibilities, includ-
ing the hon. Attorney-General himself, should
be relieved of this and this responsibility be
placed with the body which is envisaged in
this Act. That is the reason why I support
the principle of it.
Let me explain why I have some serious
misgivings as to the implementation of the
principle as enunciated by the hon. Attorney-
General and— as we tried, with some difiBculty
to find out— exactly what this body is going
to be, who its personnel are, and everything
else. On this score I agree with the hon.
leader of the Opposition that it seems to me
that if we are going to assess the worth and
the effectiveness of this body we should know
who the personnel are.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member is
putting the cart before the horse. You usually
establish the authority before you announce
the personnel.
Mr. MacDonald: Now, how are you going
to get an effective body, Mr. Speaker? I
think there are two or three points. One, I
think, as is the case with the temporary
committee of investigation in New York State,
it must be an independent body. And I am
not certain from my understanding of the
body envisaged in this bill that it is going
to be independent.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Did the hon. member
not follow me when I was speaking? I
thought I made it abundantly clear that that
is exactly what it is going to be.
Mr. Bryden: The bill does not provide for
that.
Mr. MacDonald: The great difficulty with
the hon. Attorney-General is that he has been
living in a world which has been changing
every 24 hours for the last week. I am not
certain that he knows exactly what he was
thinking a week ago because of the impact
of events, or what he is thinking now. The
hon. leader of the Opposition referred to what
would motivate him a week ago. Well,
obviously he was in a different world a week
ago. He was on top of the world and he was
running his own show; now he is being
slapped down by a majority of the Cabinet.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That is what you think.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Attorney-General
does not need to argue with me; the facts are
very clear that his pohcy of the last year has
been completely overruled and the govern-
ment in effect has voted no confidence in him.
So I would think that silence at the moment
might be most becoming for him.
The first point I wanted to make here, Mr.
Speaker, is that I think this body should be
independent, and I am not persuaded as it is
envisaged in this Act that it is going to be
independent.
Now, secondly, despite the fact that the
Morton report suggests that the body ap-
pointed to do this continuing job should be
a political and a bi-partisan body, quite
frankly, Mr. Speaker, I find it impossible to
conceive of this. I do not know how you
are going to—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: Look, the hon. Attorney-
General has made his speech. He is not at
the Tory convention now— babbling all over
the place. Just let him rest quietly.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member is
babbling all over the place right here in this
House.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not certain, Mr.
Speaker— in fact, I am convinced— that you
cannot establish a body that is going to do
what is envisaged in this Act as a police com-
mission if you make it a political body. I can
think of nothing that would be more of an
open invitation for it being a political dog
fight all the time—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Will my hon. friend
allow me to say right now that there is not
the slightest thought of making it a political
body in the sense that he is using it.
An hon. member: It is right under the hon.
Attorney-General. It has to report to the hon.
Attorney-General.
Mr. Whicher: He has a good Tory picked
out already.
Mr. MacDonald: Before these interruptions,
Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the Morton
report suggestion, which the hon. leader of
the Opposition had raised, and indicated that
its recommendation was not in agreement with
this bill. I was expressing my view, which is
my right, that the Morton report in this
instance is not acceptable. I do not see how
you can have a continuing body doing this
350
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
kind of a job if it is going to be a political
body. I think that would be an open invita-
tion to the police commission being distracted
from what it is supposed to be doing— getting
out the facts and co-ordinating things— it
would be part of the whole political battle
that is going on all the while.
In fact, to say that it is going to be inde-
pendent and is going to be political, I sub-
mit to you, is a contradiction. Now, that is
my second point as far as the implementation
of this bill is concerned.
I do not think it should be a political body,
a bi-partisan body, or anything of that nature.
I think it has got to be a body which is going
to be independent and certainly not in any
sense under the thumb of the hon. Attorney-
General. I think it should be responsible to
this Legislature. I agree, as is pointed out in
the instance of the New York State commis-
sion, its independence will be carried to the
point tiiat it reports on a situation, but it is not
responsible for laying charges and seeking
convictions; all it does is dig out the facts in
a continuing way.
As a matter of fact, I think the description
of the body that I would like to see established
is pretty accurately summed up in one phrase
in the Morton report at the bottom of page
ten when it said, "a perpetual scrutiny by
an independent body of a permanent char-
acter". I think this is what we need.
The Royal commission is going to do the
present fob, to clean up the present mess.
This will be a permanent body which will
maintain a perpetual scrutiny.
Now, how is it going to do this rather
difficult task, Mr. Speaker? Again we are not
suppHed with all of the details, and perhaps
it is unfair to demand that all the details
should be in the Act, but just let me make
this point emphatically, that if it is going to
do the kind of job that is envisaged in section
6 of the bill:
The Ontario Police Commission may
investigate, inquire and report to the
Attorney-General upon any matter relating
to the maintenance of law and order in
Ontario.
—and if the experience of the temporary com-
mittee of investigation in New York State is
any guide, it is going to need the most
elaborate kind of staff or co-operation with
some law enforcement agency— in terms of
having the personnel to do undercover work,
so that they can find out exactly how organ-
ized crime is operating and to what extent the
law at the moment is being effective in
coping with it;
I think perhaps I have established the two
or three principles that I think are necessary
in setting up an effective body, Mr. Speaker,
but in case they have become lost in the
give-and-take here, I would just recapitulate
that it must be independent and independent
means that it cannot be a partisan body-
that it must have the kind of staff to do the
investigatory work— in fact that it will be a
body independent to establish a perpetual
scrutiny continuing after the Royal commis-
sion has done its job.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is one other
aspect of this that I think this House has to
take a solid look at some time, that is that it
is impossible to establish effective law enforce-
ment if the law is placed on the books with
no intention of enforcing it.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Sometimes it is not even
possible to enforce it.
Mr. MacDonald: All right; and if it is
impossible to enforce it, I submit it should
not be on the books. There is nothing that
brings the law into disrepute more quickly
than to have a law on the books and yet the
police and everybody else are ignoring it.
I just want to underline this with one
particular reference at the present time. I
was interested in reading about syndicated
gambling in New York State, in the report of
the New York State Commission on investiga-
tion, where they have this sentence: "The
heart of illegal gambling is bookmaking".
Well, as I was listening to the news at 6
o'clock tonight I find that out in the good
city of my hon. colleague here in Oshawa
(Mr. Thomas) they have still another of these
bookmaking centres where they reported that
they have a cool $60,000 a day betting. This
even has Max Bluestein's social club, that was
running legally under a social charter from
this government, beaten— where some $37,000
a day was collected.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: These are matters which
should be referred to the Royal commission,
Mr. Speaker. I do not mind listening to the
book the hon. member is reading, but I do
not think that there should be reference made
to these matters-
Mr. MacDonald: I am not dealing with
what the Royal commission is looking into, I
am dealing with the responsibility that rests
right here with this body which makes the
law. The fact of the matter is, as everybody
knows, that enforcement on the illegal aspect
of bookmaking is winked at Any amateur
DECEMBER 12, 1961
351
can go out today, in scores of places across
the city of Toronto, and place a bet. As
somebody points out, it is passing strange
that the policeman who is on the beat and
going back and forth there, is not aware of
what is going on in this particular establish-
ment.
Now the reason why I am raising this, Mr.
Speaker, is that I think sooner or later this is
going to have to come right back to this
Legislature, because we have a dangerous
attitude toward it which stems right from the
Cabinet down.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: What about the hon.
member himself?
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute. Perhaps I
should recapitulate to remind the hon. mem-
bers of the House just what the attitude of
some hon. members of the Cabinet is towards
this issue. In Hansard, page 1060 of March
13, 1957, when the former hon. Minister of
Labour (Mr. Daley) had his estimates before
the House and I raised a question as to
whether it was an appropriate procedure for
the athletic commissioner, who came under
his jurisdiction, to be licensing a certain box-
ing promoter in this city, to be looking after
amateur boxing down at the Palace Pier. I
questioned the propriety of this because of
the fact that this man was a convicted book-
maker. After I had questioned it, the hon.
Minister of Labour in his inimitable fashion
entered the debate. This is what he said:
According to the hon. member this man
did not do anything wrong in connection
with the boxing game, but he did have a
book on horseracing. I do not know
whether one should throw a man out of
the boxing game, especially an experienced
man, because he makes a book on horses.
I think where he was wrong was in getting
caught.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Did the hon. member
ever bet on an election himself?
Mr. MacDonald: Now, Mr. Speaker, this
has been the attitude of the powers that be
towards bookmaking. The only difiFerence
between the former hon. Minister of Labour
and the government as a whole is that the
former hon. Minister of Labour was perhaps
indiscreet enough to frankly state it.
However, this is not where it ends. If hon.
members look, for example, in the report of
the New York Investigation Commission into
gambling they point out that our means of
communication— and by this they mean news-
papers—editorialize against the evils of gam-
bling, yet at the same time in their sports
pages they provide just the information the
gamblers seek.
With all this issue being such a live one
in the last few months, I have been rather
intrigued as I have driven around to all parts
of this province to find that you cannot go
into a single part of the province, with the
smallest radio station, in the most rural area
but every half hour and every hour the results
from the racetrack here at the Woodbine or
at the New Woodbine will be given.
Now I am a little puzzled as to whether
the farmers who are desperately trying to get
their crops in are interested in this. But
when Mr. Mackey, the chief of police, in-
forms us that there is not a village or town
in this nation in which there are not book-
makers operating, I think we might as well
face the facts. What is the point of playing
the hypocrite and saying that we are opposed
to bookmaking, when the newspapers are
publishing all of the information without
which the bookmakers could not operate?
At the moment, Mr. Speaker, all I am
saying is that here is a problem that we have
to stop playing the hypocrite on. Certainly
this government has to quit playing the hypo-
crite on it, when we have Cabinet Ministers
making that kind of statement. The reason
I am raising this whole issue at the moment,
Mr. Speaker, is that if we are going to set
up a police commission which is going to have
a more eflFective enforcement of law across
the province, co-ordinating it with the local
police force, the O.P.P. and the federal, we
have to take a look at the laws and make
certain that we do not put laws on the books
which we have no intention of enforcing;
alternatively if we do put them on the books,
we must enforce them.
We must not have the fatuous proposition
of policemen walking up and down this street
—five, ten times a day— going right past what
any amateur can find out, any time he wants,
is a bookmaking establishment. I just do not
believe that the policeman does not know it
is there.
I am not blaming the policeman. Why
should I blame the policeman, when the
former hon. Minister of Labour frankly said
there is nothing wrong with bookmaking
except getting caught. This is the thing that
I am asking, Mr. Speaker— that this House
has to take a look at if we are really serious
about getting law enforcement. We cannot
have effective law enforcement if there is not
the will to enforce it. At the present time
352
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
there simply is not the will to enforce what
in the next moment we will be proclaiming
to the world as illegal.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I just want, lest
there be any misunderstanding, to say that I
agree with the general principle establishing
a police commission. I can state on behalf
of our group that we agree with it. We think
it is a long-term job, picking up after the
Royal commission has cleaned up the present
mess.
But I have serious doubts with regard to
the machinery that the government is now
proposing. I do not know exactly what one
does in this situation, Mr. Speaker. I pre-
sume one votes for the principle, because we
think it is a good thing, and then later if we
do not get satisfaction on the implementation
of the principle, in the committee or in third
reading, at that point we may vote against
it. But because we are in favour of the
principle, we will vote for it at this stage.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I
never cease to be amazed by the garrulous
geyser from York South to my left. Did hon.
members notice him when he got up on his
feet and said that if the hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts) wants a demonstration of unan-
imity—his hands went up as if he were almost
calling upon some higher power to assist in
this unanimity— and he leaned a bit towards
the hon. Attorney-General and he said to him
in no uncertain terms: "We will give you the
unanimity, sir." From there on not only did
he assail almost every section of this bill,
but he assailed it with a concomitant of a
considerable amount of personal abuse of the
hon. Attorney-General.
He coupled both. He coupled an assault
upon, as I say, almost every section of the
bill, with a personal attack upon the hon.
Attorney-General.
Mr. MacDonald: Is the hon. member his
friend now? He was not six months ago.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I have always been that,
because I do not, Mr. Speaker, like the hon.
member for York South, use this floor as a
vehicle for personal attacks upon hon. mem-
bers opposite because I consider them to be
honourable gentlemen.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. member is bucking
to be the Attorney-General when the present
one resigns.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): I
must have been reading the wrong news-
papers during the last six months.
Mr. Sopha: Let any man point to a line in
Hansard in the three years that I have been
here and show where I have used this forum
as a vehicle for a personal attack on any other
hon. member. Let them point to itl Until
an hon. member can point to it, let them keep
silence.
I might say to you, Mr. Speaker, that so
far as the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Ward-
rope) is concerned, would you say to him, Mr.
Speaker, when I am speaking to the organ
grinders, the monkeys should keep silence.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would ask the mem-
bers to keep order. Members should try to
stick to the principles of the bill. I would
suggest that if the member has some remarks
with regard to the principles of the bill tliat
he now resume.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, I would be
delighted to stick to the principles of this
bill, if this bill had some principles that were
clearly discernible.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald) assailed the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) in trying to put
words in his mouth— which is his customary
wont— in saying that the hon. leader of the
Opposition had said, if I understood it cor-
rectly, that this bill— that is, this police com-
mission—would be in direct conflict with the
Royal commission that at long last has finally
been appointed as a result of our insistent
demands.
Part of the resentment of the hon. member
for York South, let me say, Mr. Speaker, is
that the Liberal Party in this Opposition has
demonstrated such effectiveness in bringing
this about that he is now crying sour grapes.
I could go on to say the hon. member can
hardly sleep at night when he sees some other
politician with his name in the headlines.
Hon. members: Hear! Hear!
Mr. Sopha: Let me point to two phrases,
and I point to the terms of the Royal com-
mission, item three thereof:
The Royal commission to inquire into
and report upon the extent of crime in
Ontario and the sufficiency of the law en-
forcement agencies to deal with it.
I do not have Hansard, I am reading from
a newspaper— and so as to demonstrate no
favouritism to the hon. gentlemen in the
press gallery I will not say what newspaper
I am reading from— but this is what it says:
The extent of crime in Ontario and the
sufficiency of the law enforcement agencies
DECEMBER 12, 1961
353
to deal with it. Section 6 of the bill, sub-
section 2, para. lA: The Ontario Police
Commission may investigate and inquire
into and report to the Attorney-General
upon any matter relating to the maintenance
of law and order in Ontario.
Now as to the generahties of those terms,
Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members would
agree with me, I think, both those paragraphs
are exceedingly wide and general in their
terms. So far as the characteristic generality
is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I defy and
challenge any hon. member— for that matter
any other person— to point to any distinction
or difference between the subject matter that
may be treated under either one of them.
What I fear, Mr. Speaker— and the hon.
leader of the Opposition did not say this— but
as a private member what I fear is that
during the progress of this Royal commission
—and who is to say that it will not last a
year or two years, so important to the life of
this province is the object of its search— that
at some time during its progress the com-
missioner himself might feel that he is in
conflict with the terms of this statute. Instead
of the commission going on, someone might
point to this statute and say that is a matter
that ought to be left to the Ontario Police
Commission.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that would be wrong!
The hon. members of the government— for-
tunately they have not said it in the last
couple of days, but I am always thinking of
the predecessor hon. Prime Minister, he was
such an imposing man when imposed himself
upon this House— the hon. member used to
say that it was sub judice once it was in the
hands of a Royal commission. I recall the
hon. member saying that, and I am going to
develop this point in a moment.
When the Samia land transaction went to
a Royal commission, the hon. leader of the
Opposition and the hon. member for York
South got up on their feet and wanted to
say something. He said it was sub judice.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that having appointed
a notable judge— a man distinguished in the
field of law, a man who has given many
years of valuable service to the bulwark of
the judiciary in the administration of justice
and the maintenance of law and order in this
province— that is it not a bit of an insult to
him to pass a statute in face of those wide
terms of reference and say very much the
same thing.
What the hon. leader of the Opposition
did say— and perhaps it might bear repetition,
Mr. Speaker, so that all hon. members in this
House will understand it— and there are some
that have more difficulty in comprehension
than others— was that the commission should
investigate tlie extent of crime in Ontario and
the sufiBciency of the law enforcement agencies
to deal with it. We in this party wonder,
having stipulated that power in the terms of
reference, why it was necessary in any account
to stipulate one and two.
We are not so naive as to say we do not
know why the government stipulated terms
one and two. We know!
Politics is politics, and never the twain
shall meet.
It may be that this vehicle of an Ontario
Police Commission— replacing as it does in
the administrative field the commissioner of
the Ontario Provincial Police— I do not think
I go too far in saying that this bill demon-
strates a considerable lack of confidence in
the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial
Police because he is demoted of his powers,
his powers are taken away entirely.
I notice the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr.
Wardrope) is now trying to act like one of
those monkeys. Pretty soon he will be swing-
ing from bars.
Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly serious in my
remarks. I intend to be serious, and if it
takes me until the House adjourns, I intend
to say what I have to say about it.
It may very well be— and I repeat— the
Royal commission that is appointed would
not recommend this type of vehicle, and that
leads me, naturally, into the next point I
wish to make.
One of the bastions, one of the foundations
upon which this government has always
operated—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: What was that,
bastion?
Mr. Sopha: —on which it has always
founded its principles is the autonomy of the
municipalities. How many times have we
heard in this Legislature words which were
calculated to give the impression that we have
great faith in the municipahties, that we
believe in local government and we do not
want to interfere in the local affairs of
people? We have heard that time and time
again. Now what evidence is there, what
evidence is there in view of section— sub-
section one of section 6, sir— I will read
the whole subsection, if I may—
An hon. member: Oh, no! We will take
it as read.
354
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: Now, listen, sir! Mr. Speaker,
your honour, I am being perfectly serious.
I am being perfectly serious and if during
the by-elections, sir, I happen to go on the
hustings I will be talking to the people who
are going to vote in those by-elections. I
will not hesitate to say, sir, that on this
day and this night I stood in this Legislature
speaking on a very serious subject for the
future of this province and certain hon.
Ministers of the Crown took it as a laughing
matter.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sopha: I resent the foolishness that is
exhibited on that side of the House. You
would hardly recognize, sir, that they are
grown men the way they act.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would ask the mem-
bers once again to keep personalities out of
this debate. The Speaker will not stand for
doubletalk. If a member is going to stay with
the bill, I think he should stay with the bill
no matter where he is, and not wander oflE
into personalities. I would just repeat to the
members again that we will get much further
with this bill if we do stay with the principle
of the bill.
6;
Mr. Sopha: Subsection 1, sir, of section
The Ontario Police Commission or any
member thereof designated by the chair-
man, may investigate, inquire into and
report to the Attorney-General upon
the conduct or the performance of duties
by any chief constable, other police oflBcer,
special constable or by a law-enforcement
officer—
and here are the important words:
—the administration of any police force,
the system of policing any municipality
and the police needs of any municipality.
Now, sir, posited on my remarks in regard—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. friend
just let me point out that is exactly the word-
ing of 48(1), that the commissioner can do
at the present time.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I quite agree.
Mr. MacDonald: What is the hon. mem-
ber's point then?
An hon. member: Why does the hon. mem-
ber not listen and he would find out.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Start from the first.
Mr. Sopha: I posited my remarks on the
basis that one of the things that we have
heard a great deal of in this Legislature is
local autonomy. I say to you, sir, that
replacing the commissioner of the provincial
police, an official, as I understand it, directly
responsible to the hon. Attorney-General, by
this so-called independent body that is to be
appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council, this, sir, is a step in the direction
of destruction of local autonomy and local
control over police forces.
Now, by sheer coincidence, the two places,
two of the most flagrant examples of mis-
management and maladministration of the
police forces at a local level that have oc-
curred in recent years, were one in the city
and constituency of the present hon. Prime
Minister of this province, and the other in
the city and constituency of the previous hon.
Prime Minister of this province. In each case
when there was maladministration and when
there was dissatisfaction with the manage-
ment of the local police forces, those matters
apparently were cleared up by the voice of
the ratepayers and that cured the situation.
I ask hon. members then, what is the need
for the creation of a super body of this
nature to have the power to go into muni-
cipalities and if it be not satisfied with the
way it is being policed and with or without
just cause, as in its opinion apparently its
discretion is the governing factor, it can go
in and make whatever recommendations it
wishes after it causes an investigation to be
made on the policing, the administration of
that police force?
I say to you, sir, what is wrong with the
way it is being done now, that we need to
create this independent super body to be
called the Ontario Police Commission?
That leads me, finally, to the other major
objection made by the hon. leader of the
Opposition. Is this body to be primarily an
investigative body, or is to be primarily admin-
istrative? I do not recall whether the hon.
leader of the Opposition adverted to this, but
we know that this legislation was conceived
and was bom as a device to combat or meet
the insistent demands and cries which we had
put up on this side of the House, which have
been echoed in the public prints, for a Royal
commission.
We were told— although I cannot quote
chapter and verse at this time— we were told
that this was going to be the device and it
would seem to be armed with powers to carry
out. that type of operation in section 6 of the
DECEMBER 12, 1961
355
Act. But in another section it denigrates
completely the ojffice of the commissioner of
the Ontario Provincial Police. I do not use
any term of opprobrium when I say that
it makes him a foreman, he is now a foreman,
under the police commission subject to the
direction of the Ontario Police Commission.
The commissioner has the general control and
administration of the Ontario Provincial PoHce
force and the employees connected therewith.
An hon. member: Was Mackey appointed
to the police force?
Mr. Sopha: What is he if he is not a fore-
man? He is a supervisor, he is a superin-
tendent, under the police commission. As far
as his administrative duties are concerned he
could not, under those words as I understand
their plain meaning— subject to the direction
of the Ontario Police Commission, I assume
that means what it says— he could not order
25-cent postage stamps any longer without
getting permission of the Ontario Police
Commission.
What the hon. leader of the Opposition said
and what I repeat is that a body, sir, of this
nature cannot be both. It must be one or
the other—
An hon. member: That is right.
Mr. Sopha: I think this in effect was what
the hon. member for York South was trying
to say. I think that was the point of his
reading from the commission report, which
we discovered about three months before he
did. We got a copy of it-
Mr. MacDonald: If somebody had not
written for it we would never have seen it.
We are never given anything.
Mr. Sopha: It cannot be both, sir; it cannot
be both fish and fowl; it must be one or the
other.
If it is to be a body concerned with the
maintenance of law and order in the province
then it must have a large staff for that pur-
pose to keep it alive to developments in the
province and to combat the infiltration of
those bent on evil, those bent on being anti-
social and those bent on breaking the law.
It must direct its attention to those in these
various activities.
If, on the other hand, it is to be an admin-
istrative body, then these three men— and the
hon. Attorney-General gratuitously tells us,
sir, that only one of them will be permanent,
full-time, only one of them will be permanent!
Now that is an interesting exercise in verbal
legerdemain. Only one of these three is
going to be permanent.
So we have one commissioner of provincial
pohce now and we are going to have three
people— only one of whom is going to be
permanent. Now, I Would like someone,
including the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald), to tell me the distinction
and difference between those two. If the
commission is going to be mainly administra-
tive, then administration is going to occupy
most of its time, especially in one field. There
are only 24 hours in the day for the three
members of the Ontario Provincial Police
Commission— as there are for every other
person. In matters of discipline in the force,
the officers and other ranks of the Ontario
Provincial Police, of course, have the right
to appeal through an appellate ladder— if I
may call it that— up to the commissioner of
the force. That is their final appeal as I
understand it. In all these matters the pro-
vincial police commission replaces the com-
missioner. They will occupy a great deal of
their time hearing appeals on disciplinary
matters from the members of the force. No
doubt, if one had the time to stipulate an-
other 25 or 30 administrative duties, they
would occupy virtually all the time of this
police commission.
We understand the confusion and the com-
plexity of this legislation and what will attend
its adoption— even if the hon. member for
York South and his colleagues do not under-
stand it, we do— we see the difficulties of it.
I would say, sir, that the government has
no right to anticipate the recommendations
that will be made by Mr. Justice Roach.
We say secondly, sir, that this body cannot
perform both functions— those in section 6
and those in section 5 of the bill.
We say finally that we are entitled to know
who the personnel will be on this commission,
before we are asked to vote for it. The
government, no doubt, has made up its mind
as to who they will be. Unless we ask these
questions we will never be told, because the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)— and I do
not criticize him too severely— got up before
the supper recess, blandly looked over here
and asked the hon. member for Woodbine
(Mr. Bryden) to adjourn the debate so that
we could have a second reading of a bill. He
did not say what bill. We would never have
been told what bill it was, unless the hon.
leader of the Opposition— solicitous as he
always is for the protection of our rights over
here— got up and asked him. Then we were
told that this important legislation—
356
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr, Robarts: Mr. Speaker, as a matter
of privilege, I anticipated a remark like this
from hon. members on the other side of the
House, so I checked the record. This bill
was introduced on November 28. I called
second reading, I think, every day without
exception, since that day. Therefore this bill
could have been called on any one of those
days. It is on the order paper. It has been
there for hon. members to see, yet the hon.
leader of the Opposition gets up and makes
that httle speech— that little insinuation— that
I had been jugghng the rules. Then his sup-
porters jump up. I am just pointing out the
facts. This bill could have been debated any
day since November 29.
Mr. Sopha: I was here before the dinner
hour, Mr. Speaker, and I heard what the hon.
Prime Minister said. He said we are going
to have second reading of a bill. I have
looked, and I see there are 12 bills for second
reading on the order paper, so our chances
of selecting this one would be one in 12. On
the other hand, if I remember correctly, the
hon. predecessor of the Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost) used to keep us informed as to what
was going on.
Mr. Speaker: I think it is quite apparent
to everybody in this Legislature that when
we get away from the principle of the bill we
get into trouble. Now there is too much in-
nuendo, I believe, and I do not believe that
any hon. member should impute motives to
other hon. members. After all, this is a
House of men elected by the people of
Ontario, and I do not think any member
shoidd impute motives to other members.
They alone know their own motives. As I
say, we stay with the principles of the bill.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask a question. If the hon. Prime Minister
is going to give second reading to any bill,
then he should indicate what bill it is.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The member
has asked a question. As I see it, on any day
that we are in session from 3 o'clock onward,
there have always been a number of bills
on the order paper and, as I see it, any
order can be called at any time.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Speaker, if I may state
just one word.
Mr. Speaker: That is the answer to the
question.
Mr. Sopha: Now, may I complete my re-
marks, sir— and I hasten to assure you that I
shall give- them in short order. Everybody
will be gratified to hear that. I say this: Let
the government admit that they devised this
legislation for the purpose of meeting the
intolerable situation that had descended upon
our shores, because of the infiltrations and
manifestations of organized crime in Ontario.
And let the hon. Prime Minister, having
dealt with our demands in the courageous
fashion that he has in complying with our
demands— nay, the demands of the whole of
the people of Ontario, and of all the news-
papers—let him and his hon. Attorney-General,
whom apparently he is directing, he is show-
ing him who is boss— let them not be so
bull-headed as to force this legislation
through, sir.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: Now, what is this sneer about
saying that the hon. Prime Minister is boss?
Do not hon. members agree that he is boss?
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea
for those over there who do not agree that
he is a boss, that the hon. Prime Minister
send them a copy of The Unemployment
Insurance Act for Christmas.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: It is quite remarkable when
you get up here how many people want to
make the speech with you.
I make my plea— part of it, having made
those two points heretofore— that so far as
the autonomy of local boards of police com-
mission are concerned, I do not see, sir,
why the government needs to take this step
and to let its lack of confidence in those
boards be broadcast in the province. They
have been doing a remarkable job. We have
said on this side of the House that the com-
position of them does not meet our wishes,
we do not see— the hon. member for Essex
North (Mr. Reaume) said very eflFectively,
a year ago, that we do not see— why a
magistrate should sit on them. One judicial
officer is sufficient. If you have a county
judge or a district court judge, he is ideal,
because judicial matters have to be decided.
Of course they do. Matters of discipline have
to be decided. They do not need a magistrate.
Perhaps, at some more appropriate time, I
may be allowed to elaborate on what I think
is wrong with having two judicial officers
on those boards; but I will not take the
time of tlie House at this time.
Generally speaking, the boards of police
commissions — and for that matter local
councils, where they are empowered with the
power of administering the police forces—
DECEMBER 12, 1961
357
have done a good job. When they do not
do a good job, the remedy is with the rate-
payers to correct it. And I invite the govern-
ment not to take this step— not to create a
body which has powers, wide powers, that
are being given to it in this bill, and to
superimpose that upon the local autonomy of
municipalities.
Now I have made my plea, sir, and I have
made it in all seriousness. Attendant as it
was at times with a great deal of levity—
principally from the government side of the
House— I made that plea in all seriousness.
I ask the hon. Prime Minister and the hon.
Attorney-General at this time to withdraw this
bill. Withdraw it— they do not have to lose
any face about it— and wait for the recom-
mendations of the Royal commission.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say first of all that there was a
time when I, and I am sure that many other
citizens of the province were in the same posi-
tion, scoffed at the notion of organized crime
in this province. When I heard of such refer-
ences I thought that people must be talking
about Chicago or some other place south of
the border featured in Hollywood movies.
I have certainly taken a totally different
view of the matter over the last year or so
with the persistent revelations of the serious-
ness of this problem, with statements from
such unquestioned authorities as Commis-
sioner Harvison and Chief Mackey.
All of these developments certainly brought
home to me that this is a very serious prob-
lem requiring an all-out attack and a many-
pronged attack. I am happy to say that the
government, after very much pressure, finally
agreed to set up a Royal commission which,
in my opinion, is an important step in clearing
up this problem. But it certainly does not
appear sensible to me, Mr. Speaker, to assume
that is the only step that is necessary at this
time.
This is a problem requiring a multiple
attack and I would like to say, Mr. Speaker,
that as far as I am concerned it is not a prob-
lem with which anyone should try to play
politics. It is far too serious for that.
As a matter of fact, in a sense it reminds
me of the emergencies in which our country
has found itself from time to time when it
was fighting against an external enemy. I do
not think anybody wanted to play politics with
that sort of problem. Now this enemy that
we are dealing with here in a way is almost
as insidious, and perhaps more insidious, than
an external enemy. I think it most important
that as far as humanly possible we should pull
together to present a united front to this
menace.
The government has gone a long way in
meeting the demand to set up a Royal com-
mission. I, for my part, feel inclined to go
as far as it is humanly possible to meet any
proposals that they see fit to put before this
Legislature. In my opinion, to oppose the
principle of this bill now before us is the
height of irresponsibility.
I think that the government has a right
to expect support in a matter of such
urgency for any reasonable proposal which on
its responsibility it thinks might contribute to
a solution of the problem. It seems to me— I
am not expert on these matters— but it seems
to me that this particular proposal will be of
substantial benefit if it is implemented.
I complained earlier today in another
debate about tlie government deferring action
of any kind until a Royal commission had
reported. I am now not going to be so incon-
sistent as to complain because they are pro-
ceeding with action in certain areas where it
appears appropriate to proceed. This seems
to me to be a good idea.
My hon. leader has indicated that we had
certain reservations with regard to some fea-
tures of the bill. I will mention one only
and I again mention it as a person who is
certainly not learned in the law and it is per-
haps possible that my interpretation is incor-
rect, but I am more than a little concerned
about the question of the independence of the
commission.
The hon. Attorney-General has assured us
that it is his intention that this commission
will be totally independent. I am not such
a novice in the law that I do not know that
the important thing is what tlie statute says
and not what the hon. Attorney-General, dis-
tinguished as he may be in such matters, may
say.
I have searched this bill and have been
unable to discover any provision whatsoever
regarding the tenure of the commission and it
is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that independence
is intimately bound up with tenure of ojffice.
If any person has a secure, unchallenged and
unchallengeable tenure he is independent, but
if there is any chance tiiat he is subject to
arbitrary dismissal, then his independence is
to some degree reduced.
It may be that that I have missed some-
thing here, if I have I will be glad to have
it called to my attention. But I think that
it should clearly be stated in this bill either
that the members of this commission will hold
office for a specified term of office which
should not be less than 10 years, or I might
358
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
say even preferably, that they should be re-
movable only by address of this Assembly.
That, in my opinion, would create true inde-
pendence and would create confidence that
the commission is truly independent. I might
even go further and make what may be a
novel suggestion, that the appointments should
be subject to review in this Assembly, but
once tlie members have been approved they
should then have unquestioned tenure of
oflfice.
That, Mr. Speaker, is certainly the most
serious reservation I have in mind. It may
be that I have simply missed something in the
bill or in the statute which it proposes to
amend. I hope that when we get into the
committee stage of his bill, the hon. Attorney-
General will be in a position to give us a com-
plete assurance on this matter, not only on his
own say-so but based on the wording of the
bill and of the statute which it proposes to
amend. If there is any inadequacy on this
question of tenure, I would suggest to the
government that they should consider bringing
in an amendment at the committee stage of
the bill.
However, that is a reservation on a matter
of detail, important as the detail may be. On
the question of principle it seems to me that
it is most important that all of us should pull
together and support any reasonable measure
the government may propose to try to deal
with this very serious problem and I would
merely reiterate the position stated by my
hon. leader, Mr. Speaker, that this group plans
to vote for the second reading of this bill, thus
indicating our support of the basic principle
of the bill.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr. Speaker,
I am even running the danger of being called
irresponsible by the hon. member for Wood-
bine (Mr. Bryden) by saying that I have what
I think are fundamental and very serious diffi-
culties with the bill itself. I think it falls very
far short of what the government expects of
it. The portrayals by the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) and by the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) on various occasions,
seem to me to be out of line with the clauses
of the bill itself.
I want to go back just for a moment or so
to a few weeks ago when there was first talk
of this bill being brought into the Legisla-
ture. The purpose of the bill at that time, as
I recall it— and I know it was emphasized by
both the hon. Attorney-General and the hon.
Prime Minister in subsequent speeches— the
purpose of the bill was to allay the fears of
those who felt there was organized crime in
this province and that some instrument ought
to be brought into being to cope with that
situation. This bill was designed to do that
very thing, it is not designed to do the thing
that is suggested tonight, that it is supposed
to do.
Now that is my first real objection to it. It
is not a bill to investigate, it is an administra-
tive bill. There is a clear line of demarcation
and distinction between the two. Up until
the past few days, it was a bill that would
have embodied in it powers of investigation,
powers of finding out, powers of searching
and bringing back to the government the re-
sult of their inquiries. But tonight it is an
administrative bill and it is of entirely
different complexion when one views it in
that Hght.
The other serious objection that I have to
the bill is this—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Would the hOn. member
let me—
Mr. Oliver: No, I want to finish what I
have to say. The other serious objection has
to do with the Royal commission itself. That
Royal commission has been clothed with the
widest powers, I think we all agree now
that we at least interpret that it has quite
wide powers—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): The hon. member's leader disagreed.
Mr. Oliver: The hon. Minister should just
keep quiet, he will have trouble enough look-
ing after his liquid refreshments; he is not
doing too good a job of that.
What I want to say about the Royal com-
mission is this: they will be called upon to
examine and to report. I would think that
they will make some very fundamental rec-
ommendations in their report and I would
think, Mr. Speaker, that one of their recom-
mendations might well be the very kind of
thing that we are putting in this bill here to-
night. We are in my estimation pre-judging
what the Royal commission might very
properly do when it makes it recommenda-
tions to this government and to this House.
Therefore, I say it is untimely, it is not the
proper time to bring the bill before the
House.
The other point is, of course, as to per-
sonnel. I do think that before we are asked
to vote on this bill we should know who are
the people who are going to be on the com-
mission.
The other point, of course, is the political
aspects of the bill itself. Any commission
DECEMBER 12, 1961
359
that is set up under the terms of this
legislation, if it is to be worth anything at
all, it must be completely non-political. Now
I ask this House to judge how we can say
that this commission will be non-political
when its members are appointed by order-in-
council and it is responsible to the hon.
Attorney-General of this province? Now
surely that is a political commission and
nothing else.
Therefore I suggest to hon. members that
if the commission is to be worthwhile, and
if it has a function to perform, it should be
so non-political that it does not report to
the hon. Attorney-General of the province,
it reports to the hon. Prime Minister and
through the hon. Prime Minister to the House.
How we can argue for one moment that it
is not political in its operation when it is
appointed by the government, and reports to
the hon. Attorney-General, is beyond me.
For those reasons and from a layman's
point of view, I cannot see why there is any
hurry for this bill; I cannot see why we
should support its second reading, because
of the reasons we have given.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Mr.
Speaker, at the actual time of the first
reading of the bill it was quite clear that
the government had no idea of having a
Royal probe. It appeared, I think, that it
was actually trying to hide behind the report
and the introduction of that bill. In its
mind, I think, was this: that it would take
the place of having a Royal probe. Now,
and I think that the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) will have to admit this, it
was only by the constant pounding on the
part of the people of the province that a
Royal probe was finally brought about. That
is true.
I have noticed that in other probes the
government does not make any hidden effort
at all to muddy up the waters, it merely
appoints a commissioner and also appoints
a counsel for the commission. Any Royal
probes that I have seen in the last 18 years,
the man who is appointed or the man who
has been appointed as counsel for the com-
mission has always been a high ranking Tory
in this province— with no exceptions at all.
I think that we should have the absolute
assurance of the hon. Prime Minister of the
province that this probe will have the widest
possible powers; that there will be no restric-
tions. The hon. Prime Minister knows what
I am talking about.
Five times now the hon. leader of the
Opposition has asked you for this one ques-
tion: Are the powers, are the terms of
reference broad enough tliat they will em-
brace all forms of crime and all the depart-
ments of the government? I think it is pretty
nearly time that the hon. Prime Minister of
the province stood up in the House and gave
all of us his absolute assurance that it has
the broadest of powers.
An hon. member: He has done that!
Mr. Reaume: He has not.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have
heard an expression used in this House on
several other occasions and I guess it is true
again tonight; the Opposition is trying to suck
and whistle with the same breath.
The Opposition is opposed to crime and
all its ramifications, imagined crime, un-
imagined crime, all kinds of crime, and
when we come in here with a bill to set up
a police commission to put the investigation
of crime in this province on a continuing
basis, what do we meet? We meet legalistic
arguments, we meet questions of whether it
is administrative, we meet quibbling about
when the bill was called, which I must say
I do to a certain extent resent because this
bill was on the order paper for a long time.
It could have been called at any time since
November 29 and I would assume that the
hon. leader of the Opposition was ready to
debate it at any time from that date forward
because it had sat on the order paper from
that date.
However, I will just point out a few of the
things I see that this bill can do. In the
first place, I can see no conflict between the
functions of this bill and the Royal com-
mission. The Royal commission is set up
to do some very specific things and it wall
function, I would hope, within a specific
period of time, in order that we may get
the answers to some of these problems.
These matters have come about as a result
of certain allegations, many of these matters
are presently under review by the courts of
Ontario, and who is to say when we will
receive the report from the Royal commission?
No one tonight is able to say when that
report will be here. But this government is
not prepared— as the Opposition would ask
us to— we are not prepared to leave this whole
question with nothing to be done about it
until the final report of this Royal commission
comes in. This police commission has many
functions that it can carry out while the
Royal commission is discharging its functions
and duties as well.
360
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It has been mentioned by the hon. leader
of the Opposition ( Mr. Wintermeyer ) , and he
has quoted the Morton report, in which he
speaks about a national body, and which
recommends a Canada-wide body to deal
with these matters. Now what better function
could this police commission serve, for in-
stance, in the event that the federal people
do decide to move; because we all know that
the criminal code is a matter of federal
jurisdiction.
We all know that there are great fields of
crime and various facets of crime over which
tliis assembly has no control. What better
function could this body serve, for instance,
than to co-operate with the federal govern-
ment in solving these problems? I point out
this, that could be done, and should be done,
and is that which we intend to do.
There are all types of research projects
which could be carried out in the field of
criminal investigation and police training.
These are matters that will fall under the
jurisdiction of this commission.
There is the whole question of co-operation
with similar bodies that are set up in juris-
dictions that are adjacent to this province.
A great deal has been made of this matter
in the past few weeks and we are taking
steps to appoint a body that can deal with
similar bodies and other jurisdictions to
satisfy itself as to what is going on and
satisfy itself as to what steps it might rec-
ommend that this government or other
jurisdictions or other police commissions
should take in the province in order to
provide the police protection that we need.
I mention these matters that can be dealt
with by this body. I consider it to be
nothing but obstructionism on the part of the
Opposition to oppose this on what I term
and believe to be the completely legalistic
basis that has been advanced. It is impossible
for us to appoint the personnel to this police
commission until we have the bill passed
and until we have power to appoint them,
because the power of appointment lies within
this Act and I can assure this House that we
will-
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is pretty technical-
Mr. Robarts: It is not the least bit legalistic.
What power have we to appoint this com-
mission until this bill becomes law? We have
no power whatsoever.
Now I can point out that I am presently
negotiating with certain people to sit on
this commission. I am not in a position to
tell the House who they, are because I have
not as yet obtained their agreement to take
part and to sit on this commission. But I
can assure tiie House that as soon as I am
able to do so I will and if tlie appointments—
if I can arrange the appointments during the
recess— I will make a public announcement
of it as soon aj possible.
I can further assure the House that we will
be satisfied with no one but men of very
high integrity and of ability and of knowl-
edge in these fields. I have made some notes
here upon what was said by the hon. member
for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha). I did not really
understand his reference to my own com-
munity of London. He made some reference
there to the police force and—
Mr. Sopha: Did not a policeman run for
mayor?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes!
Mr. Sopha: Down there?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes!
Mr. Sopha: After an unsavory situation in
the police force, he ran for mayor and it
was investigated by a judge—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I fail to see the signifi-
cance.
However, as far as the point that was made
by the hon. member for Sudbury, that we
are derogating from municipal autonomy, this
is a pretty tattered old garment to produce
in a debate of this type because as he knows
under tlie bill as it stands now, it is the
commissioner of the Ontario police who
carries out the function that we are going to
give to a commission of three people. We
will in no way derogate anything from muni-
cipal autonomy that is not already derogated,
if I may put it that way.
I can only repeat that as far as this govern-
ment is concerned, we feel that this bill will
create a body that has a real job to do. We
will obtain proper personnel to do the job
and I would ask the House to support this
bill in the interests of what we are all
attempting to do. We have heard many high-
sounding phrases about crime and so on.
This is a very concrete step that we propose
to the House to deal with this problem. I
suggest that it falls to the sense of respon-
sibility of all of us to the people of this prov-
ince, to proceed with these matters as rapidly
as possible.
Mr, R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
one thing that I want to point out is that I
DECEMBER 12, 1961
361
Tiope that no hon. member from the govern-
ment benches will say that I am bringing in
legal obstacles to this bill, because I assure
them that I know nothing of legal matters
whatsoever. However, even we laymen are
very interested in bills such as this and I
think that it is only fit and proper that we
should have some things to say about it.
First, may I say that we in the Opposition
benches resent very strongly the observations
of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
when he stood here just a minute ago and
said that we were trying to obstruct the cause
of justice in this province, when in reality
what we are trying to do is to help him out.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, had it not
l>een for the hon. leader of the Opposition
{Mr. Wintermeyer) and the members from
the Opposition benches, we would not have
had a Royal commission in the first place.
We are the people who caused the Royal
commission in this province and nobody else.
It was tlie hon. leader of the Opposition-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Why only a few days
ago they were saying there was no need for
one.
Mr. Whicher: It was the hon. leader of the
Opposition, with the great amount of work
that he did in gathering the material which
he so ably gave in this House a few days ago,
that caused a Royal commission. He gave
the information to the papers of this province
and the papers demanded that this govern-
ment have a Royal commission. Hon. mem-
bers of the government saved their skins and
their political hides when they caused a Royal
commission to be established. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. Prime
Minister that he is going to have to do a
whole lot more than that to save the political
hide of the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts), because it is nailed to the wall
right now.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would ask the hon.
member to speak on the bill which is before
the House.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: On a point of privilege.
I will stake my personal and political career
and I expect the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer) will have to do likewise,
on the outcome of this inquiry.
An hon. member: The hon. Attorney-
General has not got one. He has nothing at
stake.
Mr. Sopha: It ended on October 24.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!
Mr. Whicher: If he is staking his political
career, it is very small stakes indeed.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this ques-
tion as a layman who knows nothing of legal
matters. Is there no rule in this House that
says that even discussing a bill such as this
is sub judice, in as much as a Royal commis-
sion has already been appointed by the
government of this province?
Mr. MacDonald: No! No! And do not get
that rule established, because the hon. mem-
ber will be arguing against it.
An hon. member: He only asked Mr.
Speaker-
Mr. Whicher: I am only asking a question!
There may or there may not be, but I am
not nearly as well-informed about legal
matters as the lawyer from York South.
Mr. Speaker: Order! order!
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
members of this House are fair, they will
admit these three points.
First, this bill was conceived before the
government decided to have a Royal com-
mission. There is no question about that
whatsoever.
Second, it was brought forth as an excuse
for not having a Royal commission. Is there
any question about that whatsoever? I heard
the hon. Attorney-General on more than one
occasion in this House say that inasmuch as
this bill was coming forth, there would be no
reason why we should have a Royal commis-
sion in the province.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: On a point of privilege
in answer to that: the only reason we are
having a Royal commission is the charges of
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer) and he will stand or fall on
those.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) should never
use the word "fall" in this House, because
he is the one who is falling.
Mr. Wintermeyer: On a matter of privilege,
may I ask the hon. Prime Minister of the
province (Mr. Robarts) whether the explana-
tion the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
has made is accurate? Is that the reason?
The hon. Attorney-General has said that the
only reason for the appointment of a Royal
362
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
commission is because of the so-called charges
that I have made.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, it is not
a simple thing to answer the question. As I
said in the House, at the time the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
made his address in the Throne debate— I said
subsequent to that— that I would examine all
the matters which he had raised and decide
what I would recommend to the government
to do; and that is what I did. The decision
was based on an examination of all those
facts that were revealed in the speech that
the hon. leader of the Opposition made, as I
said before. I do not particularly want to
go into this again, but if he reads the address
I made on Monday when I announced the
appointment of the Royal commission he will
see in that speech the reasons why I recom-
mended to the government that the Royal
commission be appointed.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is the hon. Prime Min-
ister denying the statement that has just
been made by the hon. Attorney-General?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, this is a
matter of real personal privilege; I am ad-
dressing myself to you.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
State the privilegel
Mr. Wintermeyer: My point of privilege is
basic and elementary, as I stated.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. leader of the
Opposition has not stated it yet.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Attorney-General rose in his chair and said
the only reason for the appointment of a
Royal commission was because of certain
charges that I had made in this House.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No privilege in that!
The hon. leader of the Opposition was not
insulted.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, just a minute,
there certainly is.
Mr. Speaker, I am addressing myself to
you. I ask you to rule whether or not: first,
this is a matter of privilege and I have the
right to ask of the hon. Prime Minister
whether his hon. Attorney-General has made
an accurate statement or not.
Mr. Speaker: No ruling is necessary on
that.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, when I was
interrupted I was not at all through; I think
we will have to talk for a long time to get
the government to change its mind. As a
matter of fact, I assure hon. members opposite
that if they do change— and I say this in a
very kindly way— we are not going to boast to
the people of the province that they had to
change their minds or anything like that. We
will be very nice about this thing. I would
say, Mr. Speaker, that if we make mistakes on
this side of the House we will be only too
pleased to admit it to the public.
Only the other day, Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) admitted to all
of the six million people of the province of
Ontario that the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) had made a mistake and he had
formed a Royal commission when the hon.
Attorney-General said it was not necessary.
The hon. Prime Minister admitted this to six
million people.
Now I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the
hon. Attorney-General and the hon. Prime
Minister are honest and conscientious, as they
were in forming a Royal commission, that
once again they will say to the people of this
great province: "Yes, in our inexperience in
this new government, we have made mistake
No. 2." And as I say, we will be kind in our
criticism and not say another word about it
We will let the people be the judge.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, on this bill
I have three points to make.
First, this bill was certainly conceived
before a Royal commission was ever thought
of. Second, it was brought forth as an excuse
for not having a Royal commission. Things
have changed completely since the hon. Prime
Minister stood up in his seat and said he had
made a mistake and they were going to have
a Royal commission.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: When did I say that?
Mr. Whicher: By the actions of the hon.
Prime Minister. Actions, Mr. Speaker, speak
a whole lot louder than words.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Whicher: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the
other day they spoke very loudly to all the
people in the province. Particularly the people
in the five by-elections that they are having on
January 18, will speak very loudly and clearly.
Mr. Speaker, this is my final question. Let
us for one minute put ourselves in the posi-
tion of that very learned man whom all mem-
bers of the legal profession have said is a fine
DECEMBER 12, 1961
363
man and a credit to his great profession; let
us put ourselves in the mind of Chief Justice
Roach, who has been given by the hon. Prime
Minister of the province of Ontario the job
of investigating organized crime. Then, all of
a sudden, two days afterwards, the hon. Prime
Minister, by bringing forth this bill in this
House has said he is not trusting this Royal
commission. They have to have some proof
from The Department of the Attorney-General
to go and check on it and do the job twice.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is
not necessary at all and I do hope that even
if the new NDP's do not support us, in our
views, that the government will change their
mind correctly and sincerely as they did two
days ago.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Speaker, such consummate rudeness, such
rudeness!
I shall try to be brief. If the hon. back
benchers of the government will be quiet I
shall try to make my remarks as brief as
possible.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, is "schizophrenic"
imparliamentary?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, since I
came to this House almost three years ago, I
have come to learn that the government
benches opposite have a favourite phrase and
I think it is something about "in the fullness
of time." Coming to know the policy of the
government which is apparently being one of
caution, I have come to expect them to go
slowly.
It is somewhat confusing to me to listen to
the remarks of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) when he rose to his feet a few mo-
ments ago. In trying to castigate the Opposi-
tion he stated, or he repeated, the expression
which has been used in this House about
^'sucking and whistling at the same time." Mr.
Speaker, if ever I saw an example of whistling
and sucking in the same breath, it is in the
action of the government benches in forcing
this bill through at this time.
The hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
has made a statement not once, not twice but
many times over the past few months, stating
that there was no need for a Royal commis-
sion in this province. He has amplified it.
He has criticized the hon. members of the
Opposition in calling for one. Now the gov-
ernment' has done an excellent case of
manoeuvring or of whistling and sucking at
the same time by changing their minds with-
in a few months and calling for a Royal
commission.
I saw the same principle followed by the
hon. Prime Minister just a few moments ago
when the government benches would not
even answer a short, straightforward question
from the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer ) . When the hon. Prime Minister
was asked whether or not the statements of
the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
were part of the policy of this government,
he could not answer straightforwardly. Mr.
Speaker, if that is not sucking and whistling
at the same time, I do not know what it is.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that some
of the government supporters cannot under-
stand the function of an Opposition. We are
quite willing to pull with the government
when we believe that they are right. My
hon. leader has tonight commended the hon.
Prime Minister in the appointment of a Royal
commission.
Certainly there should be some considera-
tion for our views when we oppose this bill
which we believe to be duplication, which
we believe will hurt the purposes of the
Royal commission, which we feel will hinder
the Royal commission. Surely there is some
reason when we feel that there is a duplica-
tion.
We have pointed out that this is a very
serious matter, in our opinion and we wdll
not do anything in this party which will
hinder the cause of that Royal commission,
which we feel to be all-important in the life,
the social and economic life, of the people of
this province.
I find it difficult to understand the reason-
ing of the hon. Prime Minister when he says
that there is no conflict between the purposes
of the Royal commission and the purposes of
the police commission. In my opinion, and
the opinion which has been voiced on this
side of the House, there most certainly is a
similarity. I think to say that they are not
trying to accomplish the same purpose, or to
give that impression, is erroneous.
I think, as I said, that there is a conflict.
I think that if the government and the hon.
Prime Minister would take a little bit of time,
would allow this commission to come forward
with their views, and providing the Royal
commission did not indicate a difi^erent course
of action, I think the hon. Prime Minister
would receive the support of this party. But
for the hon. Prime Minister or the hon.
Attorney-General to say, or for the hon.
members of the N.D.P. party, who made some
kind of foolish statement that because we
364
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
disagree with the government, we show the
height of irresponsibility— I say to you, Mr.
Speaker, if ever I heard an irresponsible state-
ment that was it. The function of the
Opposition is to oppose the government when
they feel that it is wrong. And I suggest,
Mr. Speaker, that—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. R. C. Edwards: The hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald) made some
kind of a comment about understanding why
I had been in the Opposition so long. I
have been here for a considerably shorter
period of time than he has been in the
Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, we oppose this bill on
principle, we oppose this bill because we feel
it should not be coming forward at this time.
We will support any progressive measure
which we feel will get at the heart and the
soul of organized crime in this province,
but we are prepared to go forward in a
sensible, systematic manner and not get into
a panic and have the whole thing duplicated,
and perhaps hinder the cause of the Royal
commission in so doing.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the
House the motion carry?
Will those members in favour of tlie
motion say "aye".
As many as are opposed please say "nay".
The motion was carried on the following
division:
YEAS
NAYS
Allen (Middlesex-
Bukator
South)
Chappie
Auld
Edwards
Boyer
(Wentworth)
Brown
Innes
Bryden
Newman
Carruthers
Oliver
Cathcart
Reaume
Cecile
Sopha
Connell -
Spence
Cowling
Trotter
Daley
Troy
Davis -.'■■'
Whicher
Downer
Wintermeyer
Dymond
Worton
Edwards ■
-14.
(Perth) '
1. -^
Gisbom
Gomme
■'' ■ " f. ■
YEAS
Goodfellow
Grossman
Haskett
Johnston
(Carleton)
Lawrence
MacDonald
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morin
Momingstar
Morrow
McNeil
Parry
Price
Robarts
Roberts
Rollins
Root
Rowntree
Sandercock
Spooner
Stewart
Sutton
Thomas
Wardrope
Warrender
Whitney
Yaremko
-45.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
might say at the outset that as an Opposition
group I hope that we can distinguish between
opposition and obstruction.
Before this particular debate was adjourned
at the supper hour, I was dealing with what
I consider to be a highly important matter,
although the Liberals considered it so un-
important that they did not even mention it
in their amendment that covered what one
would have thought was almost everything
under the sun. That was the question of
industrial safety.
Before I leave that subject, Mr. Speaker, I
would like to refer in somewhat greater detail
than I did when I previously referred to the
matter, to the answer given by the hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Warrender) to my
question on November 28 regarding the death
of Luigi Trevisiol. I would like to quote
DECEMBER 12, 1961
365
again the report that he quoted from the in-
spector from the Toronto department of
buildings:
I have made an inspection of the above
property. A permit was issued under the
above file number [that is 64888] to build
an 11-storey building.
On Monday, November 27, 1961, at
approximately 3.30 p.m. a brick-layer fell
to his death from the ninth floor of the
building. This man, Luigi Trevisiol, was
engaged in laying brick in the south-west
corner of the building, near a projecting
balcony approximately 5 ft. by 15 ft. in
size. Guard rails and kick planks were in
evidence here prior to this accident.
However, the above foreman, Feareno
Orsolini, has informed me that the short
kickplank and guardrail on the balcony at
the east end were removed in order to
string a line in preparation for the first
course of brickwork east of the balcony
doorway. Luigi Trevisiol walked back-
wards in setting this line and fell nine
storeys to his death.
This job had ample protection through-
out the building as guardrails and kick-
planks and steel cables are in evidence on
all floors that are not enclosed in masonry.
That was the report of the building inspec-
tor of Toronto. I will not now repeat all of
the hon. Minister's comments on it, but I
would like to refer to one comment he made.
He said this:
It is interesting to note that he [that is,
Trevisiol] fell from the ninth floor and had
worked on all the lower floors under
identical circumstances. No reason [says
the Minister] can be given for this accident,
I am told. It is put down as a sheer acci-
dent, a misadventure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to tliis
House that it is sheer nonsense to say that
this tragic occurrence was sheer accident.
The report states specifically that the guard-
rail and kickplank at the east end of the bal-
cony had been removed and that Trevisiol
backed off the balcony at that point to his
death. Clearly there was negligence some-
where. Who removed the guardrail and the
kickplank and by what authority? It is the
responsibility of an employer, or should be,
not only to provide proper safety devices but
also to ensure that they are used.
There was a foreman on this job. Why
did he permit the work to proceed without
the safety devices in place? I am well aware,
Mr. Speaker, that workmen are human beings
like everyone else, and they may sometimes
be negligent themselves. They may disregard
their own safety in order to find an easy way
of doing the job.
It requires a large and continuous measure
of education reinforced if necessary by
discipline, to prevent such an attitude from
becoming prevalent. The hon. Minister's re-
port is too sketchy to indicate if the men
engaged on the job where Trevisiol was
killed were to some degree responsible for
the unsafe conditions that existed. But if they
were, they ought to have been properly
warned and if by any chance they ignored
the warning, they should have been disci-
plined. It is far better for a man to be
disciplined than to be dead.
If the highest possible measure of safety
is to be achieved, there must be a high
degree of safety-consciousness at all levels
from The Department of Labour to the
employer and the individual workman.
Constant vigilance against unsafe working
conditions by everyone concerned is essential.
When, however. The Department of
Labour, which ought to be setting the stand-
ards, adopts the attitude, and I submit that
this was the attitude that the hon. Minister
himself adopted in answering my question
on this subject, that the problem is not too
serious or, alternatively, that it is too difiBcult
to do much about, what can one expect from
the ordinary workman, or for that matter
from the employer? The unfortunate fact
seems to be that of the negligent "do not
bother us" attitude of The Department of
Labour which certainly has existed in that
department as long as I have been in this
House. That attitude has permeated the
whole industry. The grim results are seen in
the death of Luigi Trevisiol, a fine-looking
young man— I say he was a fine-looking young
man, on the basis of a picture I saw on the
front page of Carriere Canadese—sldWed in
his trade, whose life was cut short before he
even reached his maturity. They are seen in
the death of Trevisiol, and in many other
deaths and serious injuries.
Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, that Trevi-
siol's death was the twenty-third construc-
tion death in this city since the beginning of
this year.
A discussion of safety in the construction
industry inevitably leads to a discussion of
licensing. The Royal commission discussed
this matter at some length on pages 12 to 14
of its report and it arrived at the firm recom-
mendation—which I cannot take time to read
but it is in tlie report for anyone to see— that
366
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
builders, contractors and sub-contractors
should be licensed by a provincial authority
with adequate right of appeal. It is instruc-
tive to study the reasons the commission gave
for its recommendations which are found on
pages 12 and 13 of its report, and which I
will quote in part. The commission said:
A substantial number of contractors have
estabhshed a commendable record of
safety-consciousness and high standard
policies governing safety on jobs.
On the other hand, your commission is
concerned with a growing area of ir-
responsibihty, characterized by the "fast-
bucker," or "fly-by-night" builder, or the
unqualified and speculative newcomer
whose record demonstrates a serious lack
of knowledge of safety, responsibility and
respect for legislation.
The increasing intensity of competitive
bidding creates and stimulates a special
and unfair advantage for this irresponsible
element. Decided savings may be effected
by disregarding even minimum precautions
against accident.
The irresponsible contractor avoids sta-
bilization through collective bargaining. His
contractural identity is not constant.
—that is a point I would Uke to deal with a
little later, Mr. Speaker—
To preserve his special advantage he
must avoid all forms of restriction required
as current standards of conduct and per-
formance.
It is a reasonable assumption that if un-
checked, this element enjoying special
privileges will seriously hamper and may
well destroy the work and ability of re-
sponsible contractors to advance the cause
of safety in construction.
That was on page 12 of the report. I would
now like to read two or three paragraphs
from page 13:
If, after years of safety legislation, edu-
cation, persuasion and example, such em-
ployers selfishly persist in evasion of the
law, their right to operate in this industry
should then be qualified by a requirement
for adherence to the law in practice as a
condition of a licence and of the right to
obtain subsequent building permits.
Then a little further down:
Evidence clearly demonstrates that the
failure of this industry in self-regulation
is largely attributable to the tactics and
policies of the irresponsible segments.
Present penalties for infractions are in-
adequate deterrents. Savings effected by
evasion of the regulations more than offset
penalties if and when infractions are de-
tected. The loss of a licence as a result
of a record of failures to comply with these
regulations would clearly focus the actual
area of responsibility for non-compliance.
The safety record of the individual con-
tractor should be given paramount con-
sideration in deciding whether to grant,
renew or cancel his licence.
I agree entirely with those comments as
far as they go, Mr. Speaker. But they do not
go far enough, partly because the Royal
commission was limited by its terms of
reference to merely questions of safety. The
matter, in my opinion, should be put on a
much broader basis and for two reasons:
First, not all of the blame should be put
on the builders, contractors and sub-con-
tractors. Certainly some of them are blame-
worthy enough but equally blameworthy are
the developers and speculators and promoters
who lurk behind these contractors.
This industry is plagued by small contrac-
tors and especially small sub-contractors who
are lured into it by prospects of huge profits
but actually have not got suJBBcient capital
behind them. They come and go with con-
fusing frequency and in doing this they create
chaos in the industry.
Then the promoter moves in to fatten on
the chaotic situation. He can get his work
done at cut-rate prices just because there are
always builders around who will cut corners
on safety and who will chisel on the wages
of their workers. The promoter who lets a
contract on this basis, in iny opinion, is just
as culpable as the contractor himself, and
there is just as great a need to regulate his
activities.
My second reason for wanting to broaden
the whole question of licensing is that almost
everything the commission has said about
safety and about the demoralizing effect of the
fast-buck operator in any efforts to promote
safe conditions, is equally applicable in other
fields.
These are the same people who fleeced and
chiselled their employees and flagrantly vio-
lated the laws relating to vacations with pay,
workmen's compensation, unemployment in-
surance and almost everything else, until the
whole seething mess blew up last summer in
a violent strike of construction workers.
They are also the same people who have
driven trucks through municipal zoning by-
laws by building buildings in full knowledge
that they were acting in contravention to the
by-laws, unloading them on unsuspecting par-
ties and then moving into another municipality
DECEMBER 12, 1961
867
before they could be caught. It has even
been alleged, Mr. Speaker— in fact it has been
frequently alleged and charged— that some of
these people have even gone to the extent of
corrupting or attempting to corrupt municipal
officers and municipal councils.
The problem of keeping track of them is
compounded by our lax corporation laws and
by the lax administration of those laws. I
think that may be what the Royal commission
had in mind when it referred to the fact that
the contractual identity of these people is not
constant.
Under The Corporations Act of this prov-
ince—and I have no doubt it is much the same
in other provinces, but just because it is lax
in other provinces is no justification for it
being the same here— under our laws the
leopard can readily change his spots by going
through the relatively simple and inexpensive
procedure of setting up a new company. All
he needs to do is to put the name of his wife,
and the name of his mother or— if they do not
trust him, and heaven knows they probably
know him well enough that they may not
trust him— the name of his stenographer and
his lawyer's stenographer, along with his own,
as shareholders and directors of the company
and pay a nominal fee. Then he has a brand
new charter for a private company, with a
brand new name.
Some of these men have more aliases than
professional con men but they have this ad-
vantage over the con man, that, Mr. Speaker,
their aliases are all registered under The
Corporations Act of this province. In most
cases the companies, of the nature to which
I am now referring, are nothing but dummies
designed to conceal the identity of the prin-
cipals who are operating behind them.
Shoestrings have been parlayed into huge
fortunes by fast footwork and sharp practice,
in real estate promotion and building in this
city and this province.
An hon. member: Not always.
Mr. Bryden: Not always, that is true, but
there certainly have been some fast-buck
operators who have parlayed shoestrings into
huge fortunes. And now they luxuriate in
a vulgar display of wealth, having contributed
practically nothing to the province— except
chaos for their industry, and heartache for
their employees and their customers.
Clearly, there is an urgent need for closer
supervision of the activities of these people; I
am talking now not only of the little ones—
and there are a lot of little ones that cer-
tainly need to be watched— but some of the
big ones, too.
The Royal commission on industrial safety
did not make detailed recommendations for a
licensing procedure. It suggested instead that
the whole question should be studied by the
safety council. Unfortunately, this council is
still only in the process of being set up, and
in any case, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that
it is the best body to conduct this particular
study, since— as I have already indicated— the
problem extends well beyond the safety field.
There is a problem in the safety field, but
there is a problem in many other fields as
well. However, one thing I am certain of, is
that the problem should be studied— and soon
—by some appropriate body, and that the
government should aim to introduce appropri-
ate legislation dealing with licensing during
the 1961-62 session of the Legislature.
Though the details have to be worked out,
the basic principles, as I see them, are quite
clear. There should be an authority to license
builders, contractors and sub-contractors— and,
I think, promoters and developers, too, not all
of whom are necessarily builders. This
authority should be a provincial authority.
This is certainly not a proper area for muni-
cipal jurisdiction; to hand the responsibility
over to the municipality is merely to invite
uneven and inadequate enforcement of the
legislation. Therefore, the licensing authority
should be provincial in scope; it should have
the power not only to grant but also to refuse,
extend or cancel licences— subject, of course,
to a proper appeal to the courts— and it should
work closely with the administrators of The
Corporations Act to ensure that a company
applying for a licence, is not a cover-up for
someone who has already been refused a
licence, or has had a licence cancelled.
I feel certain, Mr. Speaker, that reputable
businessmen in this industry will have nothing
to fear from a licensing authority. In fact I
think— I admit I have no evidence of this— but
I think they would welcome such an authority,
because it would help to produce order out
of the present chaos so that the legitimate
businessman can carry on his business in an
intelligent and business-like way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal
with a different subject, raised by my hon.
leader in his sub-amendment to the address
in reply to the Speech from the Throne-
that is the question of the sales tax.
We rejected the provision of the main
amendment on this particular question— the
Liberal amendment which spoke vaguely of
a $25 plan, or something like that; I am
not quite sure what it is, but I think I can
judge what is meant from the statements
that the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
368
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Wintermeyer ) has made outside the House.
We rejected that particular clause in the
main amendment because we do not think
it is good enough. Our position is— and was
last year when this bill was brought in— that
there should not be a sales tax in this prov-
ince; our amendment calls for the repeal of
that tax. When the bill was introduced last
year, we indicated our opposition to it in
no uncertain terms, and even went to the
extent of moving an amendment on second
reading which was designed to defeat the
government's bill. We still oppose the tax
as our sub-amendment indicates.
The reasons for our opposition were set
forth fully in our amendment of last session
and more briefly in our present amendment.
They are twofold: First, in our opinion, this
kind of tax is inherently regressive and unfair
because it bears most heavily on those who
are least able to pay. There is no need for it
in Ontario at this time, since other, fairer,
methods of raising money are still available to
the government. Our group has frequently
placed before this House, suggestions for
alternative methods of raising money and a
little later I am going to review some of
these suggestions. But before I do that, I
would like to refer to our second reason for
opposing, or for calling for the repeal of, the
three per cent sales tax. In our opinion it is
particularly unfortunate during the present
period of economic stagnation and chronic
unemployment, because it directly discourages
consumer purchasing, which is already in-
adequate.
We have, as I said, carried on quite a
campaign— first to prevent this tax from be-
coming a law, and now to have it repealed;
and I must say that we have always run into
difficulty in mounting a strong offensive
because of the way in which the ambivalent
Liberal party has contrived to muddy the
waters. That group does not seem to be
able to make up its mind whether it is in
favour of the sales tax or against it. For
two years the hon. leader of the Opposition
stumped this province, campaigning in favour
of a sales tax; and I think it is quite fair— I
always believe in giving credit where credit
is due— to state that he is the father of the
sales tax in this province. However, when
his child was presented to him by the govern-
ment in the last session, he repudiated it.
He and his group, after a great deal of
wriggling and squirming, even ended by
voting in favour of our amendment and
against the tax. I thought myself— I admit
that I am fairly naive— but I thought that,
having first been in favour of the bill and
then against it, the Liberals had exhausted
all conceivable positions; but I must admit
that I underestimated the nimbleness of
Liberal footwork because they have now
found a third position; they are in favour
of the sales tax, and against it at the same
time. And I am sure that if they run-
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition ) : How can the hon. member
explain that?
Mr. Bryden: The hon. leader of the
Opposition should read his amendment.
Everything comes to those who wait; I will
explain it. I cannot explain it while the hon.
leader of the Opposition is talking.
I have no doubt that if my hon. Liberal
friends should run across someone who is
neutral on the tax they would tell him that
they are on his side too.
The hon. leader of the Opposition has now
proposed something which is quite difFerent
from the proposal he made last year or the
year before— that the sales tax should be con-
tinued, but that, except for certain items-
cigarettes and liquor, I believe— there should
be an overall exemption of $25. He claims
that the loss of revenue to the government,
if his plan is adopted, will be about $35
million. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that accord-
ing to my calculations this is a very con-
servative estimate indeed. The loss would
much more likely be about $50 or $60 million.
But, regardless-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. leader of the
Opposition need not get so alarmed. What
I am going to say is that, regardless of whose
figure is right, I submit to him that he has a
clear responsibility to say how the difference
in revenue is to be made up.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): He did.
Mr. Bryden: In view of the sad state of
the province's finances I would be very sur-
prised—he frequently surprises me— but I
would be very surprised if he is prepared to
argue that the government does not need the
$35 milUon or $50 million, or whatever the
correct figure is, which would be lost under
his plan. He has been strangely silent on the
question of where the money is to come from.
If the plan of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion is adopted, there will still be a tax on
such items as automobiles, most furniture,
many electrical appliances, much clothing,
and most other durable consumers' goods.
And it should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that in
DECEMBER 12, 1961
369
this day and age most of these items are
necessities. They are not luxuries just because
they cost a lot of money; they are necessities,
even more so than many of the items which
would escape the tax if the $25 exemption
were introduced.
Earlier in this debate the hon. member for
Essex North (Mr. Reaume), whom I hear
chirping up now, delivered a long, windy
harangue which was notable as much for its
lack of content as it was for its sound of fury.
Yet, throughout his entire speech he did not
once mention the sales tax.
Mr. Speaker, I think this House and the
people of the province are entitled to an
explanation from the hon. member for Essex
North as to why he is in favour of continuing
the sales tax on automobiles.
Mr. Reaume: Even though they are made
in the old country.
Mr. Bryden: It is only a relatively short
time ago that we managed to get rid of a
federal sales tax on automobiles, which was
imposed by a Liberal government down in
Ottawa. Now the provincial government has
restored that tax, in part, through its provin-
cial sales tax and apparently the hon. member
for Essex North thinks that is all right.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: As far as our group is con-
cerned, we have always set forth quite
specifically the alternative sources of revenue
which, in our opinion, the government should
rely on in preference to the sales tax. We
have done so again in our sub-amendment
which itemizes these alternative sources as
corporation and income taxes, revenues from
natural resources and a weight-distance tax.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: After the storm subsides, Mr.
Speaker, I will proceed to explain these
matters for the enhghtenment of those who
are capable of enlightenment.
I would like first to deal with the weight-
distance tax on large highway transports.
Some years ago the select committee on toll
roads of this Legislature— that was before my
time, but I have read the committee's report
—discovered that, in California, four per cent
of the highway users were responsible for 52
per cent of highway construction and main-
tenance costs. I will agree: that was in Cali-
fornia, and it is quite likely that the situation
in Ontario is not as extreme as that. How-
ever, there cannot be any doubt at all that a
small percentage of large vehicles is respon-
sible for a very large percentage of highway
costs in this province. In our opinion the
owners of those vehicles ought to pay some-
thing approaching a fair share of the cost
which they cause. This could be accom-
plished through a weight-distance tax.
Secondly, there is the question of revenues
from natural resources. For some reason or
other this always seems to be a very, very
sore point for the hon. members to my right
—and I use the word "right" advisedly. They
weep bitter tears for companies like Abitibi
and International Nickel. Notwithstanding
the fact that this always seems to agitate
them, I wish to make just a few comments
about revenues from natural resources, be-
cause at the present time they constitute a
picayune percentage of the budget of this
province. It is very small, I would think it
not more than three per cent.
In fact, the total revenues received from
the mines profits tax, the timber dues and so
on, taken together are not very much greater
than the money that the government spends
in servicing the mining and forest industries
—so that the companies which exploit the
natural resources belonging to the people of
the province, are getting these resources for
close to nothing.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would expressly ask
that hon. members— especially when they are
between the member who is speaking and
the Speaker's chair— remain quiet so the
Speaker can hear what is going on. I would
appreciate it very much if the hon. members
would give the same attention to the present
speaker as has been given to other speakers.
Mr. Bryden: Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no
reason whatever why these companies should
get tlieir raw materials for nothing. Great
fortunes have been made, and are being
made, out of Ontario's natural resources and
I am going to quote one or two examples
again to refresh the memories of hon.
members to my right— although, last year,
when I quoted from authoritative documents,
they denied even the existence of the docu-
ments. I will refer the House to the latest
issue of the Financial Post Survey of Indus-
trials, the 1961 issue, which showed that in
1960 Abitibi made $22 million before taxes
and $12 million after taxes.
Mr; R. M. Whicher (Bruce): They gained
3.25 per cent on their investment.
370
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bryden: I quoted both figures, Mr.
Speaker, but I think that, in this particular
case, the figure before taxes is the relevant
one because, if we increase our rates in one
form or another, the companies will be able
to charge that up against their federal income
tax; so it would come out of the $22 million
rather tlian out of the $12 million. Minnesota
and Ontario, to quote another example, made
$12 million before taxes and $6 million after
taxes; I could quote a great many more
examples. I will not do that, but I will
quote one in the mining field— the great
octupus in that field— the International Nickel
Company, which in 1959, the last year for
which figures are available, made $144 million
before taxes and $85 million after taxes. And
our Liberal friends are trying to tell me that
a company like that cannot afford to pay more
for the irreplaceable raw materials that it
takes out of the ground, raw materials which
belong to the people of this province. In my
submission they can afford to pay a fair price
for the resources they are using and I think
they ought to pay it.
Our third proposal, Mr. Speaker, is that—
An hon. member: Do not confuse them with
facts.
Mr. Bryden: I think I have cited some facts
but these gentlemen hate to face facts. It is
impossible for them to face facts because,
if tliey did, all their preconceptions and prej-
udices would be knocked into a cocked hat
and they would be left naked with nothing to
clothe themselves with.
My third proposal, Mr, Speaker, is that we
should rely on corporation and income taxes
in preference to a sales tax. One reason, of
course, is that these taxes are much fairer.
It is apparently, a very amusing proposition
to the hon. leader of the Opposition to see a
fellow, who makes perhaps $3,000 or $3,500
a year, having to pay, shall we say, $200 or
$150 tax on an automobile which he needs in
a city of this kind, to get back and forth to
work. The hon. leader of the Opposition
considers that a matter of amusement; I do
not; I consider it a serious matter and I
would suggest that a fairer alternative is the
corporation and income tax. My reason, of
course, is that these taxes are much fairer
because they result in the money being raised
from the people who have it.
In making this proposal, Mr. Speaker, I
do so in full awareness that at the present
time there is a high-powered propaganda
campaign going on in this country to convince
the public that corporations and wealthy
individuals are already being taxed too
heavily. I may say that the most receptive
victims of this propaganda appear to be the
gentlemen on the Liberal benches in thk
House.
The theory— if one could call it that— behind
this propaganda, is that the rich people and
the corporations are the people who under-
take most of the country's investments. If
they have ample funds available they will
invest these funds in employment-creating
opportimities— or so we will believe, if we
are gullible enough to believe everything we
are told.
It was even suggested— not very long ago—
in very prominent places, that the relatively
few progressive elements which now exist
in the country's tax structure should be
eliminated, which would mean a further shift
in the tax burden from the rich to the poor.
It has always struck me as curious, Mr.
Speaker, that whenever our country is faced
with problems of any kind, the rich always
contrive to discover— and to hire all sorts of
people who will repeat their discovery for
them— that a sure-fire solution to the problem
is to make die poor tighten their belts. That
is the sort of proposal we hear being seriously
made in this country at the present time.
An examination of the national aecounts
of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows
how little substance there actually is in this
argument. First of all, I would like to refer
to tables 38, 39 and 40 of the accounts for
1960. From these one can discover that, at
the absolute outside, only about 40 per cent
of the tax revenue currently being raised in
Canada by all levels of government-
Mr. Whicher: The hon member is giving
Mr. E. P. Taylor's speech of a month ago.
Mr. Bryden: Well, I will say that Mr. E. P.
Taylor, who is certainly one of the dis-
tinguished citizens of this country, has made
some speeches that are worth listening to—
as distinguished from the speeches made by
the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher).
I was trying to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that
not more than 40 per cent of the tax revenue
of this country— taking all levels of govern-
ment—is, at the present time, raised by taxes
that could in any sense of the world be
described as progressive. All the remainder
—at least 60 per cent— is raised by taxes that
are regressive in varying degrees. And this,
I might mention, was before the Ontario
sales tax came into effect, so that the situation
is even worse now. The result is that the
less wealthy are already carrying an undue
DECEMBER 12. 1961
371
proportion of the tax load of this country.
If one looks at tables 50 and 51 of the
national accounts, one discovers that the old
argument— about leaving surpluses for the big
boys so that they can invest— has really not
got anything in it at all. There is no shortage
of investment funds in private hands in
Canada at the present time. In 1960 undis-
tributed corporation profits plus capital con-
sumption allowances, not including bad debt
allowances, totalled $4.6 billion, as compared
with $3.9 billion in 1955. Most private
investment comes from those sources, from
undistributed profits and more particularly
from capital consumption allowances which
these fellows are allowed to claim under the
corporation tax laws.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that Ontario
and Canada are suflFering, not from a shortage
of investment funds, but from excess capacity
in the private sector. Our problem is that
there are not enough buyers for the goods
that we can already produce; existing plants
are not being used to capacity. In other
words, we are suflFering from inadequate
consumption. In such a situation there is no
advantage to be gained by making funds
available for private investment.
What is the point of making funds avail-
able for private investment that will not be
used anyway? It does not matter how much
money you put into tlie hands of a corpora-
tion or an individual; he is not going to invest
it if he has any sense at all, unless he can see
some reasonable opportunity of selling the
output of the plant and equipment in which
he would expect to invest. There is no need,
Mr. Speaker, to worry about the investment
—certainly not about investment in the priv-
ate sector. The urgent need is to increase
consumption. And we certainly will not do
tliat by leaving excess funds— as in the current
situation— in the hands of the wealthy. They
already have all the goods and services they
want. We should be improving the position
of the less wealthy.
Mr. Reaume: Socialism at its best.
Mr. Bryden: If that is socialism at its best
then I am happy to support socialism.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would appeal to the
better sense of hon. members to give speakers
in this debate full opportunity to speak. Now,
I have noticed at times that members ask the
Speaker to call for order on their behalf.
When I am calling order, I wish hon. mem-
bers would listen to the Speaker and allow
the member who has the floor to proceed.
Mr. Whicher: But, Mr. Speaker, it makes
me so sick to have to listen.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Well, how
does the hon. member think we feel when he
is speaking?
Mr. Bryden: I have never known of any
law of this country, or any rule of this
House, that requires anyone to listen, Mr.
Speaker, but I must say that I always admire
my Liberal friends and the way they torture
themselves by sitting listening carefully when
they are having commonsense expounded to
them. That is real torture to them, I admit.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am happy
to identify myself with any cause— regardless
of how it may be described— which has as its
objective, to improve the position of the less
wealthy. At this particular time, it is a
particularly urgent objective because, if we
are trying to increase consumption as we
should be, we should consider the people who
have the lesser amounts of money. They are
the people who, if they had more purchasing
power in their hands, would spend more;
they would buy more goods.
They are already spending up to the limits
of their incomes without fully satisfying their
wants, and I have no doubt, if we devise
ways of making more money available to
them, they would spend that too, with a
beneficial effect on the whole economy. We
could improve their position either by easing
the tax burden on them or by improving
social services— or both.
I would not care which approach the gov-
ernment took; a combination of both would
perhaps be best. But, unfortunately, the
government will not take either position. In
fact, it has taken exactly the opposite
approach. It has reduced the piurchasing
power of the small consumer by creating a
three per cent increase in the price of most
of the goods he buys. Since he is already
spending all the money he has, he can pay
this tax only in one way— by reducing his
spending, reducing his purchases. That means
idle capacity and idle workers.
I quite realize that the wealthy also have
to pay the sales tax, but let us remember, Mr.
Speaker, that the impact on them is very
much less severe than on the small fellow.
Expenditures on taxable items use up a
very large percentage of the income of a man
making, say, $3,000 a year. They account for
a very small proportion of the income of the
person making $20,000 a year, so that the
fellow making $3,000, who is just struggling
to get along, has to pay— relatively speaking-
much higher tax than the rich man.
372
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
What is even more important, from an
economic point of view is that the sales tax
does not significantly affect the excess accu-
mulations of wealth of large corporations and
rich individuals which have been plaguing
us, over the past few years. If the economy
is to grow and prosper, we have to get this
excess wealth to work, Mr. Speaker, either
in investment on social capital or extension
of social services. We cannot carry on with
unused capacity and expect that we are go-
ing to have sound economic growth.
Therefore, attempts to shift the tax burden
from the rich to the poor— of which the
Ontario retail sales tax is an outstanding
example— are not only socially unjust, they
are economically insane. They discourage
growth and intensify chronic unemployment.
Anyone who looks around at the situation
we have in this province and in this country
today can hardly deny that, at least, a situa-
tion of low growth and chronic unemployment
exists. It certainly is not entirely due to the
sales tax; it was building up long before the
sales tax came in; but the sales tax is con-
tributing to it, and, in my opinion, is a totally
wrong policy for that reason.
Now then, some of the hon. members have
been nattering away about the province of
Saskatchewan. I put my submission for the
moment on a somewhat broader basis than
that. I would refer to the fact that most
other provinces in Canada have a sales tax;
I am quite aware of that fact. But I am also
aware of the fact— as some of the other hon.
members do not seem to be— that most other
provinces are not in the same position as
Ontario. This province has been blessed with
very great natural advantages and I think we
should use those natural advantages for the
benefit of all the people, not just groups that
finance the government's election campaigns.
Mr. Whicher: How much do they tax
corporations in Saskatchewan? More than we
do?
Mr. Bryden: As a matter of fact, their
returns in Saskatchewan from natural re-
sources are five times as great as the returns
in this province from similar resources. A
combination of constitutional limitations and
economic limitations leaves most provinces
with a very narrow tax base and therefore
with very little freedom to choose among
alternative sources of revenue. When a
province has exhausted the possibihties of
other taxes, as many of the other provinces
have, there is no option but to impose a sales
tax. And this is particularly true, Mr. Speaker,
when the province concerned is engaged in a
broad forward-looking programme of social
progress as is the case with the province
of Saskatchewan.
If the government of Ontario had exhausted
all the possibilities of raising money by more
progressive methods, and if it came before
this House with bold new programmes, such
as a health insurance programme, for example
—perhaps the hon. Minister will have some-
thing to say on that later, I do not know-
but if it came forward with programmes of
that kind, as far as my hon. colleagues are
concerned, we would be quite prepared to
take another look at the sales tax. But the
government has not done either of these
things.
There are still substantial revenue sources
available to it, which have not been exploited
to the full, and it certainly has no new pro-
grammes of any kind in mind if the speech
from the Throne is any indication. The most
notable feature of that speech, I would say,
was its sterility of ideas. Under the circum-
stances, Mr. Speaker, the case for the repeal
of the sales tax is overwhelming. I submit
that the government ought to repeal this
tax as soon as the necessary alternative
revenue measures can be introduced.
I see some of the hon. members of the
Cabinet laughing at this suggestion. I will
add that I am not so naive as to think that
reason and commonsense are Hkely to have
much effect on this government.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
We are delighted to have the hon. member
give us these suggestions.
Mr. Bryden: I would be delighted if the
government would adopt the suggestion
because even the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr.
Wardrope) will have to agree that it is a
very sensible and reasonable suggestion, and
one that the government should have paid
attention to long ago. I would be quite
happy if they would adopt it now.
Just in case the hon. Minister of Mines is
not speaking for the government at this
point, and in case the government does not
decide to repeal the sales tax, I would urge
that it should at least straighten out some of
the most burdensome and annoying features
of this tax. It is perfectly ridiculous, for
example— and I would like to see any hon.
member opposite defend this— that Canadian
Legion branches should have had to pay sales
tax on their poppies and wreaths on Novem-
ber 11.
If the hon. Minister of Mines is prepared
to defend that proposition, I certainly would
DECEMBER 12, 1961
373
like to hear what he has to say about it. I
suggest that something should be done about
that particular case. I think there is also a
case for removing the tax from certain essen-
tials, such as soap. Above all, if we are going
to continue with this tax under this unen-
lightened administration, surely something
should be done to relieve the incredible
burden that has been imposed on the small
storekeeper and small restaurant operator.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): What do they do in Saskatchewan?
Mr. Bryden: I will come to that in a
minute. I think the best way of demonstrat-
ing the kind of problem that these people are
up against— and after all, they are very small
men and women with very limited incomes-
is to cite the experience of a man who oper-
ates a small variety store on Gerrard Street
East in Toronto. This man estimates that it
takes him on an average about one hour per
evening— around 25 hours a month— to do all
the record-keeping, bookkeeping and form-
filling which the sales tax division requires
him to do.
He showed me his tax remittance form for
the month of October, 1961; the total amount
of tax that he was required to remit as shown
on the form for that month was $32.47. Out
of this amount he was permitted to retain two
per cent, or the munificent sum of 64 cents,
as compensation for his month's services in
collecting and accounting for the tax. More-
over, the 64 cents was not entirely clear be-
cause he had to pay for a stamp and for a
money order to send the remittance to the
government. By the time he worked it out,
this fellow was being compensated at the rate
of somewhere between one and two cents an
hour for his job as a tax collector for the
government. I would suggest to hon. mem-
bers that this is far from an isolated case. I
think every one of them knows of countless
similar examples.
I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that The
Department of the Provincial Treasurer got
over its pedantic insistence that the small
merchant, in particular, has to account for
every copper, when his volume of business
is so small that he cannot possibly afford to
put in accounting machines or even a very
elaborate cash register. It should be sufficient
for him to keep track of his total sales and
collections and make his remittances on that
basis. If the hon. Minister without Portfolio
(Mr. Grossman) had taken the trouble to
read Professor Due's book on the sales tax,
he would find that the procedure is common,
not only in Saskatchewan, but in most juris-
dictions where there is a sales tax in effect.
If the returns, which the man submits, per-
sistently appear to be unreasonable, then cer-
tainly there would have to be a further
check; but in the main this procedure should
be sufficient to ensure that the government
gets most of the revenue it is entitled to. If
a few pennies slip through its fingers, surely
that is a very small loss in relation to the
very large inconvenience that it has imposed
on this multitude of small merchants.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
reiterate that, even though I have made some
suggestions for improving the administration
of the sales tax, I am certainly not in favour
of that tax in this province at this time. I
submit that no amount of tinkering with the
administration will make the tax acceptable;
it ought to be repealed, and I suggest to hon.
members of this House that in fairness and
commonsense they should support our amend-
ment—not the namby-pamby main amendment
to the motion— but our amendment calling for
the outright repeal of this tax and its replace-
ment by fairer methods of raising revenue
which are still available to the government.
Thank you very much.
Mr. J. A. C. Auld (Leeds) moves the ad-
journment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before
moving the adjournment of the House, I
would like to announce that tomorrow we will
go on with some of the second readings on
the order paper. I would draw to the atten-
tion of the hon. members that the estimates
for The Department of Insurance have been
tabled, and they could be called tomorrow or
Thursday.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.15 o'clock, p.m.
k
No. 16
ONTARIO
Hegisilature of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
I i ., v.- ,. ,. t.
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
•!!/ .•
': -4->
Wednesday, December 13, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis^ Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1061
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
..i;. ...
Wednesday, December 13, 1961
First report, standing committee on agriculture, Mr. McNeil 377
Second interim report, select committee on compensation re motor vehicle accidents
Mr. Allan 377
Department of Labour Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 378
Vital Statistics Act, bill to amend, Mr. Yaremko, second reading 389
Corporations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Yaremko, second reading 389
Corporations Information Act, bill to amend, Mr. Yaremko, second reading 389
Estimates, Department of Insurance, Mr. Roberts 391
Resumption of the debate on tiie speedi from the Throne, Mr. Auld, Mr. Whicher 405
Motimi to adjourn debate, Mr. Whicher, agreed to 415
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 415
■ir ■ -•■■•■ -■-, - - ■ ■ "
*'■ ~- ■ ,
■ -■-.-''.'/ '^ '
. „.;. .= "-. ■ ,:: %-. -. ;»., -
i": " ' ^ _ -il-; " ' ' '" ' ' ' " '
■«-j . ^ ■.:■'::■".■ '. .,■..-
c
,*-i ■ ' , ' __ -, -_ - - - i
377
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions. 1
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. R. K. McNeil from the standing com-
mittee on agriculture presented the commit-
tee's first report which was read as follows
and adopted: -
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill without amendment:
Bill No. 48, An Act to amend The Milk
Industry Act.
Hon. J. N. Allan presents the second interim
report of the select committee appointed on
April 12, 1960, and re-appointed on March
21, 1961, to examine, investigate, inquire into,
study and report on iall matters relating to
compensation of persons who suffer financial
loss or injury as a result of motor \'ehicle
accidents, and moves, seconded by hon.
J. P. Robarts, that the committee be re-
appointed and continue with the same mem-
bership and with the same powers and duties
as heretofore; also, that the said committee
be authorized to sit during the Christmas-
New Year adjournment of this session, and
that the same allowances for expenses to the
chairman and members thereof be payable
for such meetings as are provided by section
65 of The Legislative Assembly Act, R.S.O.
1960, chapter 308, for meetings held during
the interval between sessions.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to find out whether
debate can take place on this motion at this
time, which would involve not only the
contents of the motion but the contents of the
report, or whether this will be put on the
order paper and debated at another time.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I have no intention of debating it
today.
Wednesday, December 13, 1961
Mr. Singer: Then, Mr. Speaker, can we
hold this motion over until the proper time
arises when it can be debated?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, it
may be that it will not be debated until we
adjourn, and part of the motion is to permit
the committee to sit in the interim. I suggest
that the motion carry as it is and we will
arrange to have it debated in due course.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, it would be my
submission that this motion involves accep-
tance of the interim report. One of the
recommendations in the report is that the
committee be allowed to sit again, so that
this motion to my mind certainly, involves an
acceptance of the interim report. I do not
think the report should be accepted until an
opportunity is given for debate, because it is
a most important issue.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, as I understand the motion, it is to
accept this report and to reconstitute the
committee. Surely the situation . at the
moment can be met if the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) will indicate that this item will
be put on the order paper for debate at a
subsequent time.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, if that is
the only assurance that is required, I have no
intention of stopping the debate, any debate
that may be necessary or discussion of this
report. But I just cannot give an undertaking
that I will do it before we meet after the
interval, that is all.
Mr. MacDonald: But does the hon. Prime
Minister propose to put it on the order paper?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I will undertake to put
it on the order paper.
Mr. Singer: That is quite satisfactory.
Mr. Speaker: The report is being presented
in the same way that all reports are being
presented and the motion is that the com-
mittee be re-appointed and continue with
the same membership as heretofore.
378
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if I could ask the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan) a question? As I under-
stood it, it is necessary that we have some
debate on this in order that the government,
if they accept the wishes of the committee,
would implement this suggestion of $20 for
the uninsured driver. I understood, that
would have to come before the Legislature
before the government might put that into
force on January 1, 1962.
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): That is
practically the same question as I have. Some
of the recomendations here are supposed to
take eflFect by January, 1962. If we do not
get an opportunity to debate this before that
time, will these recommendations go into
efiFect?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have not
had an opportunity of reading this interim
report, but I will look at it and take whatever
action the government considers necessary.
But I cannot undertake that I will carry out
all the recommendations that may be in this
report because I have not read it. It has
just been tabled here today.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day I have a question of the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts).
Will the commissioner of the Royal commis-
sion on crime-
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I did send this
question to the office of the hon. Prime
Minister, I am not sure whether he received
Mr, Speaker, will the commissioner of the
Royal commission on crime be empowered
to appoint a chief counsel to assist him?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Shall I take these one
at a time?
Mr. Wintermeyer: It is immaterial. There
are four questions and they are all related
to the same subject, Mr. Speaker, and I can
read all four. The one that I read, of course,
is the first question.
The second question: will the commissioner
of the Royal commission on crime be em-
powered to appoint a staff of investigators to
assist him in gathering information on the
subject of organized crime?
Three: do the terms of reference of the
Royal commission on crime permit the com-
missioner to hold hearings in camera at his
discretion?
Four: will the government assume the ac-
counts of Opposition counsel to the Royal
commission?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The answer to the first
question is that counsel will be appointed in
consultation with the commissioner.
The answer to the second question is such
staff as the commissioner considers necessary
to carry out the terms of his conmiission will
be provided.
The third question: the terms of reference
to the Royal commission do not impose any
limitation upon the right of a commissioner
to conduct the investigations in any way he
sees fit.
Question four: The government will assume
the accounts of personnel whom the commis-
sioner deems essential to be appointed, to
assist him in his inquiry.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if a
supplementary question could be added to
that: will an opportunity be given to persons
to make representations well in advance of the
commencement of the hearings along the lines
indicated in the four questions?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the con-
duct of the Royal commission lies entirely
within the hands of Mr. Justice Roach, who is
a man of great experience in these matters.
I am quite sure that he will arrange things in
proper fashion to see that the inquiry is con-
ducted in order that we may get to the truth
of the matters which the commission was set
up to investigate. I am not going to say he
will or will not do anything. He is the man
conducting the investigation. The terms of
reference are broad and these matters will be
in his discretion.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Labour)
moves second reading of Bill No. 39, An Act
to amend The Department of Labour Act.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a
few words with respect to this bill. In the
first place I intend to give notice now that
when we are in the committee of the whole
House I intend to move an amendment to the
DECEMBER 13, 1961
3t9
bill and instead of calling it "The Ontario
Safety Council" as was suggested in the bill,
it is now proposed to be called "The Labour
Safety Council of Ontario."
The reason for giving this notice is because
I had representations made to me by the
Ontario Safety League, which for many years
has been conducting safety programmes in
those fields outside of industrial safety. This
Ontario Safety League was formed in 1913
and obtained a provincial charter in 1923.
Since that time it has been carrying on in this
safety field and doing a very fine job. It was
therefore brought to my attention that if we
call the new safety council the "Ontario
Safety Council" there might be some confu-
sion in the mind of the public as to which is
which, especially since the Ontario Safety
League has been carrying on for so long in
its field. That is why I propose the change
and give notice now. Suggestions for the
amendment will be made in the committee
of the whole House.
I think everyone understands the bill,
which I think is self-explanatory. This morn-
ing I had the opportunity to meet with Mr.
David Archer and Mr. Douglas Hamilton of
the Ontario Federation of Labour. We went
over the principles of the bill, I even
suggested to them what was proposed by way
of changing the name. They have given me
permission to say that they are in accord
with the principle, have given me permission
also to use their names, and to say that they
are willing to co-operate fully with the de-
partment in implementing this particular
suggestion that is now before the House in
the form of an amendment to The Depart-
ment of Labour Act.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Speaker, I believe this is the place where I
would raise the question of tabling this report
in the Legislature.
I have read carefully the report of the
commission on industrial safety and I note
that included in the recommendations of that
commission is that this should be tabled in
the Legislature. I would point out to the
hon. Minister that unless this report is tabled
in the Legislature, hon. members will be in
no position to know whether or not the recom-
mendations are being followed.
I note that as a result of the McAndrew
report, several of the suggestions which were
made in that report are tiie same suggestions
which were made in the tabling of the Roach
report some years ago. Many of those matters
have not yet been carried out. I feel that
there is considerable advantage to be gained
in having this report tabled in the Legislature
so that all of the hon. members will be aware
of the recommendations. I feel that safety is
a matter which is everybody's business. I
think that the hon. members of this Legisla-
ture are entitled to some assurances that these
reports, these recommendations, or whatever
may be coming from this council which is
being set up by the hon. Minister, will be
available to the Legislature so that the hon.
members of this Legislature will be in a posi-
tion to determine whether or not these afFairs
are being carried out as they should be. I
very much regret that the hon. Minister has
not availed himself of all the recommenda-
tions and has left out this very important
part of the recommendations in this bill.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make some comments on this
bill now that the principle of it is before us.
I would like to comment on it in relation to
the recommendations of the Royal Commis-
sion on Industrial Safety.
The reason I think it is important that we
should study it in relation to those recom-
mendations is that the hon. Minister in his
statement on first reading of the bill indicated
that in his opinion this bill— I am not now
quoting, but I think I am summarizing fairly
accurately— this bill carried out what the hon.
Minister considered to be the most important
recommendation of the commission.
I would like to suggest to this House, Mr.
Speaker, that this bill does not really carry
out the recommendation of the commission
on this point at all. I think it is appropriate
that the name "Ontario Safety Coimcil"
should be changed to another name, not
particularly for the reason that the hon.
Minister has given, but because it is desirable
that no one should confuse the body which it
is proposed should be set up in this bill with
the body which the Royal commission recom-
mended. I would like to read some extracts
from the commission's report in regards to
what it described as the proposed Ontario
Safety Council. On page 27 of the report
it states:
Upon establishment the Ontario Safety
Council may conduct a continuing—
and I emphasize the word "continuing":
—a continuing study of all legislation and
regulations pertaining to accidents and pre-
vention, industrial health and hygiene,
safety standards, inspection and enforce-
ment and make recommendations for legis-
lative amendments.
380
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The advantages of implementing this
recommendation are many. In a rapidly
growing industrial technology such as ours,
one of the functions of the council would
be to determine that safety legislation is
being continually reviewed and modernized.
As the present inquiry has determined,
administrative branches of government are
often reluctant to disturb the status quo—
I would like to repeat that:
—administrative branches of government are
often reluctant to disturb the status quo,
as the result of which the Acts and regula-
tions for the protection of workers become
archaic and outmoded. The very existence
of a safety council would do much to over-
come the complacency towards the ade-
quacy of existing legislation and its enforce-
ment. ?r ?•
Then a little further on it says:
The commission proposes that recom-
mendations by the safety council be (a)
made directly to the appropriate Minister
and (b) that the annual report of the
safety council be tabled in the Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, when we compare the ex-
tracts I have read from the report with the
relevant portions of the bill, we find a very
significant difference in the bill.
The proposed subsection 5 of the proposed
new section 9 (a) reads as follows:
It is the function of the Ontario Safety
Council upon the request of the Minis-
ter-
Notice the limitation on the functions of the
Council. '
It is the function of the Ontario Safety
Council upon the request of the hon. Min-
ister to inquire into and advise him upon
any matter respecting the safety of
workers-
And so on, and then to inquire into vari-
ous specific things.
Now this limits the council, whatever its
name may now be, to acting only if the
Minister requests it to act. The commission
emphasized the point that the council should
carry on continuing studies of safety legisla-
tion and its adequacy in this province, which
is a very diflFerent thing. Furthermore, the
commission clearly suggests that the coun-
cil would in a sense act as a sort of a watch
dog upon the department.
Admittedly it would have no legislative
powers, its powers would be purely advi-
sory, but it would check upon what the de-
partment was doing, and the conmiission
stressed many times, including at this very
point in its report, the tendency of the
administrative branches of government to
be reluctant to disturb the status flfuo— which
is the language they use here.
It is quite clear that the commission con-
sidered it necessary that somebody, some out-
side, independent body, should keep
prodding them along: they have become
somewhat set in their ways, as I suppose is
the tendency of all human beings. They
have not kept up-to-date, they have allowed
the legislation to become archaic and out-
moded.
How can they perform that function, Mr.
Speaker, if they are only allowed to operate
if the administrative head asks them to
operate? He is not going to ask them! At
least there is no assurance that he will ask
them to keep watch on the department as
the commission recommended. He presumably
would refer only specific problems to them.
The council, instead of being a body con-
tinually operating, continually checking on
the adequacy of standards and their en-
forcement, continually making recommenda-
tions for improvement, carrying on a general
function, a month-in-month-out function, try-
ing to improve safety legislation in this prov-
ince and its administration and to improve
safety education, is to be restricted to operate
only when the Minister of Labour asks it to
operate.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is
a change in the whole spirit of the Royal
commission's recommendation. This recom-
mendation is not being carried out at all.
There is the further point, which my hon.
friend from Wentworth (Mr. R. C. Edwards)
pointed out, that the Royal commission
specifically recommended that in addition to
making recommendations to the Minister,
the report of the safety council should be
tabled in this Legislature, so that if the
council discovers what it considers to be in-
adequacies in the administration of the legis-
lation or in the nature of the legislation, more
people than just those within the department
will know about it.
How are we ever going to take any action
to correct faults that the council may discover
if they are retained merely within the narrow
circle in the department? I would say, Mr.
Speaker, that the previous history of this
department indicates that a certain amount
of publicity on its activities, or lack of
activity, is very necessary. There is no doubt
from what the Royal commission itself said
that this department has gone to sleep, that
it is very complacent, it is out of touch with
DECEMBER 13, 1961
381
the realities of modem day technological con-
ditions. That is quite obvious from the
observation of many people and from the
observation of this Royal commission.
Certainly there should be a way whereby
this Legislature can discover what the council
may recommend to the department. It should
not have to rely merely on the department
itself to reveal that information.
So on both those counts, Mr. Speaker, the
bill really has nothing to do with the report
of the Royal commission. It does not carry
out the recommendation of the Royal com-
mission in its spirit at all. It is, in my
opinion, a typical half-way government
measure designed to create the impression
that something is being done when in fact
practically nothing is being done.
The council which is being set up is being
used as an excuse for stalling action on the
other urgent matters, which I have referred
to previously and will not deal with again,
but which, as far as the Royal commission
was concerned, were not in any way asso-
ciated with the problem of setting up a
safety council. It has been used as a stalling
device and, finally, when we have the sub-
stance of the matter put before us, we find
that the stalling device is not even the kind
of agency with the broad dynamic powers,
responsibilities and duties that were envisaged
for it.
This council should carry on a continuing
job to keep everybody alive to the problem
of safety. As it stands now its responsibilities
have been so completely emasculated that it
could not possibly carry out the function that
the commission envisaged. Indeed it is quite
possible, depending on how the hon. Minister
may act in the situation, that it may not be
called upon to do anything at all. It will
be simply another dead issue along with the
many dead issues which have been buried
by this government in the past.
I tliink it is regrettable that the government
has not caught the spirit and vision of the
Royal commission in the proposal that the
commission has made and that it has come in
with the half-baked proposal contained in
this bill. I would suggest to the hon. Minister
that between now and the committee stage
of the bill he might consider some other
amendments. Certainly he should consider
the amendment suggested by the hon. member
for Wentworth, that an annual report of the
council should be tabled in this Legislature
so that we will know if it has had an oppor-
tunity to do the job envisaged for it and so
we will know just how the department has
reacted to its recommendations. That much
surely should be done.
I would suggest further that the terms of
reference set forth in subsection five should
not be limited to activity only on the
request of the Minister. The council should
meet regularly as is suggested by the Royal
commission. It should certainly deal with
matters referred to it by the Minister,
but it should deal also with matters which
appear to be of public importance referred
to it by other parties. Only in that way will
we get the benefit of the kind of body which
was proposed by the Royal commission.
I would suggest to the hon. Minister that
he seriously consider revising this bill before
it comes to committee.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say a few words about this
bill.
Preparing for this, I have had a chance to
re-examine the remarks of the hon. Minister
made on December 7. Reading his remarks
and his glowing references to the task done
by His Honour Judge McAndrew and the
other commissioners, this bill seems a very
small answer.
There are over 100 various recommenda-
tions that the commission brought forward and
I think each one of them is deserving of very
intelligent review and attention. Our hon.
colleague from Wentworth (Mr. R. C. Ed-
wards) has documented these and I understand
he will be dealing with them at a later date.
But again, Mr. Speaker, as you refer to the
hon. Minister's remarks on December 7, he
comes down about half-way through his re-
marks when he is introducing the bill and
says:
We have responded, we have responded
to the challenge put forward by the com-
mission with the introduction of this bill.
I cannot help but agree with the hon.
member for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) that the
government in introducing this bill, and tying
the bill in with the hon. Minister's remarks,
is emasculating the report and parking it on
the shelf where it is never again going to see
the light of day.
Mr. Speaker, if the government is serious
about doing anything about industrial safety
it would have brought in a package series
of amendments to legislation, new statutes if
they were necessary, and certainly more
amendments to this Act.
m
Here are just a few of the recommendations
this report, and tlie government has not
382
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
even looked at them, has not even nibbled at
the real challenge put forward by the report.
Safety council on page 3:
That an accident prevention association
be established under The Workmen's Com-
pensation Act to operate under the jurisdic-
tion of the Workmen's Compensation Board
—that the commission recommends the
establishment of management-labour safety
committees at plant levels— licensing of con-
tractors at provincial levels. The report
recommends that all Acts, such as The
Trench Excavators Act and tlie regulations,
and The Building Trades Protection Act,
be amended to provide expressly that the
department shall have the duty and power
to provide enforcement by local authorities
within the scope of their authority.
These are only five, as I say, of almost a
hundred different recommendations that have
been made, and the hon. Minister says: "We
have responded with this bill." So he sets up
another advisory committee that is going to
whisper in his ear. What they are going to
whisper we will never know, and he says,
"We have responded to this challenging
report."
Mr. Speaker, I say that this government, if
this is the only way it can approach a chal-
lenging report of this type, should be thor-
oughly ashamed of itself. The actions of this
government speak louder than the speeches
of the hon. Minister. He has not accepted
the challenge; he refuses to do anything about
safety in Ontario, and the people of Ontario
should know about this.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): If I may, I would
just like to add a few remarks to those of
my hon. colleague in regard to this bill.
I had occasion of recent date to see in
some detail just how little The Department
of Labour has done in the last 18 years in
regard to safety of workers. I think in my
own riding three people were killed in about
as many days and two of them died as a
result of going down into a sewer.
Hon. C. Daley (Minister without Portfolio):
As the hon. member knows from the statistics,
Ontario is the safest place to work, in spite of
all the tremendous activity.
Mr. Trotter: With all due respect, the Mc-
Andrew report is a shocking indictment of the
poor administration that this government has
been giving in regard to labour safety, to say
nothing of a good many other things.
It was certainly brought home to me, Mr.
Speaker, when I went to a coroner's inquest
and followed through just what had happened
in the death of one of the men who went
down in the sewer on the Fred Gardiner
Expressway. I found that here in the prov-
ince The Department of Labour does nothing,
the city of Toronto has no regulations, the
harbour commissioners have no protection, for
the men.
I would say that on the overall picture it is
the duty, it is the urgent duty, of this depart-
ment to see to it that these men who are
doing dangerous work should have at least
some protection, that their lives are not sacri-
ficed. No matter how thorough the coroner's
inquest seems to be they almost always come
out with the view that it was an accident; it
was nobody's fault.
But certainly in the case of this man Amero
who lost his life just about two or three
months ago in a sewer construction on the
Gardiner Expressway— incidentally, a man
who did land surveying was sent into the
sewer— no precautions were taken whatsoever,
and as a result not only Amero but one other
man lost his life. If this government were on
the job they would at least have some regula-
tion on this matter.
This bill before us is good as far as it
goes, but I feel that it is just another oppor-
tunity for the government to throw up a
screen, to give the impression that it is doing
something, that it is taking an interest, but
in eflFect it is doing absolutely nothing. This
advisory council does not have to be called
unless the hon. Minister asks, and at the rate
the hon. Minister asks or tries to move to
have anything done in this province, I suggest
that this safety council will be of little use.
I hope I am wrong, but it still depends
upon the energy of the government, and the
government is completely lacking in energy,
especially in this field.
I find that when one goes into the homes
where men have died, where one meets the
widow and the children— in this particular
case I mentioned, the widow gets $75 a
month for the rest of her life and she will
be allowed $25 for each child. This sum is
mighty small and certainly this accident
could have been avoided had this govern-
ment been on the job, if it had not been such
a decayed, decrepit, old age government, 18
years in power.
The former hon. Minister of Labour (Mr.
Daley) smiles, but the McAndrew report
shows that literally hundreds of men have
died needlessly simply because we did not
have proper regulations, and this government
is making no attempt to bring in proper regu-
lations. I suggest that even though in
DECEMBER 13, 1961
383
principle I go along with this bill, it is a
smoke screen to cover up the sins and the
omissions of the government over the last
number of years.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, today's papers carry the news that
yesterday still another workman was killed
in an accident in Picton. There have been
something like 24 or 25 in the Metro area;
all across the province, it would be interest-
ing to know what the full statistics are.
Now, there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that
if one wants to be kind the best one can say
is that this is a feeble step forward. It is a
step that is hampered by the key fact that
the committee can operate only when the
hon. Minister asks it, when the record of
this department is that the hon. Minister will
act rarely. In fact this department is smug
and complacent with regard to its whole
approach.
This attitude permeates the whole of the
department. If the present hon. Minister is
going to change, we will see this and we will
believe it only when we have seen it, because
this attitude permeates the whole of the de-
partment.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is
a hopelessly inadequate response to the
McAndrew report. Therefore I move,
seconded by Mr. Bryden, that the motion be
amended by striking out all the words after
the word "that" and substituting:
This House regrets the inadequacy of
the government's programme of industrial
safety.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Speaker, may I
say a few words in reply to the rather feeble
charges that have been levelled against my
department. Never before have I seen safety
played with so politically as I have seen
today. It is quite obvious that they do not
want to give us a chance to get on with the
job, they would rather make a little political
hay out of it.
In reply to some of the charges made, may
I say there is nothing in the bill to suggest
that the activities of this council are to be
terminated at any time. It is my hope it will
carry on for many years and do a good job.
It would be presumptuous, I think, on my
part to have brought in amendments at this
session anticipating what the council might
or might not do, having in mind the type of
person we hope to have on this safety
council.
As for continuing studies: certainly the
council will be expected to carry on con-
tinuing studies and this bill is drawn in the
widest possible terms in spite of the way the
Opposition has twisted it out of all recog-
nition. It is the function of the Labour
Safety Council of Ontario, as it will be
known, upon the request of the Min-
ister to inquire into and advise him upon
any matter which threatens the safety of
workers, and then it goes on to say without
respecting the generality of the foregoing it
will do so and so.
Now, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. mem-
bers of the House want to take my word
for it or not, it is my intention to request
this council, when it is set up, and I expect it
will be set up forthwith, to inquire into all of
these safety measures just as soon as they
can possibly get geared up and get at them.
Facilities will be made available to the
council to sit down in the Labour Department
building; adequate staff will be provided,
whether secretarial, investigating or other-
wise, because it is my clear desire to get
into this problem immediately and to have
the council come up with some of the advice
that we think is necessary to provide good,
reasonable safety legislation in this House.
Now, the suggestion that this is being set
up as a smoke screen I find rather nauseating,
although I am getting rather used to it after
some of the diatribes I have heard from the
other side. I want to assure the hon. mem-
bers, those reasonable people who are willing
to listen and take my assurances that we do
mean business in this field, that the council is
going to be set up. The personnel will be
announced next week, and when they see
the calibre of the person who is willing to
act on this council, and without remunera-
tion, I am convinced that they will know
this is not just a smoke screen in order to
cover up some recommendations made in the
McAndrew report. I am convinced when
they see the type of person who has allowed
his name to stand for this particular council,
that they will be delighted.
I have already discussed, not the names of
the persons who will sit on the council, but
I have indicated to both labour and manage-
ment, and to accident-prevention association
representatives the types of persons who are
going to make up the complement here. They
are delighted with the suggestions and also
with the fact that we are getting on to what
they consider the very nub of the McAndrew
report. I think it would be presumptuous
for me, Mr. Speaker, I would say, to have
brought in a series of amendments at this
session only to have said to the council:
"Now here are these amendments, you deal
3a4
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not only with the McAndrew report, but
deal with these amendments"; and have them
say to me: "If you had just waited, perhaps
until we had reviewed the whole industrial
safety picture, we would have brought in
something else"; which would have been
embarrassing, not only to them, but to our-
selves.
There is going to be no delay, I want to
assure the hon. members, Mr. Speaker, we
are going to get on with the job.
Mr. MacDonald: Next year?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: It will be next year,
yes. It will be next year, because this is
almost the middle of December, it is bound
to be next year. But I would say within a
few months, I will put it that way, because
after all this is a very large all-encompass-
ing job. We should have some recommen-
dations from this council which will help us
decide what legislation is going to be brought
before the House.
If the hon. members will just be patient,
if they will not be too critical of the depart-
ment, I think even they, unreasonable as
they are at times, will agree that we are
trying to do a job in this field.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, it may well be that
the hon. Minister (Mr. Warrender) has every
good intention of doing a proper job— and I
am not going to question that— but I think
it must be remembered that we are a Legis-
lature and we are expected to judge and
evaluate the significance of many pieces of
legislation, not by the explanation given by
the Minister but by the phraseology that
is used in the legislation before us.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those who
have preceded me in this debate are abso-
lutely right. I do not think they are attack-
ing the hon. Minister personally. I think
what they are saying is that the legislation
as drafted leaves the initiative in this matter
of safety to the hon. Minister and his per-
sonal direction. The McAndrew report, as
I understand it, intended that the initiative
be given by this Legislature directly to the
safety council.
Now I think this Legislature has every
right to say to the hon. Minister that he has
had an opportunity to examine the Mc-
Andrew report, that he has had an oppor-
tunity to evaluate the situation and bring
forth what legislation he feels will do the
, job. But in the legislation that he has pro-
posed, I suggest that he has left the whole
_ initiative in this matter to his personal dis-
cretion. Now this, I suggest, is a fatal flaw,
and I think those who preceded me likewise
are correct when they say that the report
of the council will not be made to this Legis-
lature but to The Department of Labour.
If this Legislature is to function as a
supreme body, then surely the report must
come back to the Legislature. I think for
these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and without be-
ing vindictive— I do not think that is neces-
sary—we of the Opposition have every right
to say that this legislation falls short of the
principles that have been enunciated and
requested. We have every right, and I as-
sure you, Mr. Speaker, that we of our party
will support the resolution that has been pro-
posed, because in principle I think the legis-
lation as enunciated before us today falls
short of the expectation and the intention of
the McAndrew report.
Now if the hon. Minister wishes to correct
these errors, and I think he is a reasonable
man, he should admit that from our point
of view we have no idea who the personnel
will be, none in the world. They may be
the most outstanding people, but we have
no idea what his recommendations to the
council are going to be.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I have said what
they are going to be.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, this is
fine, but we are dealing objectively with a
piece of legislation. Now I think it is the
responsibility of the hon. Minister to so
draft it that we can judge it objectively and
on its merits and not merely on what he
suggests he will do.
After all, it would be just as wise I think to
come in and say: "I do not need any legis-
lation, I am the Minister of Labour and
I am going to do such and such." But the
hon. Minister has taken the opportunity to
present a bill and the bill itself, I must
suggest, objectively falls short of the principle
that was enunciated in the McAndrew report
in two respects.
First, it leaves the whole initiative of safety
to the Minister, and I speak of him in
his oflficial capacity; and it fails to report
back to this Legislature, which I think has
an inherent right to know of the progress
which is being made.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, unless the
hon. Minister is prepared now to amend the
legislation, I want him to know that we will
support the motion.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
speak to the amendment that has been
DECEMBER 13, 1961
385
proposed by the hon. leader of this party
(Mr. MacDonald). I believe that the state-
ment that the hon. Minister (Mr. Warrender)
gave a couple of minutes ago is a full justi-
fication of the amendment that has been
placed before the House.
It is an amendment, I may say, that we
hesitated to put forward because we like to
see any steps forward, no matter how hesitant
they may be, in this very important matter.
But the smug, complacent attitude of the
hon. Minister, which is the very sort of
attitude that the McAndrew commission com-
plained about time after time in its report,
indicates that the government really has no
serious intention, as far as I can see, to
proceed—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The hon. member
cannot see very far, that is obvious.
Mr. Bryden: Well, I can see far enough
to know that the government has done
nothing about this problem in two years.
Let us just review the history of it, Mr.
Speaker.
I will say two years, but it is certainly a
lot longer than that, because we have had
problems of construction safety for a long,
long time. The more our province grows and
construction work develops, the problem be-
comes more and more serious.
It is almost two years now, Mr. Speaker,
since the Hogg's Hollow disaster, and that
was only the culmination of a long series of
disastrous occurrences involving men's lives.
At that time the government refused to act;
it set up a Royal commission because it said
it wanted to know more about the matter.
The hon. Minister blandly tells us that he
is not going to go off half-cocked and be
presumptuous, to anticipate the safety council
now. At that time it was the Royal commis-
sion.
Well, I would like to see him be pre-
sumptuous enough to try to protect men's
lives. I do not think that is a presumption
that we would blame him for. It was two
years ago almost that they sloughed the whole
problem off, took no remedial action at all,
said that they were going to have a Royal
commission to advise them and they would
act after the Royal commission reported.
The Royal commission reported nearly two
months ago and now they are going to have
another body report to them on what the
Royal commission reported to them on. I do
not know how long this can go on, but in
the meantime we still have the problem of
men in danger every day of the week and
particularly on construction jobs.
I would like to read another extract from
tlie report. I have read it to this House
before, but apparently it has not sunk in on
the hon. Minister, so I will read it again:
Finally, the commission wishes to re-
iterate that a modern, well-enforced safety
construction Act is vital to the safety of
the hundreds of thousands of construction
employees in Ontario and a need for such
legislation is so urgent that we recommend
such an Act be proclaimed at the earliest
possible date.
Now there certainly was no suggestion
there that we had to delay action, on con-
struction safety at least, until after the safety
council had been set up. Certainly the clear
implication of that particular recommendation
is that a construction safety Act should be
proceeded with immediately. But the hon.
Minister says: "No, we will wait until we
can set up the council and let the council
consider the matter and then after they have
considered the matter and reported to me I
will consider what I will do".
Judging from the way he put that, it
would appear that he will not likely make
up his mind until after the 1961-62 session
of the Legislature has adjourned so we will
have no construction safety Act for another
year.
How long can this go on, Mr. Speaker?
Certainly I am quite in favour of a council,
I would like to see the council in the terms
envisaged by the commission that would be
much preferable to the truncated version of
the hon. Minister, but this council should not
be used as an excuse for delaying action on
everything else. I think the hon. Minister's
statement makes it abundantly clear that the
government's whole approach to safety legis-
lation is totally inadequate. For that reason
I believe that the amendments should carry
and that the government should come back
with proper proposals.
I realize— and I know this is a very grave
matter and that is what caused our hestitation
—that our amendment, if carried, will defeat
the bill. But I will say, Mr. Speaker, on be-
half of this group, and I have no doubt on
behalf of all members of this House, that
we are ready to sit here until the government
can come back with something proper.
Let us defeat this bill and then get proper
legislation in. As far as I am concerned, and
I am sure most other members are concerned,
we will sit here until that legislation can be
put into force. That is the proper course for
the government. The time for stalling is long
past. It is time we got action and something
386
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
was brought in approaching a proper safety
programme with particular reference— I would
state again— to this most urgent problem of
construction safety.
Several Hon. members: Hear, hear!
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak
against the amendment if I may.
I have made it abundantly clear, I think,
that it is my intention to request this council
immediately to look into all matters respect-
ing the safety of workers. One could not be
much broader than that in his request.
In addition, sir, I can tell hon. members
that one of the first requests I shall make to
this council is to consider proposals for a
new construction Act to take the place of
The Building Trades Protection Act, which
I hope will be repealed at that time. That
is one constructive move that can and will
be made.
It has been said a great deal of time has
elapsed. It is two months since the report
came in—
An hon. member: Eighteen years.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: One can say 18 years
—throw these words around in order to colour
the picture and work up a little bit of political
hay. I appreciate there are some by-elections
in the offing, but I resent very much using
this forum for a political attack in the field
of safety when we are earnestly and sincerely
endeavouring to get on with the job.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister is the only
person who is playing politics.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: They can murmur all
they like as far as I am concerned, the Act
is going to stay just as it is, Mr. Speaker,
and with that framework we will do a good
job in the interests of the safety of the
workers in the province.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, I am interested when an hon.
Minister of the Crown in this parhament
stands up and suggests that there is some-
thing very heinous about being political in
these chambers. I do not know how we are
supposed to approach the problems of govern-
ment in a democracy if you do not use the
party system and if you are non-political—
An hon. member: The hon. members would
just agree with the hon. Minister all the
time.
Mr. Thompson: I think that the hon.
Minister would want either to silence or to
suppress our party.
We have all been aware that there have
been gaps in safety legislation when there
have been these disasters taking place and
men's lives lost. I could go dramatically into
that but I do not want to. I just want to
say that we know that the McAndrew report
shows there has been a serious deficiency on
the part of this government with respect to
the protection of men's lives. I find it very
hard to understand, when the government says
it will set up a Royal commission in order to
get the facts, and when the hon. Minister
commends the Royal commission on what it
has done, that he is now setting up a safety
council or another committee to look at these
facts. As the hon. member on my left (Mr.
Bryden) asked, how many committees do you
have? Will you have another committee to
look at what this safety council has reported,
and so on? I cannot help feeling that both
the previous Minister of Labour (Mr.
Daley) and the present hon. Minister (Mr.
Warrender) must be fully aware of the very
real emergency caused by the lack of safety
regulations today and because of their lack of
application.
I know that many other hon. members of
the Liberal party have felt this way. May
I recall my own feeling of grave necessity to
do something for the people in my area be-
cause of the lack of safety? From my first
speech in this House I have constantly been
asking the hon. Minister of Labour to do
certain things which are now being recom-
mended by the McAndrew report. It would
be very simple to do some of these things and
would mean so much to the safety of the
workers in this province. When the present
hon. Minister of Labour was being asked
about some of the recommendations of the
McAndrew report— a report which he had
commended— I asked him in this House about
one of the recommendations and I was told
that this would be given due consideration.
It seems that the consideration is going to go
on into the next year; a safety council is going
to be set up to analyze the report of the com-
mission which the hon. Minister has already
praised. I would suggest, sir, that we all
feel the necessity for the implementation of
these recommendations. Many of us, who are
close in our ridings to people who have to go
to work under tough conditions, read in the
papers of men who have been seriously hurt
or killed because of lack of legislation. That
need is underlined in the McAndrew report.
We need these regulations.
DECEMBER 13, 1961
387
Hon. Mr. Warrender: So is the council in
the report.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, but surely there is an
urgency here, Mr. Speaker. The Royal com-
mission has exposed a serious lack of coverage
for the people of this province— for the work-
ing people. If that is the case it is the duty
of the people in this Legislature, this parlia-
ment, not to hold back the necessary legis-
lation by making more and more committees.
Ratlier, if necessary, we should stay here night
after night in order to get the necessary regu-
lations out. We on our side of the House
feel the dire need for regulations. We ap-
preciate the hon. Minister saying he is going
to consider new regulations, but we feel that
this should be done now— that he should
have brought in this legislation after he had
read the indictment of the McAndrew report.
Therefore I would very strongly go along
with what the other Opposition speakers have
said and suggest that this shows a hesi-
tancy—almost a reluctance— on the part of
the government to move when it has been
shown the real necessity to legislate for the
safety of working people.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Speaker, I should like to speak to this amend-
ment. I tried to keep my earlier comments
brief because it was my understanding at that
time that this was one phase in the adoption
of the McAndrew report and criticized the
manner in which this council was to be set
up. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, as this
debate has gone further I have been— to put
it mildly— amazed at the most recent remarks
of the hon. Minister (Mr. Warrender) when
he stood up to defend this. In particular he
said we could say what we like; the Act will
remain as it is until this commission reports.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon.
Minister that he is entirely wrong. He is
saying in effect: "I have no confidence in the
McAndrew report, I am going to set up
another committee to report on the McAndrew
report."
I went through this report and made notes
of the various recommendations which were
made, Mr. Speaker. Some of them are very
definite and very positive. I should like, if
I might, to amplify this. I should like to
read some of them. On page 76 of the
McAndrew report it says very clearly:
That the commission recommends that
the problem of enforcement of this Act
should clearly state that the ultimate re-
sponsibility for its administration, enforce-
ment, review and amendment lies with
The Department of Labour.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Now the hon. Minister
is proposing to set up somebody else to review
this situation when the report sets out— not
only in one instance but in several instances—
tliat the responsibility lies with The Depart-
ment of Labour.
I have some sympathy for the hon. Minister
because I realize he is a new Minister in
this department. Nevertheless I think as an
hon. Minister of the government he must take
responsibility for the administration of this
department through the years. I suggest to
him that by starting up this new council,
and in light of his remarks this afternoon,
he has clearly indicated that he is not go-
ing to carry out these several recommenda-
tions of the McAndrew report until he has
another report from another committee. I
suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in taking
this course of action, the hon. Minister is
ignoring the McAndrew report and, as has
been clearly set out this afternoon, we are
going to be set back one, two or three years
—I do not know how long— until a further
commission reports.
Let me read some of these recommenda-
tions, Mr. Speaker. I submit to you, sir,
that they should be carried out now, and that
all the advisory councils in the world will not
change the substance of some of them. It
is the responsibility of the hon. Minister to
carry them out and to show some action now.
As I said earlier, when I originally criticized
this Act it was my understanding that fur-
ther legislation would be forthcoming in the
present session. I am now enlightened by
the hon. Minister's views that, no matter
what is said here, no matter what is said
he is not going to make any changes in this
Act until the new committee reports. Let
me read some of these recommendations.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: From what the hon.
member said a little while ago, nothing
would convince him.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I have already said,
Mr. Speaker, that the McAndrew report
states on page 27, that this committee —
speaking of the committee which the hon.
Minister has set up today— is to make rec-
ommendations to the appropriate Minister
in its annual report which will be tabled
in the Legislature. In the very carrying
out of this one recommendation, he is not
even following the suggestion completely,
but is setting up another camouflage. It will
be impossible for members of this Legis-
lature to know what is being done.
388
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Let me go on:
The commission also feels that the Min-
ister of Labour should have the power to
suspend or cancel a certificate of com-
petency by an inspector, including
insurance inspectors, whose work is un-
satisfactory.
No legislation is forthcoming to change
tliat situation. We have had recommenda-
tions on it. What is the sense in setting up
another committee to report on these definite
recommendations? I suggest to you, Mr.
Speaker, that it is the responsibility of the
hon. Minister of Labour either to accept or
reject these recommendations, but to do some-
thing with them.
Mr. Singer: He cannot do that because
he cannot read them.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I thank the hon.
member. That was a very wise remark; just
as puerile as some of his others.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: There are several
recommendations, Mr. Speaker, upon which
all the committees in the world cannot de-
cide. There are several recommendations in
the report that must be adopted or tossed
out by the government and the hon. Minis-
ter of Labour. On page 31 there is a rec-
ommendation which suggests that the
minimum penalty under the Act should be
increased from $25 to $1,000. These are
not recommendations that a committee can
rule on. The decision must be made by
the responsible Minister of the Crown and
the goverrmient opposite.
It is unfair, Mr. Speaker, to say that all of
these matters are going to be turned over to
a committee which is not responsible to the
people of this province. There is too much of
a tendency opposite, I suggest, to turn these
things over to boards and commissions, and
to avoid the responsibility which rightly be-
longs to the elected representatives of the
people.
The McAndrew commission feels that The
Department of Labour must take responsi-
bility for the enforcement of The Building
Trades Protection Act as well as The Trench
Excavators Act. These, again, are definite
recommendations. Now the hon. Minister
proposes he is going to set up a committee
to tell him whether or not he should do it.
The commission recommends that munici-
palities be made responsible for the carrying
out of the conditions of these two Acts. This
is something that must be done from the
government benches; it is not something that
should come in a recommendation from the
committee. Again, on page 35, there is
another suggestion as to the changes in the
penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I think if any of us were to
go through this report, there is recommenda-
tion upon recommendation which calls for
action on the part of the government. It
does not call for the setting up of more straw
men that we can knock down. I suggest that
if the government is going to set up Royal
commissions— and then set up committees to
investigate the recommendations of the Royal
commissions— they are wasting the taxpayers'
funds in setting up these commissions in the
first place.
I think it is the responsibihty of the govern-
ment to give us some action. I am trying to
be critical in a constructive way. I do not
like to condemn the hon. Minister personally
for the past, but I think I must condemn him,
sir, for his lack of action in picking some sort
of positive course as a result of the McAndrew
commission which was set up in good faith.
There is the report which all of us have read,
and the report is very critical of the depart-
ment. It is critical of the attitude of the
enforcement officers in The Department of
Labour, and now the government tells this
Legislature that amendments are going to be
put oflF for another year while they investigate
the investigation.
I suggest, sir, that the thing is wrong.
Originally I was prepared to go along with
the recommendation but, in view of the
remarks of the hon. Minister today, I do not
see how any honest Opposition can do other-
wise than criticize it very strongly and vote
against it until something more positive is
forthcoming.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr. Warrender moves
the second reading of Bill No. 39.
Mr. MacDonald moves the amendment that
the motion be amended by striking out all
the words after the word "that" and substitu-
ting, "This House regrets the inadequacy of
the government's programme of industrial
safety."
Will those hon. members in favour of the
amendment say "aye."
As many as are opposed say "nay."
The amendment was negatived on division
as follows:
YEAS NAYS
Belanger Allan (Haldimand-
Bryden Norfolk)
Bukator Allen (Middlesex
Chappie South)
DECEMBER 13, 1961
389
YEAS
NAYS
1 Davison
Auld
Edwards
Beckett
(Wentworth)
Boyer
Gordon
Brown
^ Gould
Brunelle
Innes
Cass
MacDonald
Cathcart
Manley
Cecile
Newman
Connell
Oliver
Cowling
Reaume
Daley
Singer
Downer
Spence
Dymond
Thompson
Edwards (Perth)
Trotter
Evans
Troy
Fullerton
Whicher
Gomme
Winterineyer
Goodfellow
Worton
Grossman
-22
Guindon
:
Hall
■
Haskett
'
Hoflfman
■
Janes
Johnston (Carleton)
■
Lavergne
.
Lawrence
Lewis
Mackenzie
'
MacNaughton
Morin
1
Momingstar
Morrow
McNeil
s
Parry
Price
Robarts
Roberts
Rollins
Rowntree
Sandercock
Simonett
Spooner
Sutton
Wardrope
Warrender
White
Whitney
Yaremko
-51
Mr. Speaker:
I declare the amendment
lost.
THE VITAL STATISTICS ACT
Hon. J. Yaremko moves second reading
of Bill No. 40, An Act to amend The Vital
Statistics Act.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add any-
thing to the explanation I gave on the intro-
duction of the bill. It is the reduction of a
period from 28 weeks to 20 weeks in respect
to the definition of stillbirths. There is a
general feeling throughout Canada and
throughout the world— through the World
Health Organization— that statistics on still-
births would provide more medical informa-
tion if the period were standardized at 20
weeks.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Yaremko moves second reading
of Bill No. 41, An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Act.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr. Speaker,
on this bill I am sure we, on this side of the
House, are in favour of the principle em-
bodied, but I think it provides an opportunity
to suggest to the hon. Provincial Secretary
that the information in his particular depart-
ment is away behind the times. The system,
it seems to me, must surely be antiquated in
that department because of the delay involved
in getting these returns in, and knowing
where these charters are, and what the situa-
tion is.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think the hon. mem-
ber is addressing himself to the next bill. The
Corporations Information Act.
Mr. Oliver: I am sorry if we are not on the
right bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
bill.
THE CORPORATIONS INFORMATION
ACT
Hon. Mr. Yaremko moves second reading
of Bill No. 42, An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Information Act.
Mr. Oliver: Continuing, Mr. Speaker, from
where I was on the other bill, I think perhaps
all hon. members of the House have had a
similar experience. A couple of weeks ago I
had a letter from the department, I think.
390
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
asking me if I were still the director of a
certain company. That company has been
out of existence for 10 or 14 years. If that
is the sort of records that are kept in that
department, it is no wonder difBciilties evolve
every once in a while. It seems to me that
the hon. Minister should surely be able to
give an undertaking that this information will
be more up-to-date in the future than it has
been in the past. Surely the product of
automation or machines of some character
could be put to work in this department to
bring the statistics up to date. The records
are not much use if they are eight or 10 years
behind as they have been in many, many cases
in the hon. Minister's department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, the intent
of two of the sections are to provide the
public with more up-to-date changes in re-
spect of corporations. We have presently—
and I can give the exact number at a later
date, perhaps when the estimates of the
department come up— roughly 65,000 corpora-
tions in the province of Ontario, and we in-
corporate annually— I believe the figure is
around 7,000 a year, in addition to the
number of extraprovincial corporations
licensed to do business in the province of
Ontario, and in addition to those who do not
have to be so licensed, that are incorporated
in other jurisdictions but carry on business in
the province of Ontario.
Through the years there has always been
a certain requirement under The Corporations
Information Act, which was reviewed at the
same time that The Companies Act of Ontario
was reviewed, when the select committee was
sitting; certain changes were made in respect
of the forms at that time. Companies are re-
quired to make these statements annually.
That is required of all corporations. This in-
volves a great many types of corporations.
There are corporations which are very large
and have legal staffs at their disposal— with
respect to which there is no difficulty in the
filing of annual returns. There are other
very small corporations; there are the non-
share capital corporations or associations— of
which there are some 3,000 in the province
of Ontario; they are not perhaps as well
equipped to complete this information as they
should be. However, I will say this to this
House that for a number of years the depart-
ment has been going back through the records
and culling out all the companies which have
not filed their returns as necessary. My pre-
decessors, I believe, and I have continuous,
monthly, signed orders, in which there are
several foolscap pages of names of companies
whose corporate powers have been cancelled
because of failure to comply.
We have been trying to be fair with people.
We do give them the opportunity— perhaps we
have leaned too far in that direction— and re-
minded them continuously that they should
file annual returns. I think 90 per cent of the
job has been completed until now; the other
10 per cent will be completed this coming
year, and the whole of the backlog will have
been cleared out. Then we will require these
annual returns in respect of all corporations
right on the dotted line, perhaps.
Those hon. members who are lawyers, and
who have had dealings with the filing of
annual returns, are, I think, familiar with
what some of these— especially the little cor-
porations, the vast number of them— are up
against in the filing of these returns.
These provisions we have now made are
to give the public up-to-date information.
This is apart from what the hon. member
brings up in respect to the requirement of an
annual return. We are now going one step
further, with two vital requirements in respect
of corporations: changes in directorship, and
changes which affect the capital structure of
the corporation, must be filed so that they
will be brought to the attention of the public
much more quickly. In the case of change in
directors the notice has to be filed within 15
days. Changes in authorized capital must be
filed within 30 days.
I personally believe that those are exceed-
ingly good changes, and we will be in a posi-
tion to have up-to-date information, both
within the department and for the public at
large.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): I was wonder-
ing if the hon. Provincial Secretary would
permit a question. Suppose the company
failed to file the change of directors in 15
days; what is the penalty involved?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The penalty will be the
general penalty under The Corporations Act.
I have not got it before me.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair and
the House resolve itself into committee of
supply.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee, Mr. K. Brown in the
chair.
DECEMBER 13, 1961
391
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE
On vote 801:
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Chairman, in connection with The De-
partment of Insurance, first let me say that
there has been a change in the head of the
department. Mr. Roy Whitehead, after a
long period of government service, reached
the age of retirement in August of this year
and retired as superintendent. The deputy,
Mr. Cecil Richards, who is a chartered
accountant and has had some 23 years service
in the service of the province— the last four
or five of which have been as deputy super-
intendent of insurance— has been appointed
superintendent. He sits here in front of me
for the first time in that capacity and I think
it is appropriate that I should pay tribute
to both these gentlemen. They have done
excellent service and I think their service is
appreciated.
Now, I might say that The Department of
Insurance has the administration of some
eight Acts, The Insurance Act, The Loan and
Trust Act, The Real Estate and Business
Brokers Act, The Credit Unions Act, The
Investment Contracts Act, The Collection
Agencies Act, The Prepaid Hospital and
Medical Services Act, and The Mortgage
Brokers Registration Act.
There are some figures that would perhaps
be of interest to the hon. members. They are
comparable with last year in most cases, but
the number of life insurance licensed agents
is some 8,000— other than life, 9,500; and
insurance adjusters, 750. Real estate brokers:
number of registered brokers, 2,600; and
salesmen 6,000. These are round figures.
The advisory board in connection with real
estate brokers held some ten hearings during
the year.
There are some 33 inspectors in the de-
partment. The total staflF of the department
is 69. This is a small department in many
respects but is actually self-sustaining. As a
result of some changes in the fees a few
years ago, the anticipated income for the
fiscal year, with which we are now dealing
in the estimates, is some $624,000, and the
anticipated expenditures some $466,000.
I think the House might be interested in a
few comments in connection with The
Mortgage Brokers Registration Act. I asked
the superintendent to give me a short report
on it and I am now giving some parts of
this report for the benefit of the House, since
this is a relatively new Act. It came into
force on July 1, 1960 and the second year
of its operation began on July 1, 1961. The
actual registration at the present time is
1,173 mortgage brokers, of which 149 are
lawyers and 588 are real estate and insurance
brokers. Last year at the same time the
registrations were 958, so that there have
been something over 200 additional registra-
tions in this second year over the previous
year. Two registrations in the current period
since July 1, 1961, have been cancelled. One
was in connection with a resident from
another province who failed to maintain an
office in this province, and the other was in
connection with the issuing of cheques that
were not met when they reached the bank,
and caused some difficulty.
The Act has had a salutary effect on the
mortgage business. It appears to have had
some effect in reducing interest rates charged
and in reducing the incidence of bonus
mortgages.
This Act, hon. members will recall, came
into effect at the same time as some amend-
ments to The Unconscionable Transactions
Act and, to the knowledge of The Department
of Insurance, there has been at least one
case, under The Unconscionable Transactions
Act— which went through to the Court of
Appeal— where an effective interest rate of
27.5 per cent was declared unconscionable
and the decision, as I say, was sustained by
the Court of Appeal. It is the view of the
department officials that that decision has
gone quite a long way in causing a good
deal more attention to be paid to the fairness
of this sort of transaction. There have been,
to the knowledge of The Department of
Insurance, a number of settlements and re-
bates to mortgagors.
There has also been a number of applica-
tions—for which I do not have tlie figures—
under The Unconscionable Transactions Act,
which would be known in more detail to the
Inspector of Legal Offices; but in many cases
I understand that proceedings, even a threat
of proceedings, under that quick procedure
method has been beneficial.
There has also been— through the instru-
mentality on the part of the department-
adjustments for mortgagors by way of reduc-
tion in commission charged or a rebate on
bonus levied. In certain abortive deals in
which the department has intervened, this
has resulted in mortgage registrations being
removed from title after futile efforts over
a number of months by the mortgagors*
solicitors.
While the department is now receiving
many inquiries from the public, complaints
have diminished considerably. Most of the
392
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
present inquiries are to endeavour to get a
legal opinion as to whether or not the terms
are unconscionable, and of course that is not
for the department to determine and there-
fore these people are advised to consult their
solicitors.
Inspection of mortgage brokers' records has
been carried out on a routine basis and also
where certain complaints have been received.
Since July 1, 1961— that is, the current fiscal
year for this particular Act— 33 such inspec-
tions have been made. Brokers have been
warned about certain deficiences in their
records and procedures. Up to now it has
not been necessary in the view of the depart-
ment to institute any prosecutions.
One of the most evident benefits of the
application of the Act is, in the words of the
registrar of mortgage brokers, that gimmick
and bait advertising, especially in the Toronto
area, which is the centre of mortgage activity,
has been pretty well eliminated.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I am interested in exploring for a
moment or so, the limits of The Department
of Insurance supervisory and regulatory
powers in the field of mortgage and insurance
companies. I want to give the House an
example. It has been drawn to my attention
by a constituent of mine, who is an insurance
agent and who conducts his insurance business
in the town of Weston.
Let me start, Mr. Chairman, by reading
a few paragraphs from a column of Pierre
Berton's some time ago in which he outlines
as succinctly as can be done, the basic facts
of this case. I hope I can beseech the atten-
tion of the hon. Attorney-General to follow
the details of this because I have a question
or so I would like to put to him at tlie end.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I wonder my hon.
friend has not seen fit to send it to the office
at all.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not know why I
should send it to the office.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I was just asking,
that was all.
Mr. MacDonald: No, I have not seen fit
to send it to the office. I think when it is in
public print, and is therefore readily available
to the hon. Attorney-General—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: One does not read all
the papers.
Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps the hon. Attorney-
General does not read the Toronto Daily Star;
he concentrates on the Telegram.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: It might be a wise thing
for the hon. member for York South to do.
He might learn more.
Mr. MacDonald: I am quoting now from
Mr. Berton's article:
When Stan Matias opened an insurance
office in Weston, he figured he would have
a free hand in selling such things as fire
insurance to his clients. He figured that
way; he figured that was what was called
"individual enterprise"; how wrong he was.
Mr. Matias went through the list of general
insurance companies and he discovered that
the rates were just about the same for most
of them. These are the so-called board
companies that belong to the Canadian
Underwriters' Association.
Insurance company executives are among
the loudest decriers of big unionism but, to
Mr. Matias' inexpert eye, the Canadian
Underwriters' Association looked awfully
like one big union.
Then Mr. Matias discovered there was
one company that had broken away from
the big union; this was the Home Insurance
Company. Oddly its rates on broad cover-
age were about six cents lower (per $100 of
insurance) than that of the "board" com-
panies.
So Mr. Matias decided to use the Home
Insurance Company exclusively and pass on
the savings to his clients.
But then Mr. Matias ran into trouble. He
sold an insurance policy with Home Insur-
ance to a man in Etobicoke. This house
had been purchased with an N.H.A. mort-
gage and this mortgage was held by the
Guaranty Trust Company.
When Mr. Matias sent an endorsement of
the policy to the Guaranty Trust, however,
he got a brief letter back saying that the
Guaranty Trust could not accept. Why?
Because Home Insurance was not on the
trust company's list of "approved fire insur-
ance companies."
Now, how does an insurance company
get on the approved list? Easy. It sub-
mits a financial statement and then agrees
to purchase between $25,000 and $50,000
of Guaranty Trust Investment certificates.
In short. Guaranty Trust has said: "Lend
us $25,000 and we will play ball with you—
otherwise, no soap."
Mr. Matias phoned the president of the
Guaranty Trust, Mr. J. Wilson Berry, to
explain that he was not an agent for any
of the approved companies. Mr. Berry
told Mr. Matias that it was "just too bad."
Then he suggested Mr. Matias use another
DECEMBER 13, 1961
393
company— one that was approved. He
suggested Canadian General Insurance,
and very quickly, a man from this com-
pany phoned Mr. Matias. It turns out
that Mr. Berry, who is the president of
the Guaranty Trust Company, is also a
director of the Canadian General Insur-
ance.
As a result, Mr. Matias had to cancel
the policy with Home and sign up with
Canadian General Insurance.
After some bickering, the new company
met Home's lower price but made it very
clear that this was an exception. It
would, it said, accept no other business
from Mr. Matias at that rate.
Mr. Matias has complained about this
to The Department of Insurance at Ot-
tawa (since the government is involved
through N.H.A.) but he has been told
that nothing can be done about it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am informed by Mr.
Matias that he first took the matter up with
The Department of Insurance here. He was
told it was not any of their business, and
so he contacted Ottawa, and he is told by
Ottawa that it is none of their business. I
think it is interesting to look into the oflBcial
explanations that are given.
In this instance, by the federal depart-
ment: In a reply by Mr. K. R. MacGregor,
federal superintendent of insurance, to Mr.
Matias in August of this year, Mr. Mac-
Gregor said this— and there are some delight-
fully coy statements on the situation here:
As we understand it, the trust com-
pany is in fact laying down a condition
that it will make the mortgage loan only
if it received, among other things, an in-
surance policy on the property issued by
one of the companies on the list.
Incidentally, I might add, that was only
half the story; they will do business with this
insurance company only if it, in turn, is will-
ing to invest in the trust company— presum-
ably in the mortgage division of the trust
company. In short, the insurance companies
are compelled to supply the trust company
with some of its mortgage monies.
Continuing with Mr. MacGregor's letter:
The making of the mortgage loan is
therefore within the discretion of the trust
company and there is no legal prohibition
against the trust company setting up a
Hst of preferred fire insurance companies.
If I may digress again for a moment. Is
it within the powers of the trust company
to draw up an approved list on the basis of
a compulsory investment of the insurance
companies' funds in the trust company? A
point which Mr. MacGregor wholly neglects.
Continuing in his letter:
So far as this department is concerned,
we consider that any company that con-
tinues to be registered for the transaction
of new insurance in Canada, is in a finan-
cial condition to meet its liabilities, other-
wise we would recommend termination or
modification of its certificate of registry.
However, it may well be that individuals
or corporations prefer some company or
companies to others and the reasons for
their preference might be of wide variety.
Again, if I may digress, the question surely
is: Is this a legal reason for the "wide variety
of preference"— namely the compulsory invest-
ment of funds and the regulation that they
thereby have over insurance agents? He con-
cludes his letter:
We do not think the department can or
should attempt to influence any individual
or corporation in the choice of an insurer.
which is surely oif the base a bit.
Mr. R. M. Whicher ( Bruce ) : Would you
say that was a closed shop?
Mr. MacDonald: Very much a closed shop.
Mr. Whicher: Are you in favour of this?
Mr. MacDonald: Let me proceed, Mr.
Chairman. I would like to quote briefly again
from a letter of Mr. Matias in which he
explained why he chose the Home Insurance
Company. He says this; writing to Mr.
MacGregor, Superintendent of Insurance, Par-
liament Buildings, Ottawa:
We use exclusively the Home Insurance
Company, the reason being we are able to
sell fire insurance at the rate of 37 cents
per $100. In doing this we are saving the
taxpayers six cents on each $100 house
insurance. The Home Insurance Company
is a large, reliable, well-established com-
pany and we have written up a number of
these policies which have been well
accepted by both the home owner and
the mortagees.
He concludes his letter with, I would
submit, a very apt comment:
I fail to see why a small agent and also
the home owner should be squeezed be-
tween the vise of two financial giants. This
would appear to be an infringement of civil
Hberties and private enterprise, especially
so when the government of Canada
394
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
guarantees loans to trust companies under
the N.H.A. structure and also licences
insurance companies to operate.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to quote
another comment from one of Mr. Matias'
letters, which I think, puts this rather boldly
in terms of an insurance agent who finds
himself the helpless victim of the dictates of
a trust company, operating in the fashion
which I have just outiined.
The writer spent seven years in the
Services and has worked up to 16 hours
a day to earn an honest living for himself,
his wife and three children. This is not
the first instance when a trust company
with its own allied insurance companies
has tried to dictate where business should
be directed. You will understand that I, as
an agent—
and I think this is a very pertinent point,
Mr. Chairman,
—you will understand that I, as an agent,
do not represent an interest in the insurance
companies but rather an interest in my
clients from whom I receive my commis-
sions. Therefore, if I can save them money
and at the same time give them insurance
protection with a reliable company, it is my
duty and my responsibility to do so.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is a very able
and eloquent statement of what should be
the responsibility of an insurance agent.
An hon. member: What is the date?
Mr. MacDonald: The date? The date of
that letter is August 25, 1961.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): I do not
think it is well said. I happen to be one.
Mr. MacDonald: I know the hon. member
is, and I have heard his views on insurance
companies before. It is obvious his views
are identified with those of the insurance
companies— and therefore, I conclude, not
with the clients.
Mr, Cowling: Well, there is the smart man
who knows all the answers about insurance
or anything else that comes up. How vdse
the hon. member is!
Mr. MacDonald: I am not going to get
into an argument with the hon. member, Mr.
Chairman. I am talking at the moment about
Mr. Matias* observation that his job is to
protect the interests of his clients, not the
insurance companies. I am not surprised;
in fact, I think it is rather significant that
the interjection of the hon. member for High
Park (Mr. Cowling) in effect suggests that it
is the responsibility, as he interprets it, to
protect the interests of the insurance com-
panies and not the clients. I hope his clients
will take note of this.
Mr. Cowling: The hon. member does not
know what he is talking about.
Mr. MacDonald: I know what I am talking
about.
Mr. Cowling: As usual.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the net
result of all this is that there is an intensifica-
tion of a monopoly condition in the money
market. This trust company, through its
mortgage division— which comes under the
jurisdiction of this department whose esti-
mates are before us— dictates what company
insurance agents can deal with it. It does so,
not on the basis of the soundness of the
company, but simply on the basis of whether
or not this company is going to respond to
the dictates of the trust company— that it
must invest some of its funds in the trust
company before the trust company, in turn,
will permit its clients to buy insurance from
it.
How this, by any stretch of the imagination
Mr. Chairman, can be called free enterprise,
is just one point that rather puzzles me, since
it comes from people who are the incorrigible
champions of free enterprise. Be that as it
imay, the question I want to ask of the hon.
Minister, is: Does the regulatory and super-
visory powers of The Department of Insur-
ance, as they are now spelled out, not make
it possible for this department to come to
grips with this kind of pressuring— very close
to blackmailing or compulsory investment?
If they do not permit of supervision and
regulation, will the hon. Minister give some
consideration to broadening those powers so
that something can be done about this kind
of activity?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
would say that there is no compulsory power
in the statute. There would have to be such
power to enable action such as the hon.
member suggests. Persuasion sometimes helps.
As a matter of fact, this is an old story
and it is like some other stories, gradually
becoming less and less typical because these
trust companies are going over to the prac-
tice tiiat the hon. member has been advocat-
ing. I am told that there are only two now—
DECEMBER 13, 1961
395
maybe only one, the one mentioned, which
is still adhering rigidly to the particular
selected or approved insurance company list.
Therefore I would think that protests such
as this, publicly aired from time to time, in
the past and at this moment, are probably
assisting in getting this thing into a line
that would be more in accordance with what
the hon. member thinks is right. I think in
this particular case there is a good deal to
be said about that point of view. So I do not
think we would want to get into the field of
actually compelling that type of action.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am very
encouraged to learn that this has been re-
stricted to the one company, the Guaranty
Trust Company. But the question I want to
focus on for a moment is this: Is it a legiti-
mate proposition for a company that is opera-
ting under the supervision of the hon.
Minister, that it, in eflEect, should dictate that
an insurance company must invest in its busi-
ness?
We have heard an awful lot about com-
pulsion in various forms. In efiFect, the
trust company dictates that this company
must invest in its investment certificates. A
lot of innocent insurance agents, going about
their business, suddenly find that the policies
they have taken out just will not be accepted
because this company blacklisted itself by
refusing to bow to this dictate.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think it is in the field
of their own selection; that would be the
argument they take. They like certain com-
panies and they apparently do not like other
companies. Actually, this is gradually dis-
appearing and I think perhaps the only other
company that was involved in it has already
joined with another one of the large com-
panies which had the practice which the hon.
member advocated.
Mr. MacDonald: I make this final com-
ment, Mr. Chairman, and then I will leave it
because, apparently, only public pressure is
going to rectify the situation. I am constantly
amazed at the number of words that are
uttered, and the number of editorials that are
written, about alleged violation of the civil
rights of individuals because of certain actions
in a trade union. Yet here we have this kind
of compulsion and blackmailing in the in-
stance of the operation of an insurance
company, and the hon. Attorney-General says
we cannot do anything about it, it would be
unwise for us to take unto ourselves this
kind of—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: This is competitive
enterprise. If a company is doing something
that is not really sound and proper they will
lose business, and the other people will get it;
and it will adjust itself.
Mr. Cowling: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I
would just like to straighten the hon. member
out on a couple of points. It is always
amazing how much he knows about every-
thing. I have spent 25 years in the insurance
business, but I still bow to him and I can
learn something from what he has to say.
I belong to the Ontario Insurance Agents
Association, which represents about 2,500
agents in the province and this matter has
come up from time to time at our convention
and we have done something about it. I
think the mere fact that the hon. Attorney-
General has said there is now only one or
two companies that have that rule, is an
indication that we have made a lot of
progress.
This has not come up at our conventions
in the last several years. Believe me, if the
insurance agents of the province were inter-
ested in it or had a problem, it would
certainly be discussed and we would be right
on the doorstep of either the superintendent
of insurance or the hon. Attorney-General.
He knows that as well as I do.
I do not know the agent whom the hon.
member mentioned tiiere in Weston, but as
a licensed agent in the province of Ontario,
he acts on behalf of the company, not on
behalf of the client. His commissions are
paid to him by the company, not by the
clients.
Mr. MacDonald: From the money that the
client pays.
Mr. CowHng: Yes, but the client pays an
insurance premium and his agent gets a
portion for commission, which is perfectly all
right. The hon. member is just not seeing the
picture right. He is talking through his hat,
on this particular problem. I am trying to
give him a little bit of advice.
If the hon. member wants to buy a fire
insurance policy, he goes to the company or
to the agent of his choice— does he not— where
he thinks he will get the best deal for the
least amount of premium? Anybody does.
Well, the same thing applies with the trust
company. If we write an insurance poHcy
covering a mortgage and the business is not
acceptable to the company that has the
mortgage, then we will take it some place
else. If we do not like the way they do
business, we will do business with another
396
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
company. If the lion, member does not like
the way his agent operates, he does business
with another agent. He does not go crying
to the government.
Discussing agency problems with the super-
intendent of insurance in Ottawa is a waste
of time, because he has no jurisdiction over
agency matters, agents, and so on; they are
licensed and controlled by the superintendent
of insurance in our province. One does not
have to go to Ottawa to get the answers.
As a matter of fact, I think it would be a
good idea— if this fellow does not already
belong to the Metropolitan Agents Associa-
tion—if he joined and found out a few of
these answers right here in town.
If I do not want to do business with this
trust company, I will change it. If I do not
Hke the way my bank operates, I will change
it, and that is one of the great things of free
enterprise. We can move around as we
please. We are absolutely free to change any
time, any day. And it is something that the
hon. members enjoy the same as we do.
I just wanted to mention the point that
the agent works for the company, and the
company pays his commissions. Many times
I have heard the hon. member say since he
has been here, Mr. Chairman, that I am the
spokesman for the insurance companies, which
is strictly bunk. I have no connection with
the insurance companies other than that we
write business for them. If we do not like
the way they do business, then we simply
change our company. And if they do not
like the way we do business, they change us,
and that is the way it should be.
Believe me, I am not speaking for the
companies. I am trying to straighten the
hon. member out on an agency matter, which
is something I think I know a little bit about.
Now if the hon. member has any other
questions I will be glad to answer them for
him.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to get into the argument as to who the
agent works for, it is just a diflFerence in
interpretation of one's responsibilities.
However, the point I do want to make is
this; the hon. member told me that I am
free to go and do business where I can get
the cheapest rate for coverage. Fine. But
he has missed the key of this whole business.
This man got the home owner in Etobi-
coke insurance at six cents per hundred cov-
erage cheaper, from a reliable company.
Then he found himself the victim of dicta-
tion by the trust company on that black-
listing basis that it has chosen, which says:
You must go out and buy insurance at a
higher rate. In other words, free enterprise
said to this man: Though you can get your
coverage from a reliable company for 37
cents, we dictate you must go and buy it
from another company for 43 cents. You
are buying it from that company because
we in turn had dictated earlier that this com-
pany will invest in our investment securities.
Now, is that free enterprise?
Mr. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, if I lend out
some money on a mortgage, or for any other
reason, or you lend it out— your hard-earned
money— it is up to you to say how it is going
to be insured or how it is going to be
handled in any way.
Mr. MacDonald: In a reliable company.
Mr. Cowling: I say that is precisely the
situation in which the trust company finds
itself. It is their money, and they will call
for the insurer of their choice.
Mr. MacDonald: We have to have a cer-
tain amount of freedom here, Mr. Chairman
—but I submit it is not the right of the trust
company to dictate where you buy your in-
surance.
Mr. Cowling: They are not dictating. They
are just specifying where they put their
mortgage money and how they want it cov-
ered by insurance.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if this
company is still licensed by the federal
department of insurance, it is a legal com-
pany to give insurance in this province, not
only in this province but in—
Mr. Cowling: We are not concerned about
it being licensed federally, we are concerned
about it being licensed by the province, that
is the important thing.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Chairman, I have some questions for the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts). It is unfor-
tunate the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) gets off on a tangent like this.
There might be other things besides invest-
ments. Surely he is not suggesting that it
is necessary to do business with a company,
whether you like them or not. Surely he is
not suggesting that.
I do not like the way several insurance
companies do their adjusting. The hon.
member is suggesting that if I had some
money, I could not say which company I
DECEMBER 13, 1961
397
should do business with. He certainly does
not know the facts, and I suggest to him
that the agent he speaks of does not know
much about the insurance business. I might
not agree with all the hon. member for High
Park (Mr. Cowling) says, but the hon. mem-
ber for York South apparently shows an
apparent lack of knowledge of the subject.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the
hon. Attorney-General a question with re-
spect to the licensing of real estate brokers
and mortgage brokers. I quite agree with
the principle of licensing and controlling
them. It has come to my attention that cer-
tain real estate brokers were licensed and
controlled under the Act. Because of the
nature of their business, which involved
the placing of mortgages in various ways,
they have registered under The Mortgage
Brokers Act. I do not quarrel with this, ex-
cept for the fact that I would tell the hon.
Attorney-General he is charging them two
fees. He is charging them $25 to be licensed
under one Act, and $25 to be licensed under
another Act. It seems to me that this prob-
lem could be controlled much more easily
and much more cheaply.
Contrary to what some people might think,
there are some brokers to whom this is a
hardship. I am wondering why the system
could not be changed so that the conditions
of one Act would make the members subject
to another and would avoid the necessity of
those real estate brokers— who are already
registered and already reporting to the hon.
Attorney-General— paying a double fee.
It seems to me that we are creating an
unnecessary expense to these operators and I
wonder if any thought has been given to that
or whether the hon. Attorney-General has
given any thought to making these people
responsible under the Act which governs their
operations in the first place. I speak of the
Real Estate Brokers and Business Brokers Act.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would say to the hon.
member that I recall very well his interest in
this problem when it was very acute here a
year or so ago. As a matter of fact, he was
president of the Hamilton and district real
estate brokers association. He invited me to
come over there and I think we had a very
pleasant evening when the whole matter was
discussed in front of a very representative
and large audience including a lot of the local
lawyers from that area. I know that the hon.
member is speaking with real interest in the
subject and I suggest that he have a talk
with the superintendent. If there is any
reasonable adjustment which ought to be
made along those lines, we will certainly look
into it.
Mr. H. J. Price (St. David): Mr. Chairman,
the point that the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) brought up a few
moments ago— about the agent who was
having the problem— did exist at one time;
but as the hon. Attorney-General said, it
hardly exists today. I think it grew out of the
fact that some of these companies had a
preferred list based on the sale of their
securities. It was not a blacklist so much as
a preferred list. It caused agents some trouble
in the past. They would find, as he pointed
out, they would write a policy with a com-
pany that was unacceptable. It is no longer
a real problem.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to direct some questions to the
hon. Attorney-General with regard to the
administration of The Mortgage Brokers
Registration Act which he dealt with to some
extent in his introductory remarks. Unfortu-
nately I missed the first part of his statement
and I hope I am not asking questions that he
has already answered.
The first question I would like to ask is,
how big is the staff responsible for the
administration of this Act?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Three.
Mr. Bryden: That, I take it, consists of the
registrar, his assistant and an oflBce secretary.
Is that a correct assumption?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That is right.
Mr. Bryden: And what other responsibihties
do these three people have in addition to the
administration of this Act?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think I mentioned in
my remarks— which the hon. member may not
have heard— that some checking has been
going on— inspections of mortgage brokers*
records on a routine basis plus those prompted
by complaints.
Mr. Bryden: No. My question was, what
responsibilities other than the administration
of this Act do these people have?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am adding to the
answer. I take it the hon. member wanted
to get some idea of the personnel and the
scope of the work, so I mention that there
have been 33 inspections carried out since
July 1, 1961. I cannot very well outline the
actual detailed work of these three people—
398
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
unless the hon. member has some particular
point.
Mr. Bryden: The point I am getting at, Mr.
Chairman, is this: As I understand it, these
people certainly used to have administrative
responsibilities quite unrelated to the admin-
istration of this Act. The purpose of my
inquiry is to find out if they still have such
responsibilities. For example, as I understand
it, these three people were also responsible
in the past for the administration of The
Collection Agencies Act, covering about 130
collection agencies, and for the examination
and inspection of the books of 38 prepaid
non-profit hospital and medical plans. Now,
do they still have responsibilities of that
nature as well as their responsibilities under
The Mortgage Brokers Registration Act?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The superintendent in-
forms me that the amount of work required
of these people in relation to the business
that is in front of them, is not such that
they are not able to do it completely. They
have these other Acts to deal with. There
are four people, actually, he tells me, and
not three in connection with this work. He
gives me no reason to believe, however, that
that volume of work is such that the staflf is
inadequate; but, if there was any such situa-
tion, certainly some application would be
made to increase the staflF.
Mr. Bryden: Well, I would like to suggest
to the hon. Attorney-General— and through
him to the department— that there appears to
be very good reason to believe that the staff
is inadequate. A staff of three people, one
of them an office secretary, to—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: There are four people,
I added one more.
Mr. Bryden: Four people. What is the
nature of the work of that etxra employee,
is it a stenographer or is it another inspector?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: A clerk.
Mr. Bryden: It is a clerk in the ofiBce. So
tliere are two people in the office plus the
registrar or director— or whatever his title is
—plus a more senior person who assists the
registrar on his administrative responsibilities.
Apparently they have made some improve-
ments as far as the office filing system is con-
cerned, which is no doubt advantageous; but
it would seem to me that the real inadequacy
exists in the more senior responsibilities
involved in the administration of this Act.
I did not quite absorb the hon. Attorney-
General's figure as to the number of regis-
trants, but I think it was pretty close to 1,200
now registered under the Act. I think he used
the word "routine" when he said it; he said
there was a total of 33 routine inspections.
If the total of routine and special inspections
was 33 out of close to 1,200 offices that had
been registered, it would seem to me—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: This is again a case of
an hon. member bouncing in half-way
through, not hearing what I said earlier, and
taking things out of context. If he had
listened— or been in here— he would have
heard my remarks which indicated that steps
had been taken to produce a much more
normal situation. The whole general situation
is greatly improved in the field of unconscion-
able transactions— as in the field of adding
gimmicks and advertising of that sort, which
ends up, or used to end up, in highly
unfair types of transaction. That is the ob-
jective, surely, of all of us.
Mr. Bryden: If the hon. Attorney-General
would hold his temper; I heard all that
portion of his remarks, and I do not think it
was satisfactory at all. I would suggest to
him on the face of it that there certainly is
no routine inspection to speak of if the total
—including special inspections, inspections on
complaint— is only 33 out of close to 1,200
brokers, there is certainly little routine inspec-
tion.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Let me say this. This
government has no intention of harassing
people in the expectation that they would
be doing something wrong. We assume that
people are doing things right.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: Unfortunately, this is an in-
dustry in which there are a substantial
number of people operating who are harass-
ing some unfortunate and rather innocent
victims. The hon. Attorney-General says he
has no basis for believing that anything is
wrong, but there certainly is ample evidence
which should indicate to him that there is a
great deal wrong in this industry. That some
sort of routine inspection would not be out
of order at all; it would be very useful.
I am going to suggest to the hon. Attorney-
General that there is not even adequate
investigation of the applications that are made
for registration— that they are dealt with
purely on a routine basis. It is merely a
matter of paper work. All you need to do
to get a licence in this business is to have
DECEMBER 13, 1961
399
enough money to rent some two-by-four
office, a telephone and a desk— and enough
for the licence fee. The department investi-
gates no further as to the competence and
adequacy of the people who have applied
for licences.
If I am wrong in that statement, I would
appreciate having the hon. Attorney-General
correct me. Certainly, as far as I can make
out, the registration procedure is a complete
farce; it does not mean a thing; it does not
provide for any regulation at all. The industry
is certainly greatly overcrowded for the
amount of business that has to be done, and
there are people in it who are simply preying
on the misfortunes of other people.
The hon. Attorney-General referred to the
Scott case, I believe, where a mortgage was
upset under The Unconscionable Transactions
Relief Act. In this particular case— when one
allows for the bonus— the excessive interest
rates the people were paying was 27 per cent.
When this went to appeal—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: 27^ per cent.
Mr. Bryden: 27 V2 per cent. It is certainly
bad enough. Mr. Justice Laidlaw observed,
according to the Toronto Globe and Mail,
"I rebel against the very terms of the obliga-
tion imposed." And Mr. Justice Schroeder
stated, "My brother expresses my view but I
marvel at his moderation." I think we would
all probably agree with what these eminent
gentlemen said, but I think one of the most
significant things is that their statements
demonstrate the sheltered nature of the world
in which they live. They were apparently
appalled, and quite properly. But this kind
of deal is commonplace in the industry right
now.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. member
think the world where the judges live is of
a sheltered nature?
Mr. Bryden: I would submit, if they were
appalled by this, as they no doubt had a right
to be— or they were surprised by it, let me put
it that way— they are living in a sheltered
world because this sort of thing is going
on all the time.
I would agree with the hon. Attorney-
General that a judgment of this kind no doubt
has a salutary effect, to a certain degree; but
let us bear in mind that most of the people
who get caught in the net of some of these
second-mortgage dealers are people with quite
limited education, and quite limited under-
standing of their rights. They are very hard
pressed for funds. They get caught in the
net and they are not even necessarily aware
that there is any possible way out of it, even
if they could afford the procedure of going to
court with the possibility of having to go right
to the court of appeal.
The second-mortgage dealer fattens on the
fellow whose income is not adequate for him
to maintain his family. He gets into debt, he
gets desperate, and is attracted by an adver-
tisement to the effect that he can get a second
mortgage on his house. He goes further into
debt and he has to pay a large bonus to get
a second mortgage. Of course, since he could
not finance to begin with, he now cannot
finance in the more onerous situation in which
he finds himself so he just gets further and
further into the hole.
There are many cases on record where
people have made payments over a period of
time and ended up owing more money than
they got in the first place. Then they have
to get another second mortgage with another
bonus and they end up still further in the
hole. There is no way out of the trap— until
ultimately they lose their home.
This is a problem that, in my opinion,
requires much more serious consideration than
the hon. Attorney-General is prepared to give
it. The Act as it now stands is little more
than a revenue-raising device, and a picayune
revenue-raising device at that, for the govern-
ment. The brokers have to pay a fee and
they get registered and that is about all there
is to it. Some of the rotten—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Has the hon. member
any particular cases he wants to bring to my
attention?
Mr. Bryden: I will be glad to bring a case
to the attention of the hon. Attorney-General
but surely he is as well aware as I am of some
of these cases. The hon. Attorney-General
said that the situation on bonuses has im-
proved. Well, it may have, as far as some
companies are concerned, but here is today's
newspaper and here is an advertisement by
Hargo Investments Limited.
"Safe Seconds" is the head: $1,950 buys
$2,250, 7 per cent, 3 years; $1,800 buys
$2,300, 7 per cent, 4V2 years; $1,900 buys
$2,400, 7 per cent, 3V2 years." Now this is
Hargo Investments advertising for a lender.
The figures shown here are not the figures
that apply to the person who has borrowed the
money; Hargo Investments are getting their
cut out of what that man gets. But this is the
offer that Hargo Investments are making to a
person who has money to lend. Of course
these fellows never lend their own money,
they just set up an office and advertise for a
400
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
borrower by some nice attractive advertise-
ment. Then, when they find a borrower, they
get him to sign a contract which does not
commit them, though it commits the borrower.
Then they advertise in this way for somebody
to lend the money.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member is
complaining about the advertising, is he?
Mr. Bryden: I am complaining about that
particular advertisement, or rather, I am not
complaining so much about the advertisement,
as I am complaining about the situation it dis-
closes, which shows that there is still a real
racket on bonuses in these second mortgages.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member is
calling this company a racketeer?
Mr. Bryden: I am not calling them a racke-
teer, I am suggesting that extortionate bonuses
which must be charged— if they can make
offers of this kind to prospective lenders— are
a form of racket.
If the hon. Attorney-General wants to inter-
pret that as meaning that I am accusing this
company of racketeering, he can make his
own interpretation. I am suggesting that the
situation is not nearly as favourable as he has
made out, that the administration is quite
inadequate, and that there should be a larger
staff at least to check on applications for
registration. None or very few of them have
been checked to date. The first job may be
to check on all the applications that have been
received until now and where registrations
have been granted.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: When these registrations
first took place, there was a very thorough
check in connection with all applications.
Mr. Bryden: On the renewals?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: On the renewals, of
course, there is not the need, normally, for
anything like the same kind of a check.
Mr. Bryden: I asked the hon. Attorney-
General who made the check on the original
application.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The people in the
department-
Mr. Bryden: It is manifestly impossible
for one registrar and an assistant, and at that
time one girl in the oflBce, who had other not
unsubstantial duties to perform, to have
checked the 900 applications, or whatever it
was, that came in the first year. That is
manifestly impossible.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: My hon. friend is yield-
ing his position, I will agree that he is being
co-operative that way. It took about a six-
months period for that registration. Credit
reports and various other checks were made
on all these applicants. Now, having got that
basis, and having started with an assumption
that we were dealing with reasonably honest
people, as far as I am concerned I would not
suggest that every time they renew their
licences it go through the same procedures
for them. I would accept them in that posi-
tion until we had some reason to believe
otherwise.
Mr. Bryden: I would assume that the hon.
Attorney-General would start with the assump-
tion that to some degree he was dealing with
an industry that needed some cleaning up.
Now to what degree has he cleaned it up?
He may have given this figure, but how many
applications has his department refused? I
think he said they cancelled two registrations,
which is not very many considering the sort
of things that go on in this industry. How
many has the hon. Minister refused?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: There were a number
refused last year at the beginning, not a large
number, but a number. There were some
appeals taken right through to the super-
intendent. They were sifted through the
department and through to the superintendent.
I say again I do not like these sort of
blanket attacks on people in this sort of
business as though they were suspects, or
should be suspected until something happens.
That is not our approach at all over here.
I would not for a minute want to have an
approach of that sort. I believe that the vast
number of people in this province carrying
on business and living here are honest people
and I am not going to ever be convinced
otherwise.
Mr. Bryden: There was absolutely nothing
in any statement I made that suggested any-
thing else. I suggested to the hon. Attorney-
General that there were some operators in this
industry whose operations needed looking into
and I will rely, at least in partial support of
my statement, on the fact that the Court of
Appeal of Ontario apparently decided that
there was one case at least where that was
true. I am suggesting to the hon. Attorney-
General that there are a good deal more than
one, whose transactions were unconscionable.
However, I will turn to another question
I would like to direct to the hon. Attorney-
General with regard to his statement about
gimmick advertising, as I think he described it.
DECEMBER 13, 1961
401
Is he aware that there is currently a listing
in the Toronto telephone directory as follows:
"Money Unlimited Corporation Limited."
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Richardson will look
at that one, but I have no doubt it has been
granted—
Mr. Bryden: I cannot hear the hon.
Minister.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member was
talking about a corporation by that name, I
take it.
Mr. Bryden: I am by no means certain
that there is such a corporation, but there
is such a listing in the telephone directory
and I wondered if the hon. Attorney-General
was aware of it?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Quite frankly I do not
spend my time going through the telephone
directory.
Mr. Bryden: Perhaps not.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member has
brought it to our attention-
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister is respon-
sible for the administration of an Act and one
of-
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am not an investigator.
Mr. Bryden: Perhaps he has departmental
officials who could advise him on the matter.
An hon. member: The hon. Minister will
have to spend more time looking at the
telephone book.
Mr. Bryden: I suggest to the hon. Attorney-
General that this is not exactly a laughing
matter. Obviously someone, whoever put that
listing in the telephone directory, had in mind
the fact that some person who is perhaps not
burdened with too many brains but is over-
burdened with debts, might start thumbing
through the directory, under the heading
""money", and come across this listing and
think he had discovered a pipe line to the
mint.
I would suggest that this particular listing
should be looked into.
I might mention, although I have no idea
as to who is responsible for putting the list-
ing there, that the address and telephone
number shown for this corporation, is the
same address and telephone number as is
shown for Forest Hill Investment Corpora-
tion Limited, which, I believe, is a company
registered under this Act. Is that not correct?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: What about it? It sounds
like a good name. It is in a respectable area
of the province.
Mr. Bryden: Many people take respectable
names without necessarily having the re-
spectability that the name implies. I would
think it would be worth checking to see if
this company which has the same address
and telephone number was responsible for
putting that particular listing in the telephone
directory.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If the hon. member
thinks this is the best way, to bring people's
names to the public in the Legislature for
the first time without having made any
inquiries ahead of time or taken any steps
to find out whether they are honest decent
people or not, that is the way he thinks and
we will have to listen to him.
Mr. Bryden: As far as the hon. Attorney-
General is concerned— this is typical, of
course, of his reaction. It does not matter
how anybody tries to bring anything to his
attention, that is usually the reaction they
get.
I am bringing it to his attention now, and
I think it is perfectly proper to bring to his
attention the fact that there are these listings
in the directory. If he and his officials do
not think they are worth investigating, that
is his business. I think they are.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to address another question to the hon.
Attorney-General and I assure you, sir, I am
not trying to put him on the spot, I am trying
to get information.
I mentioned earlier these two Acts and the
hon. Minister suggested I might take this to
the superintendent of insurance. I may be
incorrect, sir, but it seems to me that I recall
having correspondence on my desk where this
suggestion has already been made to the
superintendent of insurance. It may be that
I am incorrect.
The question I would like to direct to the
hon. Minister is this: One, has there been
any representation? Two, if there has been,
is there any possibility of the suggestion be-
ing carried out that I made with respect to—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Representation as to
what?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: As to the removal of
real estate brokers from The Mortgage
402
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Brokers Act and making the one Act subject
to the other so that one licence fee would do?
Has there been any representation?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I do not think it has
gotten beyond a very general discussion; but
again I say to the hon. member, if he— I re-
gard him as an expert in this field— I would
be very glad if he would come and have a
talk with either myself or the superintendent
or with both of us if he would like to. We
would be glad to talk to him about it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: The other question I
wanted to put to the hon. Attorney-General
was with respect to the matter of licensing
general insurance agents. Is there any in-
vestigation carried on before these gentle-
men, or ladies, as the case may be, are
licensed? I know that he does conduct a
very intensive investigation and I think is
doing a very good job with respect to
licensing of real estate people. I now turn
to insurance agents. Is there any investiga-
tion as to the background of these people, or
do we depend entirely upon the insurance
company investigation?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: As the hon. member
knows, these people are all sponsored by
reputable insurance companies and our ex-
perience, the experience of the department, is
that is a pretty safe representation. They do
make certain inquiries, but they do not— they
start from a feeling of confidence on those
recommendations.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I just
throw this out for what it is worth. I suggest
that there might be some merit in an investi-
gation.
The reason I suggest this is that I under-
stand there have been instances where a
person has been licensed by one company and
had the licence withdrawn and then spon-
sored by another company. This business is
very competitive and I suggest to the hon.
Attorney-General that when a person is
licensed under the Statutes of Ontario that
the public, I think, come to accept the fact
that he is licensed by the province as some
evidence that tliis person is a fit and proper
person to sell insurance to the public. I have
heard of cases where these people have gone
bad.
I think it is not quite enough to depend
on the insurance companies, because I feel
that the business is very competitive. I
understand there are some 300 companies
operating in the province, and because of
the competition there is not sufficient screen-
ing there. I think it might be desirable to
take another look at this situation.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That is a suggestion.
Actually, I am told that there have only
been one or two people who have gone sour,
so to speak, and they happened to be people
who have been in the business a very long
time.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, there
is one other question that has come to my
attention. I understand that it is necessary
for anybody transacting insurance in Ontario
to be licensed and it is not possible to sell
insurance unless one is licensed as an insur-
ance agent. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That is correct.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: What about the situa-
tion where insurance is sold by an agent
outside of the province? There is no protec-
tion at all.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. member
mean by mail?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I am thinking of cases
where perhaps an agent in, let us say,
Michigan, handling insurance for a firm in
Ontario. Is this peimissible? I mean is it
necessary that these people be licensed in
Ontario to handle an Ontario insurance
policy?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am informed that
would be legal and not breaking our law
as long as the contract is not made in
Ontario.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to ask the hon. Attorney-General
a question. The expenditures of this depart-
ment compared with 1959 and 1960 have
increased by approximately $83,000. Now,
this is a small department, and I was wonder-
ing if he could give me any reason why there
should be such a large jump. It jumps
$40,000 from 1959 to 1960; it jumps in 1960
to 1961 $40,000; and now these new estimates
are another $40,000 increase. Could he give
me any reason for that?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If the hon. member
takes them by the votes I think it might be
clearer.
Mr. Trotter: Yes, I see. I had the total
numbers here, but is there any increase in
activities? When I saw the increase I thought
it would be because of the registration under
The Mortgage Brokers Act. If he only has
a staff of four dealing with that, then he
DECEMBER 13, 1961
403
certainly could not trace $80,000 to that
work. I was wondering about the overall
picture. I realize everything is increased, but
why?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think it would be
simpler if— we have already called vote num-
ber one— if we deal with salaries. We can
deal with each of these items and see where
the differences are, but actually in the salary
item of $347,000, that is $17,000 higher than
in the previous fiscal year. Most of that is
made up of normal increments, plus an
increase of some three people, filling a
vacancy for three people in the credit union
examination field. That accounts for $17,000
in the salaries.
Mr. Trotter: I was going to ask the hon.
Attorney-General, what does the government
do to try to encourage the increase of credit
unions, if they do anything?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The government does
quite a lot. The government has some 11
inspectors in the field assisting the credit
unions, and particularly those which belong
to the Ontario Credit Unions Association
which operates in very close harmony with
the department. Actually, we are really
absorbing a cost somewhere in the neigh-
bourhood of $100,000 in that type of work.
But we make it very clear to the unions
that what we do must not be regarded as an
auditing of the accounts. They must look
after their own auditing, with their own
auditors as well, but it is a checking system.
Over a period of three years, with that staff,
we can clear all the unions in the province.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to raise the question of the recent increase
in automobile insurance rates which was
announced in the press on December 9. The
day after it was announced I asked the hon.
Attorney-General before the orders of the
day if the government was prepared to take
action before the Christmas recess of the
Legislature to prevent rates from being in-
creased over their present level, until there
has been an opportunity to consider the
recommendation made by the select commit-
tee on automobile insurance, in its interim
report, that machinery for regulating rates
be established.
The hon. Attorney-General did not answer
my question directly, but I take it from
the answer that he did give that the govern-
ment had no intention of taking any such
action. The substance of his reply was that
the board companies had come in with re-
vised figures on their claim experience, and
that the superintendent of insurance was
satisfied on the basis of that experience that
an increase in rates was justified.
I have not read the whole answer but I
think that is a fair summary of it.
At the time, of course, I did not have the
complete figures on the experience of auto-
mobile insurance companies over the period
of 1956 to 1960, which incidentally was the
period mentioned by the hon. Attorney-
General as the period for which the figures
had been supplied by the underwriters as-
sociation to the superintendent of insurance.
I now have these figures, not admittedly in
the detail which he probably had them, but
I have them in the form in which they are
made available to the public. The experi-
ence over the period 1956 to 1960 indicates
that net losses incurred as a percentage of
net premiums— that is the money that the
insurance companies have to pay out in
claims out of the money they collect in
premiums — has been decreasing over the
period to which the hon. Attorney-General
referred.
In 1956 the insurance companies paid
out 66.5 cents out of every dollar they col-
lected in premiums. In 1957 this amount
went up to 68.7. Then in 1958 it went down
to 60.7. In 1959, to 57.2, and in 1960 to
58 cents out of every dollar. So that while
there was a slight increase between 1959 and
1960, but very slight, the trend over the
period was downward.
In view of these published figures, I find
it a little difiicult to understand why the
superintendent of insurance was so easily
satisfied, or apparently so easily satisfied,
that increases in rates were necessary.
I would point out that these increases were
quite substantial increases. They varied
according to categories of insured, but ac-
cording to the press reports the average
increase as between 1961 and 1962 will be
eight per cent. I do not know if the hon.
Attorney-General can give any further ex-
planation of this matter, but it is hard to
understand, on the face of it, why it was
felt that a sudden increase in rates was
necessary at this particular time, just when
it became known that the committee of the
Legislature was recommending to the gov-
ernment that rate control machinery be set
up.
Could the hon. Attorney-General elaborate
at all on the answer that he gave me in the
Legislature on December 11?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: No, I do not think I
can elaborate at the moment on that. The
404
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hon. member has quoted some figures.
Would he reveal the source?
Mr. Bryden: Yes! These are the same
sort of figures that appear in the annual
report of the department, I believe. The
annual reports of the department always show
tlie net premiums and the net losses incurred
and the percentage of losses to premiums.
For convenience I did not look up the report,
I just phoned the department without them
knowing, of course, how I wanted to use the
information, and tliey readily supplied the
figures to me. They are public information
in any case.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Certainly they will give
the hon. member the information. As a mat-
ter of fact, I was under the impression that
there were certain periods in that five-year
period when there were quite heavy losses
incurred, in relation to the receipts as against
the outgoing for claims by the company. Now,
it is not a matter that it would do much good
discussing again here, when I do not know
the details. I do not think my hon. friend
does either. But I will be glad to ask the
superintendent to look into that further.
Actually, I see from paragraph four of the
report of the select committee on automobile
insurance which has been formally put before
the House as the second interim report, that
there is a recommendation there. Whether
or not that would be acceptable I do not
know, but I mentioned in my answer the other
day that there are three or four sections of
The Insurance Act which have been on the
books since— I am not sure whether it was
Mr. Hepburn's day or even Mr. Henry's day,
but it was a long period back— whatever
period it was, it has been in that state ever
since and all that would be required to give
effect to this section four would be to pro-
claim those sections. But that would be a
matter of poHcy, of course.
Mr. Bryden: I am not going to suggest that
the hon. Attorney-General attempt to reveal
government policy on this matter at this time,
but I would suggest to him that the procedure
now followed in the Act with which he
expressed satisfaction in his answer, is prob-
ably not a very satisfactory procedure.
I think we are witnessing right now some
of the difficulties arising from it. This is
purely a private, and perhaps informal, pro-
ceeding and it is sometimes quite easy to
satisfy a person of the validity of a course of
action when he hears only one side of the
case. This is the sort of thing I gather that
goes on under the present rather informal
procedure.
The companies simply come in and present
a case for a rate increase. There is no argu-
ment heard on the other side of the case, but
I would submit to the hon. Attorney-General
that on the face of it the figures certainly
do not justify the increase that is envisaged.
In fact they do not justify any increase at all.
I would suggest to him again, as I tried to
in my question, that the government should
give consideration to freezing the rates, or at
any rate preventing them from being in-
creased—I have no objection to any decrease
the companies might want to make— until
there has been an opportunity to consider the
recommendation of the select committee and
to have rate-regulating machinery set up. If
the government decides to go ahead with that,
I would consider it most advisable and desir-
able. In the meantime, surely it is not going
to let the companies get a big whopping
increase in before the control gets operating.
I suggest that the whole situation should
be frozen for the moment, and then let us
consider the committee's recommendation. If
it is adopted, and if machinery is actually set
up whereby rates can be considered at public
hearings and regulated, then let the insur-
ance companies take their case to the body
that is set up for that purpose. But do not
let them get away with an increase just at
this juncture.
It may be pure coincidence, Mr. Chairman,
but it is nevertheless a fact that this an-
nouncement of an increase in rates came very
shortly after the information leaked out to
the press that the select committee on auto-
mobile insurance was going to recommend
establishment of rate-controlling machinery.
Now that may be sheer coincidence, but
nevertheless it did happen in that sequence—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If the hon. member will
again let me finish, those announcements
come out practically every year at about the
same time on the question of rates. It is as
a result of discussions, review of records and
so forth, with the superintendent and the
superintendent informs me, as I indicated in
my reply the other day, that after going over
all the figures that were presented to him he
was satisfied that these increases are proper
for the moment at least.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would
submit to the hon. Attorney-General, with all
due respect to the superintendent of insur-
ance, who no doubt is a very well qualified
man, that that is not a good enough answer.
I do not think the people of Ontario who are
vitally affected by this type of decision
DECEMBER 13, 1961
405
should have to depend entirely on the say-so
of one individual who does not give his
reasons. He merely says he has looked into
it and he is quite satisfied.
Now maybe other people would not be as
easily satisfied. I do not know. Certainly
the lack of publicity on the nature of the
inquiry that was undertaken or as to the
facts that were unearthed makes the pro-
cedure most unsatisfactory. I will point out
to the hon. Attorney-General again that the
information that is available to the public
seems to indicate very strongly that an in-
crease is not justified, and certainly not a sub-
stantial increase such as we now have.
I would also point out to the hon. Attorney-
General that, although there is no compul-
sory automobile insurance in this province,
there is nevertheless a very high degree of
legal pressure on people to buy automobile
insurance. I would say any person in his
right mind would definitely buy automobile
insurance in view of the laws as they now
are in this province. There certainly is strong
pressure on him to buy and if he is being
pressured in this indirect way to buy insurance
from private companies, I think he has a
right to some public review of the rates so
that he can be satisfied that they are fair.
On the basis of the situation as it now
stands on information that has now been
given to us, I would suggest that the rate
increase is quite unjustified and unnecessary,
and that it ought to be held up by govern-
ment action before the recess so that the
matter can be subsequently reviewed by a
proper regulatory body.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would just mention-
without prolonging this— that as I said in my
answer earlier this session, rates are com-
petitive and these particular rates only apply
to companies, board companies I think they
are called, doing less than half the general
insurance business. There is a good deal of
cushion and a good deal of protection in the
fact that rates are highly competitive. We
have heard what the hon. member has said
and—
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Chairman, at this point I must side with the
hon. member for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden).
When the investigations of the committee on
insurance took place, among other people
who came before the committee were Mr.
Whitehead, the predecessor of the present
superintendent. Mr. Whitehead admitted
quite frankly to the committee that at no
time during his occupancy of that position
had he ever questioned the rates that were
submitted. He had reviewed them, he had
them explained to him, but at no time did
he ever disagree with the submissions made
by the companies that the rates were fair
and proper.
I think he admitted as well, that really he
did not have the facilities within his own
office to conduct that sort of an investigation.
I will not go as far as the hon. member for
Woodbine in saying that on the basis of the
evidence that has been made available in the
papers, that the increases are unjustified. But
I suggest that the time has now come that if
the province— as the report recommends— if
the province is going to say anything about
these rates that there should be made avail-
able to the superintendent a proper staff to
investigate these rates and to advise the public
as to whether or not such increases are reason-
able or unreasonable.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition ) : Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
hon. Attorney-General whether or not the
small loans branch comes within the super-
vision of the superintendent of insurance?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The answer is no.
Vote 801 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves that the committee
of supply do now rise and report that it has
come to a certain resolution and ask leave to
sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
Chair.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. J. A. C. Auld ( Leeds ) : Mr. Speaker,
once again may I congratulate you on the
patient and understanding way in which you
are carrying out your important, though at
times trying, job.
May I also very briefly add my congratula-
tions to those of my colleagues, to those hon.
members who have added to their responsi-
bilities by appointment to the Cabinet; my
friend, the hon. member for Huron (Mr.
MacNaughton ) ; and my friend and neighbour
from eastern Ontario, the hon. member for
Ottawa South (Mr. Haskett). The appoint-
ment of the hon. member for Wellington-
Dufferin (Mr. Root) to the Ontario Water
Resources Commission, an agency of ever-
increasing importance, will I know strengthen
that body. I add my congratulations to the
many he has already received.
406
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I also want to congratulate the hon. member
for Peel (Mr. Davis) for his appointment
to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of
Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, very briefly I would at this
time like to convey my thanks to the hon.
member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) for his
many kindnesses and assistance in the past
to me, both as a private member and as vice-
chairman of the Ontario-St. Lawrence
Development Commission which reported to
him.
I also want to thank the hon. member for
Lincoln (Mr. Daley) for his help and kind-
ness. May I say how pleased I was to see
that he was going to continue as chairman
of the Ontario Parks Integration Board, to
which increasingly important post he will be
able to devote full time.
Mr. Speaker, some months ago I reported
to this House on the activities of the Ontario-
St. Lawrence Development Commission, with
special emphasis on the opening of Upper
Canada Village and Crysler Farm Battlefield
Park on June 24, this year. At that time I
described the historic and recreational attrac-
tions of the commission's parks system and
cordially invited the hon. members of this
House to attend the opening ceremony or
later on during the season. As I said at that
time, "Upper Canada Village must be seen
to be believed." It must be viewed first hand
to appreciate fully how well it has been done.
Also stressed in this report were the economic
benefits which were bound to accrue for
eastern Ontario and the St. Lawrence River
valley.
Mr. Speaker, the commission, as events
have turned out, has understated both the
popularity and the economic importance of
the operations that have been carried out
thus far. May I remind you these activities
include parks and campsites from Glengarry
on the Quebec border to Adolphustown on
the Bay of Quinte; Old Fort Henry, and the
Crysler Farm Battlefield Memorial, in addition
to Upper Canada Village.
It has been said, "A wise nation preserves
its record . . . gathers up its muniments ...
decorates the tombs of its illustrious dead . . .
fosters national pride and love of country by
perpetual reference to the sacrifices and
glories of the past." Hon. members opposite
may be surprised at my use of the words of
Joseph Howe, but the wisdom he attributes
to a nation which preserves its historic past
must be credited to the government of
Ontario, which has so successfully re-created
the beginnings of Ontario in Upper Canada
Village and sparked renewed and active
interest in the preservation of our priceless
historical assets. In the beginning, before
opening day, the communications industry of
Ontario and all Canada hailed this venture in
their magazines and newspapers, on radio and
television broadcasts. It is impossible to
mention here this afternoon all the publishers
and broadcasters who devoted editorial space
or broadcast time to Upper Canada Village.
I believe you will agree that special mention
has been merited by several communications
media. Canadian Homes devoted its entire
June issue to the village, and as a result
won the Canadian Wine Institute Award
this year for "the greatest contribution to
stimulate public interest in the development
and preservation of Canada's historical and
cultural assets during the year." The Toronto
Globe and Mail published a special colour
section on Upper Canada Village and, for this
issue, was placed second in the Wine Institute
contest. The Star Weekly and Weekend
magazines also gave excellent coverage. The
Canadian Geographic Magazine devoted its
June issue to two articles on the commission's
operations. The first was written by Mrs.
Beryl Way on Upper Canada Village, and the
second was a definitive exposition of the Battle
of Crysler 's Farm by Ronald Way. Many
major Ontario daily newspapers, including
several in the seaway valley, devoted major
editorial space to Upper Canada Village and
the commission's parks system.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
broadcast two network radio programmes,
"Assignment" and "Ventures," as well as a
full hour of network television on Camera
Canada entitled "The Enchanted Village."
The commission, Mr. Speaker, is grateful to
all of those who helped tell the people of
Ontario and all Canada and our closely
adjoining neighbours in the States, about our
parks and historic sites.
Most important of all, the people came.
They came literally in the hundreds of
thousands. They came from more than 300
Ontario cities, towns and villages, they came
from every province in Canada, from 40
American states, and from 25 other countries.
Two hundred and thirteen thousand people
visited Upper Canada Village between June
24 and October 10, the record for a single day
being 4,800 people. Interestingly enough,
65,000 of these were school-aged children,
either with their parents or in school groups.
School bus loads of children came primarily
from eastern Ontario, but also from more
distant points in Ontario, and one group
came from as far as Montebello, Quebec.
There were 50 school groups, often requiring
DECEMBER 13, 1961
407
as many as four buses to carry the party. I
am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that
Fort Henry reported a record attendance of
168,000, plus about 14,000 who attended the
annual sunset ceremonial. Nine hundred and
eighty thousand used the commission's out-
door recreational parks and campsites, an
increase of 45 per cent over the previous
year when many parks were already open.
In total, 1,400,000 persons visited one or
more of the recreational or historic attractions
of the Ontario-St. Lawrence Development
Commission. Many of these visitors came from
only a few miles away to swim or picnic or
spend a day at the village. Consequently,
they spent relatively little. Many others,
however, came from long distances and spent
several days at a cost of between $12 and $15
per day. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate
the new dollars that were spent in the area.
One estimate is based on these visitors spend-
ing only a day and $10 in the area. If this
is reasonable, then this summer there was
an injection of 14 million new dollars into
the economy of eastern Ontario. Economists
tell me these new dollars probably have the
effect of three times as many dollars or $42
million because of the multiplier principle— a
tourist pays his dollar to a motel operator
who gives it to his staff in wages, who buy
food at the local grocery store and so on.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that campers in-
creased from something slightly over 8,000
camping groups a year ago, to over 30,000
camping groups this past season. At a more
practical level, anyone who has tried to get
lodgings for the night between Kingston and
Cornwall, or Ottawa and Morrisburg during
the summer of 1961 knows well the economic
importance of the commission's operations to
the communities in the area.
I have read that concern has been ex-
pressed by certain motel, cabin or tourist
home operators about the great increase in
the number of campers in Ontario. Certainly
there has been an increase in campsite usage.
Camping is an increasingly popular way for
Canadians and Americans to spend their
summer vacations. I am sure that all hon.
members know that many of these campers
are family groups, perhaps vacationing away
from home for the first time. Their vacation
trips ought to be encouraged and many of
them will turn to other forms of vacation
travel in future years. All forms of vacation
travel are increasing and it is our observation
that after several days at a camp site, many
campers welcome the opportunity to use a
shower and to sleep between clean sheets. In
fact, in talking to motel and tourist cabin
operators in my own area, I have found
nothing but praise for the camping programme
of the province. Those operators have told
me that the people who are coming to use our
camp sites are the people who, perhaps, other-
wise would not have had an opportunity to get
out in the country. These people are coming
for part of their holidays as customers of the
motel and cabin operators.
The fact of the matter is there is not enough
accommodation. There are not enough good
restaurants. As a result, thousands who visited
the parks or historic attractions on the Ontario
side of the St. Lawrence valley crossed the
river to New York State when night fell. Mr.
Speaker, the Ontario-St. Lawrence Develop-
ment Commission is very grateful to many
departments of this government for their help-
ful co-operation during 1961. Our thanks go
particularly to The Departments of Travel
and Publicity, Lands and Forests, Highways,
and, of course, the Parks Integration Board
and to hon. members on both sides of this
House.
The commission's first year of full opera-
tion has been a marked success; many organi-
zations and individuals have contributed to
this success, as I have mentioned on previous
occasions. It is a great pleasure to tell you,
Mr. Speaker, that on Tuesday, December 5,
three awards of merit of the American Asso-
ciation for State and Local History were pre-
sented to Ontario organizations. The awards
went to Imperial Oil, for making available to
Canadian schools reproductions of the paint-
ings of C. W. Jeffereys; to Rev. Father E. J.
Lajeunesse, C.S.B., for his book, "The Wind-
sor Border Region" in the Champlain Society
series; and to your commission for Upper
Canada Village, Crysler Farm Battlefield Park
and battlefield memorial. I might say, Mr.
Speaker, that I think this was a particularly
unique award in the fact that a well-known
American organization was presenting an
award to a Canadian operation which mem-
orializes one of the few military defeats which
the United States has sustained. It is signifi-
cant that two of these awards may be credited
almost entirely to the inspiration and instiga-
tion of one man— the hon. member for Victoria
(Mr. Frost).
Quoting very briefly from an editorial in
the Montreal Star of Monday, December 11:
It comes as no surprise that this dual
project has won an award of merit from the
American Association for State and Local
History. This association has given a great
boost to historical preservation throughout
the United States and the village and park
were well worth its attention. There are
408
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ail too few historical sites in Canada that
have been developed with anything like the
imagination used on tlie village and park.
The habitation at Port Royal, Fort Henry
at Kingston, Lower Fort Garry at Winnipeg
—there are not nearly enough of these. The
remarkable success of the village and park
should convince many more people that
well preserved history is living history.
Ernest Bartlett, travel editor of the Toronto
Telegram, reflects the pride of all men and
women in Ontario when he writes:
I am grateful for the stature of our states-
man who realized that in this, our Canada,
our history is worth preserving and present-
ing, whether it be national monvtments like
Old Fort Henry, or national reconstructions,
like Upper Canada Village. . . .
I feel that it is right, meet and proper
that on the record should go the fact that
the imagination which produced these
reconstructions was backed by such people
as former Premier, the hon. Leslie M. Frost.
I feel, to quote Kipling, "they have built
better than they knoweth."
Mr. Speaker, I heartily concur.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
firstly in rising to take a place in this debate
may I, like the many other hon. members of
the House, congratulate you on the excellent
job that you have done ever since you were
appointed Speaker of this House.
May I say to you in absolute sincerity
that we on tlie Opposition side, particularly
during this session, are very happy with the
fairness that you have given to us. I will say
that possibly on other occasions the Speakers
have a tendency to look at the hon. Prime
Minister and see if he winks at them and
perhaps their actions may be judged by the
way that wink is placed.
But with you, sir, we on this side of the
House are very happy, and I might say too
that since you have been the Speaker of
this House there are other occasions when
•we have been happy.
We have enjoyed your Speaker's dinners,
as we did your predecessor's; we enjoy the
times that you take us up into your apart-
ment during the sessions and allow us to have
a lunch there. As a matter of fact I was
rather disappointed this year, Mr. Speaker,
that you had not invited us before the Christ-
mas festivities, and I only wish that I had
been called to speak last week because then
I am sure that I could have impressed upon
you our sincere desire to have another invita-
tion this year.
Before getting into the main part of what
I intend to say I also want to congratulate
the hon. Prime Minister of this House (Mr.
Robarts) on succeeding the hon. member for
Victoria (Mr. Frost). I think perhaps there
is a tendency among some people to feel that
we on the other side do not appreciate the
actions and the successes of men in govern-
ment.
May I say, speaking personally, Mr.
Speaker, that I absolutely sincerely congratu-
late the hon. Prime Minister on the excellent
Rm that he made for the leadership. He had
some rather tough competition but he has
been successful. And while I do not wish
him too well politically, on the other hand
we wish him the best of health and we hope,
Mr. Speaker, that his decisions will not lead
Ontario astray.
I also want to congratulate the hon.
Cabinet Ministers. Particularly would I like
to congratulate those hon. Cabinet Ministers
who had the foresightedness to support the
hon. Prime Minister at the last convention.
Now, as an example, I always thought, as
did many hon. members of this House, that
the former hon. Minister of Highways (Mr.
Cass) was a very excellent Minister, and he
conducted his office in a businesslike way.
And really it was somewhat shocking for us
to read in the newspapers that he had been
given— demoted, I would say— to the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs.
I am just wondering if the fact that the
former Minister of Agriculture ( Mr. Good-
fellow), now sitting in the seat of the hon.
Minister of Highways, was one of the men
who nominated the hon. Prime Minister had
any bearing on his appointment.
I think that any change for the hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Warrender) from
where he was before, considering the attacks
that he had not only from the Opposition
but from the people of this province, was
bound to be a promotion; and I am wondering
if the fact that he supported the hon. Prime
Minister had any bearing on his appoint-
ment.
An hon. member: No.
Another hon. member: It was just a turn of
the card. That is why he is in the front row.
Mr. Whicher: That is probably the reason.
I have often wondered why the hon. Minister
of Welfare (Mr. Cecile) is in the front row.
An hon. member: The hon. member ought
to move down.
DECEMBER 13, 1961
409
Mr. Whicher: That is right, I am going to
get moved down and touch the seat. I want
to say to the hon. Prime Minister that we
are going to move him somewhere else too,
very shortly.
I want to congratulate all the hon. members
who ran for the leadership. The hon. Min-
ister of Health (Mr. Dymond), I think did
an excellent job. I want to congratulate them
all, Mr. Speaker, for being such wealthy men,
I had absolutely no idea that the hon. Minister
of Health was in a financial position to be
able to spend the thousands of dollars that
we hear were spent in this leadership cam-
paign.
I say to them— to tlie hon. Attorney-General
( Mr. Roberts ) for example, to my good friend
the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) —
that, if they did not do anything else, they
put a great deal of money into circulation.
And from what I understand, the Liquor
Control Board got a lot of it back in the form
of taxes.
Surely the hon. gentlemen sitting in the
government benches, and particularly those
who ran for the leadership, are what could
be called the upper crust of the Tory party.
A fellow from Wiarton, my own home town,
gave me the definition of the upper crust of
the Tory party. He said, "Ross, this is what
it is. The upper crust of the Tory party is
a bunch of crumbs held together by their
dough."
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that is self-
evident. I would not say that they are old
crumbs at all, but if they are crust they are
certainly held together by their dough and
they should be congratulated for the financial
success that they have had.
I have a special word for the hon. Attorney-
General because, in the leadership campaign,
he came to my little town of Wiarton and
said something with which I do not agree at
all. He suggested in a speech there that Bruce
would return to the Tory fold in the next
election. It may very well be, that Bruce
could turn to the Tory fold in the next general
election of the province of Ontario; but I want
to say this to the hon. Attorney-General— and
I say it in a kindly, friendly way: If I were
he I would look after St. Patrick. In fact,
I am told by the odd Tory member of this
House that there are a number who would be
very happy if he did have a little trouble
getting back into this House.
After congratulating everyone around you,
Mr. Speaker— the upper crust of the Tory
party— I want to teU you that I am speaking
from a prepared text which is taken from the
second and third verses of the Wintermeyer
amendment to the Speech from the Throne,
which reads as follows:
That the government's bad management
of the province's finances resulted in the
imposition of a sales tax, and that this tax,
ill conceived and badly timed, did produce
a maximum of inconvenience to the tax-
payer and a maximum of irritation for the
retailer, when a plan calling for an exemp-
tion of $25 would have been far more
eff^ective.
2. That as a result of a wasteful extrava-
gance, unplanned spending and inefficiency
of this government, notwithstanding the
imposition of a sales tax, the public debt
of this province has reached unparalleled
heights and has thereby placed an onerous
mortgage on the future of the citizens of
this province.
Mr. Speaker, before I talk about the sales
tax, and the Liberal plan calling for an ex-
emption of $25, I want for a few moments
to look at the abridged financial report of this
government for the year ending March 31,
1961. I am using these figures instead of this
year's estimates because they are factual, and
we know them to be absolutely correct and
not just an estimated guess.
I want to remind hon. members of this
House of the terrific burden of taxation that
we the citizens of Ontario are now enduring,
even before we had a sales tax.
Let us look at some of the main sources of
revenue that this government takes from the
people. First— and this is something that
the hon. member for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden)
talked about last night, when he suggested
that a great deal more money should come
from the corporations of the province of
Ontario— let us see how much money already
comes from them. Last year, the province of
Ontario— the hon. Provincial Treasurer— re-
ceived $185,667,000. I would say that that
was a considerable amount of money from
the corporations of this province.
But let us go a little farther, Mr. Speaker,
because, besides the taxes that the Ontario
corporations paid to this government, they
also paid $675 million to the federal govern-
ment. I would say, Mr. Speaker, before we
increase corporation taxes in this province,
we had better think about it very, very hard.
At the present time, corporations are paying
52 per cent in taxes and, in every single
doUar that they make, 52 cents is either go-
ing to the provincial government or to the
government in Ottawa. This does not include
410
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
their municipal taxes at all. Fifty-two cents
of their profit goes to these two governments.
When we talk about companies like Inter-
national Nickel— as the hon. member did last
night— we know that they are a giant corpora-
tion, we know full well that they make
millions of dollars. Let us, as a supposition,
suppose that they made $100 million last
year. I remind the hon. members of this
House that of that $100 million, $52 million
is going to support the revenues of Ontario,
and of our federal friends in Ottawa.
Surely this is something that we must re-
member. Surely, before we tax these people
—giants though they may be, and as the hon.
member says, perhaps they can well aflFord to
pay it— surely before we go any farther we
must remember that industry— certainly not
International Nickel, because they take these
things out of the ground— but industry as a
whole, who are not engaged in mining and
in the natural resources, that industry would
certainly move out of the province of Ontario.
And as a matter of fact, 1 am going to tell
hon. members later of some industry that has
unfortunately already moved from this prov-
ince and gone to other provinces because of
the fact that we, this government, is pricing
them out of the market by certain legislation
that they have put through.
Therefore I say to the hon. members, to
you, Mr. Speaker, and particularly to the hon.
member for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden), even
though I enjoyed his speech very much: how
much corporation tax can they impose on
these fellows? At the present time we have
the highest rate of taxation of any state or
province on the North American continent.
How much higher? We have as high as any
other place. Fifty-two per cent. How much
higher are they going to put it?
Supposing we made it, say, 60 per cent?
I suggest that the way this government is con-
ducting the financial affairs of this province,
that if they made it 60 per cent, first, they
would lose a lot of revenue because industry
would move out of the province. In the
second place if they did make it 60 per cent,
they would not have nearly enough money
anyway, because in spite of the sales tax they
are going in debt this year to the tune of $180
million.
I would say that they would have to double
the corporation tax in this province in order to
have a balanced budget. Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, I want everyone to know that I am
strictly against any increase in the corporation
tax in this province, even though I fully
realize that there are giants of industry in this
province who have a great deal of money.
But these corporations with that money have
an obligation to their shareholders. I sug-
gest to the hon. members of this House that
if they look at the financial pages of the
Toronto newspapers, or any newspaper, they
will see that many of the shareholders today
are not getting as much in common stocks of
those companies as they can in government
bonds.
These companies owe an obligation to the
shareholders who have invested money in
them and they must be paid a just and
legitimate interest.
Now, Mr. Speaker, $185 million is the
amount the hon. Provincial Treasurer got from
the corporation tax. From the gasoline tax
last year— and we are not up to the other
provinces as far as taxes are concerned, 13
cents per gallon is the tax— the hon.
Provincial Treasurer collected $157,655,000.
In our hospital tax, $4 million; land transfer
tax, $3.5 million; logging tax, $1.8 million;
mines profits tax, $17 million; motor vehicle
fuel tax, diesel oil, $6.8 million; race tracks,
$507,000; succession duties, $37.6 million;
et cetera, et cetera.
Now, besides this, one of the main sources
of revenue that the hon. Provincial Treasurer
has taken from the people of this province-
remembering that with these huge sources of
revenue we are sHll going in the hole, this
happened long before a sales tax came in-
one of the main sources of revenue is the
income tax that the people of this province
pay. Last year this government collected
from the people of this province $113,791,000.
Hon. members may say when they look at
the six million figure— the number of people
there are in this province— that perhaps that
is not much. But when I remind the hon.
members that Ontario residents, besides that
amount of money, paid $800 million in income
taxes to our federal friends in Ottawa, then
I say that surely there is a point where instead
of taxes continually going up, that the govern-
ments, not only of this province but govern-
ments all over the democratic world and
particularly in Canada, must put a little
economy and efficiency into their operations
and bring these taxes down a bit instead of
letting them go sky high.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): What services would the hon. mem-
ber like to throw out?
Mr. Whicher: One thing I would do would
be to cut out a few hon. Ministers over there.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Name them quickly.
DECEMBER 13, 1961
411
Mr. Whicher: I could not do it all in one
breath.
One of the places where a great deal of
revenue comes into this province is through
the liquor control board. Last year $80.6
million. Now, I just want to remind the
hon. members, Mr. Speaker, of this fact.
I had the honour to come into this House
in 1956, and at that time, as I remember,
the liquor revenue to the treasury of this
province was in the neighbourhood of $39
milhon— $39 million to $40 million.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): What
was the population?
Mr. Whicher: Never mind what the popula-
tion was. I am simply telling the hon. mem-
bers this, that the receipts this government is
taking from the province of Ontario are
mounting and mounting and mounting, and
where the end will be I honestly do not
know. Eighty million dollars last year. In
licences and permits, $68,270,000.
Now, is any hon. member of the govern-
ment going to suggest that we are going to
increase the licences on the automobiles or
tlie permits for people who drive cars?
Because $61,838,000 of the hcences and
permits came from motor vehicle licences.
There are other places, small ones, depart-
ments where the government takes money
from the people of this province. But I have
just given these figures, Mr. Speaker, to show
that we were really being taxed, and taxed
plenty, even before the sales tax came into
operation.
Besides these taxes let us remember this:
the people of the province of Ontario paid
$750 million in sales tax to our federal friends
in Ottawa. Besides the sales tax that the hon.
Provincial Treasurer is now going to take,
amounting to $150 million, our Ottawa friends
last year took $750 million in sales tax from
the people of this province.
Let me remind the hon. members of this:
the gross national product in 1960 for the
Dominion of Canada was $33,807,000,000. Of
that figure— the gross national product which
is the money used for all the goods and
services, every dollar across Canada— 30 cents
out of every dollar went in the form of taxes.
Just imagine! Of every dollar that was
taken in for the price of goods and services,
30 cents goes for the government in Ontario,
the government in Ottawa and the govern-
ments in municipalities. I think that this is
an amazing thing, Mr. Speaker, and if the
people of the province knew it they would be
sadly disturbed.
Under these circumstances, inasmuch, as I
say, that the corporation tax has reached a
height, it certainly is as high as any other
jurisdiction in Canada, inasmuch, as I feel,
that income taxes are reasonably high— I
suppose this government could implement a
provincial income tax, I know perfectly well
they are going to have to do it, but I think
the taxes are certainly high enough in this
line— my question then to you, Mr. Speaker,
is this:
I imagine myself in the hon. Provincial
Treasurer's seat and I say: "Where on earth
am I going to get the money?" It was under
these conditions— because he had taxed the
people as high as he could in corporation
and income tax fields, and in the licensing
and permits, and in the liquor board— they
had to go to sales tax. He either had to
go to a sales tax, along with his borrowing
which he did, namely, $180 million for this
year, or he had to bring a little economy and
efficiency into the government of the province
of Ontario. I suggest that instead of bringing
economy and efficiency, and telling our people
that we have only so much money to spend
and you are allowed so much out of the pot,
instead of bringing that economy, instead of
raising these other taxes, instead of borrowing
more than $180 million, he instituted a sales
tax.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that by the
lackadaisical effort in cutting costs this govern-
ment has encouraged a lack of real work
in all government departments. I say, Mr.
Speaker, that governments— and they are going
to have to do it sooner or later— that demo-
cratic governments sooner or later are going
to have to run as a business is run. They are
going to have to balance their budget, they
are going to have to cut out the waste and
extravagance that is in every department of
this government in the province of Ontario.
They are going to have to balance their
budget.
Economy must come, Mr. Speaker, from the
hon. members who are sitting over there;
they are the government.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
The hon. members of the Opposition always
want us to spend.
Mr. Whicher: Just a moment, I am not
just talking about spending money, I am
talking about spending it in a sensible way.
Does the hon. Minister want me to tell him
one instance where there is a lack of economy
in the province of Ontario? I will tell him
right now. I think this is an astonishing
revelation.
412
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In the O.A.C. at Guelph there are as many
employees as there are students. There are
as many employees in the Ontario Agricultural
College in Guelph as there are students. Now,
I suggest to the House that is an astonishing
fact. I suggest to hon. members tliat an
efficiency expert should go through places
like this, and all departments of government,
with a fine tooth comb. These things are
costing too much money. The government
is not leading the way in efiiciency and
economy by doing diings such as that.
It is as a result of lack of leadership in
this government and the government in
Ottawa, that we as a province and we as a
country financially are in— I should not say a
tottering state, but certainly not a good
financial state.
Let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, an
editorial that was in the Toronto Daily Star
only two or three days ago entitled:
Losing Our Life Blood
Canada has started to lose the most
important part of all its resources. People.
Grown men and women with skills and
education which Canada needs. That is
the price we are paying for our mass un-
employment, for our economic stagnation.
Immigrants and native bom see better
chances of employment in other countries.
They see more prosperity, greater confi-
dence, a faster tempo of growth in other
countries, so they are leaving and their
places are not being filled by new arrivals.
The Toronto Daily Stars Ottawa bureau
chief, Val Sears, told the story in yesterday's
Star:
Bank of Canada figures show that in the
first half of 1961 about 14,000 more people
left this country than entered it. Many
of those who left were native-bom Cana-
dians going to the United States and
Britain; many were postwar immigrants
returning to Britain and western Europe.
The outflow was especially pronounced
in January, February and March, when
unemployment reached 719,000 — 11 per
cent of the Canadian labour force. But
it was not only unemployment that caused
these people to leave, opportunity was
another factor. There are more oppor-
tunities in expanding economies like those
of the United States, Britain and West
Germany thaii there are in an economy
like Canada's which is not only stagnant
but actually shrinking.
Here again figures tell the story:
Look at the gross national product. The
total of all goods and services produced
by all Canadians expressed in constant
1957 dollars, it is running below last
year's level. In the first half of 1960, the
gross national product ran at the rate of
$33.28 billion-$33 billion, $28 million
annually. In all of 1960, it ran at the rate
of $33 billion 807 million; in the first half
of 1961, it ran at the rate of $33 billion
$620 million annually, less than it was last
year.
This decline in the gross national prod-
uct means fewer opportunities, lower liv-
ing standards and this, in turn, leads our
people to leave. This is a great tragedy
because Canada needs people. What
makes the exodus more tragic is that it
is totally unnecessary. There is no need
for mass unemployment to drive German
immigrants back to Germany; there is no
need for economic stagnation that drives
native-bom Canadians to the United
States. Canada could prosper if only the
Diefenbaker goverrmient—
And I might add in here— tlie Robarts gov-
ernment too:
—would do what leading Canadian busi-
nessmen and economists are suggesting. If
only it would engage in economic plan-
ning designed to restore full employment
and healthy national growth, Canada
would then keep its people and attract
many more.
But the government dillies and dallies,
it mumbles and grumbles, it equivocates
and procrastinates so the economy drifts
and dwindles, so the unemployed multiply,
so we lose our life blood and—
the editorial ends:
—this is leadership.
Mr. Cowling: It is a sad, sad story.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to
you when we use the word leadership, as
far as this government is concerned and also
the one in Ottawa, we have to use it along
with another two words instead of leader-
ship, we must say lack of leadership!
Of all the countries in the world, Mr.
Speaker, look at Germany. They are adver-
tising for an extra 500,000 workers because
they have so much work in Germany that
they have not got enough people to do the
job. In England today everyone, speaking
generally, is at work. As a matter of fact, they
have less unemployment there than they have
had in years. In France, I understand that
the percentage of unemployed is at a strict
minimum.
DECEMBER 13, 1961
413
Yet here, in Canada, in a province of which
hon. gendemen opposite are the leaders, we
have an economic stagnation that goes right
from the top to the bottom.
Mr. Speaker, to get around to the sales
tax proposition: because this government has
over a period of years got into a great deal
of debt— $1,092 billion, according to the hon.
Treasurer's last statement— and because he
knew that he was going to be going further
into debt by $180 million this year, he and
his government decided that there must be
a sales tax. May I say, and I do not want to
take too long with this point, Mr. Speaker,
that it is a terrific nuisance to the small
businessmen in the province of Ontario.
I cannot for the life of me understand why
a fresh government, under fresh leadership,
would not take a fresh look and do away
with some of these nuisances that are fantastic
to the small fellow in some of the small towns
and cities in this province of Ontario.
For example, here we have— it was quoted
I think by my hon. leader and by other
people— here we have the fact that when a
man goes in to buy six bottles of pop there
is a one cent tax on it. Then he may go up
the street and buy a Ford or Chevrolet car
and pay $3,000 and $90 of that sales tax
on the $3,000 goes into the Treasury fund.
But the fellow who sells soft drinks in the
province of Ontario, of which there are many
thousands, he must sell 90,000— what is it?
Hon. J. P, Robarts (Prime Minister): Nine
thousand!
Mr. Whicher: Nine thousand cartons of
pop with 9,000 difiFerent entries in order to
get the same amount of money for this gov-
ernment that the automotive dealer can give
them in one transaction.
Mr. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
information! want to draw to your attention
that the New Party is not now represented
in the House— they are not very interested in
what the hon. member has to say.
Mr. Whicher: I am very pleased that the
hon. member has brought that to my atten-
tion, because I was going to bring that fact
to the attention of the House. I must say
that I regard it something of a compliment,
but I do not know why the whole five of
them would have to leave at once.
An hon. member: The party of the whole!
Mr. Whicher: I can only say that after the
next election there probably will not be any-
body there anyway. Will hon. members not
give me a clap for that?
I want to get back to the soft drinks situa-
tion in the province of Ontario; I do not
want to get back to that hard stuff over
there.
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister without Port-
folio): I will buy the hon. member soft drinks
for Christmas.
Mr. Whicher: I think that the tax law in
this province, where a man has to have
9,000 entries in order to get the same amount
of money that can be secured on one entry,
shows something wrong with that way of
doing business.
I say to hon. members, for example, when
a man goes in and buys a package of cigar-
ettes that we sell in our own business, on the
45 cent package of cigarettes there is a one
cent tax. If he buys two packages of cigar-
ettes there is a three cent tax. Now I say,
what kind of justice— I know it is only a
matter of a penny— but how can one give
excuses to the people of Ontario when they
are buying just two packages of cigarettes
it is three cents; and when they buy two
separate ones, it is only two cents? Surely
these are things that even this government
could sit down behind the scenes and arrange
to eradicate.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is one thing
that we are certainly going to do when we
take over very shortly.
Let me say this to hon. members. When
a man goes in to buy a chocolate bar, a ten
cent chocolate bar, no tax whatsoever; he
buys two chocolate bars, why we have a tax.
The small businessmen of Ontario are so
tied up with the way this thing runs that
they just do not know what to do.
One place where I did agree with the
hon. member for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden)
last night was when he mentioned the fact
that he felt this government had approached
the nth degree of nerve when they made the
Canadian Legions in the province of Ontario
pay a sales tax on their poppies which are:
first, a poppy to honour the dead of the
two World Wars; and second, to go into the
poppy funds which are used to help the
veterans in the province of Ontario.
Several hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I think that is
going a way too far, and I might say that the
members— at any rate the members who were
interested— the members of the Canadian
414
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Legion in the province of Ontario certainly
did not appreciate it, and I was one of those
members. I do not know how many in the
House are members; how they can sit there
and allow their government to do things
such as that is absolutely beyond me.
An hon. member: Shame!
Mr. Whicher: I want to show you, Mr.
Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Allan: How much tax was paid?
Mr. Whicher: That is not the point. The
point is the principle of the thing, and the
lack of principle that the government had in
making them pay it.
Let me show you another one, Mr.
Speaker. I want to quote from an editorial of
one of our local weekly papers in Bruce
county. It reads as follows:
Representatives of the provincial sales
tax department have been visiting fall
fairs in the area to collect taxes on sales
made through midway concessions and re-
freshment booths. In many cases the latter
are operated by the fair board or some local
organization.
Sales in most instances are for food and
drink and are the minimum of $1.50 and 17
cents respectively.
The Paisley Advocate reports— and this
is absolutely true— that a sales tax official
drove from Owen Sound to Paisley to col-
lect the tax. For driving some 70 miles and
spending the afternoon, he collected 52
cents for the government. Business was
not so good in the case of the Port Elgin
fair where the tax collected was 42 cents.
It would be interesting to have the sales
tax office indicate how much profit accrued
to it from these operations.
Besides this, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell
you that the small businessman— particularly
the small one— is very perturbed about this
tax and the way the government is operating
it. For example, there are many of us who
cannot ajfford to spend $2,500 or $3,000 for
special cash registers, to look after it the way
hon. Provincial Treasurer wants it done. We
have to keep scribblers, and every night at
six o'clock or whenever the store closes, we
have to go in to the back room and— for the
benefit of these people in the province who
are spending a billion dollars a year— we have
to keep a record so that the government can
have a few paltry cents at the end of each
month. We have to make up forms. In the
case of a small business which, perhaps, does
not have a secretary, it is a great deal of
work. Mr. Speaker, we have to pay for our
own stamps. Let me give you an instance in
my own case. The hon. member for Wood-
bine (Mr. Bryden) last night quoted an in-
stance where a man only made a dollar or
something like that for a number of hours*
work in making out his form. The only thing
that we are taxed for in our business in Wiar-
ton and Southampton is for soft drinks and
cigarettes. For the last two months I have
had to make up forms—
Hon. Mr. Allan: Would the hon. member
like to have it on the other things?
Mr. Whicher: I have had to make up forms.
I made 44 cents and I had $50 worth of
nuisance in making up this form.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The hon. member did not
have to have this nuisance.
Mr. Whicher: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to
come to a most important part, because all is
not lost to the people of the province of
Ontario. What they can do, Mr. Speaker, is
say: "Let's get rid of all this nonsense and
kick you fellows out and put in a government
that will do something about it." Mr. Speaker,
before we could say to them "kick these
fellows out," we had to bring forth a plan
and that plan—
Hon. Mr. Allan: What is the plan?
Mr. Whicher: I am going to give it right
now, and I hope that the hon. Provincial
Treasurer digests it because it will be some
of the best reasoning that he has had for a
long time.
This plan has a special name. This is the
Wintermeyer plan. It is the Wintermeyer
plan for the exemption of sales tax on all
items costing less than $25. Before I finish,
I am going to explain to you that the gov-
ernment is talking nonsense when it says
it is going to be able to collect only a few
million dollars because of our exemptions.
It is nonsense. I am going to prove that
to you in black and white figures, and I
suggest to the hon. Provincial Treasurer
that, if his officials do not agree with my
figures, he had better send them back to
school and teach them how to add, because
my figures are correct.
This is the Wintermeyer plan. John
Wintermeyer announced today that a Lib-
eral government will exempt from sales tax
all items costing less than $25. No tax on
toothpaste, no tax on Kleenex, or all the
DECEMBER 13, 1961
415
things that we have in grocery stores today.
Almost everything the housewife buys on a
week-to-week basis will be exempt. About
75 per cent of Ontario's retailers— and this
is the important part— those selling food,
groceries, hats, shirts, shoes, children's cloth-
ing, drugs, hardware, books and sundries
will be free of the burden of collecting
taxes. The exemption would practically
eliminate the nuisance and irritation of the
present tax system for taxpayers and retailers.
I have this underlined here and I want hon.
members to underline it in their minds. The
present tax has been ill-conceived, ill-timed
and ill-treated. It has not been imposed to
provide additional services, it has not been
imposed to improve education, health or social
services. It has been imposed by the govern-
ment to pay old debts and to pay the cost of
Conservative bad management of Ontario's
afiFairs. I should say "partly pay old debts".
Mr. Speaker, when the Conservative
government in Toronto was unable to collect
on Mr. Diefenbaker's promise of a better tax
deal, they rushed into imposing a retail sales
tax that was not properly thought out and
which was not introduced in a businesslike
way. Had the government proceeded in a
businesslike way, with some care and con-
cern for taxpayers and retail merchants, they
could have done a much better job with a
lot less irritation.
The Liberal party makes its proposal for
a $25 exemption after detailed and expert
study of the problem, and with the desire to
produce the least possible inconvenience for
all. The present tax is expected to yield $150
million per year. The tax with the Liberal
party's $25 exemption— and I will prove this
later, Mr. Speaker— would raise about $115
million and do away with many nuisances.
The advantages of the Liberal exemption
are many. It would virtually remove the tax
from necessities and provide almost total
exemption for the pensioners. It would re-
move the burden of collecting tax from
approximately 75 per cent of Ontario's re-
tail merchants and free them from the
problems of extra bookkeeping, training staff,
filling in government reports and submitting
to government audits. The Liberal exemption
would remove the great mass of interpretive
problems and the present regulations concern-
ing children's clothing, drugs, confections.
office supplies, books, repair parts for farm
machinery and supplies.
Nearly $100 million, and this is what I
want to emphasize to the hon. Provincial
Treasurer, nearly $100 million in sales tax
revenue will be raised from construction
materials, machinery and equipment, new and
used cars, hquor, furniture and appliances.
These are big dollar items and would not be
exempt under the Liberal party's $25 exemp-
tion.
There vdll be no change in the tax on
restaurant meals over $1.50, telephone
charges, cigarettes. Keeping track of pennies
on millions of small sales reduces by a
maximum the amount of irritation to cus-
tomers and merchants; and the cost of
collection on a proportionately small revenue.
We as a party think this is a sound con-
structive way to approach sales tax in Ontario.
The Liberal party intends to implement this
proposal when it forms the next government.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want at this time to
go any further as far as breaking down the
amount to show and prove that under our
plan we can collect $115 million. I will do
that. My hope is this, Mr. Speaker, that the
hon. Provincial Treasurer will be in his seat
tomorrow when I tell him, and through him
all the people of this province, how we can
collect this money, do away with all these
nuisances and make the people a httle bit
happier.
Mr. Whicher moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow
we will proceed with the orders as they
appear on the order paper. There are a few
bills to be taken through in committee stage,
and we can resume this debate. I had in-
tended to call— strangely enough before the
last speaker's contribution to the Throne
debate— but I intended to call order No. 21,
the second reading of Bill No. 47, An Act
to amend The Retail Sales Tax Act, 1960-61.
Hon. Mr, Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 17
ONTARIO
HegiiSlature of (J^ntario
Betiateg
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Thursday, December 14> 1961
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C»
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, December 14, 1961
Ontario Code of Human Rights, bill to establish, Mr. Warrender. first reading 419
Statement re changes in administration and organization of The Department of
Agriculture, Mr. Stewart 420
Statement re school grants, 1962-1963, Mr. Robarts 429
On The Retail Sales Act, 1960-1961, bill to amend, second reading, Mr. Wintermeyer 431
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 444
Income Tax Act, 1961-1962, bill intituled, reported 444
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, reported 444
Fire Marshals Act, bill to amend, reported 444
Police Act, bill to amend, reported 444
Department of Labour Act, bill to amend, reported 445
Vital Statistics Act, bill to amend, reported 445
Corporations Act, bill to amend, reported 445
Corporations Information Act, bill to amend, reported 445
Milk Industry Act, bill to amend, reported ,, 445
Notice of motion re Ontario Safety Council, concurred in 446
Notice of motion re income tax, concurred in 446
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Whicher, Mr. Lewis,
Mr. Oliver 446
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Oliver, agreed to 455
Recess, 6 o'clock .'.....'...; 455
419
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
ONTARIO CODE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour) moves first reading of bill intituled
An Act to establish the Ontario Code of
Human Rights and provide for its administra-
tion.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): The purpose of this bill, Mr.
Speaker, is to consolidate our human ri^ts
legislation and to simplify its administration.
With us in Ontario it has always been a
basic principle that everyone should have an
equal opportunity to direct his life toward
what he thinks will be the most rewarding
objectives. The legislation now before us
is, I believe, a major step forward in assuring
everyone in this province an equal oppor-
tunity toward this end.
This bill incorporates into the Ontario
Code of Human Rights various Acts which
the Legislature has approved in the past to
emphasize our public policy in this province
that every person is free and equal in dignity
and rights without regard to race, creed,
colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin.
We do not believe that it is right for any-
body to be refused employment, housing
accommodation or public services and facil-
ities merely because of his particular race,
colour or creed. Nor do we believe that
women who are doing the same work as men
in the same establishment should be paid less
because they are women.
Thursday, December 14, 1961
These principles have been established
publicly since 1944 when the Legislature
approved The Racial Discrimination Act.
Seven years later, in 1951, we approved The
Fair Employment Practices Act and The
Female Employees' Fair Remuneration Act.
In 1954 we adopted The Fair Accommoda-
tion Practices Act and in 1958 we established
the Ontario Anti-Discrimination Commission.
Last spring, this body was renamed the
Ontario Human Rights Commission. Under
the Act now before the Legislature the com-
mission will carry on.
By placing before the Legislature today
this Act to establish the Ontario Code of
Human Rights, the government is demonstrat-
ing that it is aware of continually changing
conditions and changing attitudes and is quick
to take every step possible to see that dis-
crimination is eliminated from the province
of Ontario.
In all modesty, Mr. Speaker, I want to
suggest that Ontario has a human rights code
which is equal to the best of any similar
legislation on this continent.
Indeed, Ontario has been the trail-blazer in
Canada of this type of legislation. As time
goes on, and as new needs become apparent,
our Ontario Human Rights Code will continue
to keep pace with the requirements of the
people of our province.
I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker,
that the mere existence of legislation is far
from being the total answer to the problem.
This is particularly true with discrimination.
Prejudice, the attitude of mind which gives
rise to acts of discrimination, is rooted very
deeply in human personality. It is based on
lack of sensitivity, or misunderstanding or
ignorance, or stubbornness. At worst, it is
the failure to recognize a fellow human being
as a human being.
Prejudice cannot be dug out and eliminated
by the passage of a statute, but its outward
manifestations can be curbed. Artificial
barriers denying equality of opportunity to
our fellow human beings can be breached
and torn down.
420
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I leave
this thought with you: we all agree that
respect for the dignity and the rights of every
human being is the foundation stone of peace
and justice in this country and this world.
The promotion of the kind of society where
men and women of all races and creeds can
come together in co-operation and goodwill
is the basic objective of Ontario's Code of
Human Rights.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
are there any new principles in this bill in
addition to the principles contained in the
various statutes which I understand are being
consolidated by the bill?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I would say there
are no new principles at this time, Mr.
Speaker. It is a consolidation of the statutes
now on our books.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Has there
been anything taken away from the principles
already in the other bill?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Nothing that I know
of.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the indulgence
of the House for a moment at this time
in the reading of a short letter. In the way
I understand the English language, this letter
would be called non-political.
Dear Mb. Speaker:
With reference to the typing of the
second line on page 111 of the mimeo-
graphed copy of the report of the
Attorney-General's committee on the en-
forcement of the law relating to gambling
of November 6, 1961, signed by Professor
D. Morton and Mr. Rolf Eng, the words
appear "a political" when, in fact, I am
informed it was the intention of the au-
thors that it be "apolitical."
"Apolitical," according to Webster's
Third New International Dictionary,
means:
"Having an aversion for or no interest
or involvement in political affairs— with-
out political significance."
It will be apparent from a reading of the
whole preceding paragraph on the bottom
of page 110 along with the paragraph on
page 111 that the meaning is "apoHtical"
and not "a political."
Yours very sincerely.
And it is signed by the hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts).
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day I would like to inform hon. members of
certain changes which are being made in the
administration and organization of The De-
partment of Agriculture. These changes are
effective immediately.
I am sure that I am expressing the feelings
of all farmers in this province, and of the
members of this House, when I say that it
was with a great deal of regret we learned
that because of ill health it was necessary
on December 1 for Dr. C. D. Graham to
retire as deputy Minister of Agriculture. I
am sure as well that the hon. members would
agree with me that it is most fitting at this
time, as Minister of Agriculture, I publicly
express these regrets so that they may be-
come a permanent record of this province.
Dr. Graham, or Cliff, as he has been so
well known by his multitude of friends across
this province, has made a contribution to
agriculture over the years which cannot in
any way be adequately recognized by mere
words. Cliff Graham throughout his life of
service to agriculture in this province, from
the beginning as an assistant agricultural
representative in my own home county of
Middlesex, to the time he accepted the major
responsibility as senior administrator, has
led an unselfish and dedicated life to the wel-
fare of the farmers of Ontario.
This dedicated service, stretching over a
period of 33 years, has been one of complete
unselfishness, a record of unbiased adminis-
tration and a lifetime of responsibility accep-
tance which at all times resulted in a ready
willingness of personal self-sacrifice and far
too often a neglect of personal pleasures and
relaxation. While, as I have stated, it is
impossible to express the gratitude of the
farmers of this province to Dr. Graham in
mere words, the mark which he has left in
this province through his work with junior
farmers, farm organizations and government
administration will live on as a lasting edifice
to his unselfish dedication of purpose. While
Dr. Graham has retired, I am still hopeful
that we will still have the advantage of his
wisdom and experience in agricultural matters
from time to time.
I am therefore sure that the hon. members
assembled here today will join with me in
unanimously expressing a sincere and heart-
felt thank-you to an outstanding civil servant
and citizen of this province who at all times
throughout his life, has made contributions
far beyond what might be normally expected
in his day to day responsibilities and duties.
DECEMBER 14, 1961
421
Every department of government in order
to be truly e£Fective must have an adminis-
trative stafiF and organization which is sound
and which is adequately equipped in every
way to support the Minister and to carry
out the policies as laid down. As a practising
farmer, I feel that at this time as well I can
be excused if I momentarily step out of my
role as the Minister of Agriculture and ex-
press a personal opinion, which I believe is
shared by the vast majority of farmers in
this province with reference to the personnel
of The Ontario Department of Agriculture.
Since my younger days as a junior farmer,
when I first came in contact with The Ontario
Department of Agriculture through the agri-
cultural representative service and sub-
sequently with other branches of the depart-
mental administration, I have never ceased
to be impressed by the very high calibre of
men who have come forward and willingly
served this important industry of our province.
In one way, therefore, sir, when the
Minister of Agriculture must consider new
appointments, it is relatively easy to find
men who have the capabilities for accepting
senior administrative responsibilities. On the
other hand, because of the high calibre of so
many of our departmental personnel, it is
also most difficult to make a choice.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I think
at this time it would also be quite proper for
me to pay a tribute to my predecessor now
hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow),
not only for the realistic leadership which he
displayed while he was Minister of Agri-
culture of the province, but as well for the
changes inaugiurated within the departmental
administration almost two years ago which
today form the foundation for a further
streamlining of the departmental administra-
tion to meet the changing conditions and the
new complexities of our agricultural economy.
On January 7, 1960, the then Minister
(Mr. Goodfellow) stated that the functions of
The Department of Agriculture were being
separated into a division of marketing and a
division of production which would provide
for a more efficient co-ordinated programme.
He also stated, and I quote:
With our greatly increased population
and thereby more consumers, and with
fewer farmers on the land, it is increas-
ingly important that every possible step
be taken to safeguard our basic industry.
The reorganization has been planned to
meet the demands of the farm population
who are faced with many difficulties, both
in the field of marketing and production.
Fantastic strides have been made by our
Ontario farmers in improving production
techniques. While the efforts on the produc-
tion side must be pushed on with no relaxa-
tion, this government over the past few years
has realized that the farmer is operating in
an organized society.
It has recognized, as well, that the average
farmer is very involved and busy in the
business of producing various commodities
and quite often finds himself in a very weak
bargaining position as an individual in the
marketing and selling of his crops. Far reach-
ing marketing machinery has, therefore, been
provided under our Ontario Farm Products
Marketing Act and our Ontario Milk Industry
Act, whereby farmers if they so wished could
bargain and market collectively.
There is no doubt that collective marketing
has been accepted by the vast majority of the
farmers of this province. This is borne out
by the fact that there are presently 32 differ-
ent agricultural commodities being marketed
collectively under the two statutes already
mentioned. There are at least three other
commodities for which a marketing plan
is being developed at the moment— two of
which will likely be submitted to a vote of
the producers in the near future.
The necessity of collective action by
farmers and strong farm marketing organiza-
tion is, therefore, placing a changing com-
plexion on the responsibilities of The Ontario
Department of Agriculture. We have, there-
fore, moved with the times in the acceptance
of our departmental responsibilities, and while
maintaining the strongest possible efforts in
basic production and allied matters through
research and our extension service, at the
same time marketing machinery has been
provided and has been accepted and utilized
by the farmers of this province. While we
recognize that as a province there are certain
limiting factors exerted on the real effective-
ness of our marketing machinery because of
slightly different organization or lack of or-
ganization in producer marketing in other
provinces; by the same token, it is our de-
termination and a most necessary aim to
push on provincially with the hope that
eventually we will see truly effective producer
marketing co-ordinated on an inter-provincial
basis. Real steps have already been taken
by this government on these matters.
Discussions have been held with other
provinces and I would like to personally
commend the initiative of the former hon.
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Goodfellow) a
little over a year ago for initiating discussions
with that very important sister agricultural
422
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
province, Quebec. It is to his credit and to
the credit of The Quebec Department of
Agriculture that a very close liaison and work-
ing relationship has been created.
A few months ago, the former hon. Min-
ister recognized as well, that an additional
step towards the strengthening of agricultural
marketing in this province was necessary,
and he formed the markets development
branch. It is the aim and purpose of this
branch to co-operate with farmers, with
marketing boards and the agricultural industry
generally, to do everything possible to in-
crease the sales of Ontario farm products
both at home and overseas.
We have gone a long way in mastering the
techniques of production. While, as men-
tioned before, improvements must continue in
this phase of agricultural activity, we must
now continue to press on and in our policies
and activities and in the over-all organization
of the department give increasing emphasis
to ways and means of strengthening the
farmers' bargaining position in the market
place.
The farmer today is being faced with ever-
increasing buyer strength. This can only be
met by an increased selling strength and
collective action on the part of the farmer.
It is my dedicated purpose and that of The
Ontario Department of Agriculture to do
everything possible to provide the machinery
and any other help we can, to give the
farmers of this province a stronger voice
when they meet wdth buyers, and through
such strength receive the increased financial
returns which every farmer is entitled to.
The re-organization of The Ontario Depart-
ment of Agriculture which is ejffective today
and which I referred to at the begirming of
my remarks, has been brought about to place
the greatest possible emphasis on marketing,
to maintain, improve and carry on our efforts
in the fields of production and extension and,
at the same time, provide for a balanced in-
ternal administration of the department which
will result in the most efficient use of time,
money and personnel.
I have instructed the new Deputy Minister
of Agriculture, who has been appointed today,
that he must maintain the utmost responsi-
bihty for the administration of marketing
policies and the improvement of marketing
machinery and techniques for the farmers.
With this idea in mind, the Ontario Farm
Products Marketing Board and the Milk
Industry Board have been placed at the top
of the administrative chain, with the respec-
tive chairmen maintaining direct liaison with
the deputy minister.
At this time, I should pay a special tribute
to Mr. George McCague, chairman of the
Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board. Mr.
McCague has been a successful farmer and a
leader in farm organizations. He has given
unselfish and untiring leadership in the ad-
ministration of his responsibihties as chairman,
and without a doubt is appreciated and re-
spected by the farmers across this province
not only because of his abilities as a leader
and as an administrator, but because of his
proven ability as a practical farmer as well.
Under the deputy minister, the department,
effective today, is organized into four main
divisions; the production and extension divi-
sion, the marketing division, the Agricultural
Research Institute, and a division of admini-
stration. The production and extension
division and the marketing division were
organized by the former hon. Minister in
January, 1960.
This House will be asked to approve a bill
providing for an Agricultural Research Insti-
tute. It will be the responsibihty of the
Agricultural Research Institute to co-ordinate
the expenditures of research monies provided
by this government and to ensure that the
research programmes which are carried on
meet the requirements of the various sections
of agriculture and that personnel and faciUties
are used to the best advantage.
The administration division has been organ-
ized to relieve the deputy minister of the
many sundry but extremely important details
of administration and at the same time stream-
Une and co-ordinate certain of the admini-
strative procedures and practices, to obtain
the utmost efficiency.
I am very pleased to announce to this
House that today, Mr. Everett M. Biggs,
former assistant deputy minister in charge of
marketing, has been appointed as Deputy
Minister of Agriculture for Ontario. Mr.
Biggs is well known to the agricultural in-
dustry of this province. He was a former
assistant agricultural representative in Middle-
sex county and later agricultinral representa-
tive in the county of Peel. He served as dairy
commissioner from 1951 until January 7,
1960, when he was appointed as assistant
deputy minister in charge of marketing.
He is a young man. He was bom on a
mixed farm in Renfrew county and is a grad-
uate of the Ontario Agricultural College. In
addition to this, he took post-graduate work
in the University of London, England, in agri-
cultural marketing which was followed by a
comprehensive study of agricultural produc-
tion and marketing in continental Europe. He
is well acquainted with the broad aspects of
DECEMBER 14, 1961
423
agriculture in Ontario and in Canada, and
because of his activities in the dairy and
marketing field has gained broad contacts
and knowledge over the year of international
production and marketing picture.
Mr. T. R. Hilliard, formerly assistant
deputy minister in charge of production, will
continue as assistant deputy minister with
the responsibilities of the supervision and
co-ordination of the administration division.
Mr. Hilliard has been with the service of
The Ontario Department of Agriculture since
1940. He has a broad knowledge of Ontario
agriculture through his early work with the
extension service. He made an outstanding
contribution as director of extension for this
province, and his ability as an administrator
has moved him up rapidly in the ranks of the
service. Under the capable guidance of Mr.
Hilliard we feel sure that the details of
administration will be handled in the best
possible maimer.
Mr. W. P. Watson, former livestock com-
missioner, has been appointed as chief of the
production and extension division. Mr.
Watson has long been associated with the
livestock industry of this province. He has
been concerned with all of the basic livestock
policies which have brought the livestock
industry of this province to the forefront of
the world. Not only is he recognized and
highly respected by the Hvestock men of
Ontario but across Canada as well. Bill
Watson's reputation has passed beyond the
Canadian boundary and he has received many
honours and is currently an active member
and giving leadership in several livestock
activities in the United States. This is not
only a tribute to him personally, and to his
ability, but is an honour to the livestock
industry of this province.
A decision has not as yet been reached re-
garding the appointment of chief of the
marketing division. This is a most important
appointment which entails great responsi-
bility, and every care is being taken in his
selection.
As has been previously announced. Dr.
D. N. Huntley, formerly head of the field
husbandry department, Ontario Agricultural
College, has been appointed director of the
Agricultural Research Institute. Dr. Huntley
has had many years as a successful teacher,
research worker and administrator. While
being an academic person on one hand, by
the same token he is a most practical person
and has a very thorough knowledge of the
research requirements of the agricultural
industry in Ontario and there is no doubt
that he will be in a position to provide the
necessary co-ordination and leadership, in
the development and carrying out of research
projects and policies.
Mr. R. H. Graham, formerly associate
livestock commissioner, has been appointed
to succeed Mr. Watson as commissioner. Mr.
Graham has had long years of service with
the livestock industry in this province. He
is well known. He has the knowledge and
understanding which will allow him to con-
tinue along the very realistic and successful
course which has been so ably laid down
by the former livestock commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I felt that such
a major adjustment in the administration of
The Department of Agriculture should be
announced on the floor of this House rather
than through the medium of a formal press
release.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): On a point
of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to
you, sir, that there has been a gross abuse of
the rules of this House in the foregoing state-
ment by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Stewart). And I want to say that as 1 under-
stand the rules— in this case Lewis is silent in
the written rules and there is nothing in
Lewis* book about this— but in Sir Erskine
May, as I understand the rule, it is that a
Minister may rise in his place before the
orders of the day and may, with the indul-
gence of the House, make a brief statement
on government policy.
Now may I recall to you, sir, as the defen-
der of the rights of the Opposition for which
we always protest, the other day when the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) stopped to explain his motion, when
he moved to adjourn the House, you refused
him that right. 1 suggested to you at that time
that, with the indulgence of the House, he
might make a few brief explanatory remarks
and by means of the majority on that side
and by your refusal, sir, he was refused that
permission. And now, today, an hon. Minister
of the Crown, in anticipation of the speech of
the hon. member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver),
who is going to speak on agriculture, usurped
the time of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member (Mr. Sopha)
has usurped the time of the House and I pre-
sume that this is his point of order. It has
always been understood in this House that
hon. Ministers are expected to make state-
ments concerning their departments before
the orders of the day. If they did not make
these statements, they would probably be
asked questions along those lines in any event.
424
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: Will you hear my point of
order, sir? My point of order, sir, is that he
was in breach of the rules of the House, that
he inflicted himself upon us and made a gross
political speech.
Mr. Speaker: I have presumed to have
heard now the point of order.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, now that this matter is before us, I
want to rise and support the hon. member for
Sudbury (Mr. Sopha). We have submitted
questions before the orders of the day and
you have seen fit to edit everything out of
them except the simple question, and various
other procedures along this line. I submit to
you that what happened this afternoon was
that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Stewart) rose and did not just announce
changes in his department— which is his right-
but he usurped this position before the orders
of the day to deliver a political speech on the
eve of by-election campaigns as we come to
the end of the session. Now, Mr. Speaker, I
know your position is a diflBcult one-
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Could the
hon. member think of a better time to give it?
Mr. MacDonald: Okay. The hon. member
for High Park (Mr. Cowling) has, in effect,
just endorsed what I have said, namely, that
this was a political speech. So now I feel
even more emboldened to make my point.
Mr. Speaker, I know your position is a very
difficult one, but if the hon. Ministers are
going to get up and make political speeches
and you see fit not to interrupt, I am going
to find it even more difficult the next time
when I want to explain questions before the
orders of the day, to submit to your editing.
Mr. Speaker: I can assure the House that
the Speaker is willing to take his chances with
what comes before the House with the hon.
Ministers along the lines suggested by the
hon. members who have just spoken.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I now rise
on a question of privilege in a different mood
and tone altogether.
When I came in the House this afternoon,
Mr. Speaker, I found myself the subject of
acclaim. Hon. members all understand that
this startled me because it happens very
rarely.
I turned and walked to my seat and I was
even more surprised when I saw this wreath
and black ribbon. My first reaction was to
say, along with Mark Twain, that "the an-
nouncement of my death is premature." Then
I realized that undoubtedly one of my col-
leagues in the House here was seeking to
remind me of a by-election in Weybum.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that the
by-election in Weyburn was a profoundly
significant event in Canadian history. What
happened, Mr. Speaker, in Weyburn is that
there was a coalition of Liberals and Con-
servatives and Social Credit and, it is true, I
concede it, I acknowledge it, the New Demo-
cratic Party was 500 votes behind— 500 or 600
votes behind.
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge this margin
and we are going to work to close the gap.
But this wreath here, Mr. Speaker, is a wreath
for the death of the Tory party in Saskatche-
wan. It was not in the fight at all. I hope
the editorial writers in the Toronto Globe and
Mail who have brownbeaten us, Liberals and
CCF, for not running in by-elections in this
province, will now browbeat the Tories out
in Saskatchewan.
However, Mr. Speaker, this is not a strange
event. A few years ago the Liberals "died"
and supported the Tories to defeat that
beloved Bill Grummett, one of the pioneers of
the north, up in Timmins. In other words,
Mr. Speaker, what has happened is a fulfill-
ment of the prediction of the former hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) of this province,
that there is emerging in this country a coali-
tion of Liberals and Conservatives against the
New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker: I am not presuming to cut
the hon. member off in his remarks, but I
am just taking a point at this time in presum-
ing that the hon. member still has the indul-
gence of the House.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am
finished. Just this very final comment: the
announcement of our political death is pre-
mature, but there is another one that is not
so premature. I would ask the page boy
to deliver this to the hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts). The hon. Attorney-General has
acted with his usual dignity on the floor of the
House.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Real temper,
real temperl
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, I have two questions that
I would like to ask. The first one is of the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts): Is it the
intention of the government to proceed with
redistribution in the current session, and if so,
will the hon. Prime Minister indicate whether
redistribution will this time be removed from
pohtics and placed with an independent body?
DECEMBER 14, 1961
425
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, before the hon. Prime Minister an-
swers that, may I draw to the attention of
the House that I gave a notice of motion
placing this matter on the order paper yes-
terday?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I do
not know what the difficulty is across the
House but I am quite prepared to answer the
two questions. The answer to the first
question is "Yes" and the answer to the sec-
ond question is that the methods to be fol-
lowed to eflFect redistribution are presently
under consideration and will be announced
later in the session.
Mr. Bryden: Did the hon. Prime Minister
consult John about it?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my second
question is addressed to the hon. Minister
of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow). A news
story in this morning's Toronto Globe and
Mail quotes Murray Jones, Metro director
of planning, as stating that the decision of
the Metro Council regarding the Spadina
Expressway may be nullified by the province.
Will the hon. Minister inform the House
whether this is true or likely?
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question
from the hon. member for York South, I
hope that my remarks cannot possibly be
interpreted as political. But I have read
that in the press, that the Metropolitan
Council apparently has decided to build or
to recommend the building of a portion of
the Spadina Expressway from Highway 401
to, I think, Lawrence Avenue.
It is questionable whether The Department
of Highways would be justified in making
provision for access to 401 at this point.
But I am assured by the chief planning
engineer of The Department of Highways
that should Metropolitan Council, with their
usual good judgment, decide to extend the
Spadina Expressway at some future date,
provision will be made on 401 for an inter-
section to be created at that time.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I would like
to say just a few words about the wreath
that was placed on the desk of the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald).
I might say that wreaths are given in a very
kindly, sympathetic way, and that was the
reason that this was presented to him. But
I must say that generally they are given
when people are dead, and certainly he is
not dead. On the other hand it was given
because his party died yesterday in Sas-
katchewan.
I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker,
that it was not the death of tlie New Demo-
cratic Party across Canada. The main thing
was that it was the death of a C.C.F. seat
that was held by Tonrniy Douglas. I did
want to say one thing more, Mr. Speaker,
that now we know why Mr. Douglas tried
to go to Ottawa, because he knew he could
not win again in Saskatchewan.
Mr. MacDonald: The Liberal Party could
not have won without the Tories.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, be-
fore the orders of the day I have a question
to direct to the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. Cass). I had already submitted
questions 48 hours ago to the chief commis-
sioner of The Liquor Control Board. He
must be getting the answers by semaphore.
This is the question to the hon. Minister
of Municipal Affairs: Many months ago the
city of North Bay submitted to The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs for approval, a
pension plan for its civic employees. Would
the hon. Minister inform this House when
they and other municipalities similarly con-
cerned may expect a decision?
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in answer to that, I
could say "in due course." I would like to
amplify that for the information, not only of
the hon. member, but of certain other hon.
members who have municipalities in some-
what similar circumstances.
First of all the regulations under which
pension plans for municipal employees are
presently authorized apparently do not fit the
desires of most of the municipalities in which
pension plans are desired. So when these
plans come in, they must be very carefully
vetted by the officials in the department and
a great deal of discussion must take place
between the officials of my department and
the officials of the municipalities concerned.
In this instance this has been so, although I
believe in the last two months or so there
has been no communication between my
officials and those of the city. I am rectifying
that forthwitli.
This whole situation is one which is under
constant study by the officials of the depart-
ment. Many of these plans, as they come in,
require a very considerable amendment to
make them conform to the present regulations.
426
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and there is some doubt in some minds that
those regulations are as good as they might
be. So I may assure the hon. member that
this particular plan has not been forgotten.
It is being carefully checked over, and also
I may assure that hon. member and others
with similar plans in their ridings that the
whole subject is under very active review.
Mr. Troy: May I ask a supplementary ques-
tion after that answer? Is it true that a
comprehensive plan is already before the
Cabinet and "in due course" may mean a
couple of weeks after this House has finished
its sittings?
Hon. Mr. Cass: I have no knowledge of any
such situation, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Before the orders of
the day. On December 5, the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) drew to my
attention the case of Carlo Bellisario, a
mechanic with an Itahan background. The
hon. member suggested to this Legislature
that this man had been unable to get his auto
mechanic's papers because of difficulties with
the English language. The hon. member also
left the impression that this man was a most
competent mechanic and further left the
impression that here was a man to whom a
great deal of injustice had been done.
At that time I assured the hon. member
that regulations of my department do not
prevent men trying for auto mechanic's papers
because they do not speak Enghsh. The
regulations are there to determine whether
a man has the necessary experience and
abihty and competence in order to carry on
as a mechanic. I also assured the hon.
member that the case would be followed
up and every opportunity would be given
immediately to the man in question to try
the examination. This has been done and I
want now to present the full facts to demon-
strate that my department has done its utmost
to help this man obtain his certificate— a
man who is supposed to be a very competent
mechanic.
Mr. BelHsario first applied for a certificate
of quahfication on October 13 of this year.
He was accompanied by an Enghsh-spealdng
York township fireman. Mr. BeUisario
produced written proof that he had worked
under the supervision of a certified mechanic
for approximately 48 months. The name of
the mechanic was not given. He also
produced evidence that he had been employed
by another firm for 23 months.
In both cases, it was simply stated that
he was in the mechanical repair business but
tliere was no detail given as to the type of
work done by Mr. Bellisario. He then com-
pleted an application for a certificate of quah-
fication and, as is the usual practice in the
apprenticeship branch, a member of the stafE
suggested Mr. Bellisario write the qualifying
examination to see if some credit for experi-
ence in years could be arrived at. If the
amount of credit had come to a total of
five years, he would then have been allowed
to write the examination for certificate of
quahfication.
Mr. Bellisario then, with the assistance of
his interpreter, wrote the qualifying exami-
nation, which is purely objective, with Yes
and No answers. He was given a three years
credit; it was a very generous credit.
After taking into consideration the fact that
because he was unfamiliar with the English
language he might have had difficulty in
even doing a good job with the qualifying
examination, every effort, I can assure hon.
members was made to give him the maximum
amount of credit which could be given.
A letter of authority was then issued to
Mr. Bellisario's employer, authorizing him
to employ Mr. Bellisario until September,
1963 without a certificate of quahfication.
This was done so that Mr. Bellisario would
not be violating the regulations but would
still have an opportunity to become more
famihar with the technical terminology.
We suggested to Mr. Bellisario that he
attend night classes at the Provincial Institute
of Trades on Nassau Street here in Toronto.
Our staff felt that if he did this he would be
able to qualify for a certfficate of qualifica-
tion at a later date.
So far as we can determine he has never
registered at the school.
We arranged to have Mr. Belhsario rewrite
his examination with an interpreter on
December 8. That was 3 days after the
question was raised by the hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald). He failed to
appear but reported he had been unable to
find an interpreter. Arrangements were made
for him to try again on December 11. On
this occasion he brought as an interpreter a
used-car salesman, who did not have even a
fair knowledge of auto mechanics.
Mr. Bellisario appeared again on December
12 with Father Joseph Carraro, a Roman
Catholic priest who is well known and highly
respected by the apprenticeship branch.
Father Carraro has done a great deal of work
with the ethnic groups and works very closely
with our apprenticeship branch.
After a short while at the examination.
DECEMBER 14, 1961
427
Father Carraro advised my staff that Mr.
Bellisario did not know the technical terms
which were required to pass the examination.
He further suggested that Mr. BelHsario was
not very clear with his answers regardless of
the language problem.
At Father Carraro's suggestion he will
tutor Mr. Bellisario, and an opportunity for
Mr. Bellisario to write again will be provided
just as soon as Father Carraro feels he is
ready.
Here are the results of the examination Mr.
Bellisario tried on December 12— this man
who was represented by the hon. member for
York South as being a most competent
mechanic. There are 250 questions on the
examination. Through his interpreter Mr.
Bellisario tried to answer a total of 36 ques-
tions. He failed to answer five at all, and out
of the others he was given a credit for 12
correct answers.
On a percentage basis of the final examina-
tion, Mr. Bellisario had a total of 4.8 per cent.
The fee of $5, required before an examina-
tion is tried, is being held to the credit of
Mr. Bellisario for his next examination.
Mr. MacDonald: I just want to make this
one brief explanation. If I have misled the
House and misled the hon. Minister (Mr.
Warrender) it was on the basis of informa-
tion that was given to me by his employer
who is a very responsible citizen and very
active in the community in York township.
He said to me that Mr. Bellisario could take
a car apart and put it together with his eyes
closed. If this is the case I am not disputing
it, but I was passing on information from a
responsible citizen who is the employer of
this man.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Just another example
of misleading information given in the House.
Mr. Troy: I observe that the Chief Com-
missioner of the Liquor Control Board (Mr.
Grossman) is now in his seat. I wonder if
he now has the answers to my questions?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Well, Mr. Speaker, I explained to the
hon. member yesterday that I had not received
a copy of his questions and I found out late
yesterday afternoon that it had gone to the
Speaker's office and had been handed over
to the Cabinet office because they thought I
was in there. It then went down to the
Liquor Control Board head office, and this
is the first day I have been down there for
a week because I have been busy here.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is very difficult to
get it done as quickly as they desire, but
I am doing my best, vdth whatever ability
the Lord endowed me. I have been down
there for about 30 minutes today. I found
it on my desk and I have asked for the
information. Just as soon as I have it, the
House will get it.
Mr. Troy: It is as close as his telephone—
Mattawa.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I have a couple
of questions.
The first is directed to the hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions (Mr. Haskett). The
grand jury report, for the present sittings of
the general sessions of the peace for the
county of York dated December 11, 1961,
states that the grand jury was not allowed to
see departmental reports on the operations of
the Don Jail and the Ontario Reformatory,
Mimico.
Will the hon. Minister table in the House
the departmental reports for the last two years
on the operations of the Don Jail and the
Ontario Reformatory, Mimico?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Reform
Institutions ) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter) courteously pro-
vided me with a copy of this question.
He inquires: will the Minister table in
this House the departmental reports for the
last two years on the operations of the Don
Jail and the Ontario Reformatory at Mimico?
This is a matter, Mr. Speaker, I think I
should like to take under consideration.
Mr. Trotter: Well, how long will it take
the hon. Minister to consider this, because
with the Christmas hohday we will not be
back here for some time? Will he have an
answer tomorrow?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: If I might answer that,
Mr. Speaker, it would be in those words
which are well known in this House-
Several hon. members: In the fullness of
time.
Mr. Trotter: From experience, Mr. Speaker,
I say the fullness of time is a long time.
My second question is directed to the
hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts). Accord-
ing to an article appearing in the December
13 issue of the Toronto Daily Star, under
428
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the byline of Leonard Bertin, there is a
great inconsistency between the assurance of
the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond)
that people suspected of being mentally ill
need not be taken to jail and the pronounce-
ments of unnamed legal advisers in the
government.
Would the hon. Attorney-General answer
the following:
1. Are the unnamed government legal
advisers correct when, for all practical pur-
poses, they say the hon. Minister of Health's
ministerial directive is meaningless?
2. What is the hon. Attorney-General's
interpretation of the relevant statute where
it says a person who is charged only with
being mentally sick shall be sent to a "safe
and comfortable place"?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Well, Mr. Speaker, I could answer these two
questions very tersely— with the answer "No"
to the first part and with the answer, "includes
a mental hospital" to the second. But know-
ing the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr.
Trotter) and believing he is seeking some
information and not merely trying to be
embarrassing on this question, I will elaborate
a little on this.
There was some suggestion in the article
referred to that the words "safe and com-
fortable place" might be replaced by the
words "a mental hospital". Back in 1959,
there was an amendment to The Mental
Hospitals Act and at that time discussions
did take place between my department and
the department of the hon. Minister of Health
( Mr. Dymond ) and it was felt that the words
"safe and comfortable place" should remain.
One of the reasons for that was that if you
supplanted them by "a mental hospital" there
could be cases where there would be no avail-
ability in a mental hospital or that the
mental hospital itself would not be available
anywhere within hundreds of miles of the
particular unfortunate patient who might have
been apprehended under The Mental Hos-
pitals Act as being mentally ill. Therefore,
the retention of those words was recommended
and was followed; but the advice, very
definitely, of my legal department, with which
I concur, is that a "safe and comfortable
place" mentioned in The Mental Hospitals
Act includes a mental hospital.
I might also say that because it was
necessary in some instances to place persons,
charged with being mentally ill, in jails after
the examination and prior to the hearing under
The Mental Hospitals Act, the 24-hour rule
was passed. A person had to be brought
before a magistrate within 24 hours before
the hearing was ordered. The magistrate then
must immediately order a mental examination,
after which the magistrate must deal with
the charge at the next sitting of the court.
Mr. Trotter: I take it then, Mr. Speaker,
from what the hon. Attorney-General said
in the last part, that people who are mentally
sick will still be taken to jail until they appear
before a magistrate?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: No. I am referring to
that procedure that is, in some instances,
still the situation. That is why those safe-
guards were placed there.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I have a question for the hon. Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond) notice of which has
been provided him. Would the hon. Minister
of Health inform this House when it may
expect the tabling of the report of the com-
mittee on physical fitness which was set in
motion approximately 20 months ago?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is
that the report will be tabled at this session
of the House following the Christmas recess.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask
a supplementary question to that: Was not
this report completed and in the hands of the
department well over eight months ago?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is correct, sir.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. Minister a question? As the hon. Min-
ister knows, the federal government has
announced a $5 million grant for physical
fitness and amateur athletics. Is there a
co-ordination between his department and
the federal department of health with regard
to that particular fund?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Although I have no
notice of that question, and I may be a little
vague in my answer, Mr. Speaker, to the best
of my abihty I would answer it in this way.
There have been fairly lengthy discussions
between the two departments, but since we
have not got a si)ecific branch or department
or section in The Department of Health for
Ontario concerned with this matter we could
not enter into any definite agreement; nor
could we have legislation which we believe
to be necessary to enter into an agreement.
It is nonetheless our very sincere hope that
we will be availing ourselves of all possible
assistance.
DECEMBER 14, 1961
429
Mr. Troy: Does the hon. Minister have
liaison and co-ordination with the physical
fitness department of The Department of
Education?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, there
is no need for liaison between us because
we have in The Department of Health no
division of physical fitness. It was the direc-
tion of the government that my department
should supervise and set in motion this study
group, but that did not give us the author-
ity to set up a physical fitness division in
the department.
SCHOOL GRANTS 1962-63
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister and
Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day, I have a short state-
ment of policy that I would like to make.
After hearing the debate that went on, and
the discussion about statements of policy, I
feel I could say almost anything, for as
long as I liked. I will attempt to call them.
As Minister of Education, I have always
sought to provide information about school
grants as early in the session as possible, in
order to assist school boards in planning their
activities and budgeting for their expendi-
tures. In keeping with that objective, I wish
to make an announcement today regarding
the amount and the application of the grants
payable in 1962-63 under the federal-provin-
cial technical and vocational school training
agreement, the residential and farm school
tax assistance grant programme, and the
general legislative grant programme.
Regulations governing the distribution and
payment of these grants will be issued as
early as possible in order to permit the school
boards and municipahties to do their budget-
ing early in the new year. As these regula-
tions may be distributed before the assembly
reconvenes, I would like to inform hon.
members of the changes we anticipate.
The first section is the federal-provincial
technical and vocational school training
agreement.
Under this programme we are paying 100
per cent of the cost of approved technical
and vocational school building programmes.
This undertaking represents one of the
biggest and most significant developments in
education that has ever occurred in the prov-
ince. The implications are naturally tre-
mendous, not only for the future of the young
people to be educated in these new schools,
but for the general economic growth and
prosperity of our province.
This programme has building projects
either approved or pending approval that
involve a total expenditure of approximately
$200 million by the end of the next fiscal
year, March 31, 1963.
The full cost is, of course, to be borne by
the federal and provincial governments in
accordance with the 75 per cent-25 per cent
formula announced earUer. The provincial
government must initially bear full respon-
sibility for the total amount under this
formula, but the federal government will re-
imburse the provincial government for its
share in due course. It should be borne in
mind, however, that the provincial govern-
ment must, in any event, provide 25 per cent
of the amount, or at least $50 milhon. Under
the existing agreement, expenditures to be
eligible for refund on this basis must be paid
by the end of next fiscal year, ending in
March, 1963. The fact that municipal tax-
payers contribute nothing to these capital
costs of course has tremendous implications.
Now the residential and farm school tax
assistance grant. This completely new type
of school grant was announced last year, and
the Act and regulations made thereunder
provided for a payment of $5 per pupil of
average daily attendance in every public,
separate, and secondary school of the prov-
ince. The purpose of the school tax assist-
ance grant, which is basically a tax-sharing
form of grant, is to provide direct relief to
home-owners and farmers through their
school taxes, which have constituted an ever-
increasing burden despite the continued and
very substantial general relief provided
through the increases in school grants during
the past 15 years.
The original announcement indicated ten-
tative plans to provide for this purpose a
grant of $5 per pupil of average daily
attendance in 1961-62, of $12 per pupil in
1962-63, and in 1963-64 varying amounts of
$20 per pupil in elementary schools, $20 per
pupil in continuation schools, $30 per pupil
in academic secondary schools, and $40 per
pupil in vocational secondary schools.
For the next fiscal year, however, we pro-
pose to simplify the formula in the light of
experience gained this year, and by increasing
greatly the total amount voted last year, to
change the distribution formula for 1962-63.
Since very substantial aid has been pro-
vided for the coming year to secondary school
boards in the form of the technical school
building programme mentioned earlier in this
note, and since the expansion pressures have
been particularly difficult for elementary
430
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
school boards to finance, resulting generally
in substantial increases in local taxes for the
support of public and of separate schools, we
propose, for the coming year, to maintain the
assistance to secondary schools at the present
level, i.e. $5 per pupil of average daily
attendance, and, at the same time, to increase
the tax assistance grant to elementary schools
by 25 per cent more than originally promised,
i.e. to $15 per pupil of average daily attend-
ance.
It will be noted that the very substantial
increases in tax assistance for secondary
schools will be provided in 1963-64, when
maintenance costs for the new vocational
schools will have to be met for the first time
by the local school boards. The total cost of
the school tax assistance programme for the
fiscal year 1962-63 is estimated to be at a
minimum $16 million.
The new formula for elementary schools—
because the present formula will remain im-
changed for another year as far as secondary
schools are concerned— is extremely simple:
the school board in receipt of the school tax
assistance grant, or the municipal council on
its behalf, must reduce the tax rate on home-
owners and farmers by a full 10 per cent
below that applicable to commercial proper-
ties. Not only is the new formula equitable
and easy to understand, but it will be easy
for school boards or municipal councils to
calculate and apply. It is also considerably
less restrictive than the formula originally
proposed earlier this year.
Now in regard to general legislative grants,
in addition to the very generous assistance
contemplated under the two preceding sec-
tions, it is proposed to continue our pro-
gramme of improvements in the general
legislative grant formulae and schedules. The
natural increase in enrolment, which con-
tinues at a very high level, requires, even at
the present rates of grant, that an additional
$10 million be provided for the coming fiscal
year.
In addition to providing for this increase,
we are proposing certain necessary changes in
the formula in order to remove inequities
which have become evident durii^ the past
year, to facilitate a smoother operation of the
grant plan. These are technical matters which
would require a lengthy discussion of their
background and implications, and I think
hon. members will be just as happy that I do
not go into them in detail at this juncture.
SuflBce it to say that not only will these
improvements cost this government more
money in grants, but hon. members will be
fully informed of such changes at the first
opportunity. The grant regulations them-
selves are in process of revision and will be
issued at the earliest possible moment.
Rapid growth in school enrolment has been
presenting us with one of the most formidable
and challenging tasks in our history. Enrol-
ment in elementary and secondary schools
has increased from about 600,000 in 1945
to an all-time record in September, 1960, of
about 1,400,000. This is an increase of more
than 120 per cent in 15 years. Each year
the rate of increase in school enrolment has
been more than double the rate of our
population increase.
Although some slowdown in the rate of
our population growth was experienced last
year, it will have no immediate effect on
school enrolment. Indeed, it is estimated that
over the next five years the net addition to
our school population could very easily ex-
ceed 400,000 pupils. At that time our school
population will total more than 1,800,000
students and this will be over three times the
number in our schools in 1945.
The growth in enrolment since 1945 has
involved the expenditure of nearly three-
quarters of a billion dollars on school con-
struction alone, to provide almost 900,000
new pupil places.
In 1960, for example, 601 new schools or
additions to existing schools were completed
at a cost of over $100 million. This means
almost two new schools for every working
day. Increased enrolment has also required
the training and recruitment in the post-war
period of an additional 25,000 teachers— a
number equivalent to the total teacher force
just a dozen years ago. In addition to the
facilities and teachers required, it has meant
finding the money for expansion and evolving
a grants structure to provide a just basis of
distribution.
Legislative school grants have increased
very greatly, rising from $8.2 million to an
estimated $191 million in this current year,
that is in 1961-62. The increase in the legis-
lative school grants has totalled over $93
million in the last four years alone, and it is
expected, on the basis of present plans, that
in the next two years the grants will increase
at an even higher rate, and could very easily
reach the staggering total of one-quarter of
a billion dollars in 1963-64.
This immense sum is positively required
if we are to meet requirements of fitting our
young people for the challenges ahead. This
money is also needed if we are not going
to permit our farm, home and real-estate
owners to be overwhelmed. ,- i^^ .
DECEMBER 14, 1961
431
Mr. Whicher: I would like to ask the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) a question about
his statement.
I certainly hope I was mistaken but did I
understand the hon. Prime Minister to say
that the per-pupil grant for secondary schools
for this year was going to remain the same
as it was last year?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I was re-
ferring to one section of our total grants.
Mr. Whicher: For secondary schools?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes. Last year we in-
troduced a residential and farm school tax
assistance grant of $5 per pupil across the
board, and we are going to leave that at
that figure.
Mr. Whicher: Did the hon. Prime Minister
not promise that it would increase, double,
for this year?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would be
happy to debate this with the hon. member
at any time but I will just say that at the
time these grants were introduced we laid
them ahead for three years. Since that time
we have introduced this other tax, this other
school building programme I mentioned— the
federal-provincial technical vocational train-
ing agreement— which has served to put about
$200 million into our secondary school system
at no cost to the local taxpayer. The in-
cidence of cost increase will come when these
schools are opened and, therefore, we are
holding the secondary school line this year
and increasing the elementary. The net result
benefits the same taxpayers.
Next year we will increase the secondary
in order to meet the increased maintenance
costs that will evolve as these new schools
are brought into play.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I will just say
in passing that that is all very well where
there are technical schools going to be built,
but what about relief for the secondary
schools where there are no technical schools?
Mr. Speaker: Order. No debate, please.
Mr. Whicher: This is just a question.
Mr. Speaker: Supplemenatry questions will
be perfectly in order.
Mr. Whicher: My question is this. What
about some relief for the secondary schools
areas where there are no technical schools?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I can only
point out that those schools will receive a
very substantial increase, a greater increase,
of course, than the elementary school system
has next year. The point is that we are deal-
ing with the spots in our educational system
where the greatest pressure exists. The other
point I make is that eventually, regardless of
where we may divide the grant, the total
amount going into the school system benefits
all our taxpayers.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) this question? This is to take
eflFect in 1962, do I understand?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: What is to take effect?
Mr. Belanger: This new programme.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
am talking about the grants. This statement
concerns only the grants which will be paid
to the local school boards for the fiscal year
commencing on April 1. We get these regu-
lations out as early as we can in order that
the school boards may do their budgeting
before the local councils have to set the
school rate.
The reason I make this statement today
is that it may very well be that these regu-
lations will be distributed to the school board
before this House reconvenes. Therefore,
I have taken this opportunity of telling the
House what we propose to do, because when
it is actually done the hon. members will
not be here, or there is a possibihty that
they will not.
I am referring in this statement only to
the grants that will be paid to the local
school boards for the fiscal year commenc-
ing April 1.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE RETAIL SALES TAX ACT, 1960-61
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 47, An Act to amend The
Retail Sales Tax Act, 1960-61.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order before we pro-
ceed to this. I have no objection at all to
debating this issue, indeed I think it should
be debated, but may I have your ruling as
to whether or not a bill introduced by a priv-
ate member which would reduce the reve-
nues of the province is in order?
432
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: I presume there is some
amount of "order" in this bill, and I am pre-
suming that it would be more out of order
if it were asking for funds to be raised rather
than lowered.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry
I do not quite grasp that. If this bill were
passed, it would reduce the revenues of the
province by a significant amount, and there-
fore it is a financial bill. I am not arguing
pro and con of the bill; I just want a ruling
for future guidance. Is this an appropriate
bill to be introduced by a private member,
a member of the Opposition?
Mr. Speaker: On page 129, number 15,
section 112 by the 54th section of the im-
perial Act, The British North America Act,
1867, it is provided that the House will not
adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address
or bill for the appropriation of any part of
the public revenue or of any tax or impost
to any purpose that has not first been rec-
ommended by a message of the Lieutenant-
Governor in the session in which such a vote,
resolution, address or bill is proposed.
Mr. MacDonald: It is out of order then,
Mr. Speaker, I submit. This has not been
preceded by an address from the hon. Lieu-
tenant-Governor—
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): For any
purpose?
Mr. Speaker: It does not appropriate any
part of the public revenue or any tax or
impost for that purpose; that is my ruling.
Mr. MacDonald: Is it in order then, Mr.
Speaker?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): May
I just explain the procedure before the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
commences? I will attempt in the course
of the session to call some of these bills at
intervals and they can be debated for a given
period of time. I have spoken to the hon.
leader of the Opposition about this proce-
dure. As the business of the House pro-
gresses, I will attempt to call those other
bills on the order paper.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, this bill in its presen-
tation is a physically simple bill and it may
be that for the edification of the House I
should read the only pertinent section.
Mr. Speaker, I would draw to your atten-
tion that in spite of the fact the bill is very
short, there is one correction that I must make
immediately, a mechanical error that I think
all will agree is inherent in the presentation
here.
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Another flaw?
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, it is not a flaw at all.
The fact is that one of the law oflBcers came
to me today— and with due respect I was not
going to draw this to the attention of the
House, but I think that it was a printing
error; it is certainly not as it was presented.
The reference is to the fact that here in the
bill, and particularly the amendment to sec-
tion 5, paragraph 42, reads as follows— and
I will correct it after I have read it, Mr.
Speaker.
Tangible personal property purchased at
a price of $25 or less, except prepared
meals consumed on premises where sold at
a price of $1.50 or less—
That, of course, should be $1.50 or more:
—liquor, bottled beer and tobacco and
tobacco products.
That is the bill, Mr. Speaker. It is intended
especially to substitute for the words "17
cents," that appear in the original Act, the
words "$25"; and then to add to that the
exception "prepared meals consumed on the
premises where sold at a price of $1.50 or
more, liquor, bottled beer and tobacco and
tobacco products."
Mr. Speaker, for your further assistance I
have arranged to prepare an estimate of the
revenue to be derived from a plan such as
suggested by this amendment to the Act
which would excuse or exempt all purchases
under $25. You will note that in the prepara-
tion I have submitted for your consideration,
Mr. Speaker, and for the consideration of all
hon. members here, I have outlined the clas-
sification of retail sales in Ontario. I have
done this in accordance with Mr. Gathercole's
presentation to this very House, the presenta-
tion of The Ontario Department of Economics
for 1961, and the preparation of the Dominion
Bureau of Statistics which are referred to in
the presentation of The Department of Eco-
nomics. The classification therefore that hon.
members will see before them of retail sales
in Ontario, classified as it is on the left hand
side of the page, follows the breakdown of the
Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
I am not an economist and you may excuse
me, Mr. Speaker, for spending just a little bit
of time here. Hon. members would wonder
why I have listed the 20-odd departments or
divisions at the left hand side. I have done
that because the Dominion Bureau of Statis-
tics breaks down the total retail sales in
DECEMBER 14, 1961
433
exactly the same fashion. You will note, Mr.
Speaker, that the total Ontario retail sales
including, in addition to retail sales, construc-
tion, machinery and equipment, telephone and
local calls represent a total expenditure of
$10.4 billion in Ontario.
In other words, if our retail sales tax in
Ontario, levied at the rate of 3 per cent,
was levied on all retail sales and in addition
on all construction work, machinery and
equipment, and local telephone calls, all of
which are technically subject to the retail
sales tax, the total on which the levy would
be made would be $10.4 billion for a total
revenue of something just over $300 million.
We know that the anticipated revenue is
nowhere near that. It is in the neighbourhood
of $150 million. Therefore, in the second
column, and next to the 1960 sales, according
to the estimates of the Dominion Bureau of
Statistics, I have listed the total sales that
are subject to tax in Ontario. Note that those
total sales are $5.04 billion. Of course, 3
per cent on that sum is just over $150 mil-
lion; my estimate is $151 million.
This is the government's plan, Mr. Speaker.
The government expects to collect $150 mil-
lion by the imposition of a 3 per cent sales
tax. It exempts about one half of the total
sales that are made in Ontario, and it does
this by virtue of the regulations set out in
the current legislation. I would point out,
Mr. Speaker, that it is very important to know
at the outset that in Ontario we are not levy-
ing a tax on all retail sales but on about 50
per cent of the total retail sales that would
normally be subject to tax.
Under the Liberal plan which exempts, as
I outlined, all purchases less than $25, but
including construction and, likewise, liquor,
telephone and meals and tobacco, our levy
would be on a total of $3.8 billion, for a total
revenue of $115 milhon.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, understand-
ably, I do not think that it would be advisable
for me, in view of the fact that this debate
will continue, to spend a lot of time detailing
the figures on this sheet or defending them.
I will simply tell hon. members that the
debate could go on endlessly if we were to
become engaged in determining what portion
of the total department store sales, for
example, amount to less than $25, and what
portion are over $25; what portion of the
total jewellery store sales are less than $25,
and what is more.
I am simply prepared to say, Mr. Speaker,
that it has been my opportunity to have this
statement prepared by pre-eminent experts in
the field who are doing this type of work day
in and day out, and I am confident that the
figures that I have presented are conservative.
We have deliberately attempted to under-
estimate the Liberal plan revenue and we
have deliberately tried to overestimate, if
you will, the probable revenue under the
government plan.
Suffice to say at this particular juncture,
Mr. Speaker, that on the second sheet of the
estimates that I have presented for considera-
tion I had detailed three distinct items which
will be identical under both plans. In other
words, the new Liberal plan is exactly as the
Conservative or government plan, and the
revenue to be derived from those three basic
areas amounts to $94 million. In other words,
if the government is right that it expects to
collect $150 million, then $94 million of that
$150 million will come from the three areas
that I have identified, and we are making no
change whatsoever in that respect. I am
assured that the $94 milhon that I have out-
lined on the second page is just as justified
a position as the $94 million that appears in
the governmental $150 million. The area of
dispute would be in the $21 milhon. That is
over and above the $94 million and up to
the $115 million that I have estimated. Hon.
members will notice that the $21 million or
$21.5 million is identified in the last column
on the sheet, on page 1 of the two sheets
that I have supplied to you, Mr. Speaker, and
to the hon. members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, in summary, let me say that
the presentation you have before you is
according to the Dominion Bureau of Statis-
tics breakdown of aU retail sales. They have
set the schedules. We have the latest figures,
the 1960 figures, for the total retail sales in
Ontario in respect to those several divisions.
Hon. members will note, for example, that
on grocery and combination stores under the
government plan, they expect to collect $6
million. We will, under the Liberal plan,
collect nothing, because we estimate that no
grocery or combination store purchase will
be subject to our tax.
Under the governmental plan, you will note
that under variety, drug and hardware stores
the government's plan can be expected to
produce $10.5 million and under our plan
the expected revenue would be $.6 milhon or
$600,000. The explanation there is that we
would expect to collect nothing in drugs and
variety stores, but understandably in hard-
ware retail sales we would collect a tax on
those items sold in hardware stores in excess
of $25.
Mr. Speaker, it would be a laborious task
to go over all these figures in detail. I
^4
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
simply say to you that I am prepared to
say that, to the best of my knowledge, the
revenue of $115 miUion that we expect was
conservatively estimated. In all probabihty
it would be something in excess of that figure.
We have had our plan tested by other com-
petent persons and we have been told that the
anticipated revenue of $115 million is, as I
said, a conservative figure.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you for a moment
what we have tried to do. But before I do
that, I want to point out that this is, of course,
a political arena and that I am going to be
charged, I am sure, before the end of the day,
with the sort of observation that has been
made before in this House— that I am as
responsible as any person for subjecting sales
tax to this House over a long period of time.
And that I voted against the tax a year ago.
I will have something to say about that matter
in just a few minutes.
What I am trying to establish at the outset
is that the presentation here is indicative, I
think, of what an enlightened approach to
sales tax can produce. It can produce the
type of revenue I am talking about simply
because the government has arbitrarily
exempted some items and taxed other retail
sales without, I suggest, due consideration of
what should be subject to tax and what should
be exempt.
To detail for hon. members the myriad of
inconsistencies is unnecessary. They have
been drawn to your attention many times,
Mr. Speaker. But I would point out that
there are many classic illustrations.
For example, it is my understanding that
school supplies are subject to the tax but on
the other hand smutty comic books are not
subject to the tax. There is a tax on soap, Mr.
Speaker. One would think that cleanliness
would be next to godliness, but apparently
that is not so.
There are other instances, Mr. Speaker,
where one finds it difficult in logic to know
why there is imposition of the tax upon cer-
tain items and no levy on other items. The
reason will become evident in an analysis
of the programme that I have outlined for
hon. members, where they will note that one
half of the total eligible items subject to tax
are in fact exempt. I feel that the govern-
ment, instead of taking a forward-looking
approach and making it easy to make a deter-
mination of what is taxable and what is not,
has instead taken a backward step in respect
to sales tax; that is, imposed a tax on certain
things and not on others. How much easier
it would have been to exempt all purchases
up to a given amount.
Remember, that in this way the government
would eliminate the small grocer, they would
eliminate the small retailer, from, first, the
collection of tax, the computation of the tax,
the rebate of the tax and the physical work
that he is required to perform.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important factor
because I suggest that on small items the
cost of collection is illogically high. The
inconvenience is extraordinary. The irritation
is extraordinary.
Mr. Speaker, if it is our desire to impose
taxes, and take into consideration the well-
being of the people, then I think it is
imperative that we demonstrate that we have
the ability to think through a task in such a
way as to avoid a maximum of irritation to
the taxpayer.
The government plan, I suggest, has done
just the opposite. And I think I know why.
We are in this position because it was not
but a few years ago that the government
leaders opposite took the position that they
required additional revenue but that that
additional revenue should come from the
federal government. In fact elections were
fought in 1957 and in 1958 on that very
point.
Then a year ago, when it became obvious
that that revenue would not come from
Ottawa, we became suddenly engrossed in
this retail sales tax. I think that the tax
at that time was determined upon hurriedly.
It was ill-conceived and ill-planned. Mr.
Speaker, I think it was because of that hurry
that the irritant features of the current plan
are in existence. I say unhesitantly, Mr.
Speaker, that I think that it was ill-timed
and ill-conceived.
It was not done by giving consideration
to the persons who would be required to
collect the tax, that is the small retailer,
the little fellow who is required to bear
the burden of cost. The well-being of the
taxpayer himself was not considered, because
nothing is more irritable than to pay out a
penny for a multitude of small purchases.
This type of irritant is not only an irritant,
it is not a big revenue-producer.
When a car is sold, just as much revenue
is produced as when a multitude of small
items are sold. Likewise in construction, Hke-
wise in big items under electrical appliances
and furniture— these are the revenue pro-
ducers. Herein we get our bulk of the
revenue as I pointed out— $94 million of the
total of $150 million.
It becomes obvious therefore that, in the
smaller items, not only do we not collect
DECEMBER 14, 1961
435
the bulk of the revenue but we cause a
maximum of inconvenience to the collector.
For example, I think it is quite obvious
to all of us in this House that the total
numbers of persons working in the Treasury
department, in the collection of taxes, was
required to be doubled for this very tax. We
had something like 700 people working to
collect all our taxes up to that time, I believe,
and now we have added a substantially
greater number.
Mr. Speaker, I simply say this: we have all
experienced as we have moved around
Ontario, the multitude of people who are
required to visit each little grocer, go over
his problems in detail, and try to examine
the amounts that are taxable and otherwise.
I think that all this type of irritant could
be eliminated and not only would we collect
$115 million, but we would reduce the cost
of collection substantially. What that cost
is, I am not prepared to estimate this after-
noon, but it may be $5 million or $6 million
and, Mr. Speaker, that is a substantial amount
of money.
Mr. Speaker, reverting for a moment to my
own position of a few years ago, I want to
meet this deliberately and head on. It is
true that I talked about a sales tax a number
of years ago but I talked about it, Mr.
Speaker, not as a source of additional revenue
for the general fund of the province of
Ontario. I talked about it as a long-term
reform procedure to correct the inequity that
exists in our municipal - provincial - fiscal
relationship. I took the position, and I still
feel strongly about it, as I did then, that
a hundred years ago it was good to say, and
it was equitable and just to say, that educa-
tion and welfare and justice should be
financed by a levy on real estate and land.
Why? Because a hundred years ago that was
a good measurement of a man's ability to pay.
But it is not so today. Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, I said that the Liberal Party would
be prepared to correct this type of inequity
and to efiFect some fiscal reforms and to
change the responsibility vis-a-vis the pro-
vincial and municipal governments and
assume the basic cost of education; and in
order to do that would establish an en-
lightened sales tax to relieve the municipal
property owner. But I never intended, Mr.
Speaker, that this type of revenue or tax
would be added to the general funds of tlie
province of Ontario, as is the case now.
Mr. Speaker, we have not one iota of new
service. We are using this revenue to pay
old debts. There is not another province in
liiis Dominion that has imposed this type of
legislation without undertaking a new service,
but here it has not been the case. Here we
are using additional revenue to pay for
services that were undertaken some consider-
able time ago and that are basically required
now to meet part of our deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I have felt, therefore, every
justification for saying to you a year ago,
I do not believe in a new sales tax for the
purpose of paying old debts; I do not beheve
in the imposition of a tax that provides no
new service and that does nothing really to
come to grips with fundamental difficulties
in the municipal-provincial fiscal field. And
I feel that way today.
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the point that
my plan, or the Liberal plan, at least, will
produce only $115 million as compared with
$150 million, I simply say this: nobody, in
my opinion, is able to get up honestly in this
House and say 150 is a magic figure. We
never heard the figure 150, as I recall, until
last year. Up to that time it was always
$100 miUion. We want $100 milHon from
the federal government.
As our deficit went up, of course, the gov-
ernment talked about more money and the
need for more, and it was said that our deficit
was more than $100 million-I think $180
million somebody said— and, of course, it be-
comes apparent that therefore they would
hope for more. But I am as confident, as I
stand here, Mr. Speaker, that $115 million
will do in an enlightened way the same job
that $150 million will do under the govern-
ment's plan.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that we have never
in this province, in the time that I have
been here, really come to grips with the fiscal
programme. I have constantly said that it
would be wise to divorce our highway pro-
gramme from the general budget, and I feel
so today. I am confident we lose millions and
millions of dollars by paying out to municipal
governments money that they expend at their
level. I think that if we did as has been
done in other jurisdictions— set up a highway
scheme of financing that would identify and
pay into a common fund all the revenue
from highways and then liquidate the high-
way construction and maintenance work over
the given 20 years that the highway depart-
ment has talked about. We could do it with
the revenue from highways only and, Mr.
Speaker, that would reduce the Treasiury in
Ontario at the present time— if the last five
years are any indication— would excuse it from
the payment out of general funds of approxi-
mately $35 million to $45 million.
Mr. Speaker, that type of thinking and
436
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
determination and identification of cost and
revenue and service would give us the type
of direction and assistance and intelligent
leadership that I think the people of Ontario
are entitled to at the present time.
The point that I am making is simply this.
I am not going to foohshly stand here and
say 115 is the same as 150, but what I am
going to say is that I beheve we are losing
money in many respects in conjunction with
the way we are financing highways.
I do not believe that it is a good thing,
for example, to build development roads and
call no tenders whatsoever. I just wonder if
we are paying out that money as efficiently
and as effectively as humanly and economic-
ally possible. I am just old-fashioned enough
to think that the total highways construction
cost at all three levels of government could
be substantially streamhned and made more
efficient. I, for one, am not disposed to put
more highways money into the common fund
of this Conservative government's general
treasury before we have had an effective
opportunity to look at the economy that can
be practised and the identification of certain
sources of revenue, such as highway sources
of revenue, with specffic expenditures, that
is highway expenditures.
I think we could do a lot in this respect. I
am not disposed to feel that we could just
go on and on and add more revenue as the
deficit occurs. The simple fact is that if
hon. members look at the budget over the
last 18 years they will find that all the depart-
ments, all 22 of them, have gone up in the
same proportion. Now, surely one would
expect that in a given year the government
would say: "We are interested now in educa-
tion. This department needs more than the
other departments." Or in another given
year: "The Department of the Attorney-
General is going to undertake a specific
thing and therefore that department needs
more."
But there is no demonstration of plarming.
Hon. members will find that if they drew a
chart, and we have done this, they will find
that all the departments over a period of
time have gone up at a steady and even pace.
I say that this is demonstration that the type
of planning and direction that is required in
conjunction with the fiscal responsibility of
this province has not been exercised. I am
prepared to say that I am confident that if
we did the type of planning that is required,
then the 115 that we have here would buy
and provide the same type of service that
we are getting now out of the revenue that
is being expended.
Sure, the hon. gentlemen to the left will
laugh, but if they know the signfficance of
real economic plarming, Mr. Speaker, it is
not so silly at all. I tell you that some of the
greatest economists in the province of Ontario
actually have worked on this plan.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Like Mr. Gordon? He was a
great one, he was a great one!
Mr. Wintermeyer: Would the hon. Minister
consider him to be—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I was just asking. The
hon. leader of the Opposition should not be
so touchy.
Mr. Wintermeyer: And many others.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): He has a good
name. He worked for hon. members opposite.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I do not want this whole
thing reduced to gestures, Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. members to the left would desire.
The simple fact is tliat this has been costed,
this has been examined, and this is feasible.
I am prepared to make this a practical poli-
tical argument, that 115 and 150 are two
different figures; but I am not prepared to
say that 150 is a magic figure. I am prepared
to say that the government of the province
of Ontario has got to buckle down and effect
some economy in its various departments
before I am prepared to support any imposi-
tion in excess of $115 million; and I am pre-
pared to say that the programme that I have
outlined here has about it, I am positive, the
type of consideration that should be given
for the practical implementation of a tax of
this sort.
I am confident that the collector, the small
retailer in particular, and the taxpayer, should
be considered in the extreme. Good legisla-
tion, Mr. Speaker, requires that a taxpayer
feel a genuine consciousness that the tax was
well conceived and well planned, and I,
from my experiences, feel that the taxpayers
of the province of Ontario at the present
time feel just the opposite. Many of them
feel that the tax should not be imposed at
all. But those who say there may be need
for more revenue are certainly saying this:
if there was need for more revenue certainly
a plan could have been devised that would
have produced less irritation and would have
been demonstrative of more consideration for
the taxpayer and the small collector than the
government plans demonstrate.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, at this juncture
in the debate it providfti me pleasure to
DECEMBER 14, 1961
437
suggest and encourage all hon. members to
consider seriously this plan. It is practical
for the simple reason that I think it has been
studied, it has been examined, it has been
prepared, not only by myself but by persons
schooled in this type of work.
I think the estimate of revenue is just as
accurate as the estimate that the government
makes of the $150 million or $151 million
that they expect to get. I personally feel that
the irritations and inconveniences are basic-
ally eliminated and that a government today
is under an obligation to say to the people of
Ontario: "We are going to assure that econ-
omy is practised." Secondly, it should say
that it is going to begin to identify sources
of revenue and sources of expenditure such
as highways, and is going to set out a pro-
gramme and a plan in conjunction with educa-
tion, for example. This plan would earmark
for that great social service— a social service
that I think is paramount to all, a service that
will in the end mean the difiference between
our way of life and any foreign way, because
it will assure the physical, mental and intellec-
tual development of our young people— a
source of revenue that will equitably raise
money for that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, two years ago I certainly
hoped that if ever this type of legislation
and this type of imposition came into being
it would have been identified specifically and
unequivocably for the type of service such as
education or welfare or justice or other new
service that is currently not being absorbed
by the provincial government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with deference but
with seriousness, I suggest to you and to all
hon. members of the House that even at this
late date, the government give serious thought
to the significance, philosophy and thoughts
back of this suggested bill, and that it realize
now, even now, that there are real improve-
ments to be made in the legislation that was
introduced a year ago. I suggest that it think
in terms of the people and the collectors
throughout all of Ontario who are very greatly
concerned about the inconvenience and irri-
tants of the present plan.
We of the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker,
would of course have much to gain by cross-
ing this province and saying: "We are not in
favour of the tax at all—"
Mr. MacDonald: That is what the hon.
leader of the Opposition said last year.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, Mr. Speaker, I
voted against it last year for the reasons I
have outlined.
Mr. MacDonald: Why did the hon. leader
of the Opposition not outline them last year?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not
going to pay much attention to a group which
only a day ago suggested $150 milhon would
be produced by taxing the natural resources
of this province and reducing employment in
northern Ontario accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, it is time somebody stood up
in this Legislature and said: "They just cannot
get revenue out of the blue." You cannot
tax these corporations in northern Ontario and
bleed them to death at a time when they are
producing more employment, more people are
employed in natural resources in Canada than
in any other industry, and they are having
more trouble at the current time than they
have ever had in history.
I for one, political or not, am prepared to
say that I am going to be realistic enough to
acknowledge that revenue is required and it
must be identified in a specific way. It is for
that reason that I have submitted this pro-
gramme which I suggest is intelligible, is
economical and has been effectively costed.
I present it for your serious consideration this
afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there are
several matters I would hke to touch upon
in dealing with this bill. First of all, I would
like to deal with the matter of the ill-concep-
tion and the haste as alleged by the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer).
I notice in looking over his estimate of
Ontario's sales tax revenue that he includes
therein an item of telephone calls, but I do
not find any reference to telephone calls in
the bill itself.
Mr. Wintermeyer: We just do not take
them out, they are exactly the same as the
legislation of the hon. Prime Minister, I am
only changing one section, just the same as
is being done today.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Does the hon. leader of
the Opposition mean to say that—
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am sorry, I did not go
to the second page. In any event, I would
hke to say I have had an opportunity of
having these figures analyzed and I am in-
formed that they are so basically incorrect,
in computing the amount of revenue that
would be produced if this bill were to be
adopted, that I do not intend to go into the
detailed analysis of the figures to prove this
lack of correctness.
438
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The hon. leader of the Opposition, Mr.
Speaker, does not object to a sales tax
as such; he only objects to the sales tax in
the form in which we have brought it in,
although he does try to argue both ways.
It occurs to me that it might be possible
to place this matter before the public accounts
committee and allow it to be thoroughly
examined there, and we will see what results
we can obtain. I would be quite happy to
discuss this with the hon. leader of the
Opposition during the intermission, because
that committee will not sit in any event until
we resume. But I think that is a possibility.
Or we might devise some other means of
checking to find out which figures are correct.
In any event, we will deal with that technical
aspect of the problem. In the meantime, my
figures are that if the proposal of the hon.
leader of the Opposition became effective, tax
returns would be reduced on the full year's
operation from $150 million to about $52
million.
Now these are the figures that were given
to me. I made the offer to justify them and I
will stand by that offer. Of course there is
no point in us debating these amounts.
Now the hon. leader of the Opposition said
this himself, so let us get on to some of the
principles involved and we will settle the
question of the amounts in due course.
I am informed by men I consider to be
completely competent that if we were— Does
the hon. leader of the Opposition have a
question?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, I have. Mr.
Speaker, you see, the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) has suggested— my question is
this: is the hon. Prime Minister prepared to
use common sense in the analysis of page 2
of my presentation, wherein, I believe, there
is no change whatsoever as between his plan
and my plan?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have
made one mistake already in looking at these
sheets and I never saw them until Uiey came
to my desk this afternoon. I will go back to
my original position. The hon. leader of the
Opposition is advised by his experts, I am
advised by mine-
Mr. Wintermeyer: We should bring them
togetherl
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Of course we should
attempt to reconcile the matter, but for the
T^urposes of the debate this afternoon and the
position that I am going to take in this
matter, I take my figures as being correct, as
the hon. leader of the Opposition has taken
his. So as far as I am concerned, it would just
mean that the province would be required to
raise a further $98 million either by an in-
crease in the sales tax on the balance of the
items that would be taxable under his pro-
posal, or by going to some other means of
taxation. I make this assertion because I want
the House to understand clearly the implica-
tions of what the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion is suggesting in this bill. I am not, as I
say, going to analyze the figures, but I would
be quite happy to have some arrangement
to have them analyzed in due course.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): If the hon.
Prime Minister finds that we are correct, will
he change it?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would never answer
such a question, because I am quite sure
I will not find that my figures are incorrect.
Mr. Whicher: But if the hon. Prime Min-
ister did find this was the case?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Therefore, to obtain
the $150 million, which is necessary and to
which I shall refer later, it would be neces-
sary to increase the sales tax rate. As I
estimate it, on the remaining taxable items
if we were to accept these exemptions, we
would have to increase the sales tax on these
items to nine per cent, thereby imposing—
An hon. member: The hon. Prime Minis-
ter is right.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Now, just a moment!
Thereby imposing a very discriminatory tax
on any article the purchase price of which
is over $25. The problem of the collection
of such tax, of course, is infinitely multi-
plied by increasing the exemptions as the
hon. leader of the Opposition suggests. I
can state the problem very simply in this
way.
If an article can be purchased in two or
more parts or quantities under $25, the pur-
chaser would completely avoid the tax by
purchasing the article piecemeal.
Mr. Whicher: How does the hon. Prime
Minister deal with chocolate bars and cigar-
ettes today? And pop?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: This same condition
applies with the present 17 cent exemption.
An hon. member: Does it apply to cars?
DECEMBER 14, 1961
439
Another hon. member: Can the hon. mem-
ber not take it?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: A person may purchase
in two separate purchases two chocolate
bars at 10 cents each and avoid the pay-
ment of any tax, but if the hon. leader of
the Opposition's proposal became effective,
this problem would be magnified into gigan-
tic proportions with very intense headaches
to the retailer. To avoid the tax people
would seek to buy in components or quan-
tities under $25.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, would
the hon. Prime Minister permit a question?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Now let me go on! I
listened to the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion; he may now listen to me, even if his
friends will not.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I point out to hon.
members that this would entail a great deal
of unnecessary work and it would entail a
great deal of business expense. The pres-
ent system of ordering would be disorgan-
ized and it would render it more expensive
to business, particularly to retailers, but also
manufacturers and wholesalers.
I point out to the House that in 40 Ameri-
can states and eight other Canadian prov-
inces there is no such exemption. Although
the exemptions in Ontario are the broadest
of any jurisdiction in North America that
has a sales tax, they do not create the prob-
lems to any conceivable degree that would
be created by this proposition of the hon.
leader of the Opposition.
Let us take some examples. Under the
proposal of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion, one could purchase a $100 kitchen suite
by components parts; that is, buy the chairs
separately and buy the table, and so on; or
a $200 television set— buy the cabinet,
speaker, chassis — never underestimate the
ingenuity of the human mind when it comes
to avoiding the payment of taxes.
Now each of these items-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! I would point
out to the hon. members when the Speaker
rises to his feet there is no speaking at that
point. Certain assumptions have been made
on one side of the House and the House
remained very dignified and very quiet. Now
I will just ask for the same procedure to be
followed at this point when certain other
assumptions are being made and I am sure
we can all get along very well.
Mr. MacDonald: Ably stated.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I will just
review this television-set proposition again for
you. You could separate the cabinet, speaker,
chassis, and you could break it down to a
great number of component parts, each of
which would come to less than $25. By so
doing you would avoid the payment of tax
altogether. The hon. member for Nipissing
(Mr. Troy) made some remark about me im-
puting dishonesty, perhaps, to someone. I
would point out to him that one of the basic
rules of tax laws is that any taxpayer is
entitled to pay as little tax as he possibly can
devise under any taxing statute.
Interjections by hon. members. ,
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am only pointing out
to the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha)
there is nothing dishonest in attempting to
avoid paying the tax as long as you do not
get outside the framework of the taxing
statute.
Mr. Sopha: There are judicial pronounce-
ments to the contrary.
An hon. member: How would the hon.
Prime Minister handle a stove?
Mr. Sopha: Judges have said recently that
the taxpayer who does that is dishonest.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: There are judicial pro-
nouncements the other way too, in the Privy
Council.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): On a point of
privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was so surprised by
the hon. Prime Minister when he mentioned
the member for Nipissing, sir. I did not
quite get what he said. Was it something
to do with dishonesty, of me imputing
dishonesty?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I thought
the hon. member said, when I was explaining
how someone could use this $25 deductible
method for computing tax to reduce the pur-
chase to the point where there would be no
tax at all, I thought he said that I was accus-
ing some-
Mr. Troy: Well, I could not—
440
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, if I have— it does
not matter. Just think of the cost, what the
cost would be to the retailer who attempted
to do business in this particular fashion.
Moreover, the net eflFect would be to
increase the sales tax to nine per cent on the
articles that could be taxed. This would not
only multiply these problems, but would im-
pose a real hardship on persons buying goods
that could not be broken down into lots of
less than $25. For example, the tax on a
motor car instead of being three per cent
would become nine per cent.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): That is
what the hon. Prime Minister says.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes, that is what I say.
If we are to raise this amount of money and
if we are to do it on the basis that the hon.
members opposite suggest and to arrive at the
same amount of revenue, we would have to
increase the tax from three per cent to nine
per cent on the items that they would exempt
with their exemptions.
Now let us look at the revenue require-
ments of the province; and this is the spot
where we are always told that we should
reduce expenditures, but I cannot remember
any concrete example ever having been given
of where we should in fact reduce— we should
reduce expenditures, but I never hear any-
thing about cutting school grants, or cutting
grants here or there, or limiting the services
presently given by this government. I hear
mainly that we should be doing more and
more, and tax less and less.
Mr. Reaume: With more efficiency!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: However, let us look at
the revenue requirements.
My predecessor in office on many occasions
stated that the province needed at least
$150 million more per year. I have had an
opportunity of examining this statement and
I can say to the House today that this require-
ment is completely inescapable. The province
must raise annually a minimimi of $150 mil-
lion more revenue. This requirement for the
additional money comes from the constantly
increasing demands for services such as health
and education, which are two, of course, of
the very large services we provide.
As a matter of fact, we could say that edu-
cation alone makes it necessary to raise
this amount of money. The demands which
our growth and development impose upon us
for schools, universities and health have be-
come almost insatiable. Three hundred and
sixty-five days from now, as I pointed out
earlier, we will have 70,000 more children in
our school system than we do today because
that is the annual net growth in our elemen-
tary and secondary school systems. There is
nothing that can alter this except to refuse to
provide for our young people the require-
ments that these days demand.
This afternoon I read to the House pro-
visions which will apply commencing January
1, 1962, in connection with school grants in
the province. These provisions are going to
be of great assistance to our taxpayers, and
particularly to our home owners and our
farmers. They are designed for the coming
year to help our public and separate elemen-
tary schools and also our secondary schools.
Next year the real weight of assistance will
be on secondary education. The whole prob-
lem of universities is an enormous one and
has been discussed in this House before. It
is going to require many millions of dollars
and it is indeed very difficult to really esti-
mate what our university biU will be in the
years to come.
I would point out to the hon. members that
our education bill alone this year will total
nearly $270 million. Next year it will exceed
$300 million, and even at that we are in some
cases not going as far as we should. The
$150 million simply cannot be reduced if we
are going to meet the bare requirements of
what we have to do in this province, Uving
as we do in this atomic age.
The cry is to economize but, I add, does
the Opposition want school grants decreased,
which would bring with it of course an
automatic increase in real estate taxation at
the local level? Have we to cut allowances
for old age pensioners and senior citizens?
And what about mothers* allowances for our
widowed mothers? Are we to reduce these?
When one talks of economizing, these are
the only alternatives which this House or the
people of the province have to consider. Our
problem is, and has to be, how are we going
to raise the revenue we need in a fair and
equitable manner? And, of course, once
having raised it how are we going to dis-
tribute it?
This House can increase the exemptions in
the manner proposed by the hon. leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) in this biU
and, as I have said, we would need then a
nine per cent sales tax on the remaining items
that would be taxed. This, I claim, is a
bare minimimi.
I can say to the House that the present
three per cent sales tax will produce an esti-
mated ^150 million, after allowing for all
the exemptions which are presently allowed
DECEMBER 14, 1961
441
and are presently in the Act itself and which
are the widest exemptions of any jurisdiction
in North America that imposes a sales tax-
certainly a good deal wider than any of the
eight other Canadian provinces which are
involved in the imposition of a sales tax.
Mr. Thomas: How about the cost of
administration?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, the problem at the
moment in the cost of administration is that
the tax has only been in effect since Sep-
tember 1; but we can project and we think
that it will work out at something less than
two per cent. But let me make it very clear-
so that the hon. members will not come back
and say that we could do this for less than
two per cent— that this is based on the figures
we presently have, and we have very in-
complete reports. I have heard reports in
various parts of the province that the cost of
collection was high— in one place I was in
recently I was asked if the cost of collection
was 40 per cent, which is so ridiculous. But
the figure of 15 per cent is bandied around.
We estimate at the present time it will cost
somewhere in their neighbourhood of two
per cent, which hon. members must admit
is not very high.
What are the alternatives that face us in
the matter of raising this revenue in any other
way than the method we are doing?
If we were to impose a two per cent sales
tax without any exemptions at all, and that
is just simply tax everything, it would pro-
duce the amount of money that we require.
It would reduce the diflBculties of collection
which arise the moment we introduce exemp-
tions. The larger the exemptions, the more
the collection difiiculties increase. The larger
the exemptions, the greater the economic dis-
tortions in buying habits and business pro-
cedures.
Sizeable exemptions mean that more efforts
are made to buy piecemeal in order to avoid
the payment of tax, and this practice is
magnified because of the higher rate of tax
that has to be imposed upon those items that
are in turn taxed. If the tax could be kept
at three per cent there would not be the same
incentive to evasion as there would be if the
tax were raised to nine per cent, as required
if we were to carry out the recommendations
of this bill.
The argument, of course, against a two per
cent sales tax levied against all goods, is that
such a tax would then apply on food and
other necessaries and would press particularly
heavily on the small income group. It would
adversely affect mass-produced articles and
supplies which are presently exempt and
are the foundation for agriculture and food
processing, the construction trades and natural
resource industries.
If the difference between the $150 million
needed, and the $52 million which would be
realized under the proposal of the hon.
leader of the Opposition, namely, $98 mil-
lion, is not to be raised—
An hon. member: Does the hon. Prime
Minister believe that?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I certainly do, and I
am prepared, as I have said already, to have
an examination made of the figures just to
find out really what we are talking about.
This is a very, very serious matter, partic-
ularly when one considers the necessity for
revenue that we have, and where we are
presently putting the revenue that is coming
from this tax.
In any event, if the $98 million is not
to be raised by an increase in the sales tax
to nine per cent on taxable items, or is not
to be raised by a two per cent tax on all
goods and just eliminate all exemptions and
remove all of these difiiculties about which
the hon. member speaks, then how would
we raise it? Well, if he read the statement
that the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan)
gave in this House last March, and I will
summarize them a little bit, he will get the
answer to that.
To raise $98 million by way of personal
income tax would involve increasing the rates
of personal income tax across the board by
at least ten percentage points of federal tax.
This would be, I think hon. members would
all admit, quite a staggering increase. And I
will ask all hon. members if it would be
conducive to development in this province
to raise our personal income tax by 10 or
11 percentage points at this time.
If the revenue were to be raised by in-
creased corporation tax, I would ask all hon.
members to remember that the combined
federal-provincial corporation tax in Ontario
is now 52 per cent, and this is two per cent
above that in several other provinces of
Canada. To raise the deficiency of $98
million, which would result from what the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-^
meyer) has proposed, would mean increasing
corporation taxes by an additional seven per
cent, bringing the rate to 59 per cent in
Ontario.
As anybody knows, and this has been men-
tioned by several hon. members of the
442
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Opposition at one time or another since the
House opened, this would curb expansion in
our province. It would be a complete im-
pediment to development, and would be a
barrier to employment for which we must
strive in this province if we are going to
succeed in the objectives we have set our-
selves. In other words, such a proposal is
completely absurd and is not to be considered.
Some people have talked about increasing
the charges and the taxes for liquor. Last
year we realized about $80 million from the
sale of alcoholic beverages, and I ask once
again what the imposition of an additional
$98 million would mean to liquor prices. It
would be completely out of the question to
obtain more than a fraction of what the
province needs in revenue from liquor sales,
for the reason that such sales are very
sensitive to price change and the consumption
habits of people can be very easily altered.
A few cents a bottle extra can bring into
play the law of diminishing returns; and if
we ever attempted to increase our revenue in
that field by any sizeable amount of the $98
million it would be once again completely
ridiculous.
Another suggestion that we hear is that
we increase our tax on natural resources.
I am sure that this would not appeal to the
Opposition, who have asserted time and time
again that the taxes on natural resources in
the province are already too high. Today we
are deriving $36 milhon from natural re-
sources by way of special taxes. It is only
sufficient for me to ask what would happen
if we were to levy taxes of an additional
$98 milhon or any considerable portion there-
of in this area, and this will demonstrate of
course how absurd this suggestion is.
There is another alternative which the
Opposition, when in power, used to resort
to, namely, that of letting real estate and the
municipahties shoulder the burdens. We can
reduce school grants and we can forego the
increases I have outlined earlier this after-
noon. It would be simple to cast another
$98 million on the home and farm owner
but, I ask, is there any hon. member of this
assembly who would consider this expedient
with any degree of seriousness at all?
Mr. Whicher: This is the biggest, dreamiest
speech I have ever heard.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. member has
not listened to much of it then.
I think I have very briefly outlined the
problems to be met and the methods available
to us to meet them. It is all very well to
make irresponsible assertions but I would
point out that money does not come out of a
pump.
We are faced with certain essential require-
ments on education from the primary to the
university level. In the matter of health, we
have certain demands made upon us and the
sum of $150 million which I mention has
to be obtained from some source if we are
going to do our job in this province. There
is no point in calling this a magic figure and
hoping that we can do it with 98 or 105 or
any other figure..
No tax is popular but the sales tax which
was introduced in this House this year places
Ontario, as I have stated, as one of eight
Canadian provinces and one of 40 American
states that have this tax.
Our rate of tax, three per cent, is now
the lowest in Canada. British Columbia,
Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfound-
land all have a tax which exceeds this. Exemp-
tions in Ontario are now the widest and most
generous not only in Canada but in North
America. These exemptions— and we reahze
this— these exemptions increase the difficulties
of collection because if hon. members remove
the exemptions they remove all the difficulties
with collection. But the headaches of the
retailer are nothing now as compared with
what they would be with the increase of the
exemptions as proposed by the hon. leader
of the Opposition.
Now I would like to say something some-
what personal as leader of the government.
This is a new job as far as I am concerned
but I am prepared, with an open mind, to
consider any proposal for providing the money
to finance this province— that is any proposal
I beheve to be consistent with common sense
and will provide the money to assist in the
development and expansion of Ontario's
human and material resources.
An examination of this proposal leads me
to only one conclusion— that it is completely
impracticable. For the Opposition which has
pointed to increasing debt in Ontario, which
has called loudly for further expenditures,
which has advocated a sales tax for whatever
reason in the past, it would simply mean
that the hon. Provincial Treasurer would
have nearly $100 milhon less money than
he needs as a bare minimum.
The only alternatives would be either to
resort to a much higher and more unpleasant
income tax, or increase our combined federal-
provincial corporation tax in Ontario, which
is nov/ 52 per cent, or the alternative is to
DECEMBER 14. 1961
443
cut grants to the public, separate and
secondary schools in the province, reduce our
health services, reduce our welfare services
or our highway services. Now these are the
alternatives and they are indeed relatively
simple.
Actually what we need in Canada is a
thorough investigation and review of our
whole Canadian tax structure and the adoption
in concert between the provinces and the
federal government of some measures aimed
at removing discrimination and unfairness
which can dwarf our country's competitive
position.
For myself and the government which I
lead, I am prepared as a Canadian to confer
with the federal government and the govern-
ments of the other Canadian provinces in
arriving at fair and equitable solutions of these
taxation problems which not only can impair
our competitive position but, as well, dwarf
the development of our country. This is a
big job for us all and one to which this
government is prepared to devote its utmost
energies. I make this statement at this time
as indicating our willingness to co-operate
with all of Canada and all other governments
in providing the unity of action needed by
our country in this period of great competition
and at the same time this period of great
opportunity.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the debate.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I protest
this is a violation of the rules of this House.
My hon. colleague was up before the hon.
Prime Minister rose. Now I did not object
when you called the hon. Prime Minister to
speak, because he is the leader of this House
and therefore if you would choose him over
another hon. member, fine. But that he should
move the adjournment of the debate and we
should not have an opportunity to express
our views, I say is a gross violation of the
rights of a group in this House.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
on a question of privilege, since I am per-
sonally involved, I would call your attention
to the fact that I was on my feet well before
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) after
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Win-
termeyer) sat down, that under the rules of
the House all hon. members are equal as far
as their right to participate in debate is con-
cerned. The rules apply equally to all.
I was quite happy to defer to the govern-
ment leader, the hon. Prime Minister, when
he indicated a desire to speak, but it is in
my opinion, sir, a shabby trick for him to
take advantage of my courtesy in the matter
to gag me so that this group cannot say any-
thing in this important debate.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there was
no intent on my part to gag the hon. member
for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden), but as I said in
the beginning, this is a private member's pub-
lic bill. We had certain recommendations
made last year that these should be called.
I said last night that I would call the bill
but I did not call it for a full debate. There
is nothing that has been discussed this after-
noon in reference to this bill that cannot
be discussed completely in the budget debate,
this whole matter can-
Mr. MacDonald: Why did the hon. Prime
Minister bring it up this afternoon?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I brought it up this
afternoon because I am following a procedure.
If the hon. member wants to hear why I did
it, I will tell him. If he wants to interrupt
me, I will sit down, and not tell him. But
I called it because it is a private member's
public bill and it will be my intention to call
several of these. I said this before the hon.
leader of the Opposition started to speak.
These bills can be called and can be debated
and then they can be recalled— they go back
on the order paper— but they are not going to
be put in here and forced eventually to a vote
as a government bill is done. This is usual
procedure in any parliament. And I told the
House this is what I was going to do before
I started.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that the hon.
Prime Minister should rise and say that the
usual procedure in any parliament is to deny
one group in the House the opportunity to
express its views is just utterly ludicrous. This
is a closure. Mr. Speaker, if we could have
spoken on another occasion so could every-
body else on another occasion and I submit
to you, Mr. Speaker, that since the hon. mem-
ber (Mr. Bryden) was on his feet ahead of the
hon. Prime Minister, he has the right to speak.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it is your
obligation to protect his right to speak.
Mr. Speaker: The Speaker has noted all the
remarks from the hon. members, the booing
and everything, and keeping in mind, of
course, that this motion does not necessarily
close off the debate. Since I have a motion
before the House at this point I have nothing
to do but put the motion.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker—
444
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Prime Minister
moves the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have no
ahernative but to call for a division on this
and I hope that in protection of the rights
of the Opposition that I can get the Liberal
Opposition to support me because this is a
basic issue that has nothing to do with the
merits of the debate.
Mr. Speaker: Will those members in favour
of the motion please say "aye." As many as
are opposed please say "nay." The "ayes"
have it
I declare the motion carried.
House in committee of the whole; Mr. K.
Brown in the chair.
THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961-62
House in committee on Bill No. 43, The
Income Tax Act, 1961-62.
Sections 1 to 53, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 43 reported.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 18, An Act
to amend The Division Courts Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Hon. A. K. Roberts: (Attorney-General):
Mr. Chairman, I move that the following be
inserted as section 4 of the bill:
(4) This Act comes into force on the day
it receives Royal assent.
That the short title section be reniunbered
as section 5.
Amendment agreed to.
New section 4 agreed to.
Section 5, formerly section 4, agreed to.
Bill No. 18 reported.
THE FIRE MARSHALS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 19, An
Act to amend The Fire Marshals Act.
Section 1 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, I move
that section 3a of the Act as set out in section
2 of the bill be amended by adding thereto
the following subsection:
(vii) The relationship between a member
of a fire department and a municipality by
which he is employed continues for the
purpose of The Workmen's Compensation
Act as if this section had not been passed.
Amendment agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Then, Mr. Chairman,
I move that the following be inserted as
section 3 of the bill:
(3) This Act comes into force on the day
it receives Royal assent.
And that the short title section of the bill
be renumbered as section 4.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
New section 3 agreed to.
Section 4, formerly section 3, agreed to.
Bill No. 19 reported.
THE POLICE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 24, An Act
to amend The Police Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, I move
that section 39a of the Act as set out in sec-
tion 4 of the bill be amended by adding
thereto the following subsection:
(viii) The moneys required for the pur-
poses of the commission shall be paid out
of a consolidated revenue fund until the
31st day of March, 1962, and thereafter
shall be paid out of the moneys appropri-
ated by the Legislature for the purpose.
I also move that the following be inserted
as section 6 of the bill:
(6) The Police Act is amended by adding
thereto the following section:
45(g) The relationship between a member
of a pohce force and the body that em-
ploys him continues for the purposes of
The Workmen's Compensation Act as if this
part had not been passed.
And that sections 6 to 12 of the bill be
renumbered as sections 7 to 13. Also that
section 11 of the bill, now renumbered as
section 12, be struck out and the following
substituted therefor:
(12) This Act comes into force on the
day it receives Royal assent.
Amendment agreed to.
DECEMBER 14, 1961
445
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
New section 6 agreed to.
Section 8, formerly section 7, agreed to.
Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
New section 12 agreed to.
Section 13, formerly section 12, agreed to.
Bill No. 24 reported.
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 39, An Act
to amend The Department of Labour Act.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Chairman, I move that the new
section 9(a) of the Act as contained in section
1 of the bill be amended by striking out the
expression "Ontario Safety Council" where-
ever it occurs, and substituting in each
instance: "Labour Safety Council of Ontario."
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill No. 39 reported.
THE VITAL STATISTICS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 40, An Act
to amend The Vital Statistics Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 40 reported.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 41, An
Act to amend The Corporations Act.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 41 reported.
THE CORPORATIONS INFORMATION
ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 42, An Act
to amend The Corporations Information Act.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): Mr.
Chairman, I move:
That section 1 of the bill be amended by
adding "and" at the end of the first line of
subsection (5c) and by striking out clauses (a)
and (b) of the said subsection (5c) and sub-
stituting the following:
(a) which is incorporated under the law
of Ontario within thirty days after the 1st
day of July, 1962, if its incorporation
occurred before that day, or within thirty
days after the date of its incorporation, if
its incorporation occurred on or after that
day;
(b) which is not required to be licensed
under Part IX of The Corporations Act and
which has established its head or other
office in Ontario or has commenced to
carry on business or a part thereof in
Ontario before the 1st day of July, 1962,
within thirty days after that day, or which
establishes its head or other office in
Ontario or commences to carry on business
or a part thereof in Ontario on or after
that day, within thirty days after such
establishment or commencement; or . . .
That amendment has been reprinted in the
Bill which is in the bill book and it is neces-
sary, in order that this section apply to all
companies whether they have been incorpor-
ated prior to the passing of this bill or sub-
sequently.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill to be con-
sidered be the reprint of the bill?
Agreed to.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 42 reported.
THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 48, An Act
to amend The Milk Industry Act.
On section 1:
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Chairman, be-
fore you carry that section, I understand that
the Verner and Sudbury people are not too
happy with the differential. They want it
to remain as it is; but, as in everything, the
majority rules and they just wanted me to
put that on record.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move
that section 18 of The Milk Industry Act as
contained in section 2 of the bill be struck
out and the following substituted therefor:
Where one of the objects of a co-opera-
tive corporation to which part 5 of The
Corporations Act applies is to engage in
the transportation of milk and the board
446
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
issues a certificate to the Minister of Trans-
port that more than three-quarters of the
shareholders or members of the corpora-
tion are producers supplying milk to one
or more plants in a municipality, no opera-
ting licence under The Public Commercial
Vehicles Act is required by the corporation
for the purpose of transporting such milk.
Subsection 2: The board may after a
hearing revoke the certificate issued under
subsection 1, and shall give notice of the
revocation to the Minister of Transport.
Subsection 3: Every certificate hereto-
fore issued by the board or by any pre-
decessor thereof under the authority of
this section or any predecessor thereof ex-
pires 90 days after this Act comes into
force.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill No. 48, reported.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
1, by hon. W. K. Warrender,
Resolved, that the members of the
Ontario Safety Council may be paid re-
muneration and expenses at such rates as
are determined by the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council, and the amounts thereof shall,
until the 31st day of March, 1962, be paid
out of the consolidated revenue fund, as
provided by Bill No. 39, An Act to amend
The Department of Labour Act.
And notice of motion No. 2,
Resolved, that an income tax shall be
paid for each of the 1962 to 1966 taxation
years, inclusive, by every individual who
was resident in or had income earned in
Ontario, being the percentage of the tax
payable under The Income Tax Act
(Canada) as follows:
(a) 16 per cent in respect of the 1962
taxation year;
(b) 17 per cent in respect of the 1963
taxation year;
(c) 18 per cent in respect of the 1964
taxation year;
(d) 19 per cent in respect of the 1965
taxation year; and
(e) 20 per cent in respect of the 1966
taxation year;
as provided by Bill No. 43, The Income
Tax Act, 1961-62.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, I beg to inform the House that His
Honour the Lieutenant-Governor having been
informed of the subject matter of the proposed
resolutions, recormnends them to the con-
sideration of the House.
Resolutions concurred in.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the com-
mittee of the whole House rise, and report
that it has come to certain resolutions, certain
bills without amendment, certain bills with
certain amendments and ask for leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
Chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report certain
resolutions, certain bills without amendment,
certain bills with certain amendments and
asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
last night when I was interrupted by the
hour of six o'clock, I was about to go into
the discussion of what has been well dis-
cussed by the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer) and by the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) here this afternoon—
the Wintermeyer plan for exempting all pur-
chases of $25 and under, insofar as they are
affected by the Ontario retail sales tax.
I would hke to say, Mr. Speaker, that
while the hon. Prime Minister very sincerely
said this afternoon that he had not had the
opportunity of seeing this plan, and the esti-
mate of the Ontario sales tax revenue under
the Liberal plan, until this afternoon, never-
theless I have had the opportunity of
examining this docmnent; and I want to say,
Mr. Speaker, that, after spending many hours
of consideration on these figures, as far as I
am concerned they are completely, absolutely
and 100 per cent correct, and that if he
brings his experts in to discuss these matters
with our experts he will find that the premise
on which he gave his speech this afternoon
was completely wrong, and factually com-
pletely irresponsible.
This afternoon the hon. Prime Minister said,
for example, that if he exempted sales of
under $25 people who were buying a tele-
vision set might go in and by tubes and then
DECEMBER 14, 1961
447
they might buy the casing separately, etc.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this is com-
pletely nonsensical and has no semblance of
factuality at all.
It is just common sense to know that when
one is going to buy an automobile, one is not
going to buy one wheel today and one wheel
tomorrow. The automobile is bought as a
whole. It is with this simple approach that
we in the Liberal party, under the leadership
of our hon. leader, have devised this plan
which we believe would eliminate a great
deal of the time and efiFort it is taking many
of our small business men in the province
of Ontario today.
For example, Mr. Speaker, while the hon.
Prime Minister was unwilling to talk about
this plan as we presented it, I bring to your
attention the fact that the majority of taxes
collected under the Conservative plan for
collecting sales tax comes from the construc-
tion and housing industry, the machinery
and equipment industry, the liquor tax, the
cigarette tax, the meals and the telephone tax.
The hon. Minister of Energy Resources
(Mr. Macaulay) after being away for several
days, no doubt busy with public afiFairs, said
this afternoon that we objected to the tax
on telephones last year. That is absolutely
correct; we did object to the three per cent
sales tax on telephones. But we said that
instead of having it on ordinary expenditure
it should have been put on long-distance calls.
However, our experts, in discussing this
matter with them, say there would be a con-
siderable amount of work in doing this. For
this reason we have left in our plan the three
per cent tax on telephones, as on page 1 of
the estimate that is on every hon. member's
desk at the present time.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of
Energy Resources): Would the hon. member
allow me to ask him a question about that?
Mr. Whicher: Yes, I would.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I am a little con-
fused by the list as to whether this is tele-
phone calls, or whether it is on the service
charge of the telephone company for the
rental of the equipment during the month.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
members will see, at the present time under
the Conservative plan the government is col-
lecting $4.5 million in sales tax. We will
collect exactly the same amount. I am sure
that will answer the question. There will
be no change; it will be exactly the same.
Hon, Mr. Macaulay: Let us be fair about
it. I am just trying to clarify your position.
I do not know whether this is telephone
calls. The hon. member is talking about
telephone calls but I do not think the Act
does provide a tax on telephone calls, but
simply on the service charge. That is my
first point. Is this not correct?
The second point is that most telephone
service charges are under $25, and I do not
think you can compare these.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, what the hon.
Minister has said is quite correct; but we
are saying that we will exempt everything
under $25, with the exception of telephone
calls, with the exception of the tax on cigar-
ettes, with the exception of the tax on liquor
and on meals for $1.50 and more. I am sure
that will answer the question.
As far as we are concerned, and I say this
to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) in
absolute sincerity, and with factuality, we
will not be changing the amount of tax that
we collect from telephones by one single
copper. We will take exactly, as his experts
tell him, $4.5 milHon on telephones in the
year when we get in next.
The housing and construction industry.
Mr. Speaker, the facts are this: under the
Conservative plan at the present time there
will be— and these are government figures-
there will be taxable amounts of $900 mil-
lion in the construction industry for the next
12 months. At three per cent on $900 mil-
lion, you will collect $27 million in taxes.
Mr. Speaker, we will collect exactly $27 mil-
lion too because all this construction and
housing amounts are amounts of $25 and
over and therefore we will collect $27 mil-
lion.
In machinery and equipment, according
to government figures, there will $450 mil-
lion spent which will be taxable in the next
12 months. We will collect exactly the same
amount, which according to the govern-
ment's own figures are $13.5 million, which
together with the extension of liquor, m»als,
telephone and tobacco, brings in a total of
$94 million in taxes under a sales tax with
figures that are identical to the government's.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with all due re-
spect to the hon. Prime Minister, I say to
him how could he sincerely stand up in the
House this afternoon and not only attempt to
lead the hon. members of this House astray,
but the newspapers and the people of this
province, when he says that we would only
collect $52 million, while in reality we are
collecting— from those amounts themselves
448
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which are identical to the Conservative plan
—$94 million. If these are not misstatements
then I do not know what misstatements are.
Not only did he attempt to mislead the
public, but as the leader of the government
in this province, he showed complete irre-
sponsibility in bringing forth figures Hke he
did this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, we are collecting $40 million
in the construction and machinery and equip-
ment industry. We are collecting $40 million
from that, $28 million from the automobile,
furniture and appliance industries.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: If the hon. member
would look at Bill No. 47— let us straighten
this out. Bill No. 47 says that he is not going
to tax anything under $25. Then he talks
about meals at $1.50, liquor, bottled beer
and tobacco and tobacco products. Now, he
does not exempt, therefore, telephone calls,
does he?
Mr. Whicher: No.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Therefore, they are
taxable. But all of them are under $25, so
how can you tax them?
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): The bill was drawn with great
care.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker: the point is
that the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
(Mr. Macaulay), whom all of us respect in
this House for his natural ability, has not
been in this House for the last three days
and has lost contact, and for the first time
in my life I must say in a kindly way that
he is slightly confused. Not as confused, I
must say, as the hon. Prime Minister was
this afternoon, because he was very much
confused.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, but the hon. mem-
ber has not answered the question.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): No,
he has not answered it.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well^ if he is not
confused, let him answer it.
Mr. Whicher: Well, as a matter of fact,
I am not the least bit confused. I have not
got the Act in front of me, I have ovur own
statement, which is absolutely correct.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Here, give the hon.
member a copy of the Act.
Mr. Whicher: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want
to carry on a little bit further. Inasmuch as
it is definitely proven by figures that are
compiled by, I assure the hon. Prime Minister,
by experts we are collecting $94 million
without changing the situation whatsoever, is
it not reasonable to presume that we can
collect another $21 million from the many
other things that will be taxed that are not
under the construction industry, the housing
industry, the automobile, furniture and appli-
ance industries?
First, I put jewellery, we have not even
mentioned that. We say, on page 1 of our
submission, that in clothing and jewellery
under your plan you will collect $11.7 million,
and under our plan we will collect $4.8
million.
Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that when a per-
son goes in a jewellery store and buys a $1
item he makes a lot of work for the jeweller
in collecting this tax and an inconvenience
for the man paying the tax? Is it not true
that if a person goes in and buys a $2,500
ring that the jeweller collects just as much
tax under our plan as he would in 2,500
dijfferent entries of $1 apiece under the gov-
ernment's plan?
Mr. Speaker, is it not true that such things
as diamond rings are all over $25, such things
as watches—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, no. Not all of
them.
Mr. Whicher: A great many of them. I
might say that all those people who ran for
the leadership campaign, according to what
they spent, have watches worth far more than
$25. And I might say that all their wives did
the same with diamonds— a girl's best friend.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Prime
Minister was sincere— I gfve him credit for
this much anyway— he said that he would let
his experts talk to us. We will certainly
welcome that and we say that by bringing in
this sensible plan that we will be bringing a
little bit of order to the small business people
of the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime Minister said
that if you had exemptions you would in-
crease cost. Well, now, under our plan 75
per cent of those businessmen in the province
of Ontario who are aflFected by the retail sales
tax would have nothing whatsoever to do with
it any more. To me it is a ridiculous situa-
tion when the leader of a province stands up
and gives such an irresponsible address as he
did this afternoon.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, as a matter
of privilege, the hon. member says in one
breath that I am prepared to let our experts
DECEMBER 14, 1961
449
get together on these figures to find out who
is right, and in the other breath he says I am
irresponsible. Now, the two things do not
jibe. I am quite prepared to submit com-
putations on these figures to examination. I
have made this ofiFer. As a matter of personal
privilege I do not see where any irresponsi-
bility comes in. I could say the same thing
about the hon. member's speech.
An hon. member: The hon. Prime Minister
did.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: If I did, I apologize.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, what I did say
to the hon. members of this House was that
the hon. Prime Minister was half responsible,
he was half right this afternoon, sincere in
one place.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there
will be other things said about this tax, and
as far as I am concerned I am perfectly will-
ing to take the word of the hon. Prime Min-
ister that he will allow his experts to sit down
with ours and examine this situation. I assure
him that the small businessmen who are com-
piling this tax every month to send in a few
cents or a few dollars to the hon. Treasurer
will be frankly relieved if he does allow this
to proceed to its proper conclusion.
Yesterday, I said that in spite of the fact
that we have a sales tax of $150 million this
year, the province of Ontario, according to the
hon. Treasurer's own figures, is going into
an additional deficit of $180 million this year.
To us on this side of the House this is a start-
ling revelation that was given to us in the
budget speech last year.
We remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this year
out of the revenues of the province of Ontario
$45 million are going for the payment of
interest on the public debt alone. We remind
the hon. members of this House, Mr. Speaker,
that in the time of a former Prime Minister of
this House, that great leader the hon. Mitchell
Hepburn, that the budget of this province was
only twice what the interest now costs you.
We are worried because of the fact that
with your deficit budgeting this year there is
going to be a further $9 milHon increase in
the interest paid this year. In other words, if
you are paying $45 million this year for inter-
est, next year you will be paying $54 million.
Our question, Mr. Speaker, is simply this.
Where is this going to end? When are you
going to bring in to us a sensible plan that
is used by successful businesses in the prov-
ince of Ontario and indeed throughout the
world? You cannot go on continually spend-
ing without knowing some time when you are
going to be able to reduce this great debt that
is around our necks and will be a great mort-
gage on our children and on our grand-
children in years to come.
We are very, very sincere in this observa-
tion. For example, the other day in the com-
mittee on energy which the hon. Minister of
Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay) did not
have the opportunity of attending, we pointed
out that while we appreciated the fact that
over the last 50 years Hydro has done a great
job in providing lights and electricity to the
people of the province of Ontario, neverthe-
less when you consider the fact that at the
present time they owe $1.75 billion to the
people of this province and to bond holders
scattered all over this continent, that they
only have perhaps $2 billion plus in assets,
we appreciate that great burden and a great
tax to the people of this province when they
have to pay the interest on this debt.
And so great is this interest and so much
of the expenses of this government and of
Hydro have gone up, that we are gradually
pricing ourselves out of the market.
The other day in the energy committee my
hon. colleague from Niagara Falls (Mr. Buka-
tor) told the story that at least two industries
in this province have moved out and did not
establish themselves here because of the fact
that Ontario Hydro was not able to give a
comparable rate to the hydro cost oflFered by
our sister province of Quebec.
An hon. member: Was that the only
reason?
Mr. Whicher: That was the reason that was
given to us. To us, Mr. Speaker, this is a
starthng revelation and while appreciating the
fact that there are many things that come
into the development of such a great
organization as the province of Ontario or
as Ontario Hydro, nevertheless we are
worried that these costs have gradually got
out of hand and that the government opposite
has done nothing about it whatsoever.
I might compare, for example, the debt
of Ontario Hydro, comparing it to its assets,
to something like this. They have approxi-
mate assets of $2 billion and approximate
gross debts of $1.75 billion. I might compare
it to a small business man, or this would be
a medium sized business man, I think, who
had a business worth $100,000 and who
owed $87,500 as opposed to the $100,000.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no businessman
could go to the banks or to the bonding
organizations and get this amount of money
450
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
when he only had assets of $100,000. I sug-
gest that this has gone too far and that this
government should show leadership and do
something about these things.
I am not going to take much longer but
I just want to mention this point. Very
shortly in this province, we are going to have
five by-elections. In these by-elections I have
an idea what the hon. Prime Minister and his
colleagues are going to say. They are going
to go into these constituencies and they are
going to make what is known as "election
promises". There is no question about it
whatsoever. They have been making election
promises for the last 16 or 17 years.
An hon. member: 20 years!
Mr. A. Johnson (Parry Sound): And we are
going to make them good.
Mr. Whicher: Inasmuch as they are the
government in power, people have a tendency
to believe that perhaps they might be able to
put up some big building if their member
was elected— or perhaps they might be able
to build a road through this certain con-
stituency. But I want, Mr. Speaker, the
people who are aflFected in these by-elections
to remember some of the past records— re-
member that they promised, as far as roads
are concerned, that highway 401 was going
to be completed in a certain number of years,
and it has not been finished yet.
I want to remind the people in areas like
Owen Sound that the government promised
a hospital there 10 years ago and only now
have they started to build it. These things
take a great deal of time, but I will tell you,
Mr. Speaker, one thing that we will promise
the people in these constituencies if they
elect a Tory government. We promise them
this much— that inasmuch as they have gotten
this country into such a financial mess-
inasmuch as at the present time they owe
over one bilhon dollars in net debt in this
province— we can promise that under a Tory
regime the people will get nothing but higher
taxes.
Mr. Speaker, two years ago in the budget
debate I prophesied to this House that the
Conservative government would bring in a
sales tax last year— which they did. I now
prophesy, Mr. Speaker, that if a Conservative
government is still in power in the next year
or two years, and certainly five years, that
the sales tax will be increased from 3 to 5
per cent— and if they are honest, they will
admit it.
I further prophesy that inasmuch as finan-
cial houses are going to force this govern-
ment to bring their financial aflFairs into a
state of order— that inasmuch as in spite of a
sales tax, they are going in debt this year to
the tune of $180 million— they will bring in
a provincial income tax. Because unless the
government brings some economy and effi-
ciency into the departments, the government
is going to be forced to do it because the
banking houses are not going to keep up
loaning the money forever.
Our highway system in this province is at
least five years behind the times— here, for
example, they built highway 401 to go around
the city of Toronto and today— where is it?
It is right through the city.
Your highways are at least five years be-
hind the times! Therefore, I prophesy that
the gasoline tax will be increased very shortly
if this government remains in power.
These are the things that I can actually
promise the people who are aflFected by these
by-elections if tbe Conservative government
remains in power.
Mr. G. E. Gomme (Lanark): Let the hon.
member promise them what he will do.
Mr. Whicher: I will tell the hon. member
what we will do, Mr. Speaker. All you have
to do is look what happened in Ottawa. The
diflFerence between a Tory and a Liberal
government is this: we promised to give
responsible government and to balance the
budget. Perhaps I might be taking words
out of my federal colleagues' mouths now
—we promise that we are not going to allow
people to continually draw money from the
unemployment insurance fund just for the
sake of getting votes— for example, ladies who
happen to be pregnant drawing money out of
this fund for months and months and months,
when they are unable to work. It is not a
pension fund.
We promise that we are not going to
allow people to draw hundreds of millions of
dollars out of this fund. When our Liberal
colleagues in Ottawa left there was $900
million in the fund. Now in spite of increased
amounts that the employee and the employer
have put into the fund, you have only $150
million left.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we promise
responsible actions. Not only, I would say,
from we who are privileged at the present
time to sit in the Opposition, but once again
when the Liberal government is returned to
Ottawa, a responsible government there— that
will bring this country from the lackadaisical
DECEMBER 14, 1961
451
manner in which we are doing business today
to once again bringing it to one of the forward
countries of the world.
Mr. W. B. Lewis (York-Humber): Mr.
Speaker, once again it is my privilege to com-
pliment you on the fair and able manner in
which you conduct your very responsible
position.
Many times the exuberance, or whatever
you may call it, of quite a few hon. members
of this House, would try the patience of Job.
Therefore, it is quite apparent you have more
patience than that historical figure. Because
very quickly you put out the fires of over-
enthusiasm and restore order once again to
this august body.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): When did
Job take part in this debate?
Mr. Lewis: Oh, we have everybody on our
side of the House.
An hon. member: He thinks the Tories are
divine now.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, just over a year
ago I had the honour to be appointed by the
administration as a member of the Ontario
Hospital Services Commission.
In the intervening months I have been able
to observe and to take some part in the
operation of this huge enterprise and more
especially to participate with other members
of the commission in deciding matters of
policy.
Needless to say, I was impressed with the
work accomphshed by the commission and
with the immensity of the day-to-day duties
which it is carrying on.
The commission has two basic responsi-
bilities: (a) to ensure the development
throughout Ontario of a balanced and
integrated system of hospitals and related
health faciUties, and (b) to operate the
Ontario hospital insurance plan which now
serves over 95 per cent of the people of
Ontario.
It is a matter of pride to me to be asso-
ciated with a government body which is
conducted with such high standards and
businesslike efficiency.
One cannot help but observe the fund
of information presented to the commission
by the management concerned with any
hospital building project. Indeed, this occurs
with respect to any other item brought up for
approval. Each item is discussed with care
by the members of the commission before
decision is made.
There is often criticism of governments
and of government commissions as to the
conduct of their affairs but I can assure the
Legislature and the people of Ontario, that
they may be confident as to the job which
is being done for them by the commission
and by its very substantial body of employees.
As so many members of this House are
aware, the Ontario Hospital Services Com-
mission is currently conducting a business
handling over $200 million a year. Most
of us here are of limited means, and figures
of this size make Httle impact. However,
I might mention that this sum is twice the
cost of running the affairs of the entire prov-
ince a couple of decades ago.
Our estimate is that well over one million
hospital patients will have their bills paid
under the insurance plan, the total cost of
which will be about $224.5 million.
For 1962 our estimate is that the cost
will reach $263.8 million.
These accounts do not include cost of the
province for patient care in tuberculosis
sanatoria and mental hospitals. These services
are also available without cost to insured
persons but they are not included in the
figures I quoted, because they are paid for
out of a separate fund.
The true value of the work being accom-
plished by the commission goes far beyond
the actual dollars paid out for hospital care.
I refer, of course, to the tremendous peace
of mind which is given to every insured
person and family.
The elimination of the staggering and
catastrophic hospital expenses, which other-
wise could be a burden on the backs of so
many of our citizens who require prolonged
hospital care and treatment, cannot be
measured as to peace of mind.
Every month more than 90,000 people of
this province have their hospital bills paid
under the Ontario hospital insurance plan.
These figures represent twice the population
of a good many middle-sized cities in the
Dominion of Canada. Some of the bills run
into thousands of dollars but that is one of
the reasons why we have the plan.
The commission is not content to permit
the scope of the hospital insurance plan to
remain static. For instance, in an effort to
see what value there may be in discharging
certain patients earlier and completing their
treatment at home, the commission is partici-
pating in a pilot plan of post-hospital home
care. This is being carried on in Metropolitan
Toronto. When this two-year experiment is
completed, the results will point the direction
452
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
towards which the commission should go
regarding insurance benefits for such home
care.
As another step toward making the best
possible use of our in-patient hospital beds,
the commission has applied for legislation to
allow it to provide hospital insurance benefits
to cover the hospital charges for certain
conditions which can be treated on a short
stay basis, and when such treatment would
make it unnecessary for the patient to be
admitted to hospital and remain overnight.
Other such improvements will undoubtedly
be made from time to time.
Hospital insurance is but one of the re-
sponsibilities of the commission. A very
thorough job of analyzing the province's
needs for hospital beds is under way. The
commission studies not only how many beds
but what kind and where.
I scarcely need add that this involves a
continuing and detailed programme of re-
search and consultation so that an educated
approach may be taken to the various prob-
lems.
Thus, we are trying to determine that the
right bed will be in the right place and that
the right patient will be in the right bed.
The commission is conscious of the need
to have our hospital beds properly distributed.
Our aim is to ensure that active treatment
beds are occupied by patients requiring active
treatment. They should not be occupied
by patients who should be in hospitals for
the chronically ill.
Again, active treatment beds should not be
a form of accommodation which is equally
well supplied in homes for the aged. Hospital
construction is not a mere matter of providing
more beds. The hospital bed must have
behind it all the scientific faciUties along with
a highly trained personnel required to make
it an effective instrument of healing.
I might interject my opinion that if the
province had an adequate supply of what
we term domiciliary accommodation such as
is found in homes for the aged, the commis-
sion's job would be made much easier and
there would be a saving of millions of dollars
of the people's money.
Perhaps here I should say that there has
been during the life of this government an
immense improvement in the quantity and the
quality of accommodation in oui homes for
the aged. This has been made possible by
the generous scale of grants provided fed-
erally and provincially.
At the end of 1960, Ontario had a rated
hospital bed capacity of 37,835 or 6.2 per
1,000 of population. My information is that
6.25 to 6.5 beds per thousand of population
is an adequate standard on the average
throughout the community. Our problems
arise in the distribution of beds mainly in
large centres such as Metropolitan Toronto.
In this huge Metropolitan area we have ex-
perienced a tremendous local population ex-
plosion resulting in a local shortage of
hospital beds.
Over the past 12 or 13 months I have
learned with emphasis what I already knew,
namely, that health care is costly. The com-
mission has numerous specialized consulting
services. It has a rate board which is very
cost conscious. It is, I can assure you, doing
everything possible to control the cost of
hospital care in Ontario. Yet there are certain
increases which are inevitable. These are not
new nor are they confined to Ontario. They
have been in evidence for over a decade and
a half throughout Canada, the United States
and elsewhere.
I shall not weary you with detail, but I
would say that hospitals, like industries, and
perhaps in greater degree, have been paying
more and more throughout the years for
nearly everything they buy. It may be
supplies, drugs or labour, but the cost trend
has been steadily upward.
It must be remembered that close to 70
per cent of the cost of operating hospitals
is in salaries and wages. For many years the
hospital industry, if I may term it that, was
very much behind general industry in the
wages it paid. Now, however, hospitals are
catching up and the rates of pay have almost
reached parity with the wages of other
similar employers in the community.
It is natural enough that everyone would
like to see the day that the cost of all types of
health care could be paid out of some huge
gold-filled bottomless barrel. This would
indeed usher in a Utopia of health care for
the people of this province.
However, I must join in the cautioning
remarks of our esteemed former Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Frost) when he oflBcially opened
the Ontario Hospital Services Commission
headquarters building. On this occasion he
said in profound truth— "Money does not
grow on trees."
There are definite limits to what we can
afford in the field of public welfare. No prov-
ince, I think, has done more than Ontario to
see that state assistance is made available in
whatsoever form to those who temporarily
or permanently need state assistance. We
pay for or participate in paying for old age
assistance, pensions for the blind, allowances
DECEMBER 14, 1961
453
for dependent mothers and children, allow-
ances for unemployables, and we also give
on an unprecedented scale for the operation
of homes for the aged.
There are limits to what the economy will
stand in this direction and there are limits
to what the people are willing to pay.
In the past decade or two, we have
launched and we are paying for generous
welfare measures and we must be careful
about rushing too far and too fast into new
fields of state assistance however worthy they
may be.
We have, I think, a wonderful thing going
for the people of Ontario in the Ontario
Hospital Services Commission. We must
keep an open mind toward the idea of
greater health protection for the people of
this province. Yet we must take careful
thought, as I see it, before we commit the
people to greater protection. However desir-
able it may be, we must not impose upon the
tax-paying public a burden beyond their
limit to bear.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will say "30" to this
rather short address, and through you, Mr.
Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members
for their attention.
One more item, Mr. Speaker. In the spirit
of the festive season, fast approaching, I
would suggest to all my hon. friends in the
Opposition that they remove from their
hearts that satanic reprobate, "Old Nick" and
replace him with that "Friendly old soul.
Saint Nick"— so that they may enjoy a very
merry Christmas and come back to this
House in the new year, refreshed, and more
able to do battle with this great group, the
Tory government of the province of Ontario,
Canada's banner province.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to make some remarks in the speech
from the Throne debate, I would indeed be
remiss in my duty if I did not offer my con-
gratulations to you in the way that you have
performed the duties of your office. I know,
of course, from past experiences, that it is
trying at times to be impartial, but we on
this side of the House feel, sir, that you have
made every effort to be impartial and for that
we congratulate you and are willing, of
course, to bow to your ruling, whatever that
ruling may be, because we know that from
you will not come any unjust rulings.
In commencing my remarks this afternoon
I should, of course, pay some attention to
the happenings of recent months that have
changed the landscape on the other side of
the House. These events seem to cry out for
some comment, perhaps some satire, perhaps
just comment unvarnished.
I was thinking as I listened to some of the
government speakers that sometimes change
is not for the better; one cannot always count
on it. So far as the government is concerned,
I am reminded very much of the man who
vacated the chair of the Prime Minister of the
province. It had to be vacated before this
event took place.
He was a very shrewd leader of govern-
ment in this province for a great many years.
One thing that he always seemed to have on
his side, and working for him, was time.
Many of his great moves were almost timed
to the second, one would think.
Sometimes we thought he was lucky, other
times of course that he was deliberate in
guessing the correct time. But whatever be
the reason, he had the faculty of picking the
best time possible for the major events of
his political career. So far as elections were
concerned, and by-elections, he was a master
of timing. That much we have to say for
him, even though begrudgingly, we have to
say he was a master at timing right up to
the last.
I think his last great exhibition of proper
timing was when he resigned as leader of
the government. That just goes to show what
a master timer he was. He had gone along
as long as he could, and he had reached the
place where the clouds were gathering on
the horizon— visible signs of disunity that
even he could no longer control. So in the
true spirit of the laird of Lindsay, he once
more timed it accurately and resigned.
I often wonder about a certain statement
that the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost)
made when he was being pressed to call two
by-elections in the city of Toronto, two seats
that had become vacant by the deaths of
members. He made what I thought was the
most astonishing excuse for not calling these
by-elections. He said that he would not call
the by-elections until a redistribution of the
metropolitan seats had taken place. That
was not like the hon. member for Victoria;
and one, at that time, could read of the inten-
tions he had in mind. The reason he made
that statement, of course, was that he knew
he was going to resign and he knew that it
would take him over the time when he would
have to call a by-election.
The timing of this last great political act
was so accurate that he who runs may read.
It is not difficult to qualify that as a great
act of good timing.
454
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am reminded— and I had the opportunity
to look back in the pages of history and find
other examples of good timing, particularly on
the part of Tory prime ministers. I remember
back in the early 1930*s another example of
good timing, when the Tory prime minister
of the day faced with obstacles that he
could not overcome or control, relinquished
the reins of leadership to Mr. Henry and
allowed Mr. Henry to be the scapegoat and
to be the filler-in until the avalanche would
come— as the avalanche did come, of course,
in 1934. History has a habit of repeating
itself, and an exact replica of what happened
in 1934 is about to happen in this government.
The "laird from Lindsay", a great politician
if ever there was one, resigned when he
knew that the going was getting tough; and
he put in his place, or there was put in his
place— let us be fair about that— a young
inexperienced man to carry the brunt of battle
over the most difficult of times. The hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) is serving in
exactly the same position and for exactly the
same purposes and to exactly the same end
as Mr. Henry served prior to 1934.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
They have not got a Hepburn.
Mr. Oliver: Our excitable doctor from the
hinterlands of Ontario county is going to have
the opportunity of speaking in a few moments
and he can make his speech then.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, but the Opposition
has not got a Mitch.
Mr. Oliver: If the government had a Mitch
here now I would not feel so certain of its
doom.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. Oliver: This is an opportunity to make
some comments on this situation, and I want
to be as charitable as ever I can be.
Mr. G. W. Parry (Kent West): For a long
time, eh?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, more charitable perhaps
than I have been for a long time. But I want
to say— and this is a considered judgment, it
is an opinion that has been weighed and then
weighed again— that when one looks at the
picture across the way, there is not any sign
of improvement.
I remember one time when we had an
implement of production on the farm and
it was almost worn out, and so the hired man
said, "We will get a new piece to put on
this machine." He thought it would be the
economical thing to do. Well, we found out
in our experience that the new piece would
not fit at all on the old machine and it was
just a complete wastage of money. And it will
be a complete wastage of whatever talents
my hon. friend possesses to try to mix them in
with the lack of talent that is so apparent on
the other side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a while this
afternoon on the subject of agriculture. It is
not a strange subject for me to talk on and
I think we are at a time when some plain
talking needs to be done about the industry of
agriculture. I say quite frankly that I think
agriculture today stands at the crossroads, and
it depends on whether the government appre-
ciates that position, whether they will go on
to their proper destiny or whether they will
go backwards in this province.
There is the thought in the statement of the
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) this
afternoon, and I enjoyed the remarks that he
made, perfectly timed as they were, not earth-
shaking by any sense or any stretch of the
imagination but timed to meet a particular
situation. The only trouble was that the
ingredients of that speech were not such as
would meet any situation. It was merely a
recital of normal and ordinary change within
the departmental set-up itself.
He told us this afternoon that Dr. Graham
had retired. All of us in this House, irrespec-
tive of which side of the House we sit on, are,
I think, indeed grateful to Dr. Graham for
the contribution that he made over the years
in the cause of agriculture. We regret that he
is being retired and we hope that the one
who takes his place, Mr. Biggs, will live up to
the fine example, fine standard of service, that
was rendered by Dr. Graham.
But what I wanted to point out to the hon.
Minister was that in his remarks this after-
noon he simply gave notice of a shake-up
within the department itself, a change in the
departmental structure, a reshuffling of depart-
mental personnel. That is not what the
farmers want in this province from this gov-
ernment; that is not what they have a right
to expect, even from this Tory administration.
They are not going to be satisfied with a
shuffling of administrative posts. What they
are demanding, and what they have a right to
expect, is the emanation of new policies com-
ing out of The Department of Agriculture that
will meet the needs of Ontario farmers.
In my hon. friend's statement this after-
noon there was no evidence of new pohcy,
none whatever. It was simply a reshuffling of
DECEMBER 14, 1961
455
what had gone on and a re-arranging of the
personnel within the department. No indica-
tion fell from the lips of my hon. friend as to
what he was going to do to meet the per-
plexing problems that the farmers have— no
intimation at all, just as there has never been
any intimation from his predecessor as how
to meet the crucial farm problems in Ontario.
I am going to elaborate, perhaps at some
length, this afternoon to show what, in my
judgment, are some of the main problems
facing agriculture; and I hope to be able to
show that the government has been lax, very
lax indeed, in coming to grips with these
problems and in presenting a solution thereto.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
Prime Minister would allow me, to adjourn
the debate at this time, if he does not mind.
I wanted to start on the main part of my
remarks now, but it is almost 5.50 o'clock.
Mr. Oliver moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: It being 6 o'clock, I do now
leave the chair and will resume at 8 p.m.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 18
ONTARIO
Hegisflature of Ontario
Betiateg
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty^Sixth Legislature
Thursday, December 14, 1961
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C*
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, December 14, 1961
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Dymond,
Mr. Sopha ...-. 459
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Cowling, agreed to 488
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 488
>' :i - !•', .,. •■)'■. :. I
m
vi» V
490
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8:00 o'clock, p.m.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr. Speaker,
when you recognized the time of six o'clock,
I was trying to bring my thoughts together to
embark on the body of my speech. I want
to say to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) that it was very courteous on his
part to recognize that a quarter to six was
really six; it helped me a lot because I did
not know that I was coming on so soon and
I did not have my speech ready. The dinner
recess has provided me with the opportunity
of preparing in detail a consolidated attack
upon the government, particularly in relation
to their agricultural policy— or their lack of
agricultural policy.
Mr. Speaker, I have no apology for devot-
ing the major part— in fact all of my remarks
—toward the plight of the agricultural indus-
try, because all of us have seen in the papers
these last few weeks that the net income of
the man who toils on the farm is less now
than it has ever been. It is perhaps no more
than a coincidence that the time when these
figures are true, is the one and same time
when there is a Tory government in Ontario,
and another one at Ottawa. I am not suggest-
ing at the moment that there is more than
mere coincidence to the fact. But it so
happens that it is true. If the Tory govern-
ment here and at Ottawa want to regain a
measure of farm support in this province—
and in the Dominion as a whole— they will
have to revamp, revitalize and rearrange their
agricultural policy so that it becomes more in
harmony with the needs of the people who
live oh the farms.
In my argument tonight I want to list a
number of factors which, I think, provide
the answer to what is the trouble with the
agricultural industry. It is true that the
people who live on the farms are less by far
in numbers than they were 10, 15 or 20
years ago. It is true the economists say that,
as the years weld into, one another, the
Thursday, December 14, 1961
numbers of these people will become even
less. But it is nevertheless true, in spite of
that assertion, that those who toil the good
acres of this province still produce as much,
or more of agricultural wealth— and con-
sequently of provincial wealth— than when
their numbers were twice as many as they
are now. The position of the farmer— though
he be less in number than in years gone by—
in relation to the provincial economy and
the contribution that he makes to provincial
revenues, is greater now than it ever was.
We want to be sure that, in dealing with
the farm problem, we have those important
factors in mind. Sometimes I think we are
prone to think that because the number of
farmers are growing less, therefore his in-
fluence in the provincial sphere or in the
national sphere, decreases with the decrease
in numbers of farmers. That, of course, is
quite untrue. With technological advances
the farmer is able to produce many times
more than he did in the years gone by, so
that fewer farmers are making a greater con-
tribution to provincial economy and to pro-
vincial revenues.
Bearing that in mind, I want to trace— I do
not know how long it will take me to trace
it, but however long it takes, I want to
employ that tune to say to the House that,
in my judgment we as provincial legislators,
and the government in particular, are miss-
ing the main problem of agricultural people
—and have failed miserably, I suggest— and I
will reiterate that time and again as I go
along— have failed miserably to meet, head
on, the problems of the industry as such.
I want to start, Mr. Speaker, by reading
the report of a meeting held in the Royal
York hotel on Saturday, December 9. The
heading of that report says: "Predicts Mass
Failure of Broiler Producers". Hon. niembers
who live in city ridings may not be immedi-
ately aware of what a broiler producer is,
but when you go to the restaurants and see
a special on the menu "Chicken at a very
reasonable price," it is the result of the chaos
that presently exists, in the broiler industry.
460
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This article is by Eldon Stonehouse and it
says:
The president of the Ontario Egg Pro-
ducers' Association predicted yesterday that
96 per cent of the province's broiler pro-
ducers would go out of business during the
coming year.
Not 10 or 20 per cent, but 96 per cent of
the broiler producers would go out of busi-
ness during the coming year.
Thomas Robson of Leamington, speak-
ing at a members' meeting of the Ontario
Federation of Agriculture at the Royal
York hotel, warned that this might be
the last winter for a majority of the 1,000
broiler producers in this province. He
predicted that, within a year, three or four
per cent of the operators would be left to
carry on.
Further, he warned, the invasion of the
egg production field by vertical integrators
was likely to bring similar dangers to
farmers in this field.
He goes on to explain what he means by
vertical integration, and I think, for the
information of hon. members of the House
who are other than farmers, it might be well
if I read this chapter, which says:
Vertical integration refers to farm opera-
tions in which a firm or an individual
provides livestock, feed and other material
and pays the farmer a fee or a percentage
of profits for his labour. It can also apply
to vegetables and other production.
Mr. Robson, the president of the egg pro-
ducers, went on to say that, in one case, a
hatchery had provided hens, feed, veterinary
care and everything but buildings and day-to-
day labour. The farmer had cost of the
flock and other items charged against his
account, but the cheques for eggs went to
the hatchery. "Yet," Mr. Robson said,
"farmers have been convinced they could pay
for their buildings in three years." He added,
"That is absolute nonsense." And he further
added:
If we get five or six of these operations
going, we'll be out of business.
I want to pause there to make one or
two observations in regard to the broiler
industry, and draw one or two conclusions
from the predicament in which these people
find themselves. You hear it said— indeed, I
think, perhaps some from The Department
of Agriculture have said— that what we need
in this province are larger operations with
greater efficiency. Then the farmer will come
. put on top. Now surely, Mr. Speaker, in the
broiler industry there were large operations
and the greatest possible efficiency. There
was a combination that, we sometimes say,
leads to successful farming operation; a big
operation and efficiency attendant on that
operation.
Of course, these two ingredients have
meant ruin to the broiler industry. I do not
think anyone could argue that the size of the
operation, plus the efficiency attached thereto,
guarantees success to the agricultural people
of this province. It really has very little to do
with it.
The other thing I want to draw from read-
ing that pamphlet is this: in one instance the
hatchery supplied everything to the farmer,
the farmer was simply a servant— a man who
was doing labour for an outside large organiz-
ation—in this instance the hatchery supplied
everything. In other instances, the feed com-
panies supply everything to the farmer.
Now, this is a tendency that is growing up
in our agricultural areas throughout this
province.
Gradually— but as surely as we stand in
this House tonight— the farmer is being
shoved out of his legitimate field of produc-
tion and into that field comes the sinister
hand of the processor— the large operator.
I want hon. members to remember that as
I move from this phase of my argument to
another one.
That has to do with the canning industry
in this province. I remember my hon. friend
from Prince Edward county (Mr. Whitney)
last year giving hon. members some idea of
what is going on in the canning industry.
Not only is it going on in Prince Edward
county and adjacent counties, it is going on
in the Leamington and the Windsor area.
This is what is happening: for generations
farmers in the Leamington, Windsor and
Prince Edward county area have contracted
with the canneries to supply the raw material
for the product that they produce. They
supply tomatoes by the ten-acre field and
perhaps more. They contracted with the
cannery to take those tomatoes and make
them into canned tomatoes— put them in cans
to serve on the consumer's table. They con-
tracted with the processor for peas and for
com and for other vegetables.
Into this field today is coming what I
consider to be a sinister influence. The
canner himself is moving into the field of
production and is buying the land which
once was owned by men who supplied him
with raw material. He is buying this farm
and that one; after a plan, mind you, not
DECEMBER 14, 1961
461
in a haphazard way at all, but after a well
defined pattern.
He is buying these fields from men and
women who had tilled them for generations
and in the place of those who had provided
the product in days gone by the cannery
now provides the product on land that they
own or rent.
Gradually but surely, and more speedily
than any of us, I think, would want, the
canneries are moving into the field of pro-
duction in a well organized plan to eventually
take over production as well as processing
of vegetable products in this province.
That, of course, is true of the canning
industry. It also has been true of the hog
industry, as my hon. friend, the former
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Good-
fellow), will know.
A few years ago, we had big operators
producing hogs by the thousands in buildings
sitting on an acre or so of land. Producing
more hogs on that acre of land than 25 of my
farmers who pay four or five hundred dollars
taxes to the township each year. More than
they would produce in the aggregate— in this
one building sitting on an acre of land and
paying very little municipal or other taxes-
many more hogs than 25 farmers would
produce.
Of course, into that picture come these
influences; the packing house company un-
questionably has been a factor in this proce-
dure. The canning company, the hatchery,
the feed company; all of them have moved
into the production field, out of their legiti-
mate field of processing.
I would like to argue with the House— as
rationally as I can— that the day has come
in this province when we should use whatever
power we possess in a legislative capacity to
say kindly to these processors, in the first
place: "You have a field that you occupied for
many years. Go back to that field and stay
there." If that kindly reminder is not suffi-
cient, then the powers of this Legislature
should be used in the field of licence or per-
mits or subsidy— or one of the many other
ways in which this Legislature could assert its
influence— to bring back to the farmer his
inherent right to produce products on his own
farm in this province.
I want to make this argument, and I want
to say before I make it, that I have-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): How
do you equate that—
Mr. Oliver: The hon. member should be
quiet. The hon. member has had his say
today and that is plenty.
I want to make this argument and to make
it as quietly as I can. I have an appreciation,
perhaps a keen one, of the job that the proces-
sor has done in this province, whether that
processor be a meat packer or a canning house
owner or a hatchery owner or a feed owner.
The milling companies have contributed much
to the economy of this province, but when
they go out of their field— as they are going
out of their field now, and invading the field
of production— I suggest to this House that
the time has come— indeed it is right here now
—for government, if they have the interest
of the farmer at heart, to take measures of a
drastic character.
This government has no notion of doing
that, of course. I want to carry my argument
on and say this: I would say to processors that;
they are occupying their present position on
sufferance. They are sitting there using squat-
ters' rights— if you want to use that term-
Mr. H. M. Allen (Middlesex South): That
is the way they do it in Russia.
Mr. Oliver: The hon. member can say that
if he likes. I do not think there is any con-
nection with Russia at all. That is a not very
intelligent remark from a not very intelligent
person.
I want this to be heard: The producers of
agricultural products in my judgment— and I
think in the judgment of most men here— have
the right, and I think that right is inherent in
the farming industry, to follow their product
if they should choose to, right from the farmer
to the consumer's table.
That right may not be written in the con-
stitution. It may be difficult to find any legal
backing for that statement, but surely the
man who grows hogs on his farm, who grows
tomatoes, who grows other things— surely, if
that man, either alone or collectively, wants to
follow his products through to the consumer's
table he has an inherent right to do so.
Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I think what
I said before follows automatically— that pro-
cessors as such are there on sufferance. They
are there as the service arm of agriculture.
They are there, I say again, to render service
in a limited field— the field of processing.
When they step outside the boundaries of that
field, they are going into a field in which they
have no right, and in which— if we allow them
to proceed— they will ruin the agricultural
industry of this province, without giving any
benefit to the consumers of the province.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear my farmer
friends speaking up for the fanner over
in this corner. I am sure they will be glad
to know, down in that part of the country.
462
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: We want the hon. mem-
ber to equate it with his concept of free
enterprise, that is all.
Mr. Oliver: I do not care whether the hon.
member calls it free enterprise at all. It just
happens to be a conviction that I have and
he can put any label on it he hkes; I do not
give two hoots.
I want to speak for a moment on what is
known as the family farm. There has been
a big argument going on as to whether the
family farm is an efficient form of operation.
There are those who say that we have got to
have a large acreage now, in order to make a
living on the farm. I am one of those who be-
lieve that a large acreage does not necessarily
mean an efficient operation. I do not think it
has ever been proven, so far as farmers are
concerned, that a very large operation is
necessarily an efficient operation. It may be an
efficient operation, but not necessarily because
of its size.
I think it can be proven by those who care
to argue the thing out to its ultimate con-
clusion that a family farm— mind you, I am
not talking necessarily of the 50- or the 100-
acre farm; I am talking about that unit of
operation, Mr. Speaker, that the family can
control, whether it be an adjacent farm or
what— I think the family unit farm of 200
and 300 acres in this province, not only is an
efficient entity today but will stand the test
of time for years and years to come. I deplore
any suggestion that the farmers of this prov-
ince, in order to be prosperous, have got to
have a 1,000-acre unit. It has never been
proven; never been proven. I think there is
more proof on the side of those who say that
an operation of 200 or 300 acres of family
farm can be a successful operation.
I would like to hear the government say—
m fact I would like to hear them say anything
about the agricultural industry— but I would
like to hear them say, to allay the fears that
are in the minds of farm people today, that
it is not necessary to go into a huge operation
in order to be successful. I discount com-
pletely the idea that a large operation is
necessary in order to be efficient. This
government has never taken the position
that this is so. They simply go drifting along
with the times hoping that something will
happen so that they will not have to take a
stand on these particular matters.
Another thing, I think, should be said. We
had in Ontario, years ago, the provincial
loans for farmers. I think it is unfortunate
that those loans were done away with. There
are those who say, of course, that the federal
loan takes its place. It really does not take
its place.
Anyone who has had anything to do with
the federal farm loan will appreciate the fact
that the federal government is seized with
the concept that a farm operation, to be
successful, must be a large operation. I think,
in order to destroy what is an illusion in this
respect, it is necessary for Ontario once again
to come into the picture by making loans to
the farmers of this province; and I say there
is no reason why this could not be done.
There have not been any great losses in
connection with farm loans, and hon. members
know that. Quebec is carrying on a magni-
ficent scheme of loaning to farmers, and of
course the federal scheme applies down there
as it does here. But they do not feel that
the federal loan is sufficient to meet the credit
requirements of the Quebec farmers; and so
the provincial loan in Quebec applies and
gives added service to those who want loans
on the farms of Quebec.
It is just as true in Ontario as it is in
Quebec. There is a great need in this prov-
ince for a government that is really interested
in agriculture to re-establish once more the
loaning system, to give loans to agricultural
people. I am sure that a Liberal government
—and make no mistake about it, it is not very
far away— I am sure that a Liberal government
will immediately set up loans.
I wanted to say something, Mr. Speaker,
about co-operatives, and about the loans that
this government makes to co-operatives and
to co-operative farm organizations. The kernel
of this situation, Mr. Speaker, is very easily
defined and is quite discernible to the naked
eye. I say quite deliberately that The Depart-
ment of Agriculture of this government has
either failed to appreciate the problems of
agriculture or, if they have knowledge of
what those problems are, they have moved
not at all to do away witli them.
I think that is it in a nutshell. I think
co-operatives and what they can do, will be
a mighty factor in preserving the farm
economy.
I often think that the farm policy of this
government is wrapped up in a statement
made one time by the laird of Lindsay. I
remember him saying quite distinctly when
the discussion was held in this House respect-
ing FAME— that is, the decision of farmers
to erect meat packing plants. Someone asked
the then Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) what
he thought about it. Do hon. members know
what his answer was? I am sure they do. He
said, "I think it is the silliest thing I have
DECEMBER 14, 1961
463
ever heard tell of. I think it is the silliest
thing I have ever heard tell of."
Well, then, it is no wonder that one can-
not get remedial legislation from the govern-
ment, especially when the Prime Minister has
said that when farmers want to help them-
selves it is the silliest thing he ever heard tell
of. I say one cannot expect that; that just
permeates the whole government over there,
and that is the way they feel about it. When
the Prime Minister feels that about it, that
is what the government feels.
But I want to say through you tonight, Mr.
Speaker, to the hon. members of the House,
that I have enough faith in the farmers of
this province. If they were given the oppor-
tunity, and if they were given the leadership,
by this government, they would go out and
solve most of the problems themselves; but
the trouble has been with this government
that they were always coming when they
were going, and one never knew when they
were coming or going.
We did not know in this House. How can
the government expect the ordinary farmer
to know whether it was for him or against
him? It was on both sides of the question
at the one time. The government's lack of
leadership was monumental, and it is re-
flected, I suggest, in the thinking of farm
people today who have not had the benefit
of leadership that they have a right to expect
from government.
Through the medium of co-operatives, and
I have complete confidence-
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Mr. Speaker, on
a question of privilege. The hon. member,
the former leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Oliver), now sitting on the side benches the
same as I am, says he represents all the
farmers— from what he says. Well, records
do not prove that. He fought the hog pro-
ducers, he fought everything else— collective
agreements and everything else— for the
farmers in my riding.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not
know what the point of privilege is but—
Mr. Oliver: I always like to give an intelli-
gent answer to an intelUgent question, but
when I fail to recognize intelUgence in the
question it is beyond me. I just cannot give
an intelligent answer to it.
I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, when I
was so rudely interrupted by a man who is
usually my bosom friend— you know, when
we talk quietly he is on my side. I do not
know what happened to him. Really.
I want to nail this point home, Mr. Speaker,
that the farmers have not used co-operative
marketing and all it means to its fullest
possibility. And I believe that the government
is doing less than it should if it does not give
the farmer every opportunity to work out his
own problem through the use of co-operative
enterprise. Co-operatives, I think, are the
answer to many of the farm problems and
they have not been given the support by this
government that I think they were entitled to.
There is only one other point that I want
to mention and that has to do with price
spreads. There is quite a spread between
what the farmer gets for his product and
what the consumer pays. Farmers look at
the labour man these days and they think:
now he gets a raise, and he is striking for
more money all the time, and we are getting
less for our product. It is not a situation
that makes for harmony between the two
groups. But I want to say, and I want to
hurry to say, that I have never been one to
deny labour the best price they can get for
the product that they have to sell— their own
labour of their own hands.
I think the job of farmers is not to criticize
labour for what they have done or what
they are doing, but rather it is to take a page
out of labour's book and go out and do for
themselves what labour has done for their
members in their organization.
There is the tendency to look at this point
and say: the farmer gets a few cents for
his potatoes, and they cost a dollar when
they get to the market. I think that is some-
thing worth looking into, because the spread
between what the farmer gets and what the
consumer pays is growing wider all the time.
That just should not be.
There are those, of course, who say the way
in which it is presented to the consumer, the
wrappings that are put on it, these are what
make the cost; but I think there is room for
a searching examination into the spread that
exists between what the farmer is paid and
the consumer pays for the very same product.
There was a time in the House when
the old Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Kennedy,
used to hold up a cabbage and say: I get so
much for this cabbage and the consumer pays
so much more; there is something wrong.
Of course for 18 years the Tories have known
there was something wrong with this spread
but they did nothing about it. I think there
is an opportunity, and one which would reflect
good on the whole question, to really assess
464
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the picture with respect to the spread between
the product of the farm and what the con-
sumer pays for that same product.
Mr. Speaker, I beheve that the government
has been lackadaisical— that is a pretty mild
word to use— in their approach to farm
problems. I think they have spoken out of
both sides of their mouth at the same time.
I think they have said yes and no when they
were not sure which one they should use.
I think they have failed to meet big problems
because there were big interests involved.
I say to this House tonight that the time
has passed for pussyfooting in respect to the
farm problems. We have got to the place
in our ecomonic life when, if the farmer
is going to be saved in order that he might
make his full contribution, then government
must give leadership. There must be an
appraisal of the problems of the farmer,
there must be an appreciation of those
problems, and there must be a determination
to meet them head on.
I would not want to be, nor would I long
remain a member of any government that
failed to recognize these things that I have
enunciated as grave and fundamental
problems affecting the agricultural industry.
I would not want to be, nor would I long
be, a member of any government which did
not move with dispatch and use all the sinews
at their command to remedy this situation.
This government has not done that and be-
cause they have not done it they are going
to find themselves on the short end of the
stick. They have had warnings enough
through the years, they have not heeded the
warning; and because they have not heeded
the warning they will have to pay the costs
involved.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, may I add my faint words of
praise and adulation to the great paean that
has already flowed towards your throne since
this session began. I need not gild the lily,
sir, by repeating my gratitude for the many
kindnesses you have shown me, for the
very capable and fair-minded way you have
accomplished or tried to do your job, by the
dignity and grace with which you have oc-
cupied this honoured seat. With my col-
leagues, I say you have had a diflBcult task
from time to time; but no doubt you will
have difficult tasks yet in the days that are
to come, since I feel you are going to sit
there for some time yet— as we are going to
sit here. But to you, sir, I know that these
little problems are but challenges which spur
you on to even higher endeavours.
It has been, Mr. Speaker, I was going to
say my good fortune and really I do mean
that and yet ironically enough or in an Irish
sort of a way it has been my misfortune, to
follow the hon. member for Grey South (Mr.
Oliver) on previous occasions in this House. I
say my misfortune because his oratory is such
that the one following him is rather set in
the shade.
It is very interesting to listen to him, sir,
although I must admit there are times when
even I feel he becomes loquaciously garrulous
or garrulously loquacious— put it whichever
way you will— and yet tonight, sir, I was
particularly impressed by the very gloomy
picture he painted about farm conditions and
the conditions of the farmers in our province.
I do not mean to suggest by that that we
are entirely pleased about the situation of the
farmers. We are not. Many of us, indeed
nobody can be completely— Let the farmer
from York South (Mr. MacDonald) just keep
quiet for a while now and listen-
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was not
even speaking! I rise on a question of priv-
ilege.
The hon. Minister has really caught himself
out. He just automatically brow-beats me
for everything, when I was sitting here
completely silent. It was from elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister was revealed
in his miscorrect fire once again. I won't
disappoint him from this point on.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I thought I caught an
accent that sounded very familiar to me, but
I have to say, sir— and I hope my hon.
friend will forgive me— I have to ask our hon.
friend from Grey South (Mr. Oliver) if the
hog-farmer he was talking about, who had
the huge piggery on an acre of land, is
situated in York South. But having listened
to this gloomy picture, Mr. Speaker, we have
to point out that there is another side to the
farm picture; and, strangely enough, there
came to my hand these figures from the
Dominion Bureau of Statistics and surely they
are unimpeachable:
The cash incomes of Ontario farms, as
calculated by the Dominion Bureau of
Statistics, have risen from $442,625,000 in
1945 to $877,069,000 in 1960.
Mr. MacDonald: What about the rise in
costs?
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Gross! GrossI
Give us the net.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Just wait. Do not
become impatient. 1961 will be still higher.
DECEMBER 14, 1961
465
While costs of goods and services have risen
in this period substantially the Ontario farms'
net income, as calculated by the Dominion
Bureau of Statistics, has also risen over $100
million in this same period. In 1945, Ontario
was just about even with the next high
province— which incidentally, and strangely
enough, was Saskatchewan— in cash farm
income. In 1960, or in the average of the
last three years, Ontario farm cash sales have
soared to over $300 million more than that
of the closest province.
Mr. Speaker, having read that, I have to
be in complete disagreement with the hon.
member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver) when
he says that this government is the cause of
the problems of the farmers. I say it is
because of the work of this government,
because of the forward-looking programmes
of this government in the interest of the
farmers of this province, that the situation is
as good as it is today. This government—
and mark you, Mr. Speaker, these years are
between 1945 and 1960, just two years after
this government came into power— this gov-
ernment has given the farmer of Ontario
every opportunity and every support to help
him run his business in a businesslike manner.
Mr. MacDonald: Nonsense! What about
the former hon. Prime Minister's attitude
towards FAME?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I believe in letting
every man speak for himself and when the
day comes when the hon. member for Victoria
(Mr. Frost) cannot speak for himself, he will
not need the member for Ontario to speak
for him.
I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that
it is a foregone conclusion that no govern-
ment in Canada— nor here in Ontario— no gov-
ernment in Canada has done more to help
the farmers to improve production, to im-
prove farm management, to improve his
methods and to improve marketing.
Mr. Speaker, I did not stand up here to
talk about farming, because I would be most
presumptuous indeed to try to argue on agri-
cultural questions with the hon. member
for Grey South (Mr. Oliver). But I do want
to talk to the House for a short time this
evening, sir, on a matter that is of very great
interest to many people in this province.
Indeed, it is a matter of great interest to
many people in every country of the world
today. It is a subject which occupies a
great deal of my time personally in my de-
partmental responsibilities and is responsible
for the spending of more than half my
annual budget. It occupies over 10,000 of
the nearly 12,000 employees in The Depart-
ment of Health. I would take it that the
hon. members will understand that I want
to talk about mental health and mental
diseases.
About three years ago, sir, it was my
privilege and honour to propose to this
House and to the people of the province of
Ontario an entirely new concept, a new
philosophy, in the care and treatment of
the mentally disordered. One of the things
I pointed out would be very much necessary
at that time to bring this to the attention
of the public was an educational programme.
We set about that as one of the first steps
in the programme, sir. The material to do
so was immediately at hand and it was one
of the things that could be immediately
undertaken, where other things had to wait
for preparation, or accommodation facilities,
staff, et cetera.
This programme has become increasingly
effective. We have been able to make rather
notable strides, and yet very much remains
to be done. More attention than ever, I
think I can say, is being paid to mental
health, not only by the professional people
and the social sciences involved in the care
and treatment of the mentally disordered,
but by every facet of society.
Some of the things I shall say tonight I
have no doubt I have said in this House and
no doubt I have said them many times out-
side of this House. But they will bear
repeating because I find it is only by con-
stant repetition that we are able to sell our
story, as it were, to the people whom we
want to hear it and to bring into clearer
focus than ever before the problems and the
challenges attendant upon this matter of
mental health.
It bears repeating also because it is very
difficult to wipe out overnight the supersti-
tions, the notions and the misinformation of
generations. The things that people have
believed, the strange and peculiar ideas that
they have held and to which they have held
very tenaciously, not over generations but
indeed over centuries, are very difficult to
eradicate. I think, sir, it is worthwhile to
review some of the salient features of this
problem, this problem which I have called
on many occasions the number one health
problem of our province. Indeed it is the
number one health problem of our whole
nation and indeed of many nations in this
world today.
We often hear of cancer and heart disease
spoken of as the number one killing disease
and this may be quite true. But there is a
466
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
very vast diflFerence between being the
number one killer and the number one health
problem. Perhaps this is one of the reasons
why mental disorder has not been brought
into clearer focus than it has, because it is
not a disease that kills; it is a disease that
cripples, but it does not kill. Indeed, many
of our patients live out long, long lives.
Mental disorder can be considered the
number one health problem on many bases,
but there are three factors in particular which
I should like once again to draw to the atten-
tion of this House.
First of all, there is the vast enormity of
the problem. I say to hon. members that
almost half of the hospital beds occupied in
this province of Ontario are occupied by
people sufiFering from mental disorders. From
that I am sure every hon. member will catch
some idea why this should be looked upon as
the number one health problem of our prov-
ince. Not only so, sir, but we know by
statistical experience that one out of 10 of
us can expect that at some time in a normal
life span to suflFer from some type of mental
breakdown or other; perhaps to the extent
where we may need hospitahzation, at least
to the extent where we shall need pro-
fessional care and attention.
I remind the hon. members that three out
of every 100 babies born in this province are
bom mentally retarded in some degree or
another. That 1.5 out of each 1,000 babies,
that is 1.5 out of each 1,000 babies, will need
hospitalization, probably for life. Again, this
will help give hon. members some idea of
the vast enormity of the problem.
Even worse than that, this health problem,
mental disorder, accounts for at least two-
thirds of all the chronically disabled people
in our province.
Then one may look at it from the cold
standpoint of economics. In The Department
of Health, more than half of the annual bud-
get is spent on the maintenance of the
patients in our hospitals and our hospital
schools. About $20 million a year at the
present time is being spent on capital con-
struction, providing new accommodation, new
equipment, replacing obsolete accommodation
and obsolete equipment.
Then there is a factor that is even more
important, sir, and one which I think many
of us lose sight of as we look at the problem,
even after we have become keenly interested
in it and deeply involved in it. That is the
personal factor. I think a great many of us
fail to look upon this as something that can
hit us. We say: "Oh, yes, somebody in the
next street" or "Somebody on the next con-
cession" or "Someone with whom we came
in contact has experienced it, but it cannot
happen to us". I think one of the surest ways
to bring this problem into clear focus for all
of society is for everyone of us to realize that
this can hit any one of us, that it has no
respect for persons any more than any other
disease, that it cuts across every stratum, be
it social, cultural or economic. I think that
when we have realized that, this matter will
be brought into clearer focus than ever be-
fore.
Now the care and treatment of the
mentally disordered has long been the respon-
sibihty of government, not only here but
in many lands. How this came about it
almost impossible to ascertain. One can only
conclude that many people in many lands
looked to their government to undertake and
look after this very pressing problem. An
essentially bleak and hopeless picture has
from time to time been shot through with
occasional shafts of light; shafts of light, how-
ever, which while they brighten the horizon
for a little while, never seem to last very
long, for then the whole problem lapses back
into the bleak and hopeless situation from
which it came. One might with profit reflect
upon the reasons for this, but actually such
Teflection would yield little of value at this
time.
We hear in this province of ours, partic-
ularly over recent times— and actually while
it may sound critical it is a sign of hope-
fulness—we hear a great deal of talk about
the lack of a programme. But one is bound
to ask whether this lack is real or only
apparent. As one looks at the history of
general medicine, one is bound to recognize
that the lack of progress is more apparent
than real.
After all, when we think of anesthesia,
it is only a little over 100 years ago since
the first anesthetic agent was discovered, and
anesthesia is only today coming into its right
as anything approaching an exact science.
When one thinks of modem surgery, one
has only to go back to the early years of
this century to find that very little surgery
was done, at least successfully, prior to that
time. Indeed the common operation, which
many of look on as common, the appendec-
tomy, was not really very popular at all
until one of the kings of Great Britain had
to have his appendix out.
The wonder dmgs, the magic pellets about
which we read today and in which so many of
us have come to place such great faith, are
DECEMBER 14, 1961
467
only developments of the last 25 years.
Tuberculosis, for instance, a scourge of the
first quarter of this century— at least a scourge
which came into sharp focus in our country
and in our province In the first quarter of
this century— was the causal organism isolated
only in 1882; and the only effective medical
treatment of tuberculosis was found and put
into general use in the year 1948.
Diphtheria, typhoid, poliomyelitis, all of
these have been brought under control within
this century and only after intensive and ex-
tensive research. The same can be said of
diabetes, for which this city and the medical
and university people in this city, did so
much; this work only dates back to the early
1920's. The same, too, can be said of per-
nicious anemia.
One may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why re-
search in these cases was so vigorously under-
taken and has lagged on mental disorder.
Perhaps it was the reason I have already
mentioned, because these were killer diseases
and mental illness or mental retardation per se
is not a killing disease. It has been said that
because one president of a great nation was
stricken with polio and another was stricken
with heart disease, research into these was
greatly stimulated. Yet history records many
instances where the heads of state, leaders in
almost every field of human endeavour or
their famihes or those closely related with
them, have either been stricken or associated
with those stricken with mental disorders,
so that this theory would not apply.
All this aside, the hopeful fact is that
research is now being undertaken in increasing
measure. Out of it all is coming useful knowl-
edge and the hope for new and more effective
methods of treatment.
It should be noted here, I think, that the
first real breakthrough in this problem came
about only within the past ten years and this
has in large drgree made possil-le many of
the changes now evident in the hospitals and
other inslitiMons where the meniially dis-
ordered are cared for. This in large part
has made possible the conversion of these
institutions to their true nurpose and function,
namely, hospitals in the best sense and highest
tradition.
Mr. Speaker, it would be misleading to
leave the impression that this conversion
has been complete. It has not and it cannot
be until there has been brought about a
greater a;:preciation by society of its responsi-
bility to the patients in our institutions.
Many of them have been in hospital so long
that they have become, to all intents and
purposes, lost to society. ...
There are over 7,000 patients in the
Ontario hospitals today who have, to the
best of our knowledge, no relatives, no
family, no home, no one to take any interest
in them except the government of Ontario
and those people who now come to visit our
hospitals, public-spirited folk interested in the
welfare of these people, come to bring a little
comfort and pleasure into their lives. I have
frequently referred to these as orphans, and
indeed many of them are just that, except
that we rarely think of adults as being
orphaned. Yet many of our patients have
no family, relatives or friends; others have
been forgotten, and in many cases even the
original home community appears to have
forgotten they once belonged.
A very brief review of what has been
accomplished in the less than three years past
will show that much has been done, that
an ambitious, progressive programme is
actively underway, and in planning for the
future the problem assumes ever greater
importance.
Completed since 1958 have been new
units at four of our hospitals: Penetan-
guishene, 150 beds; Whitby, 74 beds;
Hamilton, 600 beds; Cedar Springs Hospital
School, 1,200 beds.
The government acquired by purchase the
Byron Sanatorium and this is being used as
the children's psychiatric research institute.
It is very interesting to note that only a very
short time ago this institution, which has
only been operating for a little over one
year, was given the bronze award by the
American Psychiatric Association for out-
standing work in its field. I am getting re-
prints of the notice of the award and will
have one placed on each member's desk
tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. It is very interesting
to note that this institution has been recog-
nized in this way.
In addition to the Byron Sanatorium, of
course, the government also acquired by
purchase the Gravenhurst Sanatorium, th^
first institution of its kind in Ontario where
tubercular patients were treated, but which
because of the breakthrough in the care and
treatment of tubercular patients outlived its
usefulness.
Being built at the present time, and which
we hope will come into operation within the
next year, are two small hospitals of 300
beds each; one at Goderich and one at Oweri
Sound. These two new hospitals, Mr.
Speaker, are a drastic and progressive forward
step towards providing regional services in the
modern concept.
468
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
These hospitals, as I stated, will be of
300 beds each. The active treatment part of
each will consist of 100 beds and will be
capable of looking after the mentally ill
people in the area served. The remaining
two-thirds of the hospital will be used to
house chronically ill patients, those I men-
tioned earlier who are to all intents and
purposes orphaned.
Also coming into service in 1962 will be
the clinical services building at the Ontario
Hospital in Port Arthur providing a further
300 beds.
The rebuilding of the first unit at the
Ontario Hospital School in Orillia is now
underway, and will also provide a further
300 beds. This, of course, is the first stage
of the rebuilding of the old part of the
hospital school at Orillia.
Tenders have been called and the contract
is expected to be let in a very short time
for a new nurses' residence and training
school at the Ontario Hospital in Whitby.
The Palmerston School will be called for
tenders in a very short time. The rebuilding
of the Ontario Hospital at London is in the
hands of the architects now, and the rebuild-
ing of the old part of the Ontario Hospital
at 999 Queen Street West in Toronto is also
in the hands of the architects at the present
time.
The province just a little less than a year
ago, about eight months ago, Mr. Speaker,
sponsored a completely new psychiatric
§ervice in the city of Ottawa. The Royal
Ottawa Sanatorium was in the same position
as many similar institutions in the province;
having done such a good job of the treatment
of tubercular patients they found themselves
with many available beds. Ottawa needed a
psychiatric service and we made arrange-
ments with the board of the Royal Ottawa
Sanatorium and as a result of our negotiations
with them they became very deeply interested
in psychiatric patients. They have already
opened and had in operation for some months
an out-patient and day-care centre and with-
in a very few more months, as soon as the
alterations to the building have been com-
pleted, they will be able to establish a short-
term in-patient care centre, too. This is an
entirely new departure for our province, the
operation of such a hospital by a private
board. It is an experiment being closely
watched by a very great many in this field.
Carrying on our programme of giving rec-
ognition or approval to psychiatric units in
general hospitals, such units have been
opened within the last three years at Ottawa
Civic Hospital, Kingston General Hospital,
Hamilton General Hospital, Peterborough
Civic Hospital and St. Joseph's Hospital in
Toronto, Approval has been given for further
units at Windsor, Sarnia, North York, Sault
Ste. Marie and St. Joseph's Hospital in
London.
Three years ago we stated that, in our
opinion, the best and most satisfactory psychi-
atric service should begin at the community
level. In keeping with this philosophy we
established, with all speed, out-patient serv-
ices at every Ontario Hospital where it was
possible. In the past three years we have
been able to start such services in North
Bay, Whitby, New Toronto, Toronto, Wind-
sor, Port Arthur, Sarnia and in Woodstock.
We have also opened three new day-care
centres at the Ontario Hospital, Brockville,
New Toronto and also in Woodstock.
Further in keeping with modem philosophy
—and considering the mentally ill patient as a
sick person in need of care— we have sought
to establish units where patients who are
acutely ill may be admitted informally. The
first of those units has been opened at the
Ontario Hospital, New Toronto and is already
proving its worth.
Such a programme calls for an increase in
staff, particularly in the nursing field, and we
have found through experience that the nurses
best equipped to look after our patients are
the nurses trained in our own schools. Three
years ago we had three training schools for
nursing operating in the Ontario hospitals-
one at Whitby, one at Kingston and one at
Brockville. The average graduating class of
the three schools totalled about 20. We
revitalized the entire undergraduate nurse
training curriculum. We cut the course of
training from three years to two years; we
encouraged recruitment by various methods
with the result that the enrolment has
increased 200 per cent, and for the Septem-
ber class of this present year we had to turn
applicants away.
There have been other rather interesting
developments which have brought more atten-
tion to bear upon the plight of the mentally
ill. One of the great problems in the minds
of many patients— many patients' families as
well— as one of the great problems facing the
professions involved in the treatment of the
mentally ill, is the cumbersome machinery
necessary for the commission of a patient to
hospital.
We have been able in the last three years
to amend The Mental Hospitals Act, to reduce
the red tape involved in admission procedures.
This has accompanied the growing practice
DECEMBER 14, 1961
469
of allowing patients more freedom and respon-
sibility. The new Children's Mental Hospitals
Act govering the Thistletown Hospital and
the Children's Psychiatric Research Institute
at London, provides for the admission of chil-
dren under the age of 16, on application of
the parent or guardian. The Community
Psychiatric Hospitals Act, passed in 1960,
governs the establishment of the type of small
hospital which, it is hoped, will eventually
provide care for persons in all sections of the
province.
I spoke about the award given to the
Psychiatric Institute at London, an award of
which the department is very proud, mainly
perhaps because it is evidence that Ontario
is not lagging in its efforts to move forward
in the care and treatment of the mentally dis-
ordered.
The treatment of the mentally disordered
patient differs so much from the treatment of
the physically ill patient that it becomes very
difficult for many of us to appreciate what is
involved. Indeed, many people after visiting
our hospitals express surprise at the scope
and variety of the programmes. In the time
available this evening, I can only touch very
sketchily upon some of the highlights, but I
would assure you, that every patient capable
of becoming interested in any activity that
may be helpful to him in the outside world is
given all assistance we can provide.
Occupational therapy is carried out in
some form in all hospitals, although we are
handicapped by the extreme shortage of occu-
pational therapists, which is widespread and
does not affect our service only. Under this
heading we may include occupational therapy
proper— that is, the use of occupational
therapy specifically as a diagnostic and
remedial measure. The limitation of staff, of
course, particularly limits this use of occupa-
tional therapy. This type of therapy includes
music, art, drama— either in a diversional
form or as training in hobbies— and training
in special activities such as typing. The
occupational therapy department may also be
responsible for such things as recreation and
domestic training.
While recreation is largely diversional, it
may contain a considerable therapeutic
element, dependent on the competence of the
staff who conduct it. It includes sports,
swimming classes, physical training, and
special events such as camping out, bus trips,
and so on, and is carried out to various de-
grees in various hospitals.
As for industrial activity: A good many
patients are employed on various aspects of
hospital maintenance, assisting in the laundry,
on the farm, in the maintenance shops, and
there is an increasing emphasis on transfer-
ring patients from one type of job to another
as they show increasing ability to handle more
complex types of work.
Industrial projects: A number of projects
have been undertaken in various hospitals,
which involve the manufacture of articles for
hospital use or, to a lesser degree, for sale,
which are actually in fulfilment of contracts
with outside industries— for example, the
making of tags, labels, and so on, which can
be seen going on at our Queen Street,
Toronto Hospital.
Informal training of an apprenticeship type
is provided in some of the industrial activities
noted above. More formal training, where
the emphasis is on the training rather than on
the activity, has been developed in various
fields.
For example, at our hospital in Kingston,
there is a specific course for practical nurse
training, and for training of patients in
kitchen work. Some hospitals combine a
certain amount of training with the reorien-
tation of patients— for example, giving lessons
in cooking, and so on, to female patients.
A number of programmes include training
in personal care ranging all the way from
simple habit training to the sophisticated
grooming course which has gained great
popularity in the Toronto Hospital, and has
been the subject of newspaper and magazine
articles in recent months.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that each spring
a fashion show is conducted at that hospi-
tal and I think that any hon. members, par-
ticularly the hon. members from Toronto,
might gain a great deal of interest and in-
sight into what is going on if they went to
this fashion show. It is conducted almost
exclusively by patients under the direction
of the staff members. It is a most fascinat-
ing experience to see how those patients
have taken a completely new interest in
life.
It was my privilege to see some whom I
had seen in years previously when they were
still quite ill. After a year of treatment and
training and reorientation, it was a fascinat-
ing experience indeed, to see the difference
in their appearance, to talk to them and
learn the difference in their outlook on life,
wearing and modelling the clothes and hats
that they themselves had made. While I
certainly am no judge of that sort of thing,
I can assure you that I do not know how
any professional model could have done
470
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
much better. It is very interesting to know,
too, that classes are directed by professional
models who have midertaken this project as
a service to the community and spend many,
many hours every week with our patients,
helping them to get a new lease on life.
There are several special projects con-
ducted in all our hospitals, such as hobby
fairs and open-house displays, and all of
these involve a great deal of effort by both
patients and staff. But the full emphasis is
on encouraging patients to take responsibil-
ity for doing, not watching. This is where
the new programme and the new idea differs
from the old. At one time we showed the
patients what to do and how to do it, but
somehow or other never got around to see-
ing if the patients could do it themselves.
It is very interesting to see that the patients
can teach us many things now, as I am sure
they could have done in those days. Some
of the patients prepare and type their news
bulletins at regular periods. These are writ-
ten, typed and edited in a very large measiure
by the patients themselves.
All our hospitals have regular religious
services, and in several the music is pro-
vided by a patients' choir. I need not re-
mind the hon. members of the famous choir
which we now have at the Hospital School
in Orilha, which has been invited to visit
many locations. Indeed it has simg several
times on radio, has appeared once or twice
on a trans-Canada television hook-up and
has cut several records.
Volunteer activities, of course, have be-
come a very, very important weapon in our
treatment in Ontario. Volunteers partici-
pate and sometimes conduct many aspects
of the programme cited above. In many of
our hospitals this is a weU-organized and
important phase of treatment. Almost every
patient benefits from the activities of volim-
teer groups every week. These activities may
run all the way from classes in dressmaking
and millinery to walks in the hospital grounds,
visits to the nearest town, or visits to the
homes of the volunteers where they partake
of tea, dinner or other meals.
It is interesting to note, too, that many of
our volunteers visiting our hospitals have
become so attached to many of the patients
that they will, on occasion, invite some of
their favourite patients for the weekend in
their own homes. This helps a very great
deal in getting the patient accustomed to
the idea of Hving once again outside the
hospital enviroimient.
In our Ontario hospital schools the treat-
ment of the mentally retarded consists largely
of education and training. Perhaps the hon.
members will get some better idea of the
programme if I sketch out what is being
done at one of our schools, the oldest of the
three, Orillia.
The philosophy of education here is that it
is the preparation for a useful, purposeful
and happy life in accordance with the child's
ability. Basically, it is not a matter of
increasing capacity— as most people like to
beheve— but a matter of developing the child's
attributes to their limit. Our programme is
not intellectualization, but socialization.
Administratively, the school is organized
into a number of departments centring their
attention on the individual's emotional and
physical needs, in an attempt to make the
programme of treatment, care and training
an effective one. Utihzing procedures of
study, periodic evaluation and programme
planning, the school endeavours to promote,
whenever possible, the individual's ability to
meet the problems of everyday life through
improving social adjustments, broadening
interests and skills, stabilizing emotions, learn-
ing useful tasks and understanding self. The
institution is a community striving to provide
for each individual a happy home, opportim-
ities for training, health of mind and body
and rehabilitation for those with capacity and
social adequacy for commimity life outside.
The training programme is divided into
three major divisions: pre-school, academic,
occupational and trade training. The pre-
school is simple, just like that attempted by
any pre-school child, and involves teaching
the child to walk and to talk, to control
elimination, teaching the child to feed him-
self, to dress himself and to play with others,
which is a very important fact.
The academic training is divided into two
subheadings, academic lower and academic
upper. These departments are staffed by 13
teachers conducting a formalized programme.
The lower academic school is composed of
young children with capacity for kindergarten
training and ultimate self-care or reabsorb-
tion into their own homes. When I speak
of young children I speak rather in the
mental sense than in the chronological sense,
since some of them are quite well advanced
chronologically for kindergarten training.
In the lower academic area we start to
develop sense training, such as taste, sound,
smell, colour, form. It seems that you do
not have to teach the normal child formally
as a rule; yet this is a very tedious under-
taking for our children. One of the great
problems in many of our children is teaching
DECEMBER 14, 1961
471
them to co-ordinate their muscles. In the
kindergarten we teach them stringing beads,
cutting, sewing and weaving on cards, pasting,
colouring, cutting out paper dolls and so on.
Then, as they come to the close of the
kindergarten training, we try to teach knit-
ting and such simple occupational tasks as
that.
At the end of kindergarten training, and
at the upper level of the lower academic
scale, we try to train the child in the
language. Physical training for this group is, of
course, simple but it is a very important phase
since we are steadily learning that physical
training seems to do rather wonderful things
for these children. It largely consists in this
age group of training through the use of
musical games.
In the upper academic level we try to
incorporate all the higher grade children of
school age. The course is composed of simple
arithmetic, addition, subtraction, multiplica-
tion and division— the most simple exercises
in those two— how to read a ruler and how
to consider fractions related thereto, weights
and measures— the common simple weights
and measures with which they will come in
contact during their lifetime. We try to teach
them how to tell time and how to make simple
change. All these phases must be taught in
an objective fashion and in a play attitude.
The success of this course is greatly dependent
upon the teacher's ingenuity and attitude of
perseverance.
The teaching of reading and literature is
attempted but, as you may understand, is not
carried to a very high level at all. The
majority of the group, however, can develop
a certain facility for reading and some even
progress to the point where they may read
for enjoyment. This is the only aim of the
course.
To teach the child to write legibly and
to develop a form for letter writing and a
measure of self-expression through the written
word, a good deal of emphasis is placed upon
the teaching of writing and very simple com-
positions, as is also the teaching of spelling.
We try to teach the child something about
geography and history and civics. Geography
is a very broad term for the type of teaching,
as is also history, although we try to give
the child some idea of his relationship to
the world as a whole and the influence of
climate for instance upon the products and
the people of other lands.
In the case of history certain salient phases
of Canadian history and historical figures are
taught through the use of story and film.
In the matter of civics we start with the
structural management idea of the institution
itself and develop the concept as related to
the town, the township, the county and so
on.
Music has come to play a very large part in
tlie training and education of children in
our hospital schools. While no individual
lessons are available— this is often asked for,
but in a school with 2,700 people you can
understand how difficult this will be— group
singing and rhythm bands are used very
extensively. An excellent dancing class is
conducted twice weekly for the academic
upper group. The school is closed in the
early summer with a conm[iencement party
;in the form of a dance; whatever entertain-
ment is provided is put on by the students
themselves. In this way the social amenities
can be effectively developed, and this is one
of the shining improvements of the last few
years in our programme.
As our child passes through education to
the point where manual training may be
worthwhile, we have a reasonably well-
equipped manual training room where boys
are taught the use and care of tools. They
are taught first of all to undertake simple
projects such as making simple toys, bird
houses, and things of that sort, for the
institution itself. Each year we held a
hobby fair at the school, where much of the
year's progress is on display and children
compete with their fellow students for prizes.
In addition to this we have now encouraged
the students to compete in the local annual
hobby show in Orillia, which is promoted by
the Y.M.C.A. This organization has been ex-
tremely helpful to us in more ways than one,
and extremely co-operative in helping us
insofar as making available any special facili-
ties they may have, which are not available
at the hospital.
For the girls we have domestic science
classes and each afternoon a class of ten
girls attend cooking classes conducted by our
dietitian. The cookbooks used are prepared
at the hospital school, and at the completion
of the training period the book which the
girl has used becomes her property. It is
remarkable how hard they work and how
thoroughly they seem to study in the hope
of winning this prize.
As well as cooking we try to teach the
girls sewing; the girls of the class comparable
to the boys attending manual training, attend
sewing classes. This is completely handwork
to begin with. They are taught how to make
or perform the different types of stitches, and
472
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
then as they progress, of course, they are
taught the use of, first of all, the treadle
machine, and then they go on to power
machines.
Not only for its recreational value, but also
for its educational value, and for the value of
muscle co-ordination, puppetry has become a
very important subject in our therapy pro-
gramme. This pleasing, creative activity is
used with a variety of satisfatory results
that come as by-products of what started as
an entertainment. Originally "fist" puppets
were made by the children in their classes;
but now, with a small puppet stage, shy
children can, in a play fashion, be encouraged
to express themselves with a measure of con-
fidence.
Children with speech problems are en-
couraged to take part. A tape recording is
made and played back to the group. It is not
unusual now for a handicapped child to ask
for an opportunity to say his part again. It is
what we call the positive rather than the
negative approach. It enables the forgotten
child to find a place in the social sum of
things. Such activities, of course, tie in with
the Christmas entertainments which have
been traditional for years.
The academic programme cares for only
377 children at present. The curriculum
carries to about the equivalent of Grade V
at its upper limit. We find that it is quite
impossible to educate any of our children
beyond this stage.
The class personnel participating are
arranged in groups according to chronological
age, physical handicap, degree of mobility,
and physical size. These groups rotate from
classroom to classroom on a forty-five minute
class period. This makes for better behaviour
and increased interest, in light of the retarded
child's short attention span. The teaching
day is from 9.00 in the morning to 11.45,
and 1.00 in the afternoon till 4.00, five days
each week.
At the conclusion of the academic school,
some children are carried part-time in school,
part-time in some occupation or trade. This
is referred to as the junior vocational or
industrial group. It provides incentive for
a student to pursue some of his academic
studies further, while giving a sense of con-
fidence towards self-sufficiency and the hope
of employment outside the institution. The
entire academic programme is co-educational.
At tlie completion of this phase, and the entry
into trade training, the sexes separate, boys
and girls following different training pursuits.
Present-day unitized operations in industry
are naturals for the trained socialized defec-
tive. He never tires of a routine job, his
vocation is his avocation. This is proven by
many of our successful graduates in indus-
trial placements.
The occupational and trade facilities avail-
able to the male students include the bake-
shop, where we bake approximately 1,000
loaves a day. The boys are taught procedural
operation of modern equipment. They are
taught cleanliness and something of the indus-
trial setting of production work. Many of our
graduates in this are self-sufiicient and are
placed with commercial firms after this train-
ing.
The barber-shop does not aim to prepare
boys for such gainful employment, although
several have been able to pursue this. Mainly
boys going into rural farm placement have
won a measure of respect and additional
income from the training. Morever, it has
often helped the boy over a lonely adjustment
period in the country through the feeling
that he is appreciated because of his skill.
We teach some of the building trades:
carpentry, painting, plastering. Engineering
trades: boiler room, plumbing, electrician.
In the farm department: vegetable gardening,
landscaping, dairy farming, the horse bam,
the teamster— although those are dying trades
now— and the poultry department.
Mattress-making and upholstery has been
taught to several boys and quite a number
of them have found gainful employment at,
for instance. General Motors in Oshawa.
The shoe industry is used for the training
of twelve to twenty boys, and they benefit
from production-line training and something
about factory relationship.
This department manufactures between
five and eight hundred pairs of shoes every
month when in production. These shoes are
used only by other provincial institutions in
Ontario.
Then we teach some boys the butcher
business.
Some are taught to be office messengers.
All training in the occupational department
for the boys is operated on a rotation basis
—six to eight months in each placement and
then returning for specialization in the depart-
ment most suited to the individual's attributes.
In this way, interest and aptitude are given
a chance to flourish.
When socially mature, placement is pro-
cured outside for the boy and he is followed
in this placement and encouraged to look to
his placement officer for help and support if
the going gets a little bit rough. If the
DECEMBER 14, 1961
473
boy finds it just a little too much for him he ,
is welcomed back to the hospital school for
a sort of holiday, in order that he may be
able to go back to his job once more.
For girls we teach hairdressing, kitchen
work, maid service, mending room, sewing
room and power equipment, and the dining
room. Many of these girls have been placed
in very good occupations, and indeed we
could place a great many more if we had
those capable of undertaking the duties.
As in the case of the boys, all of the above
are handled on a rotation basis, with domestic
employment as the outlet.
Mr. Speaker, there are 2,700 patients in
hospital today, of whom only about 800 are
capable of any sort of education and train-
ing; 883 cannot be trained in any way but
have to have their simplest needs attended
to, while the remaining 1,000 may be capable
of training for partial self care only.
In addition to all this, a very full recrea-
tion programme is followed, including music,
art, concerts, plays, all kinds of sports, phy-
sical training. Scouting, Cubbing, Guiding
and Brownies. Indeed, it may well be
summed up by saying that the staff tries
every possible activity and every possible
method of training to help develop our chil-
dren to their fullest capacity, and to try to
make and keep them as happy and well
adjusted as possible.
A much greater emphasis is being placed
upon the rehabilitation of the mentally dis-
ordered. Little has been attempted in this
field heretofore; and because of many diffi-
culties, we have developed our own division
of rehabilitation.
In the case of our patients, much more is
necessary as a rule to help them reinstate
into normal society. Not only must they be
prepared to go out into the community, they
need help to re-establish themselves and they
also need some continuing support till we
feel sure they can carry on alone. To that
end, we try to place those capable in jobs,
and also help them over any social hurdle
during this transition stage from hospital to
home. This is proving to be a very worth-
while service indeed, one that promises to
be of increasing value to those patients
where treatment has been successful. We
look for wide extension of this service.
Mr. Speaker, a very great deal may yet
be said of the activities of the division of
mental health, but I would rather urge, sir,
that you and every hon. member and every-
one with whom he comes in contact should
visit the Ontario hospital and see what is
being done. Do not read about it; go and
see. I believe everyone will find it a reward-
ing experience; and from such visits I know
hon. members will gain some insight into
the many complex problems which challenge
us daily, as we try to tackle Ontario's num-
ber one health problem.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
as a lesson to the hon. Minister of Health
(Mr. Dymond), a man whom I much admire—
and I like to think, sir, and I hope that he
would not be too insulted by my saying it,
a man in which, I think, in many ways I am
like— I cannot help but say how great a
change has come over the complexion of our
society and the ways in which we deal with
those afflicted with mental disorders and, for
that matter, economic catastrophe; in a nut-
shell, those who are less fortunate than the
great majority in our society.
It is not true to say that what the political
scientists used to call pluralism has virtually
disappeared from our society. Let me give
you an illustration.
It was about ten years ago that the prob-
lem of the retarded really descended upon
society, and society became alive to the
needs of those who had been endowed by
merciful providence with less intelligence or
less brain power than the norm. Ten years
later, and I do not condemn and I do not
criticize the fact, the people concerned
with helping those out have turned to gov-
ernment. As in most other areas of human
welfare, government is looked to as the
source of funds, the source of instruction,
the source of help.
Now, being a Liberal, I must and I do
believe— and I believe fervently— that as our
wealth increases in this country and it in-
creases every year, that the real income, or
the greater proportion of that wealth, must
go to those who create it; that is to say the
great mass of working people of this country.
If it be the political philosophy of the
moment, as it appears to be, that the method
of distribution of that wealth to equate the
distribution is through government, I cannot
help but think with some regret that from
the measure the government is asked to inter-
fere or is asked to assist, it must be at the
expense of the loss of political freedom.
That is why, when I see private groups
continuing to undertake measures of social
amelioration, that I, like all other hon. mem-
bers of this House, sir, accord them the
greatest hope for their success because I am
sure that we like to see private groups, apart
from government, continue to participate.
474
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
continue to be the authors of measiures of
bringing help to the needy. Maybe someday
a couple of centuries hence when the state
has become so powerful and monolithic an
organization that the pendulum will begin
to swing backwards, perhaps some future
generation yet unborn will throw oflF the
shackles of the state.
Those who have preceded me in this de-
bate have beautifully and fulsomely and
gladly extended to you their congratulations
that providence has spared you for another
year to preside in great wisdom over our
dehberations. I gladly extend on behalf of
myself, a private and lowly member of this
House, my thanks to you for the kindness
which you and your office staflF have shown
to me in the past year. May I say to you,
and I hope you will not think I mean any-
thing sinister or sardonic by it, that like wine
you improve with age.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have gotten away
from the practice of extending thanks to the
mover and seconder of the address which is
the subject matter of this debate and I wish
to return to it. I wish to extend my con-
gratulations for their mighty efforts to the
hon. member for St. George (Mr. Lawrence),
and the hon. member for Renfrew North
(Mr. Hamilton), neither of whom are in
their seats, unfortunately, to hear these glow-
ing words of tribute to them. But I wanted
to say to them, and perhaps their colleagues
who see them in the hallways and the
restaurants will say that I said it of them,
that to be selected to move and second the
address means a mark of a man that is on
his way— he is on the way, there is no doubt
about it.
When I first came to this House three years
ago, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Davis)
moved the address and the hon. member for
St. Andrew Mr. (Grossman) seconded it,
and look where they are now. One cannot
say that they have been idling their thumbs
and wasting their time, they have made great
progress. The one now is second vice-chair-
man of Hydro, and the other is the chief
liquor commissioner of the province and in-
deed in that capacity he manages what I
think is the largest retail business in— I was
going to say Ontario— I am sure in the whole
of Canada if not in North America. He has
a monopoly and he stands as a tower of
strength, a pillar of piety at the top of this
organization.
Just to show that I have a historical sense,
I feel that tradition was broken because we
had two by-elections and two new hon.
members came into this House; and tradition-
ally the hon. leader of the government selects
them to move and second the address. One
would not want to say to them, sir, that be-
cause they were not selected that no pro-
motion is in the offing for them; it is for an-
other reason.
Instead we had the hon. member for St.
George (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. member
for Renfrew North (Mr. Hamilton); and we
have always looked upon the hon. member
for St. George— he was here a moment ago,
I went to school with him— we have looked
upon him as a very dynamic and vigorous
young man. Indeed, there may have been
some thought in selecting him, some desire to
heal the wounds, to pour salves on the river
of bitter controversy that had taken place but
two months previously up in a certain forum
to the north. However, that may be.
One would not want to pass over and for-
get the hon. member for London South (Mr.
White), but I do not speak to him in a spirit
of congratulations. I speak to him in a spirit
of thanks. I feel I must also speak to him in
a spirit of condolence, because he, perhaps
you would agree with me privately— I, like
the hon. member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver),
speak to people privately— you would agree
with me that he committed what was perhaps
in the impeccable French of the hon. member
for Nipissing (Mr. Troy), the "fox pass" of
the session. He tried to be a fox, sir, he
tried to out-fox the chief fox over here^ but
the chief fox out-foxed him.
One is led to wonder about the conception
and the birth of this stratagem. Did he— one
can ask rhetorically because one would not
expect an answer— did he get the idea for
that stratagem from his neighboiu: to the
north? It was said, it was rumoured in the
halls— and he will forgive me for saying it, I
am sure— that he was an heir presimiptive to
a ministry with or without portfolio himself;
and he is contingent and adjacent to a man
who has a great deal of power and influence;
and did that man, his neighbour to the north,
perhaps give him the instruction? And if the
neighbour to the north thought up the
stratagem, then who had he turned to, who
had given him advice to use it? Was it
Gabriel on his right or was it Lucifer on his
left?
We might deal for a minute with the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts). He said this
afternoon, in what I thought was quite an
essay, he said that if we brought in our sales
tax, and I do not want to go all through it,
the people would start to go out and buy
DECEMBER 14, 1961
475
articles of trade, they would take their custom
to various houses and department stores by
buying a part of an object. You know what
it would lead to: "Will you drop in for a beer
with me, Harry?" "No, I cannot, I have got
to go and buy the other wheel for the baby
carriage."
The hon. Prime Minister did, in order to
support what was otherwise quite an unsound
argument, he did turn to the law and he is
an able lawyer. He is a London lawyer— that
is London-in-the-bush, sir, not on-the-Thames
—it is not the Inns of Court. He is one of
Her Majesty's counsel, learned in the law.
He said the law holds that a man can so
arrange his ajffairs that he can escape the
payment of tax. I Hstened with incredulity
to this. It is true that the Privy Council said
that in 1936, but that was a generation ago.
Let me read to you what Viscount Simon
had to say, and it is just a brief paragraph,
what he had to say in an appeal case in the
House of Lords at a later date:
It is said that in revenue cases there is a
doctrine that the court may ignore the
legal position and regard what is called
the substance of the matter.
I have the wrong book. I had the right
man but the wrong book, but now I have
the right man and the right page, and he
says:
My Lords, of recent years much in-
genuity has been expended in certain
quarters in attempting to devise methods of
disposition of income by which those who
were prepared to adopt them might enjoy
the benefits of residence in this country
while receiving the equivalent of such in-
come without sharing in the appropriate
burden of British taxation.
Judicial dicta may be cited which points
out that however elaborate and artificial
such methods may be, those who adopt
them are entitled to do so. There is, of
course, no doubt that they are within their
legal rights, but that is no reason why their
efforts or those of the professional gentle-
men who assist them in the matter should
be regarded as a commendable exercise of
ingenuity or as a discharge of the duties of
good citizenship.
That is what Viscount Simon had to say
about it. I thought it incredible, because
I remember when I first started to school,
the primary schools, I remember that they
used to teach us the incidences of good citi-
zenship, and they used to say that one of
the incidences of good citizenship was pay-
ing your taxes.
I thought it quite incredible that the man
who both leads this House and is hon. Minis-
ter of Education (Mr. Roberts), should hold
to such a doctrine that a person can live
in this coimtry— and I do not presume to lec-
ture him— that he can live in this country
and he can enjoy the great benefits of being
a Canadian and a resident of this province
and then not pay his just share of taxation.
One of the other characteristics of this
debate is that it is about the speech from
the Throne. I want to turn to that docu-
ment if I may for a moment. We seem to
have gotten away from it.
I can say that I spent a good deal of time
in a most careful scrutiny of it. Some of the
things that I see in it, to which I wish to
refer hon. members for a moment, are as
follows:
Among many other measures designed
to promote the progress and economic
well-being of our province, this pro-
gramme will include:
—let us just say the programme for this
legislative session—
1. New methods to promote co-opera-
tion between industry, laboiu: and govern-
ment, and to increase production and
employment.
Now I say to the House that as we in
this province face the depths of winter, as
we approach the Yuletide season, and at a
time when there are 100,000 citizens— 100,-
000 able-bodied people— in this province
who are ready to work, and carmot; in such
case, sir, if the government, as it has prom-
ised in the speech from the Throne to bring
forward measures in their words **to in-
crease production and employment," then
1 say and I ask of the hon. members rheto-
rically: why have they not done so?
We heard, and I am not going to go into
the flowery oratory that we heard in the
leadership campaign, but we heard from the
seven candidates, we heard from them each
in their own and unique, charateristic way,
we heard the panaceas which they offered
the people of this province. We saw that
quite a number of them seem to have dis-
covered northern Ontario for the first time.
I thought for a while that some of them had
begun to live up there, they descended upon
my riding so much. But we heard from
them that they had good ideas, if they were
given the responsibility of oflBce, on what
to do with the economic picture.
I may ask hon. members, why was there
not a bringing together of heads, so to
speak, before the Christmas recess, before
476
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the depths of winter come upon us, in order
to bring forward these measures that are
designed to increase production and em-
ployment.
We see the statistics, and I am not one
who hkes to dwell with statistics, but we see
the statistics show the same increase in un-
employment as September moves into Octo-
ber, October to November, November to
December. We see that perhaps there are
not as many— now I want to keep to the facts
—there are not as many gross number unem-
ployed, but we see the same trend and it
is safe to say that there are 100,000 in On-
tario, men and women, many of them with
families, many of them who cannot help
but look at the future with stark anxiety.
Having been promised by this government
that measures will be forthcoming, then I say
why do they not bring forward these measures
and have us pass them as we will gladly do,
to assist these peoples? We will do anything
on this side of the House in the spirit of
unanimity and co-operation to better the
lot of those who through the fortunes of
economy, through no fault of their own, must
face the future with a great deal of anxiety
and despair.
Now to go on with this, paragraph 5, and
I will just pick them out at random:
An accelerated programme of highways,
parks and economic development in
northern Ontario.
I imagine that is the contribution of the
new hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment (Mr. Macaulay)— economics and every-
thing, the hon. member for Essex North ( Mr.
Reaume) says— because he was in Sudbury a
great many times during that campaign, or
several times. He came up there and he
had a great deal to say about his programme
for northern Ontario and what he would do
for us and we gladly welcomed him. I do not
think a great many of the delegates from
Sudbury trusted him because they all voted
for the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts),
including the hon. member for Nickel Belt
(Mr. Behsle).
I suppose it means an accelerated pro-
gramme of highways and I suppose it means
that I am finally going to get the road link
from Sudbury to Timmins. I welcome it. I
am going to get it? Nay, indeed, the hon.
member for Nickel Belt, it is in his riding,
and he has faithfully supported this govern-
ment since his first election in 1955 and he
has asked for it with me. I presumed to
lend my voice to his, to ask for it and I
expect when the capital programme of high-
ways is introduced after the new year, that a
sort of belated Christmas present will come
to him and to me.
Then Sudbury— of which I am not going to
say much tonight— then Sudbury really will
begin to be the true capital of the north. I
have said before that Sudbury now is
balanced entirely on an east-west axis.
Highway 17. It has more contacts and more
commercial intercourse with southern Ontario
than it does with that vast hinterland full of
riches to the north of it. In the order of
things Sudbury ought to expand its influence
in an economic way to infiltrate commercially
into that great area, as we have been unable
to do up to this time.
I turn now to rather a unique sentence
and if you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker,
being a student of literature I want to read
you a sentence and then I want you to bear
with me while I analyze it, parse it, I think
is the word, and I would like any hon. mem-
bers of the House to get their pencils out
and follow this. This will be an interesting
experience in the field of literature:
My government is aware that there is
no easy solution to our diflSlculties, or that
it can provide some magic formula which,
if taken in sufficient doses, would cause
them to disappear.
Now, sir, that sentence is made up of two
clauses, two subordinate clauses, each with
their conjunction and each with their verb.
It is fair, sir, in analyzing a sentence to read
the sentence as if one of the clauses were
not in, in order to understand the meaning
of the other one, so let us read this sentence
in that way.
I am going to leave one of the clauses out
and here is what it says:
My government is aware that it can provide
some magic formula which if taken in suffi-
cient doses would cause them to disappear.
That is what it says. Now I would never
believe for a moment, sir, having heard His
Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on many
occasions, that he could have been the author
of such a sentence as that. But I must
presume— and I have been told, I did not see
him write it— but I must presume that the
leader of the government wrote this speech
and he was so imbued with the success of
October 24, at Varsity Arena that he said:
"I won that, now I have got it and I will
tell the people of Ontario about it." Or it
could be, it might be, that the magic formula
is the hon. gentleman who sits to his right.
We cannot help but welcome that such a
characteristic now attends the legislative halls
DECEMBER 14, 1961
477
of this province. They will begin to produce
it, we move toward the Utopia. I suppose
even in the by-elections of January 18 we
might expect to meet some of this magic. We
have not seen it yet but no doubt it is being
kept for that occasion.
Now I want to turn and say a word to the
hon. Minister from St. Andrew (Mr. Gross-
man), the Chief Commissioner of the Liquor
Control Board. I am not asking any questions
of which he can take notice at all— like my
hon. friend from Nipissing (Mr. Troy). I
am going to give him the facts on two trans-
actions, and nothing but the facts.
I think it is safe to say that the great
fountain of patronage in this government is
in the Liquor Control Commission.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I never said any such
thing and I have not time to stop and argue
with you tonight, though I would be de-
lighted to do so.
One of the methods of granting patronage
in the Liquor Control Commission— a method
of which, for reasons which will become
apparent, I heartily disapprove and which I
condemn, and I would want to be part of no
government which carries on this racket— is
granting a right to the individual to build a
liquor store and then rent the property back
to the Liquor Control Board.
In order to get that right you cannot be
just an ordinary Tory, you have got to be one
of the brass— you have got to demonstrate
your devotion to the Conservative Party
above and beyond the call of duty of ordinary
mortals.
In the town of Capreol, a little community
20 miles north of Sudbury, the liquor store
was built in 1957 by a person— I am not going
to name him, I like the man, I do not con-
demn him— a well-known Tory in the Sudbury
district. I said that you had to go above
and beyond the call of duty. Well, sir, you
do. During the last election campaign this
man used his private aircraft to fly the hon.
member for Nickle Belt (Mr Belisle) into the
hinterland, in the back concessions, in the
lumber camps. He flew him around during
the election campaign— at his own expense,
I presume. The results— I must say, to our
great chagrin— of his devotion and his efforts
made on behalf of the Tory Party were very
effective. The hon. member for Nickle Belt
won by some 453 votes only, but we have got
our eye on him. Maybe next time— maybe,
you never know— we will have an aircraft, too.
This man, sir, who comes from a community
to the west of Sudbury— he is not in my riding,
he cannot vote against me— was granted the
right to build the liquor store in Capreol. He
purchased the land in 1956 for $2,500. He
entered a lease with the Liquor Control Board
for 10 years on July 31, 1957. The rent pay-
able by the Liquor Control Board is $4,380,
payable at $365 a month, there is a five-year
renewal at a rent to be determined, and if
it is not determined between the parties, then
by arbitration. $4,380 a year.
I have had my contracting friends take a
look at the building and tell me what they
think it would cost to build it. The estimates
range from $25,000 to $30,000 to build the
building. He paid $2,500 for the land, sir.
Let us take the maximum figure; if he spent
$30,000 to build the building, his investment
is somewhere around $35,000. He is getting
$4,300 back a year. The building will be
paid for in the ten years of the lease. He
will own the building, and then, presumably,
the liquor store— they do not often move— will
continue to operate in those premises. From
then on— if I may lapse into the vernacular-
he is in clover.
To you, sir, and to the hon. members, I
must confess my own part because I would
not want to mislead the hon. members in any
way. I was approached by a group last year
in Sudbury asking me if it would be possible
to make representations to the Liquor Control
Board to get them the right to put up a store,
or rent them premises in a shopping plaza
that they were building in the section of Sud-
bury known as New Sudbury— the rapidly
expanding residential area to the north. On
their behalf I made some inquiries and intro-
duced them to the late chairman of the
Liquor Control Board. He told me the type
of material he wanted to have from them. I
never at any time appeared before the board
on their behalf. I never prepared any brief
or made any presentation. My services were
confined entirely to arranging an interview
with the late chairman. Certainly they had
my best wishes. May I add, sir, that I was
not paid one cent for any of those services.
Until shortly before the death of the late
chairman the group was still negotiating with
him. I am positive in my own mind that no
conclusion had been given to the disposition
or the placement of a store in that area at
the time of the chairman's death.
About a month following his death, the
chamber of commerce invited the hon. mem-»
ber for Nickel Belt and myself over to a
luncheon, to give a report on the affairs of the
legislative session just ended. Lo and behold.
478
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to my utter amazement, during his address to
the chamber of commerce the hon. member
for Nickel Belt— having eaten their food as I
did— announced to them that a liquor store
would be located on LaSalle Boulevard and
Ojay Street, about a mile to the east of the
location being negotiated by this other group.
I may say, sir, there would be many in
Sudbury who would be inclined to agree with
me that great argument could be made— I am
not going to make it now— that the location
of the store in the unsuccessful people's place
would have served a larger number of people
more readily, with greater facility, than the
present location. However, those are the
fortunes of war.
I was particularly interested because, in the
case of Capreol, I did not see why the Liquor
Control Board should go outside the town of
Capreol and allow a faithful Tory henchman
—one of the brass— to come in there and
build the store. I thought they should at least
inquire in that small community of some 2,500
souls whether there was someone who had
the lands and finances to reap the benefit of
the largesse of that important government
department. I thought that was wrong. But,
after all, we live in one province.
After they started building the store at
LaSalle Boulevard and Ojay Street I was
curious about who these people were. I dis-
covered that the owner of the land and the
lessor to the Liquor Control Board is Sanron
Developments Limited, incorporated under
The Corporations Act by letters patent May
21, 1959. It has not surrendered its charter.
The president is Kenenth Laveme McCor-
mick, 1204 Sherwood Trail, Sarnia; the treas-
urer is his wife, Georgina Maude McCormick;
the vice-president is Helen Vera Rankin of
Sarnia; the secretary is Daniel William Ran-
kin, the husband of the vice-president, also of
Sarnia. The four of them are from as far
away as Sarnia.
Apparently these people— and I have nothing
to say about them at all, are a group of young
people engaged in the building business-
were invited to participate in the magnanimity
of the Liquor Control Board by a well-known
Conservative of Sudbury by the name of
Short— Lloyd Short.
Lloyd Short had been away from our fair
city, carrying on the business of realtor in
Sarnia or Point Edward where he was presi-
dent of the local Tory organization for a
period of time. I do not know how many
years. Shortly before he got this agreement
from the Liquor Control Board he had moved
back to Sudbury and opened the business of
realtor there. One of the interesting things
about this transaction— and I just lay the
facts before the House— was that they paid
$24,000 for the land. Now, those who are
more familiar with these things than I, tell
me that the value of that land on that speci-
fic site ought to be something between $4,-
000 and $7,000. It is interesting to know
why they paid what seems to be an inflated
value for the land. They paid $24,000 for
the land. They purchased it from Robert
Blais.
Then they took out a mortgage with the
Lambton Loan and Investment in Sarnia
for $80,000. That mortgage is payable at
$638.90 per month. The lease is dated
September 26, 1961, for 15 years and the
rent payable from the Liquor Control Board
is $11,895 a year, payable at $991.25 a month.
Also included in this is an option to renew
for five years.
A little bit of mathematics— and the hon.
Minister of Economics (Mr. Macaulay) is
more facile in economics than I am— will show
that in 15 years they will get back about
$165,000. They will have that land and
building paid for and then they too— like
the flyer from Waters who took a flyer with
the Liquor Control Board in Capreol— they
too will be in clover.
I merely set that out to show the type
of thing that goes on, and how this govern-
ment—as of one of the devices to sustain
itself in power— farms out this largesse and
this patronage, with your money and mine,
sir, from the public treasury. Those are the
facts. Perhaps the hon. Minister without Port-
folio (Mr. Grossman) when looking up the
answers to the questions asked by the hon.
member for Nipissing (Mr. Troy) might give
us a word of explanation with respect to these
matters.
One of the things that has occurred in the
House that is of great moment— perhaps of
greatest moment and importance— during this
session, was the speech of the hon. leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) delivered
on November 29. I am not going to refer
to that. But a very curious thing, in my
view, a very significant thing— I shall try to
develop the significance of it— occurred after--
wards. One or two days after he had made
his speech, a fellow who might aptly be
named "Million-dollar Joe Ryan** made cer-
tain statements in the press; the hon. leader
of the Opposition had named him in his
speech together with a gentleman by the
name of Cradock.
Ryan became very voluble when the
reporters phoned him and he made certain
statements. The reporters also phoned the
DECEMBER 14, 1961
479
chairman of the Securities Commission, an
agency directly responsible to the chief author
of all of this misfortune, the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts). They asked Mr.
Lennox, the chairman of the Securities Com-
mission, "What about this statement that Mr.
Wintermeyer has made about Cradock and
Ryan?"
The hon. leader of the Opposition had said
nothing more, I think, than that Cradock and
Ryan had very bad records with the Securities
Commission— rather an innocuous and un-
important statement in itself; it does not
attach anything in the way of criminality,
opprobrium or censure to the gentlemen. Mr.
Lennox said, "Never heard of them— never
heard of Cradock or Ryan". Lo and behold,
two or three days later, Mr. Ryan— "Million-
dollar Joe Ryan," who has a penchant for the
press and reporters, and they are all engaging
young men— began to tell them that he and
Cradock were expelled from three stock
exchanges in this country, for some mis-
conduct, some failure, some neglect, some
misdemeanor. I think there are only three
stock exchanges, at least in eastern Canada.
Three had expelled them.
It makes one wonder, sir; who knows more
about the running of the stock exchanges or
the Securities Commission— Ryan or Mr. Len-
nox? Perhaps Ryan knows more about it;
perhaps Ryan ought to be the chairman of the
Securities Commission. He is more alive to
developments. That leads me back to certain
remarks that I made two years ago in this
House— unlike the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) I do not read old
speeches to the hon. members; the hon. Min-
ister without Portfolio (Mr. Grossman) has a
flair for that, too.
I said at that time, that the stockateers—
those who thought they had letters of mark,
so to speak, the pirates on Bay Street— did
more to give this country a bad reputation in
foreign lands, and particularly the United
States of America, than any other single group
in the country. They were our worst adver-
tisement. Defrauding and mulcting innocents
abroad, as they do, they carry their wiles and
their fraud into the far corners of the United
States— selling their fraudulent paper on moose
pasture in Ontario, Quebec, the Northwest
Territory, Baffin or EUesmere.
It has a serious vein to it, and I complained,
and I complain again to you, Mr. Speaker,
that the Ontario Securities Commission is not
an effective instrument; it is anything but. It
is not an instrument of government to control
these people. If, sir, you will glance through
The Securities Act itself, you will see, as far
as the affairs and stock exchanges are con-
cerned—and that is where the activities take
place— I never owned a share of stock in my
life, sir. The hon. Minister of Energy Re-
sources (Mr. Macaulay) would condemn me
for that because I will not take a risk like a
great many other Canadians. But then, I am
an hon. member of this House. If you look,
as I do every day, you will see Lake Dufault
fluctuating at $1.30, $1.50, either way, every
day.
I remember when I was a boy; you see, I
grew up in Cobalt, in a mining town that
suffered a great deal from the operations of
these privateers, and as early as my mind
will take me back, I remember tliese people
coming into Cobalt, and remember my father
at the supper table talking about these Bay
Street promoters: They are coming in and
they are going to develop the Coniagas prop-
erty, or they are going to do something with
the Nipissing property, or there is something
going to happen on the O'Brien property; all
of these closed down.
I could picture in my mind's eye, these
people from the south— as a boy, like most
other northern boys, I could always picture
somebody from Toronto; they were different,
a different breed of people. They would
come up in their new canvas khaki coats and
their high-top leather boots, and their breeks,
and you could tell by looking at them (a) that
they were mining promoters, and (b) they
were from Toronto. And I always got the
impression that they drank a better grade of
whiskey than my father did.
They would come into town, go around
looking at the property, decide they were
going to do this, they were going to do that;
there would be a flurry on the market, the
Toronto Stock Exchange, but nothing would
ever happen. Now that is a generation ago.
The same thing goes on and we could name
the stocks in the previous years.
Do you remember Beaulieu— and any num-
ber like it— went up in terms of dollars and
then plummeted, and people lost a fortune?
Indeed it is only some three months ago,
when the flurry started with Lake Dufault,
that a man from Sudbury started to sell it
short at 70 cents— I hope I do not offend his
widow, when I mention this; it is a terrible
thing. He sold some 14,000 shares short on
the market, it went up to $5 or $6, and he
did not have the money to cover and that
poor wretched individual who thought he was
going to make a quick killing went down one
day into his basement and took a rifle and
destroyed himself. Living in the north I have
seen other people like that, I have seen
480
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
people with nervous breakdowns as the re-
sult of getting into the stock market. The
reason is that there are people in the stock
market on Bay Street who do not care if
they ever bring a mine into production. They
do not care if they ever bring a mill. They
do not care if they ever sink a shaft. All
they want to do is to rally the market; to
boil it down. Those who go to horse races are
condemned— like the hon. member for Huron-
Bruce (Mr. Hanna) and myself who go two
or three times a season.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): That is why the hon. member has no
money left for bonds.
Mr. Sopha: The hon. Minister condemns
those. The gambling on Bay Street is much
the same as that and one need look no further
to see the difficulty than in the Toronto Globe
and Mail of a couple of days ago, where
General Graham complained about these very
types of individual. He said that they are
ruining the honest operation of the Toronto
Stock Exchange and he said that they are
giving Canada an exceedingly bad name
abroad.
I say that the only answer is that this
government— or when we come to power we
will do it, at least I will attempt to persuade
the leader of the government to arm the
securities commission with sujEBcient power
to deal with these people, to give the securi-
ties commission power to go into the
Exchange and control it. Because this body,
this little club, this club that operates down
there under the name of Toronto Stock
Exchange, a bastion of free enterprise, wants
no interference from government.
Government interferes in lots of less im-
portant areas of the economy, and controls
and directs; and the Toronto Stock Exchange,
I say to you, sir, or any other stock exchange
operating in this province is no sacred institu-
tion if the people can perpetrate their
machinations to the expense of both the
economy and the good name of our country.
Just to mention another one to draw a
comparison— no, I will not, I do not want to
extend my remarks too long.
Hon. members: Thank you.
Mr. Sopha: The hon. members are wel-
come.
I wanted to say a word about labour, sir.
We on this side of the House indeed welcome
the decision of the Chief Justice of the High
Court made today. I take it it has not yet
been appealed, sir, so the matter is not sub
iudice and is not a matter awaiting a judicial
decision. I studied and scanned the press
tonight to see whether the notice of appeal
had been filed and Sir Erskine May says, sir,
that until a notice of appeal is filed the
matter may be properly commented upon in
the legislative hall.
I, among many others, sir, thought that
Magistrate Elmore was wrong in his decision,
though I could understand as a lawyer how
he could arrive at that decision.
This matter of the Royal York strike, com-
mented on earlier by the hon. member for
St. George (Mr. Lawrence) in somewhat
flamboyant and excessive language, is not far
removed from what is wrong at the present
time with all of the labour picture in this
country. And one reads, sir— I pick up an
editorial from a newspaper that does not
ordinarily say nice things about unions, The
Financial Post— and they say, and I do not
know whether they have tongue in cheek or
whether they are being smug or patronizing,
but they reflect on the fact that there has
been a steady decline in the number of trade
unionists in Canada: 401,447 at the beginning
of 1961, and 401,459 in 1960. It is only a
drop of some 12,000 but it is significant of the
decline that has been going on for a number
of years.
I am one who will say, sir, and I do not
hold myself out to be any authority whatso-
ever on why there should be a decline, but
I give it as a matter of opinion that one
of the reasons for the decline and one of
the reasons for the loss of prestige of trade
unions is that trade union leaders, sir, are
not content to act solely in that capacity, but
in this day and age they prefer to be
politicians. It seems they are more concerned
with wresting control of the state, getting
themselves elected to public office, than they
are in promoting the welfare of the rank and
welfare of the trade union. I think that is a
fair statement.
Somebody reflected in this House last year
how the British trade union congress was
thinking of divorcing itself entirely from the
British Labour party, and what a pitiable
thing it is. May I say, in parentheses, sir, in
order to lay a proper foundation for my re-
marks, that I am a union lawyer. I act for
Local 598 of the International Union of Mine,
Mill and Smelter Workers— at least I have
up to now, they have not taken away my
letters patent yet— but I have acted for them
and I have been very pleased to do so.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It is
short lived.
DECEMBER 14, 1961
481
Mr. Sopha: Yes, the hon. member says it
is short hved. I am afraid it will be if David
Lewis comes in there; he will not want to
share his $50,000 a year with me. But I
am content; there is always another case.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): How does the
hon. member know what he gets?
Mr. Sopha: There is always another case.
I have been very pleased, I say, sir, to act
on the side of a union. It is the type of work
I like to do; it is a fascinating field of the law.
Who can help but believe, sir, who can
help but believe that when the trade union
executive goes into a government office,
goes into the chambers where government
policy is decided, and asks the government
to do something for him, that the man in
control, the man who has the responsibility
of power, the man who has been elected to
public office, who is himself a politician,
striving to be a statesman, but who sits on
one side of the desk, asks this trade union
executive on the other side in what capacity,
in which one of his roles, has he come?
Has he come to visit as the voice and agent,
the steward of the trade union who elected
him, or has he come as a politician?
It is difficult to discern in the minds of
those responsible for government just what
capacity he is in; because he knows that if
he accedes to the requests on behalf of the
labour movement or on behalf of the trade
union then it will not be long until that
trade union executive is out of his office on
a public platform, on the hustings, and he is
abusing and vilifying the person charged with
political responsibility.
Down at Ottawa, the Prime Minister of
this country laid it down, sir, as one of the
planks of his programme, that he would in
all government wards and commissions give
labour a fair opportunity, give them their
share of the seats, that he would appoint
them to such councils; and we have seen
what Mr. Diefenbaker has done in recent
months and recent years. When the vacan-
cies occurred he passed over the trade unionist
nominee. Take the case of the unemploy-
ment insurance commission.
Mr. Bryden: And it was certainly cheap
politics when he did it.
Mr. Sopha: Well, he did it, and I suggest
to the hon. member that Mr. Diefenbaker
is thinking in terms that these people are not
really representatives of the trade union
movement.
Mr. Bryden: They have been elected to
that. Who is he to say?
Mr. Sopha: One of the politicians, and I
am not sure that I accord with this, one of
the politicians sits on the labour relations
board in Ontario, in the person of Mr.
Archer. We in this party say, what kind of
a board is that getting to be? My friends
to the left here, they talk about their right
to be heard.
Mr. Bryden: Are there no politics on that
board? What is the hon. member talking
about?
Mr. Sopha: What about our rights? That
labour relations board right now is made up
of Conservative appointees and New Demo-
cratic appointees.
Mr. Bryden: We appointed no one. They
got there on their merits.
Mr. Sopha: Why do they not have Liberals
on it, we might ask?
Mr. MacDonald: There are no good
Liberals.
Mr. Sopha: And I fear, sir, and let me sum
up with this— my hon. friends can stand any-
thing but the truth— there will be a continuing
decline in trade union membership, and loss
of strength of the trade union movement,
until such time as trade union executives get
back to a realization that they were elected
to promote the welfare of the rank and file of
the union movement.
That is all I am going to say, sir, that may
be found to be provocative to my hon. friends
to the left. I am not going to do any such
thing. Let them run for public office, sir, let
them run. But I say to them, if they want to
run for public office, lay down the duties and
the responsibilities of leaders of the trade
union movement.
Mr. Bryden: Nonsense. They run for office
in the union if they get elected.
Mr. Sopha: Let us not be schizophrenic.
A man can do only one job well— be a politi-
cian or be a steward of the union. Let these
people come to Sudbury and try to change
the voting habits. I challenge them to a
contest if they come; take it at the drop of a
hat.
The House has been very indulgent with
me to this time— generally speaking, the House
has been very indulgent with me. There are
482
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
some exceptions. However, I am going to
embark on the final part of my remarks and
I am going to say something which is very
serious— very serious indeed.
Mr. Bryden: Well, nothing up to now has
been serious.
Mr. Sopha: Would the hon. member kindly
shut up.
I want to lay the proper background, sir.
I am going to make some observations of
fact about an hon. member of this House.
I want it clearly understood that I am not
making any charges. I am going to lay the
facts before this House, sir, and I am going
to let the facts speak for themselves. And
I think those statements of facts, documented
as they are— and I have the documents before
me— will call for an inquiry by the govern-
ment of the conduct of this hon. member and
an explanation and a disclosure whether one
of the important statutes of this province has
been broken.
I will in fact call for an inquiry as to
whether that hon. member has a continuing
right to sit in this House. As I say, I am not
making any charges. I do not know the
answer, but I think as a result of what I show
to this House, that it will be incumbent upon
the government to investigate the matter fully
and, if he has a right to sit in this House,
that they assure all hon. members of this
House, and in fact the people of this province
the basis for that right.
I take you back, sir, some 13 years ago, to
the Mississagi fire which occurred in the
summer of 1948 and burnt a large area,
several hundred thousand, if not millions, of
acres of very fertile forest area in the district
of Algoma. That district, though I do not
claim to have a great familiarity with it, the
district in that area contained a large growth of
timber saw-logs which had reached a very
advanced stage and were ready for logging
operations. The then hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests, when he described that fire to
the House during the session of 1949— as I say
that fire occurred in 1948— said this:
At the present time we have approxi-
mately 60 million feet of logs in the water
and before the break-up comes we are
hoping to have it up to about 70 million
feet. This portion is that which was most
seriously hit. [He is speaking of hit by
fire]. We will carry on these operations in
areas wherein the trees were slightly
scarred but not damaged, and then we will
have left small isolated patches of green
timber, which was not hurt at all but still
cannot justify an operator going in later
and setting up camps. We anticipate we
will have between 150 million and 200
million feet before we are finished.
Now I take it that he is referring there to
salvage, to the amount of timber that could
be salvaged from that operation.
I do not pretend to know what the policy
of the government was. I have studied the
journal and I have studied the debate to
ascertain what the policy of the government
was at that time, in getting this timber out,
salvaging it, but apparently they were content
for private persons to go in there and do
this work and they— apparently, I say, I do
not know for sure— but apparently the govern-
ment found a market for these saw-logs or at
least someone had been to the government
and had made representations to the govern-
ment wherein they would purchase the saw-
logs.
I do not know how many different oper-
ators were given the right by the government
to carry on this salvage operation. That is
among the questions that remain unanswered.
I do know the identity of one company that
carried on that operation and was paid a
vast sum of money by the government for
that. And indeed, not only paid a vast sum
of money by the government for the delivery
of saw-logs but was paid advances from the
government. The government of this prov-
ince advanced money to this outfit for the
purpose of taking pulpwood out, and I think
that is very unusual, that they should say
to a group: "We'll give you the money to
carry on your operation".
I think, even in the face of the economy
at that time, that if it were profitable people
would come forward, experienced in the
branch of forest industry, and be able to put
up their own capital. That is one of the
things that needs explanation.
Against that background, I want to place
the facts before the House. As I say again,
sir, I make no charges at all. No man can
get up and say that I am insinuating any-
thing. I feel it is my duty to put these things
before the House. I do it with a non-contrite
heart and I do it with the assurance that it
is the exercise of duty because I remember
only too well— and let me give this added
bit of background— there are those who sit
here with me who were here before me and
remember the aspersions, the slander, the
innuendo, the defamation, of the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) when
he was alleged to have done something
wrong; and what he did was peanuts, noth-
DECEMBER 14, 1961
483
ing. They took it out on him. Against that
background and knowing what will happen
in this House I am absolutely unashamed to
put these facts before the House.
I have before me a photostat of a true
copy of Instrument No. 1724— and you will
forgive me, sir, if I read these in detail-
registered in the registry office for the district
of Algoma on the 8th day of June, 1949;
photostated on the 26th day of July, 1961, at
the hour of 9.30 a.m., as witness my hand
and seal of office (sgd) Viola Filipcic, Deputy
Registrar of Deeds:
Declaration of Partnership
District of Algoma
We, Gerard Joncas, of the town of Thessalon, in
the district of Algoma, contractor,
and
Luc Cote, of the same place, contractor,
and
John A. FuUerton, of the same place, merchant,
hereby certify
1. That we have carried on and intend to carry
on trade and business as timber contractors at the
said town of Thessalon and at Rocky Island Lake
to the north thereof in partnership under the name of
Mantane Contracting company.
2. That the said partnership has subsisted since
the 10th day of May, 1949.
3. That we are and have been since the said
day the only members of the said partnership.
4. That we are each of the full age of 21 years.
Witness our hands and seals at Sault Ste. Marie,
this 21st day of May, 1949.
Witnessed by
( signed )
Elsie Bjorklund
( signed )
J. Gerard Joncas
Luc Cote
J. A. Fullerton
Attached to that is an affidavit of execution
of Elsie Bjorklund, the normal affidavit of
execution, sworn on the 21st day of May,
1949, in which she says she knows all the
subscribing parties, saw them sign, seal and
execute the document.
Later the only other instrument registered
in the registry office in Algoma in relation
to this partnership is Declaration No. 1894,
filed on the 31st of October, 1950, and it is
a declaration of a change in partnership by
Gerard Joncas and John A. Fullerton of their
intention to carry on business as timber con-
tractors at Thessalon and Rocky Island Lake
as Mantane Contracting Company.
The said partnership is a continuation of
the present one in relation to which a declar-
ation was filed in Book P for partnerships for
the district of Algoma on the 8th day of
June, 1949, as No. 1724. The only change
is that Luc Cote named therein has with-
drawn from the partnership which has pur-
chased the interest of the said Luc Cote.
This change has been effective since Septem-
ber 1st, 1950.
The government of the province of Ontario
paid to Mantane Contracting Company for
salvage operations as a result of the Missis-
sagi fire the following amounts. I can prove
these amounts, I can prove that these pay-
ments were made, sir. I want to read them
all.
September 19, 1949
October 11, 1949 ....
November 21, 1949
November 24, 1949
December 9, 1949
January 6, 1950 ....
January 10, 1950 ....
January 16, 1950 ....
January 21, 1950 ....
February 10, 1950
March 2, 1950
March 14, 1950 ....
April 19, 1950
.. $ 2,013.52
6,565.44
.. 10,249.34
2,850.22
6,335.34
.. 31,913.77
7,455.37
6,939.54
.. 21,712.65
.. 44,091.06
.. 54,273.75
.. 13,561.53
.. 15,220.57
June 1, 1950 9,000.00
June 14, 1950 4,363.87
August 25, 1950 .... 1,409.76
The total, sir, paid by the government to
Mantane Contracting Company during the
time for which this agreement was in opera-
tion and in which the hon. member for
Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Fullerton) was an
hon. member of this Legislature, and a
partner in Mantane Contracting Company
was $237,955.73.
In addition, sir, the goverrmient advanced
to Mantane Contracting Company, the follow-
ing amounts to be recovered from the sale
of salvage pulpwood. This is the operation
that I referred to earlier. . —
December 16, 1949 ....... .... $42,135.66
January 27, 1950 .... 35,223.23
February 24, 1950 38,370.01
September 6, 1950 ........ 45,000.00
-for a total of $160,728.90.
Contracts with Mantane Contracting Com-
pany were completed June 14, 1950 and
August 25, 1950. Advances were refunded
on October 20, 1951. Apparently the com-
pany sold this pulpwood that it had for
salvage and repaid the goverrmient. As I
say, I do not know why the government had
to advance the money in the first place. It
is one of the things that I think needs an
explanation.
There is another interesting part to it. This
man Joncas, his name is J. Gerard Joncas,
comes from a place in Quebec by the name
484
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Mantane. He, of course, is a partner with
the hon. member for Algoma-Manitouhn in
this company. There was a company named
Mantane Logging Registered. That company
is not registered in the registry office for the
district of Algoma. I do not know if it is
registered anywhere else in Ontario. I am
informed that a partnership in the province
of Quebec customarily has that form of title,
the name of the company and the word
"registered" after it. I have not searched in
the province of Quebec to see if there is a
registration as to who operates this company,
Mantane Logging Registered. However, I
draw this to your attention, the similarity of
the names, the fact that this company was
carrying on a similar operation in the same
place, the fact that Joncas is a partner in
Mantane Contracting Company. An additional
fact is that the contracts were completed with
Mantane Logging Registered August 25, 1950,
the same day as the contracts were completed
with Mantane Contracting Company. There-
fore, there is a suggestion I say on tliose facts,
and an inference to be drawn, that these
companies, these two companies, are con-
nected. I say that is a matter which should
be the subject of an inquiry.
I am not going to go into the amounts that
were paid, the specific amounts. I have them,
sir, here. I am prepared to prove that they
were paid. Between December 13, 1948 and
August 25, 1950— and you will note sir, the
similarity in the dates— the last payment to
Mantane Contracting Company is August 25,
1950— the last payment to Mantane Logging
Registered is August 25, 1950. The total
amount between those two dates, December
13, 1948 and August 25, 1950, paid by the
government of this province to Mantane
Logging Registered, $1,039,293.40. So, in
toto, sir, these two companies were paid a
total of something approaching $1^^ million.
Subsequently, sir, by letter dated November
28, 1950 from Messrs. McGuire, Boles &
Worrall, barristers and solicitors of Toronto,
addressed to R. J. Cudney, Companies Branch,
Department of Provincial Secretary, Queen's
Park, Toronto:
Dear Mr. Cudney:
Re Mantane Contracting Company Limited
I enclose Petition for Incorporation as
Mantane Contracting Company Limited.
The owners of this Company at present
are J. A. FuUerton, M.P.P., and J. G. Joncas,
his partner.
We also enclose their cheque payable
to the Provincial Treasurer for $210.52 to
cover incorporation fee plus exchange. As
their bank is at Thessalon we are unable
to have the cheque marked by the bank
before forwarding it to you.
I would be glad to discuss this Petition
with you if there is anything which requires
to be explained. The objects in this Petition
are the same as in another company for
which I obtained a charter a few years ago,
and is required because of the several
different lines of business this firm is now
carrying on.
Yours sincerely,
( signed )
W. H. McGuiRE.
Sent the next day, I believe, there was a
document commonly known as a consent to
use a name. In the matter of a pending appli-
cation for incorporation, under The Ontario
Companies Act, of the Mantane Contracting
Company Limited:
We, John Arthur FuUerton, and Joseph
Gerard Joncas, both of the village of
Thessalon, in the district of Algoma and
Province of Ontario, carrying on business at
Thessalon, under the firm, name and style
of Mantane Contracting Company, hereby
consent to the name Mantane Contracting
Company Limited being granted to the
company, incorporation of which is being
applied for by William Henry McGuire
and others and to the use of the said name
by said company.
In witness whereof we have hereunto set
our hands and seals this 28th day of
November, 1950.
Witness
(signed)
M. McHuGH.
( signed )
John Arthur Fullerton,
J. Gerard Joncas.
Attached to that is an affidavit of Mary
McHugh saying that she was personally
present and saw John Arthur Fullerton and
Joseph Gerard Joncas sign it, and she then
said that she knows them, that she sub-
scribed her hand as witness.
Then there is a letter of December 4, 1950,
addressed to J. F. Sharpe, Esq., Timber
Management Chief, Deputy Provincial Secre-
tary, Department of Lands and Forests,
Buildings:
Dear Frank,
Re: Mantane Contracting Company,
Limited
This will confirm our telephone con-
versation of today relative to an apphcation
DECEMBER 14, 1961
485
for incorporation of a company under the
above name submitted through the office
of Messrs. McGuire, Boles & Worrall,
Barristers, Toronto.
The applicants for incorporation are:
William Henry McGuire, James Arthur
Boles and James Worrall, Barristers-at-Law;
and Mary McHugh, Secretary; and Jessie
Hunter, Stenographer; all of the city of
Toronto.
The purposes and objects of the Company
are, in brief,
( a ) to carry on the business of lumbering
and the lumber trade in all its branches,
and all other business incidental thereto,
including buying, selling and dealing in all
lands of sawed, squared and hewed lumber
and timber, etc.;
(b) To carry on the business of general
contractors and to enter into contracts for,
construct, execute, own and carry on all
description of works and to carry on for the
purpose aforesaid the business of a general
construction company, etc.;
(c) To act as carriers, truckmen, cartage
agents, etc.; and (d) to (1) inclusive. The
head office is to be in the village of
Thessalon, in the province of Ontario.
I understand that you have no objection
to the granting of letters patent herein.
Yours very truly,
( signed )
R. J. CUDNEY.
Then there is a letter of December 4, same
day as that letter to Mr. Sharpe:
Toronto 2.
December 4.
Dear Senator McGuire,
Re: Mantane Contracting Company y
Limited
This will confirm our telephone con-
versation of today relative to the above
application for incorporation.
The material is in order and we are
proceeding in the matter. The letters
patent is being engrossed as of November
29, 1950.
Enclosed, please find receipt for cheque
in the sum of $210.52 covering the depart-
ment fee herein.
Yours very truly,
( signed )
R. J. CUDNEY,
Deputy Provincial Secretary.
Then there is a letter of March 21, 1951,
addressed to McGuire, Boles and Worrall,
Barristers, etc., 1315-20 Montreal Trust Build-
ing, 67 Yonge Street, Toronto.
Dear Sir,
Re: Mantane Contracting Company
Limited C -63102
This will acknowledge receipt of your
letter of March 16, 1951, enclosing return
of change of directors for the above com-
pany and the sum of $2.00 to cover fee for
filing, receipt for which is enclosed.
Please be advised that such return has
been filed in this office as of March 19,
1951.
The directors at the time of that notice
of change of directors were the following:
E. A. Charlton of Muskegan, Michigan; R.
D. Terrien of the same place; J. A. Fullerton
of Thessalon; J. G. Joncas of Thessalon;
James Worrall of Toronto.
I wish to make two observations. First
is that the application, the petition for in-
corporation, went from the offices of Mc-
Guire, Boles and Worrall, on November 28,
1950. Everything had been done, complete,
in the Provincial Secretary's office by Decem-
ber 4, six days later, including an inquiry
which had been made of the district forester
at Thessalon. This is very unusual. Un-
usual indeed.
The engrossing date of that company was
given as November 29, a day after, the day
after the original petition. It took only six
days to get this company through.
Normally, today, it takes about something
like six or eight weeks, two months to get
it through. Maybe ten years ago it took a
lesser amount of time, but I doubt whether
ten years ago, when I was not in the prac-
tice of law, that it could be done in six days.
However, this company was formed in that
time.
The second observation that I wish to
make, was that when the government was
first asked— inquiry was directed to the gov-
ernment at that time— whether any contracts
had been entered into with Mantane Con-
tracting Company, and any amounts paid
under any contract of any description, the
reply of the government was "No." There
was none.
Then, sometime later, a month later, the
government suddenly discovered that con-
tracts had been entered into to the extent
as I pointed out, of $237,955.73 that had
been paid to the company; plus an advance
of $160,728.90.
The government made two answers; and
I am prepared to prove this. They had first
486
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
denied that any contracts had been entered
into, and any amounts had been paid. Then
a month later, I am not sure that it is a
month, but it is some appreciable time later,
they suddenly discovered— and the Minister
of Lands and Forests at that time divulged
that, as I have pointed out— monies had been
paid.
The government was also asked whetber
any contracts had been entered into with
Mantane Contracting Company Limited, and
the answer was "No." And I merely cite
this, bring forth this material, to show the
incorporation of this company.
I am prepared to demand, sir, that inves-
tigation be made to determine whether any
contracts were, in fact, entered into with the
limited company of the same people, the
same people as in the company registered
under The Partnerships Registration Act. It
gives the full picture.
Then I go on to say, sir, that the hon.
member for Algoma-Manitoulin— who unfor-
tunately is not in his seat, he was here earlier
tonight— resigned from the company accord-
ing to a return sent to The Department of the
Provincial Secretary, of April 30, 1952, and
it was said in that that he resigned from
the company on October 16, 1951— J. Gerard
Joncas, as well.
Just to complete the story, on March 12,
1958, the company was wound up, the letters
patent were cancelled, and it was dissolved
as of April 7, 1958.
However, sir, this registration in the regis-
try office of Algoma, of June 8, 1949, still
stands. There has been no declaration filed
other than the one I cited that Luc Cote had
withdrawn from the partnership.
What is the eflFect of all this? I must con-
fess that I do not know. There is section
9 of The Legislative Assembly Act. Any
hon. member can read it at his leisure. There
are certain exceptions and exemptions follow-
ing section 9. In my opinion, if I were to
give an opinion as a lawyer, none of the
exemptions from the operation of section 9
operates. I just want to give an illustration,
finally, of the operation of section 9; and for-
tuitously, very fortuitously— I hope you, Mr.
Speaker, at least, will believe that it was for-
tuitous—I happen to have an opinion of the
law oJBficers of the Crown.
On June 22, 1961, sir, a young solicitor,
I think he had graduated from law school
either that year or the year previous, was
employed in the office of the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts), and I do not care to
give his name. Of course, we will give his
name if it is demanded. I do not think his
name is relevant. He is still working, so far
as I know, in The Department of the
Attorney-General.. He telephoned my firm and
I was not there. He spoke to one of my
associates and he asked my associate to appear
on a trial the next day, that was taking place
in the district court of the district of Sudbury.
The name of the case was Lew against
Casey. Casey was a defaulting defendant
and he was defended by E. H. Silk, Q.C.,
solicitor to the hon. Minister of Transport
(Mr. Rowntree), representing the Unsatisfied
Judgment Fund. This young solicitor asked
my associate to appear on behalf of the hon.
Minister of Transport at the trial of the case
on June 23. He confirmed that to my associ-
ate by letter of June 26, 1961. On July 5 my
associate reported to him the outcome of the
trial in a lengthy letter.
Then I returned to the office and my associ-
ate drew to my attention, that he had received
those instructions from The Department of
the Attorney-General and he was aware, of
course, of my position, and we had discussed
my position so far as the strictures of The
Legislative Assembly Act are concerned and
he asked me about the account. I gave him
certain instructions and as a result of those
instructions he wrote this letter to The
Department of the Attorney-General, July 25,
1961, re Casey ats Lew:
Thank you for your letter of July 18,
1961, and for the kind sentiments expressed
therein, and we do appreciate the oppor-
tunity of having been of some service. By
the terms of section 9, The Legislative
Assembly Act it is my impression that we
cannot biU any fee in the matter of assist-
ance which we may be to the Attorney-
General and therefore there will of course
be no account for our fees. We are won-
dering about the point of disbursements
which are very minor in this matter and I
was hoping you might speak to one of the
law officers of the Crown who might ad-
vise whether or not he feels the matters
of disbursements infringes section 9 of The
Legislative Assembly Act.
Again with dianks for your kiiid !S<6nti-
ments, .:
Yours very truly,
■; ; :u^a-:sr^ h (signed)
. JH ^. ^,.,,^ .. : Ed Y^rARD James Conroy.
For those hon. members of the House who
are not familiiar with legal terminology I might
say that the word "disbursements," as most
hon. members will know and I do not intend
to be presumptuous, means the amount of
money that a lawyer spends on the prosecu-
tion of Htigatioij., : rvl>^
DECEMBER 14, 1961
487
On September 13, 1961, my associate
Edward James Comroy received this letter
from The Department of the Attorney-
General:
Dear Sm,
Re: Lew against Casey
On my return from holidays I find your
letter of July 25, 1961, and answer. I have
looked at section 9 of The Legislative
Assembly Act and you were quite right in
raising the point of your fee in this matter
with respect to this section, and I wish
to say at this time that on June 22 when
I instructed you to appear as our agents
in the defence of this action in Sudbury
I was unaware of this section of The Legis-
lative Assembly Act and I failed at that
time to realize the possible implications
which you seem to have fully realized. I
wish to assure you of my good faith on
June 22 and of my continuing good faith.
With respect to your disbursements,
I was speaking to the legislative counsel
and it is his feeling that the section was
never intended to rob you or your firm of
monies advanced on behalf of the Crown
which it would appear could be properly
reimbursed to your firm without violating
the provisions of section 9 of The Legis-
lative Assembly Act, but on the other hand
legislative counsel will not and cannot give
any assurance that a question would not be
raised in the future which would certainly
have an answer but which would certainly
embarrass Mr. Sopha.
I regret this unfortunate turn of events
and leave the decision up to you as to
whether you will submit an account for
your disbursements in this action.
Yours sincerely.
Then on October 24, 1961, having discussed
it— just to complete the story— with my associ-
ate, he wrote this letter to The Department
of the Attorney-General, re Casey ats Lew:
We have also gone over The Legislative
Assembly Act and it seems to us that dis-
bursements are not considered in the section
of that Act applicable so we enclose to
you at this time a list of our disbursements
herein.
Yours very truly.
The disbursements of our firm in that
letter were the following:
Paid for subpoena $ 2.00
Paid service of subpoena 10.50
Total disbursements 12.50
That was a case where we had spent— and
this may amuse the hon. Minister from St.
Andrew (Mr. Grossman), but I am show-
ing by way of analogy the difficulty that
legislative counsel have in interpreting that
section— here we had spent our money, $12.50,
a very minor amount; I do not care if I ever
get it back. We probably will.
Legislative counsel, sir, were unwilling to
say, they were unwilling to say that paying
me back the money I had spent on behalf
of the Crown did not infringe the section.
Then what of the half a million dollars that
the Crown has paid out— not money advanced
by the person at all— the Crown has paid out
to the account of a member of this assembly?
Now, how comes this to me? I am not go-
ing to give any names, but it comes to me
from people who reside in the area, who
have been aware of this for ten years; aware
that a member of this assembly was connected
with a company which did business with the
Crown, and did a large amount of business
and got a large amount of money. Is there
anything more calculated to shake public
confidence in the elected representatives of
this assembly than that a member of this
assembly enters into a contract with the
Crown with such vast sums of money?
If there be— and I am not saying there is,
sir, I am not making any allegations of fact—
I say if there be a connection between Man-
tane Logging Registered and Mantane Con-
tracting Company, if there be, and there is
some similarity and some grounds for sus-
picion, then the sum is $1.5 milHon that is
involved.
I do not know how much of that is profit,
I do not know how fortuitously the business
was carried on by these people. We are
entitled to presume that they are economic
men guided by good business principles, and
$1.5 million is a vast amount of money. I
venture to say and I give it as my opinion
as a solicitor of the Supreme Court and in
safety I give it, I will venture as my opinion
that there has been an infraction of section 9.
I certainly venture it as my opinion that
a member of this assembly has benefited
while a member of it, and the amount of
money is so vast that I submit, sir, and I
submit with assurance, and I submit on be-
half of those in that district who are aware
of it and have been aware of it for ten years
—and now the whole of the people of the
province will be aware of it— that it calls for
an explanation. It calls for an inquiry by
the government to show whether there is
just cause and whether there is a reasonable
488
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
explanation why such vast sums of money
should be paid by the government to a firm
which contains a member of this assembly.
We on this side are concerned— we are
entitled to be concerned— that the honour of
this assembly be upheld; and if I advert to
the facts again, the hon. members on the
other side of the House, at one time in
yesteryear, were concerned about the honour
of the members of the assembly, and did not
hestitate to say so in no uncertain terms,
about a matter that pales into insignificance
compared to this.
I leave it at that. Let me say in finality, in
case there be those who have not heard me
straight the first time: I make no charges,
I make no charges at all. There are the facts.
It is incumbent upon those who lead the
province to give an explanation of them. I
rest my case upon that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): Mr.
Speaker, would the hon. member answer a
question? My question is: I am sure the
hon. member's knowledge of parliamentary
law and rules is far more than my own, but
is he aware that out of courtesy to this House
and courtesy to the hon. members thereof—
for a matter such as he has just referred to,
to be referred to the committee of privileges
and elections of this House— that the hon.
member should not make such statements
unless he can come out with something ether
than innuendoes and insinuations?
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): I move
the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before we
adjourn, is the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) going to refer this to the committee
on elections and privileges?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I will investigate these matters. I
have not heard of them before this evening.
I had no idea that any of these matters had
occurred. They occurred before my time in
this Legislature. I will examine these matters
very carefully and decide what course of
action the government will take.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before
moving the adjournment of the House, I
might say that tomorrow morning we will
have some third readings and I will ask the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor to wait
upon us and give Royal assent to certain bills
that have been passed during the session.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.03 o'clock, p.m.
No. 19
ONTARIO
%m&htmt of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty^Sixth Legislature
Friday, December 15, 1961
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q«C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1961
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
Friday, December 15, 1961
Statement re Mississagi fire and salvage operations, Mr. Robarts 493
Statement re university a£Fairs committee, Mr. Robarts 499
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, third reading 501
Fire Marshals Act, bill to amend, third reading 501
Police Act, bill to amend, third reading 501
Department of Labour Act, bill to amend, third reading 501
Vital Statistics Act, bill to amend, third reading 501
Corporations Act, bill to amend, third reading 501
Corporations Information Act, bill to amend, third reading 501
Income Tax Act, 1961-1962, bill intituled, third reading 501
Milk Industry Act, bill to amend, third reading 501
Royal assent to certain bills 501
Motion to adjourn until the date to be named by the Lieutenant-Covemor in coimcil,
Mr. Robarts, agreed to 502
;■ jfi :■.■■ .-' -
-Ok
'-■* ■
*."!!! "!*.■?..■'."''.-'*:'' i!!" *.^. "'.". . *^ ■"' '..«..
491
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature, and today we wel-
come as guests in the east gallery students
from York Memorial Secondary School,
Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts moves, seconded by
Hon. A. K. Roberts, that when this House
adjourns the present day's sitting thereof, it
do stand adjourned until a day to be named
by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
two questions I would like to ask. The first
pne I gave notice of a short time ago, I do
not know whether the hquor commissioner
has received it or not. It is in the nature of
a supplementary question to that asked by the
hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Troy). To
make the question intelHgible I want to read
briefly from the November 23 issue of the
Smiths Falls Record News.
In it is a story of a recent meeting of the
Smiths Falls Progressive-Conservative Asso-
ciation and the election of D. M. Code as the
president of it. The story contains the follow-
ing two paragraphs:
D. M. Code announced that there were
13 applications received to fill a vacancy
at the local L.C.B.O. outlet. However, Mr.
Gomme said that he has never been oflB-
cially notified of the vacancy, but had
learned unofficially that it would not be
filled until after the first of the year.
A committee comprising G. B. Swayne,
J. C. Clark and W. E. Bennett was set up
Friday, December 15, 1961
to interview the applicants when the vacancy
is officially announced. This committee will
report its selection to Mr. Gomme who in
turn will make the necessary recommenda-
tion to the board in Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions to ask
the liquor commissioner, the hon. Minister
without portfolio (Mr. Grossman). The first
one: is the procedure outlined in that quota-
tion from the Smiths Falls Record News the
authorized procedure for hirings in the
L.C.B.O.? Second: if it is not the authorized
procedure, can the liquor commissioner give
the House the assurance that this procedure
of a committee of the local Conservative
association, acting in the capacity of an
employment agency for the L.C.B.O., will
forthwith come to an end so that recruiting
for the L.C.B.O. will be done through the
authorized charmels of the civil service
commission?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has
stated I just got this as I came into the
House and I hope the hon. members are not
going to feel that I am going to ask for a
notice on every question that is asked. But
obviously, I think, they will appreciate that
I have only been in this job for four or five
weeks and I am not as famihar with things
as I would like to be and certainly not in a
position to give opinions on questions at this
stage, questions which are asked of me two
or three minutes before the House sits. I
will therefore have to take this as notice and
I can assure the hon. member I will have an
answer for him just as soon as it is possible,
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the
authorized channels for appointments to the
civil service are very clear. My supple-
mentary question— I know hon. members are
very sensitive on this—
An hon. member: We are not sensitive.
Mr. MacDonald: My supplementary ques-
tion to the liquor commissioner is: since this
is clearly in violation of the authorized
channels, can he give us the assurance, after
492
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
looking into it, that he will take steps to see
that the unauthorized hiring by the local
Conservative associations will end?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I do not
even know as to the authenticity of this
report. I do not even—
An Hon. member: There are some things
printed in the newspaper about the hon.
member that even I do not believe.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, none of
these names is familiar to me except the
name of Mr. Gomme. I did not even know
that D. M. Code is, as the hon. member has
stated, president of the Conservative associa-
tion because, while that may be in the news
report, it is not in his question. I cannot
give opinions on these things imtil I discuss
it with my officials and I do not intend to,
because when I do give an answer I want it
to be correct.
Mr. MacDonald: My second question is to
the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts).
I am informed that the Victoria & Grey
Trust Company of Owen Sound and the
British Mortgage Company in Stratford have
approved lists of insurance companies whose
coverage they are willing to accept and
none other. Would the hon. Attorney-General
confirm whether this is correct?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, I have requested the superin-
tendent of insurance to look into this ques-
tion and he has given me at least a partial
answer. The matter of what insurance com-
panies' pohcies will be accepted by mort-
gage trust companies is not a matter of
government control, it is entirely a matter
of company policy and is not subject to gov-
ernment control. It is obvious that to an-
swer the questions he would have to make
some specific inquiries; he has no specific
information on the individual companies
having approved Hsts of insurance companies
but he is of the view that there are quite
a few. He says that mortgagees generally
feel they have the right to require insurance
policies from companies approved by them.
The suggestion is that some of these com-
panies have not been ready to approve
United States insurance companies who have
recently entered Ontario, and possibly this
question was inspired from those sources.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I
notice, probably it is an expression of the
Christmas spirit, but you gave the hon. mem-
ber for York South (Mr. MacDonald) an
opportunity to elaborate on the question. I
had one too, you will recall, to the chief
commissioner and it was not intelhgible to
him. I can readily understand that, but
when I—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have
a direct question? Order!
Mr. Troy: My question is, are we allowed
to elaborate on statements, on questions, or
not? In this particular one the hon. mem-
ber for York South was; I was not.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I would like
to direct a question to the hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions (Mr. Haskett):
1. Is there any truth in reports now cur-
rent that an employee of the Metropohtan
Toronto Don Jail is being threatened with
dismissal because, his hair having turned
prematurely grey as a result of a gas explo-
sion, he took steps to have its colour re-
stored?
2. If so, will the hon. Minister assure
the House that he will intervene to prevent
this apparent abuse of disciphnary power and
interference in the personal affairs of an
employee?
An hon. member: That is an internal
matter, there is nothing of a pubHc nature.
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Reform Insti-
tutions): Mr. Speaker, I did receive notice
of this question by the hon. member for
Woodbine (Mr. Bryden), and I am sorry to
say it came to my office just as I was gather-
ing up the papers to come to the House this
morning. It was the first intimation I have
had of any such problem existing, so I am
not able to answer at this time nevertheless,
but I have asked that an inquiry be made
through the office regarding it.
The second part of the question is purely
hypothetical and I would not attempt to
answer it. I just hope that the hon. mem-
ber, if I may make a supplementary answer,
is not using this question period as a vehicle
to make a subtle suggestion.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would think
that the hon. Minister requires something
more than subtle suggestions.
Mr. J. A. Fullerton (Algoma-Manitoulin):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
wish to rise on a question of personal priv-
ilege affecting me in my capacity as a member
of this House.
DECEMBER 15, 1961
493
Last night the hon. member for Sudbury
(Mr. Sopha) addressed the House. I was
present during the first portion of his remarks,
as the hon. member well knew. Then I left
the chamber and after my departure he
assailed my rights to sit as a member of this
House and brought into question my personal
integrity.
It is my hope that all hon. members of
this House will concur with my suggestion
that this entire matter be referred at the
earliest possible opportunity to the committee
on elections and privileges. In the meantime,
and in view of the delay that such procedure
would involve, I hasten to ask the opportu-
nity to deny categorically the insinuations
made by the hon. member. I affirm that there
is absolutely no wrong in what I did.
The events referred to by the hon. member
occurred some 11 or 12 years ago. In order
that my recital of the facts shall be made
perfectly accurate, I have arranged that all
relevant files and documents be forwarded
to me in Toronto. I will also arrange to
discuss the matter with the appropriate mem-
ber of the law firm of the late hon. Senator
McGuire, who provided all necessary legal
advice to me at the time of the transaction
mentioned. This means that I shall be in a
position to make a public statement next week
which will establish the falsity of the hon.
member's claim.
In the meantime, I cannot refrain from
referring to the behaviour of the hon. mem-
ber from Sudbury in withholding his remarks
until after I had left the House at a late
hour last night.
The documents which he tabled with such
a flourish are all public documents available
to any person in Ontario and have been avail-
able for the past 12 years. The hon. member
has had them in his possession since July 27,
1961, and he waited until last evening, just
before the adjournment of the House, which
is to take place, I understand, today, before
using it.
The various announcements which he made
are completely and entirely groundless. His
attitude and what he has done demonstrates
clearly the reason why he is held in contempt
in this assembly as a sneak.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister):
Before the orders of the day, I would like to
address a few remarks to the transaction
which was referred to by the hon. member
for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) in his contribution
to the Throne speech debate last night. I
would like to congratulate the hon. member
for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Fullerton) for
the statement he has just made and the
manner in which he has faced the allegations
and insinuations, because I notice that the
hon. member was very careful to say that he
was making no charges.
But in order to understand the situation—
and the references that were made here last
night, in my opinion, to some extent at least,
imphcate the government of that day and the
course of action which it followed— I there-
fore propose to give to the hon. members of
the House a fairly full and complete story of
the transaction of those days of long ago,
because this transaction had its beginning
back in 1948, over 13 years ago.
On May 25, 1948, two fires were reported
in the Mississagi provincial forest. One was
discovered about 100 feet from the Chapleau
highway clearing in township 8D, 25 minutes
after it started. Brush burning had been in
progress nearby on the previous day. The
other fire started in township 3D, near the
headwaters of Sharpsand River, a branch of
the Mississagi, at a location very difficult to
reach.
Due to extremely high fire hazard both
fires were out of control the following day.
No wetting rain had fallen for months pre-
vious and the subsoil was dry due to long
subnormal precipitation. Humidity on the day
following the outbreak was 18 per cent, with
35 miles per hour wind at the nearest weather
station, located at Ranger Lake. Eventually
both burnt areas joined southwest of Peshu
Lake in township 4D.
The main fires were considered under con-
trol near the end of June, but dry conditions
again prevailed and outbreaks from smoulder-
ing material occurred during most of July.
On July 24, the Chapleau fire was reported
officially out, and the Mississagi on July 31.
The direct additional cost to the govern-
ment in extra firefighters' wages and other
suppression expenses on forest fires that year
amounted to $1,715 million, the greater pro-
portion of which applied to these two fires.
At one stage 1,538 extra firefighters were
employed on these two fires alone.
The final fire reports on these fires showed
645,450 acres of forested land, mostly in the
Mississagi provincial forest, in 54 townships
exclusive of lakes, had been swept over by
fire. Seventy-five per cent of this area was
in mature forest types. Timber damaged was
estimated at 230 million feet of white pine,
81 million feet of red pine and 151 million
feet of jackpine. Though not estimated, a
large volume of spruce and jackpine pulp-
wood throughout the fire area was also des-
troyed. The intensity of the fire varied from
494
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
complete destruction of standing timber from
both crown and ground fires, to areas run over
by ground fire only and within the fire area
were small patches of timber which escaped
fire damage.
The burned area roughly corresponded with
the forest in which most the balsam was
infested with or dead from the spruce bud-
worm. This dead material contributed to the
rapid spread of the fire and added to the
difficulty of suppression.
Logging of the more accessible timber
along the Mississagi and White Rivers and
their branches has been carried on for
decades. However, rough terrain and the
longer hauls to the rivers has left what was the
second largest reserve of white and red pine
in Ontario.
In the next section of this we will deal
with preparations that were made for salvage.
Before the fires were under control it was
reahzed the loss to the people of Ontario if
this large amount of white and red pine were
not saved. With this in mind, representatives
of The Department of Lands and Forests held
a meeting on June 30, 1948, in North Bay to
formulate a plan. It was evident that operators
in the area could salvage but a small part of
the fire damaged material. It was obvious
also that if salvage was carried out on a scale
warranted by the estimated amount of mer-
chantable timber, the government would have
to take the initiative. With this in view
the following recommendations were reached
at this meeting:
(a) Contact operators in the immediate
vicinity of the burnt area to determine what
they might undertake.
(b) Sketch the burnt area to delimit parts
having no salvage value and those carrying
merchantable timber, the merchantable areas
to be graded to the degree of bum.
(c) Photograph the burnt area to provide
a means of planning and controlling opera-
tions.
A memorandum to the Minister of Lands
and Forests dated June 23, 1948, incorpor-
ated the above recommendations. Immedi-
ately a sum of $44,500 was approved for
aerial sketching and photography.
The lumber industry as a whole did not
manifest any particular enthusiasm over sal-
vage operations on their part. The reasons
advanced were higher costs and lower values
anticipated. Many firms already had their
working capital tied up in their own opera-
tions and market conditions were less certain
than they had been during the war period.
A field party from the forest insect labora-
tory, Sault Ste. Marie, explored the burned
area in the first part of August, 1948, to
estimate the damage already done by wood
borers. This and later investigations by the
laboratory, over the next few years showed
that, of the trees killed outright in 1948
during the fire, about 75 per cent of the
jackpine, 50 per cent of the white pine and
25 per cent of the red pine were attacked by
wood borers within the two months, based
on examinations of the lower trunks. Few
trees that were fire damaged but retained
green foliage were attacked. Nine species of
borers were found in damaged trees but
species of monochamus caused most of the
economic damage.
Further investigations showed that by 1953
practically all sapwood and some heartwood
of the trees killed in 1948, were rotted by
fungi. This amounted to roughly 50 per cent
of the volume in red pine in some cases, and
less in the case of white pine and jackpine.
In November, 1949, the laboratory carried
on an investigation in losses in lumber values
due to degrade caused by rot, stain and borer
holes that could be attributed to fire damage.
Lumber used was from logs which were
salvaged from the burned area. This loss in
lumber value was based on the present grade
as compared to what its grade would have
been if it had been cut before the fire. All
grading was done by a leading lumber grader
of the white pine bureau. In white pine the
loss in values ranged from 2.4 per cent for
trees that died in 1949 due to the effect of
the fire, to 62 per cent in high-grade trees
killed at the time of the fire in 1948. It was
less in red pine and least in jackpine. As
the lumber from the jackpine would have
graded very low if manufactured prior to the
fire— due to incipient decay that is associated
with overmaturity— the additional degrade
due to fire damage was quite moderate.
Aerial sketching was completed before the
end of July. Sketch maps which were
prepared, indicated that most of the area was
severely burned but huge quantities of fire-
killed timber remained. Photographing of the
burnt area was completed in the first part of
August, 1948. Photographs and sketch maps
were then used to lay out logging chances
based on concentration of timber, topographic
features and accessibility. Roads into each
logging camp were also laid out from the
photographs.
To check the estimates and location of
these logging chances, parties from the forest
resources inventory group took sample plots
DECEMBER 15, 1961
495
on each. For this work, bases were estab-
lished at Peshu and Flame Lakes. Aircraft
were used extensively. In all, 50 saw-log and
pulpwood logging chances were laid out and
most of these were sampled. The Department
of Lands and Forests ofiBce at Thessalon be-
came the headquarters for all salvage opera-
tions.
To advise operators desiring to log this
salvage timber the following "Notice of
Intention" was inserted on August 3, 1948,
in papers in Toronto, Pembroke, North Bay,
Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie. And I quote:
Notice of Intention: During the week
of August 16th consideration will be given
to applications for the right to salvage
timber damaged by fire on the Mississagi
provincial forest. Maps and operating
conditions may be examined at the office
of The Department of Lands and Forests
at Toronto or Thessalon.
And that is dated at Toronto, July 29, 1948.
All parties who wrote in or inquired about
salvage timber were given or mailed a set
of operating conditions. These operating
conditions outlined the two methods by
which royalties could be paid, (a) by a
tendered price per thousand log scale or (b)
by a percentage of the sale price of the lum-
ber. Tenders were to close on September
7, 1948.
There were many inquiries in response
to the above advertisement, but by Septem-
ber 7, 1948, only a few deposits by tenderers
had been made on a few logging chances.
It became evident that financing was the
problem confronting operators. If salvage
operations were to be financed through regu-
lar channels, only a very small amount would
be cut.
Banks seemed hesitant to finance the sal-
vage and fire-killed timber due to general
market conditions, high labour costs, and the
risk of it sawing out much low-grade
material.
Also, loans on these salvage operations
would exceed the usual 12 months.
The Minister of Lands and Forests out-
lined these problems to the Cabinet council.
He stressed the necessity of working capital
if this valuable timber was to be salvaged
in appreciable quantities in the season 1948-
49. He explained the risks involved as
outhned above, including the usual higher
risks attendant to the salvage of fire-damaged
timber.
The outcome of this meeting was the call-
ing together of the budget committee with
representatives of The Department of Lands
and Forests. This group was imanimous in
recommending that the salvage of this fire-
damaged timber should be proceeded with,
even at the risk of considerable cost to the
government, and the following recommenda-
tions were submitted for approval:
1. Timber operators will be asked to carry
out the whole operation from bush to the
completed product and, in order to assist
with the necessary financing, the government
will offer (a) to advance $1.50 for each log
of red and white pine, and 75 cents for each
log of jackpine and spruce when they are in
the water; (b) to pay one-half, or such
greater proportion as the Minister of Lands
and Forests may determine, of the cost of
constructing some 67 miles of roadways, esti-
mated to cost $3,000 per mile; and (c) to
undertake with any banks concerned not to
insist on its priority for Crown dues on such
timber as is brought out ahead of the
repayment of such bank.
2. Alternatively, timber operators will be
asked to tender upon cost of felling, buck-
ing, skidding and hauling logs to designated
water. It was also agreed that inclusive
with these recommendations will be the pro-
posal that any operators who had already
tendered in respect to salvage operations
would be given the opportunity of tender-
ing upon the basis outlined above.
An order-in-council, incorporating the
above recommendations, was approved on
September 13, 1948. It also provided a sum
of $1.5 million to cover the financial obliga-
tions of these reconmiendations for the
remainder of the fiscal year and previous
expenditures made on behalf of salvage opera-
tions.
On the strength of the above-mentioned
order-in-council the following advertisement
was inserted in newspapers in Toronto, Pem-
broke, North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie,
Timmins, Port Arthur, Fort William, Kirk-
land Lake and Lindsay. The advertisement
was as follows:
Department of Lands and Forests invites
tenders for the delivery of logs into water
that have been damaged as result of fire
which burned over parts of the Mississagi
provincial forest.
A supplementary set of operating conditions
incorporating the recommendations of the
order-in-council mentioned above was drawn
up. These conditions outlined the two
schemes by which operators could log salvage
timber, with the government supplying the
working capital by way of loans. Conditions
were also included whereby the government
496
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
would assist up to $1,500 per mile to build
access roads. Persons inquiring to the above
advertisement and all district offices were
supplied with copies of the supplementary
operating conditions.
By October, 1948 all saw-log chances as
laid out, had been tendered on and accepted.
Only three small pulpwood chances remained
open for tenders.
Agreements of two types were signed with
all operators whose tenders were accepted.
Some of these covered several logging
chances, while others covered only part of
one chance. Only fire-damaged timber was to
be cut. All agreements covered the operating
season 1948-49 only.
Thirteen operators signed agreements with
the government under scheme (a) in which
the operators agreed to cut, haul and saw the
logs into lumber and dispose of the finished
product. Crown dues were to be paid on the
log scale or as percent of the sale price of the
lumber. Six operators signed agreements with
the government under scheme (b) in which
the operator watered logs at a tendered price
per thousand log scale on account of the
government. Under both schemes advances
were made when the logs were on skidways
and another advance when the logs were in
designated water in safe storage under scheme
(a) or a final payment under scheme (b).
Under scheme (a) the operators were to
water as much timber as possible before
July 1, 1949. Road construction assistance
was also agreed upon under both schemes as
outlined above. Under scheme (a) interest
at five per cent was to be charged on ad-
vances after 12 months.
In two areas where more than one operator
used the same access road the government
paid the total cost of construction and built
each by contract. These roads were con-
sidered to be of permanent value. One was
the Rapid River Road to Toodee Lake of
nine miles in length, the other was approxi-
mately 16 miles long up the Kindiogami
River to Kindiogami Lake from the White
River Road.
All agreements called for monthly financial
statements of the operation. These were re-
quired before advances could be made so as
to protect the government's interest in the
logs. Provision was made to assist operators
in making these statements by trained men
of The Department of Lands and Forests,
who visited each operator's camp and showed
the clerks how to make them up according
to a prescribed outline. Of the 19 salvage
operators logging on the burnt area, three
were in the Chapleau district with access to
Chapleau; ten on the Mississagi watershed
with access by the Mississagi road; the re-
maining six were on the Little White River
watershed north of Mount Lake with access
by the White River road.
Soon after operations began, it was evident
that the Mississagi and White River roads and
bridges would need considerable repair and
several new bridges, caused by the increased
traffic. This work was undertaken by The
Department of Highways. Snowploughing of
these roads was mostly carried on by The
Department of Highways. Operators kept
their access roads open. In December, 1948,
the last link of the Mississagi-Chapleau high-
way was pushed through as a winter road.
This connected the operations in the Chap-
pleau district to those on the Mississagi
watershed.
The next deals with production of these
operations.
Woods operations were delayed in start-
ing due to the lateness of the season when
the access roads were built, and because of
mild wet weather in November and Decem-
ber. By mid-November cutting had begun on
all but two or three operations. In the third
week of November, 1948, approximately
38,000 logs were cut and skidded. At this
time 23 tractors, 50 trucks, 307 horses and
1,076 men were engaged on all salvage work.
Production increased rapidly after freeze-up.
The weekly peak was reached in the last week
of January, 1949, when 1,814 men, 645 horses,
44 tractors and 95 trucks produced 77,442
logs on skidways, scaling 4,550,000 feet,
Doyle rule.
Hauling commenced in January on most
chances. Lack of time to prepare suitable
haul roads in the preceding autumn, plus lack
of snow and soft weather in January, ham-
pered hauling all season. When the break-up
came in April many logs were still on skid-
ways. Truck hauling was resorted to in May
and June as soon as the roads dried up and
new roads could be built to haul logs left
in the bush plus those cut in spring operations.
All cutting under agreements for the season
1948-49 was stopped in the first part of
July, 1949. Total production for the season
1948-49 was 1,671,734 logs scaling 96,701,742
feet, Doyle rule. Logging operations in the
salvage area continued for three more seasons
until the end of the 1951-52 season. After
this season rot and worms had degraded any
remaining salvage timber to such an extent
that it was not worth the cost of cutting.
Total woods production up to November 30,
1954, from the whole salvage operation was
191,767,273 feet Doyle scale, plus 123,111.07
DECEMBER 15, 1961
497
cords of pulp wood and 18,629 cubic feet of
poles.
Milling and marketing fell into four general
categories:
First, operators whose log production was
financed by the government but who milled
and marketed the lumber themselves;
Second, operators whose log production was
not financed by the government but who
milled and marketed their own lumber;
Third, operators whose production was
financed by the government but sold their
lumber to the government;
Fourth, the processing of logs produced on
account of the government under logging
contracts.
The following shows the production in each
category:
In the first category, sawlog production
f.b.m. Doyle rule, 54,590,122.
In the secondary category— 19,471,967; in
the third category-29,482,718, and in the
fourth category-88,222,466.
Lumber production in f.b.m. mill scale:
In the first category— 72,013,229; in the sec-
ond category— 25,313,557; in the third cate-
gory—38,892,489 and in the fourth category—
114,900,832.
Pulpwood cords in the first category—
81,011.81; in the second category-42,099.26.
In cubic feet of poles in the first category—
14,747; and in the second category— 3,882.
These make totals of sawlog production,
f.b.m. Doyle rule, of 191,767,273; of lumber
production in f.b.m. mill scale of 251,120,107;
pulpwood cords at 123,111.07, and in cubic
feet of poles-18,629.
As several operators marketed part of their
lumber themselves and sold the remainder,
their production is divided between the first
and third categories. Involved in these two
categories were 11 operators. On lumber sold
on the open market, royalties were paid as
the lumber was shipped either on a basis of
log scale or a percentage of the sale value.
Involved in the second category were one
larger operator and several small ones. Royal-
ties were also paid on a basis of log scale or
on the percentage of the sale price of the
lumber.
Involved in the fourth category were 11
contractors producting sawlogs for the govern-
ment under contract at six concentrations. At
the largest of these around Rocky Island in
Rouelle Lakes, 34,343,835 feet Doyle rule
was produced. Of this amount approximately
29,896,666 feet Doyle scale was manu-
factured and marketed entirely by the J. J.
McFadden Lumber Company Limited of
Blind River. These logs sawed out 38,267,733
feet mill scale.
This company undertook to drive the logs
to its mill at Blind River and to saw, sort,
treat for stain, pile out and market the
lumber. The proceeds from the net return
of the sale of the lumber was to be divided
between the Crown and the company. To
illustrate, a net value of $60 per thousand
feet would return $25.50 or 421/^ per cent
to the government and $34.50 or 57% per
cent to the company. For every $1 increase
in the net sale price in an average monthly
sale, the government's share increased one-
half of 1 per cent and the company's share
decreased by the same percentage. The net
mill return to the department was $28.49
per thousand mill scale on this lumber.
The other concentrations of logs amounting
to 53,806,453 feet Doyle rule were sawn
under contract by portable mills at the log
concentrations— except for an estimated
6,072,000 feet, mill scale, that was sawn and
sold on the open market by one operator.
The lumber industry as a whole was con-
cerned over the possibility of a large volume
of lumber over and above normal production
being dumped on the market. The govern-
ment too realized this danger and, when a
plan was submitted by one of the companies,
experienced in white and red production
marketing, to overcome this problem, the
government willingly considered it and
entered into a formal agreement for the
operation of a wholesale lumber concen-
tration yard near North Bay.
An agreement between the company, the
Great Northern Woods Company Limited,
and the Crown, provides that the company
would undertake to: 1. Build and establish
the concentration yard for the processing of
government owned lumber only. 2. Supervise
the sawing and shipping of this lumber to
the concentration yard on account of the
government. 3. Grade, tally, pile and ship
out, as sold, this lumber at the risk of the
government. 4. Assist in the sales of the
lumber. 5. Establish a dressing plant in this
concentration yard for general custom dress-
ing.
By this agreement the government would
undertake to: 1. Furnish capital to build this
concentration yard by way of a capital loan
up to $180 million. 2. Pay all operating ex-
penses of this yard except those incurred in
connection with the dressing plant. 3. Pay
the sum of $10,000 per annum for supervision
for the duration of this agreement; and 4. Pay
498
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a charge of $24,000 per annum as fee for the
duration of this agreement.
This agreement was for four years. During
this period the capital loan was to be reduced
by the following sums per annum:
(a) maximiun normal depreciation rates as
allowed by The Department of National
Revenue on the actual cost of the yard and
all equipment, and
(b) the annual fee of $24,000;
(c) profits from the operation of the dress-
ing plant.
The balance of the capital loan still owing
at the expiration of this agreement was to be
repaid by the company within six months.
This agreement expired on November 30,
1953. The company consented to carry on
operations on a fixed fee of $12.50 per
thousand until all government-owned lumber
was sold.
By October 31, 1953, all sawing of logs
at all locations was completed. All merchant-
able grades of Ivmiber had been shipped from
all mill yards by November 30, 1954. On this
latter date there were 4,551,600 feet mill
scale of lumber still to be shipped from
concentration yards run by the company. Of
this amount 2,215,200 feet, mill scale, has
been disposed of by pro forma but remains
in yards to be shipped as ordered.
In all a total of 109,022,808 feet, mill scale,
was shipped to the Great Northern Woods
Company Limited from mill yards.
The first year's operation, i.e., during the
1948-49 season, was concentrated on fire-
killed timber only. The following year's
effort was to recover values from areas which
suffered from ground fires only. On these
areas the timber was partly dead or dying—
the butt log in most cases had been damaged.
For the final cut or during the 1950-51 season
green timber occurring in unbumed patches
was cut. These areas were not sufficient in
themselves to justify a separate operation
apart from the salvage. Some small clean-up
operations were carried on into the 1953-54
season.
Mr. Speaker, that is the background from
the government's point of view of the opera-
tion which was discussed here last night in
relation to a certain company. It is my inten-
tion to refer this matter to the committee on
privileges and elections upon the resumption
of the sitting of this Legislature.
I would hke to point out that this infor-
mation was not produced until the last pos-
sible moment, and I had noticed that the
same date is mentioned by the hon. member
for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. FuUerton). The
photostat of a true copy of the partnership
agreement, which was registered in the regis-
try office for the registry division of Algoma
on June 8, 1949, and which was mentioned
by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha)
last night, that certified copy was obtained
on July 27, 1961. We have been in session
here for over three weeks but no mention
of this matter was made until some time
after 10.30, or perhaps 10.15 last night.
I just draw this to the attention of the
House. I announced in this House that we
would attempt to complete this part of the
session today. I made this announcement
earlier in the week, and I am going to sug-
gest that this charge, although the hon.
member was very careful to say that he
was not charging anyone, but I am going to
suggest that this has been done deliberately
and it has been brought forward at this time
for the purpose of embarrassing the hon.
member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Fuller-
ton) and for the purpose of embarrassing
this government in the time we have avail-
able to deal with these charges.
However, in order to make the story
complete, I will refer to a section of The
Legislative Assembly Act, because there
were several references made to this Act
last night, and it seems to me that this
should go on the pubhc records.
Section 10 of The Legislative Assembly
Act says:
No person is ineligible as a member of
this Assembly—
And then is hsted (a), (b), (c), (d), (e); and
it is (f) in which I am interested, so I will
read this again:
No person is ineligible as a member of
the Assembly by reason of his holding a
licence, permit or permission for cutting
timber or being interested in any such
Hcence, permit or permission, directly or
indirectly, alone or with another, by him-
self or by the interposition of a trustee
or third person, or by reason of there
being money due or payable to Her
Majesty in respect of the timber cut but
no such person shall vote on any question
affecting such hcence, permit or permission
or in which he is interested by reason
thereof.
That is why, Mr,
into the background
the government's
doubtedly there are
in this transaction,
the interest of the
in salvaging for the
Speaker, I have gone
of this transaction from
point of view. Un-
rather unusual elements
They arise because of
government in that day
people of this province
DECEMBER 15, 1961
499
and for the province such amounts as they
could, as I have stated here today, from a
straight national disaster known as the Mis-
sissagi fire.
These letters can all be investigated very
carefully before the committee on privileges
and elections. All these accounts were
audited by the provincial auditor. The
Department of Lands and Forests has com-
plete records to back every statement I have
made this morning and, as the government,
we will welcome the opportunity to go into
this matter very fully in due course.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): On a matter
of privilege, sir, I want to draw the attention
of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) to
the fact that the document before him which
photostated the registration, says that the
photostat was prepared in July 27, 1961. It
says nothing about when it came into my
hands.
Secondly, sir, I raised this matter in this
Legislature at the first opportunity given
me, when I first participated in the Throne
debate. At no previous time during the sitting
of this Legislature might I have properly
raised it.
Three, I treat the phrase used by the hon.
member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Fuller-
ton) "he was held in contempt as a sneak"
as a term of opprobium. I resent it. I ask
you to rule and find, sir, that it is unparlia-
mentary and that you direct him to withdraw
it and let it be stricken from the record.
Mr. Fullerton: Mr. Speaker, I can think
of no better description for such a reptile.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, how long does
this go on?
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, you have been re-
quested to rule in conjunction with the matter
of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: I realize that.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Just a minute.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Are we waiting for a
ruling?
Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that
many similar remarks have been passed in
this House over the years I have attended it,
I think possibly the time has come, not for
the hon. member in question but for all hon.
members of this House, to be very careful
in the language which is used. I think
matters can be expressed without using im-
proper language. I believe at this time that
I would respectfully request the hon. mem-
ber to withdraw the remark so that it could
be stricken from the record.
Mr. Fullerton: I will bow to your request,
Mr. Speaker, but I still can think.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Speaker, speaking to the
point of privilege which has been raised,
the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) has
said that this is the first opportunity he had
to raise this matter.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Minister (Mr. Macaulay) is not involved; this
is not his privilege at all.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Speaker, as a
point of privilege and as a member of this
House, my point of privilege is that I object
to an hon. member in this House raising a
point of privilege during the Throne debate
which affects the right of an hon. member to
sit in this House. It is one of the privileges
and responsibilities of every hon. member of
this House to treat our rights, our dignity and
our privileges in relation to this House with
the highest of integrity. This means to treat
it that way and not use it as a political
weapon, and it should have been raised at
the very first opportunity.
Unless the hon. member can state to this
House now that this matter just came to his
attention, it should have been drawn to the
attention of this House as soon as he had the
information.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Before the orders of
the day, if I can get back to the business of
the government, I would like to make a state-
ment concerning the university affairs com-
mittee.
Nearly a year ago my predecessor recon-
stituted the university affairs committee which
had been concerned with the study and
assessment of university financial needs and
the co-ordination of university expansion. I
was appointed chairman of that committee,
but it was recognized that my tenure would
be for only a short time until the committee's
work was well under way after which a chair-
man would be appointed from outside the
government.
500
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am pleased to announce to the House
that Chief Justice of Ontario, the Honourable
Dana Porter, has agreed to preside as chair-
man of this committee. Chief Justice Porter
is eminently qualified for this position. He is
not only a former Minister of Education, but
a member of the board of governors of our
largest university and is chancellor of another
uni\'ersity.
I am also pleased to announce that the
hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost), who
has been closely identified with the expansion
of our provincially assisted university family,
which has grown from four to 13, including
the new universities of Assumption, York,
Laurentian and Waterloo, has been prevailed
upon to serve as a member of this committee.
I know hon. members will all agree with me
when I say we are very fortunate indeed in
having the hon. member for Victoria, with
his immense knowledge of and very long
experience with universities and their problems
and with his intimate knowledge of our
secondary school system, serving on this
committee. He has asked that he serve with-
out remuneration.
The members of the committee are as
follows :
The Honourable Dana Porter, chairman;
Mr. Floyd S. Chalmers, the Honourable L. M.
Frost, Mr. G. E. Gathercole, Senator D'Arcy
Leonard and Mr. R. W. Mitchell; and I, of
course, will resign.
The origin of the university affairs com-
mittee goes back about 15 years when it was
felt that there should be more Haison of
planning in connection with our universities.
Because of the projected growth of our
university population and anticipated financial
requirements, the government appointed Dr.
Wallace of Queen's University, in the capacity
of co-ordinator of university affairs. He was
succeeded at his death by Dr. Aulthouse who
also carried on in an informative way until
his own death. Mr. Porter, then Provincial
Treasurer, was subsequently appointed to the
office.
This experiment was considered so success-
ful that a special university committee com-
posed of senior civil servants and chaired
by the chief director of education was estab-
lished in 1957. It was later decided that the
government should also avail itself of the
experience and advice of men outside the civil
service who had a broad knowledge of the
overall university development in this province
and who had been associated in one or
another capacity with our leading universities.
Accordingly, a new university affairs com-
mittee, composed of citizens outstanding in
the business and professional life of our prov-
ince, was set up late in 1960. In addition
to the membership which I have just men-
tioned, and to add further strength to its
work, the members of the earlier civil service
committee continue to serve as a technical
committee to prepare data and render
technical assistance to the university affairs
committee.
The university affairs committee is em-
powered to study all matters concerning the
establishment, development, operation and
expansion and financing of the universities in
this province and to make recommendations
to the government thereof.
Mr. Speaker, before sitting down I would
just like to say that in the year in which
I worked on this committee, I have become
very aware of the immense problems which
face us in this province as far as our univer-
sities are concerned. We face a doubling, at
least, of our undergraduate population in the
decade between 1960 and 1970. This, ex-
pressed in terms of physical plant, expressed
in terms of competent and able instructors
and professors, poses truly an enormous prob-
lem.
This committee can do a very large job
of examining minutely the details of future
requirements. This involves a tremendous
amount of research into secondary school
population and, indeed, elementary school
population, and its concentration, in order
that we can provide facilities for university
education in the areas in which they will be
needed.
I am delighted with the personnel of this
committee and I can only assure the House
that they have a very large job to do for the
province. I am quite confident that they
will do it well.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a ques-
tion of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
in this regard? In the months that this com-
mittee has been sitting, have they considered
yet the application of the people in North
Bay for the establishment of a university
there? The hon. Prime Minister will recall
that he, at the private bills committee, had
said that this matter would go to this univer-
sity committee. Months have gone by now.
Have they reached a decision yet?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the matter
has been discussed by the committee but no
decision has been made.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day, the other day the
DECEMBER 15, 1961
501
hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Troy) asked
a number of questions which I said at that
time I would take notice of. I am now
prepared to answer.
At that time he asked: When temporary
employees are to be taken on the staffs for
rush periods does the board direct its super-
visors or vendors to ascertain: (a) if there are
in the municipality concerned any men suit-
able for such employment who are drawing
unemployment insurance benefits? The
answer to that is that applicants' employ-
ment status is ascertained by the L.C.B.O.
officials before hiring, (b) If there are any
men suitable for such employment who are
on the relief rolls of the municipality? The
answer to that is, preference is given to
unemployed men and veterans.
Question 2: Does the board then direct
its supervisors, et cetera; that is already
answered by the first two answers.
Question 3: Were such inquiries made
before temporary employees were recently
taken on tiie staflE of the retail outlet at
Mattawa, and my information is that the
answer to that is "Yes."
Question 4: Does the Minister approve
of or condone the practice of employing
temporarily at retail outlets men who are
already gainfully employed, the practice
known in the vernacular as "moonlighting"?
And the answer to that is "No."
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, do I understand
the chief commissioner to say that the em-
ployees that were taken on at the retail outlet
at Mattawa this year were unemployed? I
understand from the mayor of Mattawa that
the municipality is quite concerned that one
of the employees there is an accountant, he
works for the D.B.S. in Ottawa, his wife is a
teacher, and—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is that a question or
an answer the hon. member is giving?
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing, upon motions:
Bill No. 18, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Bill No. 19, An Act to amend The Fire
Marshals Act.
Bill No. 24, An Act to amend The Police
Act.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, could I make one small remark con-
cerning this third reading. I had hoped this
morning to make a statement giving names
of the outstanding personnel whom I propose
shall be appointed to the poUce commission
that is embodied in this bill. Owing to the
fact that the third reading is just now being
given to the bill establishing the commission,
it has not been possible for me to complete
this arrangement.
But I hope within a very short time to make
an announcement of the appointment of the
chairman and members who will be out-
standing in ability, experience and integrity,
and such as will ensure Ontario will be an
unhealthy place for those of the criminal ilk
and will also assure that anyone who con-
templates coming here will change their mind
and in the event of such element being here,
that they will either hastily vacate or else run
the almost certain eventuality of going to jail.
Bill No. 39, An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Labour Act.
Bill No. 40, An Act to amend The Vital
Statistics Act.
Bill No. 41, An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Act.
Bill No. 42, An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Information Act.
Bill No. 43, The Income Tax Act, 1961-62.
Bill No. 48, An Act to amend The Milk
Industry Act.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, with your
permission I will now leave the House and
wait upon his Honour the Lieutenant-
Governor (Mr. Mackay).
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
entered the chamber of the legislative assem-
bly and took his seat upon the Throne.
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour,
the legislative assembly of the province has,
at its present sittings thereof, passed several
bills to which, in the name and on behalf
of the said legislative assembly, I respect-
fully request Your Honour's assent.
Assistant Clerk of the House: The follow-
ing are the titles of the bills to which Your
Honour's assent is prayed:
An Act to confirm The Revised Statutes of
Ontario, 1960.
An Act to amalgamate The Department of
Economics and Federal and Provincial Rela-
tions and Department of Commerce and
Development.
502
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An Act to amend The Ontario Parks In-
tegration Board Act.
An Act to amend The Conservation Authori-
ties Act.
An Act to amend The Parks Assistance Act.
An Act to amend The Provincial Parks Act.
An Act to amend The Forest Fire Preven-
tion Act.
An Act to amend The Forestry Act.
An Act to amend The Fish Inspection Act.
An Act to amend The Bailiffs Act, 1960-61.
An Act to amend The Coroners Act.
An Act to amend The Crown Attorneys Act.
An Act to amend The Devolution of
Estates Act.
An Act to amend The Division Courts Act.
An Act to amend The Fire Marshals Act.
An Act to amend The Jiurors Act.
The Legitimacy Act, 1961-62.
An Act to amend The Master and Servant
Act
An Act to amend The Mechanics* Lien Act.
An Act to amend The Police Act.
An Act to amend The Reciprocal Enforce-
ment and Maintenance Orders Act.
An Act to confirm The Revised Regulations
of Ontario, 1960.
An Act to amend The Summary Convictions
Act.
An Act to amend The Trustee Act.
An Act to amend The Dentistry Act.
An Act to amend The Sanatoria for Con-
sumptives Act.
An Act to amend The Air Pollution Con-
trol Act.
An Act to amend The Cancer Act.
An Act to amend The Public Health Act.
An Act to amend The Department of
Labour Act.
An Act to amend The Vital Statistics Act.
An Act to amend The Corporations Act.
An Act to amend The Corporations Infor-
mation Act.
The Income Tax Act, 1961-62.
An Act to amend The Milk Industry Act.
To these Acts the Royal assent was
announced by the assistant clerk of the legis-
lative assembly in the following words:
Assistant Clerk of the House: In Her
Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieuten-
ant-Governor doth assent to these bills.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
was please to retire from the chamber.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before
moving the adjournment of the House may I
wish to all the hon. members here a very
merry Christmas and a happy new year. We
will see all hon. members again in the new
year.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjoiuimient
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjoiurned at 12.01 p.m. until
the date to be named by the Lieutenant-
Governor in Council.
ERRATUM
(Friday, December 15, 1961)
Page Column Line Correction
497 2 55 Change to read:
up to $180 thousand. 2. Pay all operating ex-
No. 20
ONTARIO
i^egisilature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty'Sixth Legislature
Tuesday, February 20, 1962
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 20, 1962
Welcome to Mr. Robert Nixon, Mr. John Harris, Mr. Robert Gibson, Mr. Robarts,
Mr. Wintermeyer, Mr. MacDonald 505
Reading and receiving petitions 506
Certain lands in the town of Gananoque, bill respecting, Mr. Spooner, first reading 508
Crown Timber Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, first reading 508
Mining Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wardrope, first reading 509
Lakehead College of Arts, Science and Technology Act, bill to amend, Mr. Robarts,
first reading 509
Notaries Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 509
Judicature Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 509
County Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 509
County Judges Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 510
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 510
General Sessions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 510
Judicature Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 511
Juvenile Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 511
Surrogate Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 511
Statements re Brotherhood Week, Mr. Robarts, Mr. Wintermeyer, Mr. MacDonald 511
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 517
Appendix re Bill No. 47, An Act to amend The Retail Sales Act, 1960-61
(Mr. Wintermeyer) 518
505
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, February 20, 196^
*rhe House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature, and today we
welcome as guests students from the follow-
ing schools: in the east gallery, Western
Ontario Agricultural School, Ridgetown; and
North AgiTicourt Public School, Agincourt.
In the west gallery are St. Mary's Separate
School, London; and Brock District High
School, Cannington.
Mr.. Speaker informed the House that the
clerk had received from the chief election
offioer and laid upon the table the following
ccTtifficate of a by-election held since the
adjournment of the House:
Electoral district of Beaches: Robert John
Haxris.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
This is to certify that, in view of a writ of
•cT'ection dated the twenty-first day of November,
1961, issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor
of the province of Ontario, and addressed to Paul
Oetiker, Esquire, returning oflBcer for the electoral
district of Beaches, for the election of a member to
represent the said electoral district of Beaches in
the legislative assembly of this province, in the
room of William H. Collings, Esquire, who, since his
election as representative of the said electoral dis-
trict of Beaches, hath departed this life, Robert John
Harris, Esquire, has been returned as duly elected as
appears by the return of the said writ of election,
dated the fourteenth day of February, 1962, which
is now lodged of record in my office.
( signed )
Roderick Lewis,
Chief Election Officer.
Toronto, February 20, 1962.
Robert John Harris, Esquire, member for
the electoral district of Beaches, having taken
the oaths and subscribed the roll, took his
seat.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
clerk had received from the chief election
officer and laid upon the table the following
certificate of a by-election held since the
adjournment of the House:
Electoral district of Brant: Robert F.
Nixon.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
This is to certify that, in view of a writ of
election dated the twenty-first day of November,
1961, issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor
of the province of Ontario, and addressed to John
P. Eraser, Esquire, returning ofiRcer for the electoral
district of Brant, for the election of a member to
represent the said electoral district of Brant in the
legislative assembly of this province, in the room
of Harry C. Nixon, Esquire, who, since his election as
representative of the said electoral district of Brant,
hath departed this life, Robert F. Nixon, Esquire,
has been returned as duly elected as appears by the
retuiTi of the said writ of election, dated the twenty^
fifth day of January, 1962, which is now lodged of
record in my office.
( signed )
Roderick Lewis,
Chief Election Officer.
Toronto, February 20, 1962.
Robert F. Nixon, Esquire, member for the
electoral district of Brant, having taken the
oaths and subscribed the roll, took his seat.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
clerk had received from the chief election
officer and laid upon the table the following;
certificate of a by-election held since the
adjournment of the House:
Electoral district of Kenora: Robert W.
Gibson.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
This is to certify that, in view of a writ of
election dated the twenty-first day of November,
1961, issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor
of the province of Ontario, and addressed to Joseph
J. O'Flaherty, Esquire, returning oflficer for the
electoral district of Kenora, for the election of a
member to represent the said electoral district of
Kenora in the legislative assembly of this province,
in the room of Albert Wren, Esquire, who, since
his election as representative of the said electoral
district of Kenora, hath departed this life, Robert W.
Gibson, Esquire, has been returned as duly elected
as appears by the return of the said writ of elec-
tion, dated the twenty-fifth day of January, 1962,
which is now lodged of record in my office.
( signed )
Roderick Lewis,
Chief Election Officer.
Toronto, February 20, 1962.
Robert W. Gibson, Esquire, member for
the electoral district of Kenora, having taken
the oaths and subscribed the roll, took his
seat.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to express a word of
welcome to these three new hon. members
who have exercised the privilege and their
right of taking their seats in the Assembly
this afternoon. The hon. member for Brant
(Mr. Nixon) is following in the footsteps and
the tradition of his father, who was a well
known and well beloved figure in this House
for many, many years; and although the hon.
506
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
member for Brant and I, and his father before
him, do not support the same views poHtically,
nor do we express the same political philos-
ophy, nonetheless I am delighted to see a
continuation of family tradition in the matter
of service to the people of this province in
this Legislature.
The hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Harris)
also has a long background of family service.
His father served the constituency, which he
will serve in this House, in the Parliament of
Canada for a good many years. I express the
same delight in seeing him follow in his
father's footsteps in serving the people of his
constituency and the province.
I would like to extend a personal welcome
to the hon. member for Kenora (Mr. Gibson)
and I would wish for these three hon. mem-
bers health and happiness and satisfaction as
they serve the members of their own con-
stituencies and the people of this province in
the years of service that will lie ahead of
them here.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, if I may but take
a moment to join with the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) in these words of welcome. I
would underscore what he has said and
identify, as he has done, these three historic
ridings in Ontario with the newly-elected hon.
members. I would add one further comment,
Mr. Speaker, and that is simply the fact that
all three men are very young in years. This I
think is part of the changing tradition in
Ontario. These men come as young men with
the ideal and determination that they will
dedicate themselves and their lives to the task
of government in Ontario. That is a very
commendable thing in this historic Legis-
lature.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me much personal
pleasure to join in this welcome to the three
new hon. members.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to join with the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) and the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
in extending a welcome to the new hon.
members of the House. I and some others did
our very best to see that their pursuits at
home would not be interrupted and they could
continue with their personal business but we
did not succeed. They are here and I just
want to say, as I have said before in this
House to new members, that in my view the
work of serving people in a free country in a
Legislature and a Parliament is the noblest
pursuit to which man can turn his energies.
I hope that they will find here in this Legis-
lature satisfaction in the years that lie ahead.
Mr. Speaker: Petitions.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
clerk had received from the commissioners
of estate bills their report in the following
case: Bill No. PrlO, An Act respecting Metro-
politan United Church of Toronto.
The report read:
THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO
The Honourable The Chief Justice
OF Ontario
The Honourable Mr. Justice Schatz
Osgoode Hall, Toronto 1.
December 20, 1961
Roderick Lewis Esq., Q.C.
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Re: Bill No. PrlO, 1961-62, An Act Respecting
Metropolitan United Church of Toronto
The undersigned, as commissioners of estate bills
as provided by The Legislative Assembly Act, R.S.O.
1960, Chap 208, Sec. 57, having had the said bill
referred to us as such commissioners, now beg to
report thereon.
We have heard representations from Mr. J. B.
Allen, Q.C, on behalf of the petitioner. He in-
formed us that National Trust Company Limited,
executor of the estate of the late Lillian Frances
Massey Treble by letter have stated it considers the
bill to be reasonable and does not oppose this
petition.
It appears from the petition filed herewith and
from the information disclosed on the hearing before
us that the bill is reasonable.
We are of the opinion that the provisions of the
said bill are proper for carrying its purposes into
effect and that it is reasonable that such bill be
passed into law.
The bill duly signed by the commissioners and
a copy of the petition for the same are accordingly
returned herewith.
Yours sincerely,
( signed )
Dana Porter, C.J.O.,
S. N. Shatz, J.,
Commissioners of estate bills
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the corporation of Christ Church, Angli-
can Church of Canada, Amherstburg, praying
that an Act may pass varying the terms of a
trust created by the will of the late Loftus
Cuddy.
Of the corporation of the United Church
of Canada praying that an Act may pass
authorizing the corporation and emanations
thereof to invest in such securities as are
authorized for Canadian insurance companies.
Of the corporation of the town of Rainy
River praying that an Act may pass exempting
the Baudette and Rainy River municipal
bridge from all municipal taxation.
FEBRUARY 20, 1962
507
Of the corporation of Laurentian University
of Sudbury praying that an Act may pass en-
larging the senate thereof; and for related
purposes.
Of the corporation of the city of Hamilton
praying that an Act may pass vesting in the
corporation all assets, etc. of the board of
park management of the said city; and for
related purposes.
Of Riverview Health Association praying
that an Act may pass providing for the
distribution of its assets in the event of
dissolution, and for related purposes.
Of the corporation of the board of
education for the city of Windsor and the
Windsor surburban district high school board
validating an agreement whereby the sub-
urban district board will erect and pay addi-
tions to a secondary school in the city of
\^'indsor and be guaranteed certain accommo-
dation in such school.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Mr. Wintermeyer moves, seconded by the
hon. member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver)
the adjournment of this House to discuss a
matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the conduct of the hon. Attorney-General
( Mr. Roberts ) in respect to the Royal Com-
mission on organized crime.
Mr. Speaker: While I think it is well known
to the members of the House that in motions
of this type we do bring before the House
matters of urgent and public importance, it
is noted, however, that the matter must be
both urgent and of public importance. It
may be a little urgent, it may be of some
importance, some urgency, but today at this
point I cannot see where I can allow the
motion on the basis that it is urgent and of
public importance. It is something which
can be discussed in other ways in this House
and therefore I cannot accept the motion.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, be-
fore you make your ruling, would you hear
my request? Mr. Speaker, I submit to you
that this is a matter of great urgency and
great public importance and I am not trying
to make light of this at all. I feel that the
matter is urgent for the simple reason that
it is my understanding that the hon. Attorney-
General delivered an address in this city last
night which has received wide public atten-
tion. The matter is urgent because unless
it is dealt with now it will not be of the
same consequence or significance.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I point out to the members
that I have ruled it out of order, and in my
position as Speaker I happen to know that a
question has been submitted to the House
something along the same line as appears on
the motion. Therefore at this time I do
rule the motion of the leader of the Opposi-
tion ( Mr. Wintermeyer ) out of order.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, will you
permit a question, a question not directed
to your ruling?
Mr. Speaker: Surely.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, you have
suggested that this particular motion is out
of order because somebody has had the
privilege of asking a question. I hope that
that question will be pursued. But surely
you do not suggest that the motion is out of
order because a question will be asked at
some future or later time in these pro-
ceedings?
Mr. Speaker: The question is ruled out of
order based on the fact that in the Speaker's
opinion the matter is not of public and
urgent importance today.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I have no recourse but
to appeal your decision.
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the
Speaker's ruling will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
I declare the "ayes" have it.
The Speaker's ruling was upheld on the
following division:
YEAS
NAYS
Allan
Belanger
(Haldimand-Norfolk) Br\'den
Allen
Bukator
( Middlesex
South )
Chappie
Auld
Davison
Beckett
Edwards
Boyer
( ^^• entworth )
Brown
Gibson
Brunelle
Gisborn
Carruthers
Gordon
Cass
Gould
Cathcart
Innes
Cecile
MacDonald
Connell
Manley
Cowling
Newman
Daley
Nixon
508
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
YEAS
NAYS
Davis
Oliver
Downer
Reaume
Dymond
Sopha
Edwards
Spence
(Perth)
Thomas
Evans
Thompson
Gomme
Trotter
Goodfellow
Troy
Grossman
Whicher
Guindon
Wintermeyer
Hall
Worton
Hamilton
-26
Hanna
Harris
Haskett
Ho£Fman
Janes
Johnston
(Parry Sound)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Lawrence
Letherby
Lewis
Macaulay
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morin
Momingstar
Morrow
McNeil
Nickle
Noden
Parry
Phillips
Price
Robarts
Roberts
Rollins
Rowntree
Sandercock
Simonett
Spooner
Stewart
Sutton
Wardrope
Warrender
White
Whitney
Yaremko
-61
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before you
proceed further may I ask for clarification in
light of the ruling on the motion that was
just made by the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion ( Mr. Wintermeyer ) and which you found
unacceptable. In the course of your explana-
tion you stated that there would be other
occasions in which this could be debated.
Do I conclude correctly that it is within the
rules of this House to debate the contents of
the Royal Commission at any future date
during tlie course of this session?
Mr. Speaker: No, I did not put any such
interpretation oh it at all. The hon. members
know what they can say.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the hon. Attorney
General (Mr. Roberts) does it and I thought
your wording indicated that we had free range
to do likewise.
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I have a question-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Introduction of bills.
CERTAIN LANDS IN THE TOWN OF
GANANOQUE
Hon. J. W. Spooner moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act respecting certain lands
in the town of Gananoque.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a
short explanation of this. This bill has to do
with certain lands located in the town of
Gananoque which were dedicated by the late
Joel Stone, in the year 1804, to the public
use as a burying ground for the use of the
inhabitants of the village of Gananoque and
its vicinity; and, pursuant to a judgment
of the Court of Chancery in the year 1871,
were conveyed to the Crown. Pursuant to the
judgment, the corporation of the village of
Gananoque covenanted to take the super-
vision of the lands.
The lands are not now used as a burying
ground, and there is evidence that the lands
have not been used for such purpose for over
80 years and that all the bodies were removed
therefrom over 80 years ago. Adjacent owners
have encroached on, fenced and used parts of
the lands for many years. This Act provides
for the granting of letters patent to adjacent
owners who have encroached on the old bury-
ing grounds and for the granting of the re-
mainder of the burying grounds to the town
of Gananoque.
THE CROWN TIMBER ACT
Hon. Mr. Spooner moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Crown
Timber Act,
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
FEBRUARY 20, 1962
509
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of this bill is to provide that chips produced
as by-products of the manufacture of lumber
are included in the list of products into which
timber must be manufactured in Canada. The
second section provides for placing the re-
sponsibility for regeneration of cut-over areas
on the licensee are deleted from the present
Act; and the Minister of Lands and Forests,
with this amendment, is authorized to enter
into agreements for this purpose. This agree-
ment is supplementary to the policy of the
department of shifting the primary respon-
sibility for regeneration to the Crown.
THE MINING ACT
Hon. G. C. Wardrope moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Mining
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, this is a 132-page bill and I am
not going to burden you with it; but in
explanation I would say that this bill intro-
duces legislation on safety procedures, such
as friction-hoists, ammonia nitrate and fuel-
oil as a blasting agent and Raise climbing
apparatus. The modifications and changes
are necessary to keep the Act in pace with
safe practice in the mining industry.
This has been edited and checked by the
Attorney-General's department and it con-
stitutes the thinking of labour and industrial
briefs that have come to us. Many of the
improvements are based on their findings and
all interested groups will have an opportunity
to go into this bill and debate it when it
goes before the standing committee on mines.
THE LAKEHEAD COLLEGE ACT, 1956
Hon. J. P. Robarts moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to amend The Lakehead
College of Arts, Science and Technology Act,
1956.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of
pleasure to introduce this bill into the Legis-
lature. It provides that the Lakehead College
of Arts, Science and Technology will have
power to grant university degrees and honor-
ary degrees and awards in arts and science,
and it represents the final step into full uni-
versity status of this very fine educational
institution at the head of the lakes. It repre-
sents the culmination of a good deal of work
and hard labour on behalf of many public-
spirited people in that area and I think that
we all can be very happy in this coming of
age of the baby of our university family.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, in
view of the hon. Minister of Education's
statement, I would like to ask a question.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
THE NOTARIES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to amend The Notaries
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, in anticipation of a question on this,
I would say that this is a routine bill, merely
providing for regulations for fixing fees pay-
able on appointment of notaries public.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to amend The Judica-
ture Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill
provides in effect for an increase in the
number of judges in the trial division of the
High Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario
by two. There has been a very heavy vol-
ume of work and the Chief Justice of the
High Court has drawn this to the attention
of both the hon. Minister of Justice and
myself. There has recently been an appoint-
ment to the Island of Cyprus of one of the
trial division judges of this province, the hon.
Mr. John Wilson, who, I think it can be said,
is being extended an honour and a duty at
the same time. He is to assist in setting up
in that island the court system with which he
is familiar, and I think our country too can
take credit in that request from Cyprus.
THE COUNTY COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to amend The County
Courts Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, again
anticipating a request for a brief statement,
I would say that this is a bill that has been
510
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
prepared as a result of the study of the Silk
Report, which all hon. members have had in
their possession for some time.
The principal purpose of the bill is to
increase the monetary jurisdiction of the
county and district courts from $1,000 in
contract and $1,200 in tort in like actions
respectively to $3,000. Provisions which limit
partnership actions in cases where the capital
of the partnership does not exceed $4,000,
and estate actions to cases where the estate
does not exceed $4,000, are amended to re-
place the $4,000 figure with $20,000.
It also simplifies the means of rearranging
the sittings of the courts but always subject
to the direction of the chief judge, and which
I will mention later in another bill. Then
there is the holding of additional sittings
subject to the approval of the chief judge.
This permits non-jury sittings outside the
county town, and provides that where a
judge fails to attend court, the chief judge
instead of the Attorney-General shall be ad-
vised and act. It simplifies the procedure
for a new trial where a judge dies or fails
to give judgment in six months, and provides
for appeals in interlocutory matters.
THE COUNTY JUDGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to amend The County
Judges Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the prin-
cipal purpose of this bill is to make provisions
for the appointment of a chief judge of the
county and district courts. The provisions
contained are appropriate for provincial en-
actment. An amendment to The Judges Act
of Canada is a necessary complement and I
think will be definitely forthcoming.
The bill also provides for the repeal of the
requirement that the clerk's office shall be
in the court house; for a special allowance
to the chief judge; for revision of the oaths
revision in line with the appointment of the
chief judge; for changing the term "shorthand
writer" to "court reporter" so that mechanical
or electronic devices properly supervised may
be used; and for the responsibilities of the
chief judge and the other judges in arranging
the sittings of the courts.
The annual meetings within the county
courts' judicial districts are to be continued
under the chairmanship of the chief judge.
There is also provision for an annual meeting
of all the judges.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill
accomplishes three recommendations con-
tained in the Silk report. It permits the
Lieutenant-Governor to appoint a division
court judge. This is in line with the con-
stitutional authority of the province but the
present situation has been to declare that
judges of the county and district courts are
the division court judges, and to permit a
barrister to be appointed pro tem. by one of
them.
This bill permits the Lieutenant-Governor
in council to appoint judges but also retains
the principle that all county and district court
judges are judges of the division court. It in-
creases the jurisdiction in tort actions so that
the jurisdiction will be $400 across the board,
with the top limit of $800 in the territorial
district.
The $800 in northern Ontario, which is a
revision from the present consent practice in
that part of the province, apparently has not
worked out satisfactorily. But for the benefit
particularly of hon. members from the north, I
would say that the new provision permits the
plaintiff to bring an action for an amount up
to $800, but where it exceeds $400, the parties
may not be represented by an agent but must
either appear themselves or be represented
by a lawyer. The rules relating to pleadings
and other procedures of the county courts
apply and the judge has the discretion regard-
ing discovery and production.
THE GENERAL SESSIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The General
Sessions Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill is
complementary to The County Courts Act in
connection with the general sessions of the
peace, recognizing the chief judge and defin-
ing the chief judge, and revising the provision
regarding the altering of the sittings. It is
identical with the corresponding provision in
the County Courts bill.
Ihe bill permits the chief judge, instead of
the Lieutenant-Governor by proclamation, to
FEBRUARY 20, 1962
511
authorize the holding of the sittings elsewhere
in the county or district and in the county
or district town. It alters the provision regard-
ing the inability of the judge to hold sittings
so that the sheriff will report the matter to
the chief judge and the chief judge will take
appropriate action thereon.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Judicature
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: There are two amend-
ments contained in this bill. One permits the
presiding judge to hold sittings at a place
other than the county or district town; the
second adds the chief judge of the county or
district courts to the rules committee.
THE JUVENILE COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Juvenile and
Family Courts Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the present
system is working out satisfactorily in many
cases but in some cases is not too satisfactory,
because of interference with the time of what
might be regarded as the principal respon-
sibilities of those juvenile and family court
judges who are also county court judges or
magistrates. In some cases it makes time
demands which render it unfeasible for the
judge to give adequate time to his juvenile
and family court work.
Altogether the situation in every part of the
province is perhaps not consistent with the
important place which the juvenile and family
courts have now gained in our court organiza-
tion. This is largely brought about by reason
of the fact that the judge must be paid by a
single municipality. Ideally the situation might
be to take care of this on a province-wide
basis for all judges. This bill represents a
compromise by authorizing the Lieutenant-
Governor in council to make regulations
providing for the apportionment of the salaries
and expenses between or among municipalities
and providing the Attorney-General may
approve such arrangements as may promote
a better system of judges.
THE SURROGATE COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Surrogate
Courts Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in line
with the amendments to The County Courts
Act, and The Division Courts Act, the juris-
diction of the surrogate courts is increased
insofar as removability to the Supreme Court
is concerned. The increase is from $2,000 to
$20,000, relating to estates. The provision
appearing in section 1 of the bill is self-
explanatory.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
a note here which says that Lieutenant-
Colonel Glenn was plucked out of the sea at
3.01 this afternoon.
I also have a statement which I would like
to make, Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of
Brotherhood Week. We have come once again
to the week in the year when we observe a
very important stocktaking in the life of our
national family. Brotherhood Week is an occa-
sion when we reflect specifically on the fact
that our national survival depends upon the
maintenance of the right relationships be-
tween all members of that family.
In this week we will rededicate ourselves
to the goal of strengthening and maintaining
mutual understanding between all members
and sections of our community. Our con-
nection in this House with Brotherhood Week
is particularly close this year for our greatly
esteemed colleague, the hon. member for
Victoria (Mr. Frost), is national co-chair-
man of the week's observances which are
sponsored across Canada by the Canadian
Council of Christians and Jews.
His fellow chairman is the Honourable Mr.
Justice Gerald Fauteux of the Supreme Court
of Canada. The selection of the hon. member
for Victoria as co-chairman is of course in
recognition of the great role that he has
played over the years in forwarding the cause
of human rights. We congratulate him and
we thank him for undertaking this further
service to his fellow Canadians.
Mr, Speaker, in our world today perhaps
the most hopeful sign for the future is the
increasing awareness of people everywhere
that respect to the individuality, the dignity
and the equal rights of every human being,
is, in the words of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, "the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world." Certainly
512
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in our own country we have seen how people
with diverse backgrounds and interests can
come together and work together to their
mutual advantage in the spirit of brother-
hood.
On the other hand, while there is every
indication of a more widespread acceptance
and practice of that spirit around the world,
there still exist attitudes and actions which
are destructive of elementary justice. I would
not suggest that these things are rampant in
Canada but I would never dismiss them as
manifestations peculiar only to some other
part of the world.
Thus it is very much in the interest of our
society that we should observe Brotherhood
Week once each year and that we should
remind ourselves forcibly of its meaning. But
we would be unwise if we assumed that we
could get away with only a once-a-year
recognition of its principles, for ignorance
operates 52 weeks a year and ignorance is the
parent of prejudice which in its turn results
in a denial of basic human rights.
We, as hon. members of this Legislature,
believe that the principles for which Brother-
hood Week stands have to be incorporated
into the laws of the land. We have en a': ted
such statutes as The Fair Employment Prac-
tises Act, making it public policy in our
province that every person is free and equal
in dignity and right without regard to race,
colour or creed, and establishing machinery
for guaranteeing this policy. To my mind,
one of the major pieces of legislation before
the House at the present time is The Ontario
Human Rights Code Act which restates and
reinforces these principles.
In my first address in this House I said that
I was firmly and unreservedly committed to
the human rights poHcies established by my
distinguished predecessor. On this occasion
I repeat that assurance.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, it aflFords
me, of course, great pleasure to join with the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) in under-
scoring the significance of brotherhood. It is
not necessary that I go into any great detail.
I think it is important only that I tell you, Mr.
Speaker, that I am sure I speak for all hon.
members of the House when I say that we
thoroughly agree with the observations that
the hon. Prime Minister has made and with
the sincerity and genuineness with which he
expressed the thoughts relating to brother-
hood.
If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to add
but one comment, it would simply be this—
and it comes to me as the result of the obser-
vation that the hon. Prime Minister made at
the introduction of his remarks, that is the
fact that Colonel Glenn had completed his
trip around the world in orbit and has now
been rescued. I think maybe that we are too
preoccupied with a man in space and in orbit.
The solution to Man and for Man, actually,
in all probability will be not at a military
level but at a level of ideals here on earth
and inside Man; and I think it is imperative
that we all give expression to the conviction
that I hope we all cherish that Man's real
solution is in his understanding of the
significance in the true philosophical identity
of the word "love".
We must learn to love one another for the
sake of the dignity of each individual human
person, and begin to realize the individual's
precious significance, and then I think we
will understand the need for brotherhood and
the need that we have today to know that
all men are equal and deserve equal rights;
because they are all little worlds unto them-
selves, with a beginning and an end and a
purpose and a free will, and this sets them
aside from material objects.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to
join with the hon. Prime Minister in these
ceremonies, in these observations, in this
expression of our concern for, and our appre-
ciation of, and our support of the term
"brotherhood", particularly at the beginning
of this Brotherhood Week.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to add my support briefly to that of the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) and the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
for the objectives of Brotherhood Week. Both
the hon, gentlemen have referred to the great
achievements, technical achievements, of to-
day and I think perhaps the great message
that it brings to us is that not only is this
world very, very small, but in fact this world
is being brought very close to the universe
beyond us— that was away beyond our ken
up until now. Because this world has become
small it behooves us to release or to remove
the tensions in the human family because we
must live in peace and brotherhood or else
we are not going to be able to survive.
So it is highly appropriate that the great
triumph today in space should come in the
middle of Brotherhood Week, because this is
a reminder to us once again of the validity
of these principles and a reminder that we
must not just endorse them in Brotherhood
Week but practise them for the 52 weeks of
the year.
FEBRUARY 20, 1962
513
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dover court): Mr.
Speaker, because I have been inspired by
the lofty ideals expressed by the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) and the other hon.
members concerning brotherhood, and because
I have listened with some admiration to the
hon. Prime Minister stating that he w^ill prac-
tise these ideals every day of the w^eek, I
therefore am humbly assuming that I can ask
him a question to test the concreteness of his
philosophy. It arises from the memo v^^hich is
on the desks of all of us, sir, from the Italian
Community Promotion Centre. This concerns
the number of Italian immigrants vs^ho had
hoped to get retraining; unfortunately the re-
training has been stopped by his department.
My question, sir, is: Is the hon. Prime
Minister reconsidering that decision of his
department— which decision was to eliminate
the practical training of Italian immigrants
at the Provincial Institute of Trades under
Schedule 5? I think the reason that has
been given by his department was that The
Apprenticeship Act made retraining im-
possible. My further question is, Mr. Speaker:
is he considering then to change The Appren-
ticeship Act to make it possible for people
over 21 to get training in a designated trade?
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, that I had not
sent this question in writing to him, but be-
cause the brief was presented to us, I would
assume that he has probably looked at it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I am quite
prepared to answer that question. This is a
relatively technical matter, as the hon. mem-
ber (Mr. Thompson) knows, and I will refer
to these notes. Today I received a copy of
this eight-page memorandum prepared by the
Italian Community Promotion Centre and I
understand that a copy has appeared on every
desk in the Legislature.
The memorandum questions certain policies
of The Department of Education and the ad-
ministration of the vocational retraining pro-
gramme. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the
situation.
The men mentioned in the memorandum
want training in the trades designated under
The Apprenticeship Act, but wish to have
this training under what is termed Schedule
5 programme for training the unemployed
under the federal-provincial training agree-
ment. This agreement does not provide for
apprenticeship training.
To qualify for training under The Appren-
ticeship Act the following conditions must
be met:
( 1 ) The apprentice must be employed and
registered with The Department of Labour;
(2) He must have a minimum of grade
eight education;
(3) He must be a minor over the age of
16.
None of these men qualified, as they were
all unemployed, had less than the education
requirements and most of them were over
age. Many of these men had been employed
as labourers in the construction industry but
this experience does not qualify a person as
a tradesman in the designated trades as they
are known in this province.
It would have been most unfair to keep
these men in the Provincial Institute of Trades
for a period of 6 months under Schedule 5
in the courses originally planned. At the
end of this period, at the very best, they
would only be partially trained in any of the
skills connected with the designated trades.
It would have been unfair to have them feel
that they could go out and compete with
men who had been properly trained under
a full-time training programme extending over
a period of four to five years.
We are attempting, through our education
system, to upgrade the skilled workers of
Ontario. In many ways we are increasing our
vocational training facilities. We have been
raising the standards of admission for appren-
ticeship training to try to raise the standards
of workers in order to cope with rapidly
changing technological advances.
We feel that what we are offering these
people is of much greater importance to
them. We are providing them with the skills
and communications through a basic course
in academic upgrading. They are taught
English, with emphasis on oral and written
communications, mathematics, science and
blueprint reading— all designed to assist them
to adjust to life in Canada.
To deal with the specific points in the
memorandum I would like to say this: there
was nothing in the applications which listed
them as tradesmen. They all had only
labouring experience with the trade. They
did not understand English, and for that
reason the academic course which includes
instruction in English was recommended for
them. And, three, there are some unemployed
apprentices in Ontario at the present time.
Some of these apprentices have only been
working part time at their trade and it would
be unrealistic to train other men while these
apprentices are still unemployed.
Finally, to attempt to train apprentices in
the way these men requested would simply
dilute the trades. This would not be fair
to these men, or to apprentices who can
qualify, nor to the men who have already
qualified and are employed in the trade.
514
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
may I direct a (juestion to the hon. Prime
Minister? I would like to ask him why these
men were led to believe in the first place
that they could receive training involving
certain skilled trades?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, these
courses were set up and perhaps there was
some error within the department itself. The
point is one that the hon. member for Wood-
bine (Mr. Bryden) knows very well. We
cannot attempt to take unemployed people,
bring them in and give them a ten or twelve
weeks course and send them out equipped
to compete with plumbers and the tradesmen
who have spent long apprenticeships-
Mr. Bryden: Yes, but why were they led
to believe that they could do this?
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Let the
hon. Prime Minister answer the question;
the hon. member asked one.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Speaker, surely the hon.
Prime Minister is not—
Mr. Singer: No, I think this is an impor-
tant-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. Prime Minister a supplementary ques-
tion?
Does the hon. Prime Minister mean that
anyone over 21 is too old to learn a trade?
If this is what he means, it is a disgrace.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, obviously he
does not mean that.
Mr. Singer: Well, that is what he said.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, it is the
purpose of The Apprenticeship Act to pro-
vide that to become an apprentice you must
be a minor over the age of 16; that is what
I said.
Mr. Singer: If you are over the age of 21,
you are too old, is that right? Shame!
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a sup-
plementary question. If the hon. Prime
Minister does not say that, does not The
Apprenticeship Act say it? Over 21, you are
no longer considered as an apprentice.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I am quite
prepared to answer the question. The section
of the Act simply means that you cannot
become an apprentice in one of the designated
trades under that Act if you are over the
age of 21.
Mr. Thompson: May I ask another supple-
mentary question? Is this not the only
province— I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: As to any more questions
—I accepted the first one as a matter of
courtesy and we can debate this in my
estimates. There will be lots of time.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question directed to the hon. Minister
of Education (Mr. Robarts); the formalities
have been observed.
In the Toronto Globe and Mail of Monday,
February 19, a front page story entitled
"College Official Suggests Birth Control As
Answer To Education Cost Problem," quotes
Dr. C. E. Phillips, director of graduate
studies at the Ontario College of Education
as saying:
The alternative of reducing the number
of pupils by more humane means than
atomic warfare can no longer be dismissed
as an infringement on the rights of indi-
\'iduals— neither here nor in countries where
the peril is strikingly apparent.
Does Dr. Phillips' statement accurately
reflect the policy of The Department of
Education?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I think
this question could be classed as at least
semi-frivolous; however, I will correct the
hon. member (Mr. Troy) where he is in error.
In the first place. Professor Phillips v.as not
speaking on behalf of The Department of
Education— he cannot speak on behalf of The
Department of Education as he is an em-
ployee of the University of Toronto— but to
set the hon. member's mind at rest I can
assure him that as long as I am the Minister
of Education this will never be the policy of
The Department of Education.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary
question, it seems to me—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Troy: But I have another question,
sir. In view of the fact of the statement of
other— pardon?
Mr. Speaker: When the members ask a
supplementary question, I want them to go
right into the question and ask the question
and not make speeches of any kind.
FEBRUARY 20, 1962
515
Mr. Troy: I want to ask the hon. Minister
of Education (Mr. Robarts)— I did not get the
remark about frivolous. I want him to repeat
that so I will know what he said, because
this is not a frivolous matter to me.
An hon. member: Well, we will just leave
it there.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like
to direct a question to the hon. Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts), a copy of which I have
given to him in accordance with the rules of
the House.
Last night the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) expressed doubts concerning the
effectiveness of crime investigations. This
follows his statement of January 15, when he
publicly alleged that certain persons were
involved in aspects of organized crime.
These statements raise serious questions as
to the precise role of the Royal Commission.
Since they come from the hon. Minister head-
ing the department which has jurisdiction
over our law enforcement agencies, whose
co-operation will be required in the commis-
sion investigations, will the hon. Prime
Minister indicate whether the hon. Attorney-
General's pronouncements are personal views
or an accurate reflection of government's
policies and attitude?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have
examined the speech of the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) and it is a long address
of 45 minutes duration and it contains a good
deal of, what I would term, learned research.
There is a good deal of history and a great
deal of discussion about the abstract of liberty
and I feel that it is unfair to remove from it,
one very small portion, and draw certain con-
clusions from the portion so withdrawn.
I can assure the hon. member (Mr. Mac-
Donald) that the government has complete
confidence in Mr. Justice Roach sitting as the
Royal commissioner, with the terms of refer-
ence as they are set out in the Order-in-
Council dated December 11, 1961; that he
will carry out the duties assigned to him in
which he undertook as they are set out in that
Order-in-Council. I can also assure the hon.
member that the government will take such
action as may appear necessary when the
commissioner makes his final report.
The hon. Attorney-General has assured me
—and I did not need his assurance, but for
the purposes of answering this question I
obtained it from him— that the commission will
have the most complete and fullest co-opera-
tion from his department and assistance in any
way possible. He informs me that he has
complete and absolute confidence himself in
the capacity of the Royal commission as con-
stituted and in the commissioner.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, may
I be permitted to ask a supplementary
question? I address this to the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts), Mr. Speaker; in view
of the hon. Prime Minister's observations, may
I ask the hon. Prime Minister whether in view
of the fact that the newspapers did not
interpret the speech in the same way as the
hon. Prime Minister has, whether he will
assure the House this speech will be tabled?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Would the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) not like
to come out into the corridor, and I will read
it to him.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, I would like it
tabled. Will the hon. Prime Minister under-
take to table the speech?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I see no
reason why the speech should be tabled but
I will ensure that the hon. leader of the
Opposition gets a copy.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day, I would like to direct a question
to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Warren-
der), copies of which I have already sent to
you and to him.
In view of the statement of the Ontario
Court of Appeal in its recent judgment in the
case of the Royal York Hotel and the Hotel
and Club Employees Union that the language
of clause 'c' of section 50 of The Labour
Relations Act leaves something to be desired,
will the hon. Minister indicate if legislation
will be introduced at this session to clarify
the language referred to?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour ) : Well, Mr. Speaker, I did get a
notice of the hon. member's question. May
I say that since the decision was handed
down I have been attempting to get reasons
for judgment from the Court of Appeal and
to date I have not been successful. However, I
do not wish to attempt to answer the question
today until I see what the Court did say
and the reasons for judgment. If the section
referred to requires clarification, certainly
action will be taken to clarify it.
Mr. R. M. Whieher ( Bruce ) : Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I have a ques-
tion to ask the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts). Inasmuch as we had the hon.
Prime Minister's assurance before Christmas
516
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that he would allow his experts to sit with
ours to investigate the possibility of making
a $25.00 deduction instead of 17 cents
insofar as The Sales Tax Act is concerned,
will the hon. Prime Minister advise us when
this meeting will take place so that reasonable
preparations may be made by ourselves?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I con-
gratulate the hon. member (Mr. Whicher)
on his optimism in thinking I would be
trapped by a question like this.
An hon. member: There is no trap.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: At no time was there
any discussion whatsoever that we would
investigate the possibihty of making a $25.00
deduction instead of 17 cents insofar as The
Sales Tax Act is concerned. This was not
the question that was debated nor is it the
question I said I would consider referring to
the public accounts committee.
In fact, the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer) said that his $25.00
deduction would produce $115 million and
I said it would produce $52 million— and the
question between us was as to who was right.
I said I would produce my experts and he
could produce his and we would then see
who was correct. So on that basis I will
answer the question and say if the hon. leader
of the Opposition will tell me how much time
he needs to prepare, to justify a figure that
he advanced with such vehemence in the fall,
three months ago— if he will tell me how
much time he needs I will see that he gets it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, the ques-
tion that has been asked by the hon. member
for Bruce ( Mr. Whicher ) I think was asked
in a genuine effort to give us some idea of
when this particular matter would be referred
to the public accounts committee. I do not
think there was any intention whatsoever to
trap the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
or any hon. member of the government at all.
Very frankly, the reason for it was in the fact
that one man has to be called from Harvard
University, where he is currently employed.
Now I would think a week's notice would
be a reasonable period of time.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I will undertake to
give no less than a week's notice. I cannot
tell the precise date now but I will under-
take to do that.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, I have a question to
ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Stewart). Inasmuch as the hon. Minister has
suggested on several occasions that a com-
mittee would be set up to investigate the
possibility of a Farm Machine Act for the
province, will the hon. Minister reassure the
House that this will be done and tell us when
we may expect such a committee to meet?
Hon. W. A' Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question
of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher),
and I thank him for the advance notice of his
question, may I say that the individual mem-
bers of the committee have been asked to act
on this committee and we are awaiting their
reply. As soon as consent has been received
from these committee members, we will ask
them to meet immediately.
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Mr. Speaker,
I have a short question for the hon. Minister
of Health (Mr. Dymond) and the question is:
what steps has the provincial government
taken to assure the public that all meat offered
for sale in this province is safe for human
consumption?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the entire matter of meat in-
spection which is traditionally a responsibility
to be carried out by the federal Department
of Agriculture, is at present the subject of
very extensive discussion between the federal
government and the government of Ontario.
No conclusions have yet been reached in our
discussions but they are proceeding vigorously,
and every effort is being made to establish
some workable plan by which the public will
be assured that the meat they buy is safe for
human consumption.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): May I
ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
The hon. Minister (Mr. Stewart) in his answer
suggested that all meat inspection in Ontario
was traditionally a federal matter. Is there
not provincial inspection in some cases?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the answer
is "no".
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
which has been directed to the hon. Minister
of Travel and Publicity (Mr. Cathcart), notice
of which has been given to him. It is a very
short question. Have the regulations respect-
ing the classification of films as "Adult Enter-
tainment" been changed recently? If so, what
changes have been made and what is the
purpose of the change or changes?
Hon. B. L. Cathcart (Minister of Travel
and Publicity): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
FEBRUARY 20, 1962
517
the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Troy) for
giving me advance notice. There has been no
change in the regulations in the past year or
so. However, I may say that the regulations
under The Theatres Act including adult or
restricted films are presently under considera-
tion and study.
Mr. Troy: May I ask a supplementary ques-
tion?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: It could have been
"no", but I gave the hon. member the answer.
Mr. Troy: Did the hon. Minister read in
the Metropolitan press that there was a
change?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Mr. Speaker, the answer
IS no .
Mr. Troy: That is recently, within the last
three or four weeks?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Mr. Speaker, I was
with the hon. member last weekend and I
warned him what my answer would be.
Mr. MacDonald: Before the orders of the
day, may I ask the chief liquor commissioner
whether he is prepared to answer a question
which I directed to him on the last day
before Christmas, and which is to be found
on page 491 of Hansard? He pleaded for a
little more time at that time.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Speaker, the answer will probably
be ready tomorrow or the day after.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I am not
going to call any orders of the day. I am
going to adjourn the House. It will take a
day or so to get a volume of work established.
My present plan is to bring the budget in a
week from Thursday. We will meet tomor-
row; and a week from tomorrow will be a
committee day and then the budget will come
in on the Thursday following. I will attempt
to wind up the Throne Speech debates a
week from today.
Mr. Bryden: Any night sessions this week?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, but I think as soon
as the budget is introduced we will have
night sessions Tuesday and Thursday nights
as a matter of course.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4:28 of the clock,
p.m.
518
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
APPENDIX
The following table relates to Bill No. 47, An Act to amend The Retail Sales Act, 1960-61,
second reading of which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer)
on December 14, 1961, Hansard, page 431).
ESTIMATE OF ONTARIO SALES TAX REVENUE UNDER CONSERVATIVE
AND LIBERAL PLANS
(Figures represent millions of dollars)
ONTARIO RETAIL SALES (Ontario Department of Economics 1961 Survey
& Dominion Bureau of Statistics)
CLASSIFICATION OF 1960
STORE Sales
Grocery & combination $ 1,320
Other food & general 630
Variety 157
Drug 174
Hardware 103
Department 491
Clothing & Jewellery 421
New Car Dealers, Garage and
Service Stations
New Car Sales 650
Other Sales 762
Building Materials 150
Furniture & Appliances 209
Restaurant 225
Fuel 169
Sundry 801
Tobacco Sales 0
$6,260
Conserve
itive Plan
Liberal Plan
I
Now
Taxable if
Taxable
Tax
$25 Exemption
Tax
$ 200
$ 6.0
$ 0
360
10.8
340
$10.2
150
100 [
10.5
20
.6
100
420
12.6
270
8.1
390
11.7
160
4.8
650
19.5
650
19.5
340
10.2
220
6.6
70
2.1
30
.9
210
6.3
190
5.7
100
3.0
100
3.0
0
0
200
6.0
100
3.0
250
7.5
250
7.5
$3,540
$2,330
OTHER TAXABLE SALES (Federal Trade & Commerce)
Construction— 1 96 1
Housing 7741 qq^x
Other 1,656/ ^^"
Machinery & Equipment- 1961 1,560 450
Telephone-local calls 150 150
$ 4,140 $1,500
$10,400 $5,040
27.0
900
27.0
13.5
450
13.5
4.5
150
$1,500
4.5
$151
$3,830
$115
LOSS IN REVENUE
Major items of revenue that $25.00 exemption would not reduce
(areas where Liberal Plan and Conservative Plan are identical).
Taxable Sales
( millions )
Construction and machinery & equipment $1,350
Automobile, furniture & appliance sales 925
Four exemptions (liquor, meals, telephone & tobacco) 850
$3,125
$36
Revenue
(millions)
$40.5
28
25.5
$94
No. 21
ONTARIO
1legi£ilature of Ontario
Befaates;
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty'Sixth Legislature
Wednesday, February 21, 1962
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 21, 1962
Election Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bryden, first reading 521
Came and Fish Act, 1961-1962, bill intituled, Mr. Spooner, first reading 52l
Agricultural Societies Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 521
Training Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Haskett, first reading 522
Presenting reports, Mr. Yaremko 524
Presenting review of mining industry, Mr. Wardrope 524
Statement re Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Mr. Robarts 527
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Troy, Mr. Wardrope,
Mr. Davison 528
Welcome to Dr. Majekodunmi of Nigeria 531
Motion to adjourn Throne speech debate, Mr. Cowling, agreed to 545
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 545
521
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we wel-
come as guests in the east gallery students
from St. Margaret's Separate School, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE ELECTION ACT
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Election Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE GAME AND FISH ACT, 1961-1962
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves first reading of bill intituled,
The Game and Fish Act, 1961-1962.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands
and Forests): Mr. Speaker, it may be of
value to the House if I were to make a
short statement in connection with the pur-
pose of this Act.
The 1960 consolidation and revision of
the Ontario statutes did much to simplify
The Game and Fisheries Act which was last
revised in 1946 and has had numerous
amendments during the past 15 years. There
is perhaps no Act of Parliament which is so
widely read as that relating to the game
and fish laws, and the need for a complete
revision has been recognized for some time.
The Department of Lands and Forests
committee, consisting of senior head office
and field ofiicials, has been engaged in a
Wednesday, February 21, 1962
study of the game and fish laws, and the
new draft bill which I am introducing today
embodies the recommendations of this com-
mittee. As mentioned, the purpose of the
revision is to simplify the Act and to bring
it into line with administrative practices.
Sections of the bill have been grouped
according to subject matter. For example,
revisions relating to game animals have been
placed in a section under the heading "Game
Animals". Similarly, provisions relating to
game birds, fur-bearing animals, fish, use of
dogs in hunting, have been grouped under
appropriate headings. Also, by greater use
of the interpretation section of the bill in
consolidating groups of descriptive words, it
has been possible to simplify other sections
of the bill.
Some of the new features of the bill in-
clude a statement of purpose of fish and
game legislation. Regulations may be made
imposing control over fishing huts. A further
provision will permit an officer to collect a
money payment as security for appearance
in court of a person who is to be charged
with a violation under the game and fish
laws.
Because matters relating to hunting and
fishing hold a widespread interest for great
numbers of people, we plan to distribute first
reading copies of the bill among the fish
and game clubs, the Ontario Federation of
Anglers and Hunters, the Northern Ontario
Tourist Outfitters Association and other inter-
ested groups and persons, to give them an
opportunity to study the new bill before the
standing committee on fish and game meet.
The bill can be discussed in detail in the
standing committee.
THE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture) moves first reading of bill intituled, An
Act to amend The Agricultural Societies Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if the hon. Minister would explain
the nature of the bill.
522
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, the amendment provides
for the payment of grants on a specific date
as the statements are received from the vari-
ous agricultural societies by the superinten-
dent. Under the present Act they are all
held till the end of the year, as I understand
it, and then the amounts are paid out accord-
ing to the statements received. This will
allow them to be paid out as they are
received. I think it simplifies the procedure
immensely.
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Reform Insti-
tutions) moves first reading of bill intituled.
An Act to amend The Training Schools Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Reform Institu-
tions): Mr. Speaker, where a boy or girl who
is a ward of a training school is placed in a
foster home, we have placement officers
attached to that institution who follow up and
assist the ward that has been placed. The
department is now establishing district re-
habilitation offices for this placement and
parole work. This bill is to allow the district
rehabilitation officers to assume and to exercise
that wardship.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, I noticed that yesterday the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) had suggested
that the Italian imigrants who are not able
to take retraining were labourers. As a point
of information, I received a letter in this
House from the president of the Italian Com-
munity Promotion Centre, which organization
had prepared the brief. In this letter the
president points out that, of the 180 appli-
cants for this retraining, 45 had spent 4 to 10
years as tradesmen and had registered in the
schools in order to upgrade themselves. I
would like to raise the question, sir, because
of this information, will there be reconsidera-
tion by the hon. Prime Minister of his deci-
sion not to continue retraining on a practical
basis since we now learn that these men have
been tradesmen for some 4 to 10 years?
Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out to
the hon. members that possibly the hon.
member (Mr. Thompson) who has just spoken
could have submitted this question in the
routine way— so that we do not upset the
established procedure in the Chamber.
Mr. Thompson: I really had started with a
point of information, Mr. Speaker. I will not
continue this question, but I would be
interested-
Mr. Speaker: The point of information
could still be couched in the terms of a ques-
tion. Does the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) wish to answer this point?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Well,
Mr. Speaker, I think it would have been much
more effective if the hon. member (Mr.
Thompson) had given me a note of this. This
is the first I have heard of it. I am in no
position to comment on it. All he needs to do
is send it to my office and I will deal with it.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day, I rise on a question of personal
privilege. It is also a matter affecting the
privilege of every hon. member of this House.
Yesterday your honour saw fit to rule against
a motion by the leader of the Opposition
that the House debate the conduct of the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) respecting the
Royal commission on organized crime. That
motion, as all hon. members must know, was
precipitated by a speech outside this House
by the hon. Attorney-General in which he
cast doubt on the effectiveness of commis-
sions of inquiry into crime, and in which he
tried to depict the present commission as a
possible threat to liberty and due process of
law.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Entirely false. Entirely false.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Wait till
he finishes. Why does the hon. Attorney-
General not keep quiet for a while? He has
made enough speeches.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Having ruled against the
leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker,
your honour then saw fit to permit the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) to make a
statement in reply to a question from the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) in
which the hon. Prime Minister defended the
hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) and
sought to suggest that press reports had dis-
torted the speech of the hon. Attorney-
General. I quote from the hon. Prime Minis-
ter's exact words:
Mr. Speaker, I have examined the speech
of the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
and it is a long address of 45 minutes' dura-
tion and it contains a good deal of what I
would term learned research. There is a
good deal of history and a great deal of
discussion about the abstract of liberty
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
523
and I feel it is unfair to remove from it
one very small portion and draw certain
conclusions from the portion so withdrawn.
That is the end of the quotation, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is
that the hon. Prime Minister has misled the
House and that he should correct the infor-
mation that he has given hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime Minister yester-
day refused to table the speech of the hon.
Attorney-General so that hon. members could
judge for themselves. He agreed, however,
to send a copy to the leader of the Opposi-
tion.
I have read this copy and if necessary I
shall read all of it to the House this afternoon
to show that the hon. Prime Minister misled
the House when he claimed that the press
reports did not accurately reflect the remarks
of the hon. Attorney-General.
I shall pass over the hon. Prime Minister's
comment that the speech contained a good
deal of learned research. Mr. Speaker, the
press reported that the hon. Attorney-General
cast doubt on the effectiveness of commissions
of inquiry into crime and law enforcement.
Let me quote the relevant section from the
text of the hon. Attorney-General, beginning
on page 10 of that text:
Every now and then problems of law
enforcement and crime in particular in
some particular aspects are the subject of
public inquiry. For example, there were
the Gestapo charges in 1945 in Ontario
resulting in a Royal commission under Mr.
Justice LeBel. He had this to say: "I am
of the opinion that any person who gives
thought to the matter will realize that
many false statements are of necessity to
be found in police and intelligence files
and records. It is understood that the
police of any force, large or small, usually
set upon and in fact—"
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) rose on a
point of privilege and he stated the point
of privilege as being that the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) misled the House.
That is the point of privilege and it is not
necessary to make a long speech in the state-
ment of a privilege.
I would point out to all hon. members
that when they wish to obtain the floor if
they will stand the Speaker will sit down
and the floor will be obtained by the hon.
member.
Mr. Reaume: Everything was going along
fine until the hon.— Am I out of order too
now?
Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon- member
was rising on a point of privilege. That is
the only way he could rise at this time,
within the rules of the House, as all hon.
members know.
I repeat that the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition mentioned that the hon. Prime Minister
had misled the House and that is the point
of privilege. As I mentioned, I do not think
it calls for a long discourse on a point of
privilege.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
did state my point of privilege and the point
that I was trying to make when you called
me to order was to justify my point of
privilege. I had stated it—
An hon. member: The hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) has made his
point of privilege.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, my argu-
ment is simply this: I stated my point of
privilege and it seems to nje that I have to
demonstrate it to you before you can make
an intelligent determination that—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, what I
am demonstrating at the present time is that
the major portion of this address that was
given by the hon. Attorney-General was
devoted to this very subject. It was not an
incidental or small part, and I think that
as intelligent persons we must present these
facts, before you can make the determina-
tion. I am naturally going to point out that
I think the hon. Prime Minister should
apologize to the House for the statement
that he made yesterday. Now I think this
is a matter of privilege, certainly it is, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The point of privilege "that
the hon. Prime Minister misled the House"
is just a matter at this point of— what shall
I say— not opinion, but judgment. The hon.
leader of the Opposition has stated that the
hon. Prime Minister misled the House; now
at this point if the hon. Prime Minister would
say something or say nothing, it is perfectly
in order.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, may I
substantiate one very important technical
rule before you make your determination.
Note this, that I did not say "deliberately
524
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
misled" and the rules of this House point
out that there is a great differentiation be-
tween the two. What I am pointing out is
that the statement that was made yesterday
was misleading, not saying that it was dehb-
erately misleading.
An hen. member: It is not misleading, if
it is not deliberate.
Mr. Wintermeyer: It certainly is! The hon.
member had better go back to his room.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out
that matters of personal privilege, which
this was mentioned under, do not call for
lengthy speeches. If the hon. leader of the
Opposition will state very briefly his point
of privilege the Speaker will make his rul-
ing on it. That is the procedure we have
always followed in this House.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, on a
matter of personal privilege, the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) has
attempted to convince the hon. members of
the House that I misled the House yester-
day.
That was not my intention and I do not
think I did mislead the House. I think the
statement that I made concerning inferences
drawn from the speech made by the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) the previous
evening, is quite justifiable. These things,
of course, are matters of opinion. If the hon.
leader of the Opposition chooses, he can take
a different interpretation than I do— but I will
reiterate I had no intention of misleading
the House and I do not think I did mislead
the House.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary)
begs leave to present to the House the
following :
1. The Public Accounts of the Province
of Ontario for the fiscal year ended 31st
March, 1961.
2. Report of the Provincial Auditor, Ontario,
1960-1961.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope ( Minister of Mines ) :
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
and now that the storm is over, I ask leave
to draw to the attention of hon. members,
the review of the mining industry and of
The Department of Mines which you, Mr.
Speaker, have courteously allowed me to have
placed on their desks.
It has become a tradition within the last
few years, and it is a matter of pride to the
staff of my department, that each year a
complete summary of the previous year's
activities throughout the industry and in the
department can be prepared and ready for
distribution within a matter of six or seven
weeks of the close of the year.
The presentation of such a report, while
the information it contains is still current
and newsworthy, presents a real service to the
mining industry and to the public generally.
My staff claims, and I think with justice, that
no other department in this government
manages to present so fully documented a
report so early in the year. I think I can go
further than that and say that no department
of any government in Canada quite matches
this particular achievement.
I should like to repeat now what I say in
the foreword to the report, that to achieve this
end, a fine degree of co-operation among all
branches of the department and between the
department and the various segments of the
mining industry, is required. It is not easy
to collect and collate such a mass of informa-
tion and have it ready for publication in so
short a time.
That, however, is just one sample of the
high standard of service in which The Depart-
ment of Mines takes pride and I think that
the sort of co-operation it receives from, and
extends to, the mining industry is one of the
best possible means of ensuring the con-
tinuation of the spirit of mutual— and mutually
profitable— goodwill which has been main-
tained over a great many years. In com-
mending this review to the attention of hon.
members, I suggest that it is worth much
more than a casual glance to anyone who is
seriously concerned with the economic well-
being of our province and our nation.
On page two is a graph which portrays in
an almost startling form the rate at which
our mining industry has increased its pro-
ductivity since the first years of the century.
From a production total of $190 million in
1946, the annual volume soared to a total of
just under $1 billion in 1960. I have to add
that in 1961 there is an apparent reversal
in this constant upward trend, and production
was less by $34.8 million in the last year.
This, however, can be more than accounted
for by the loss in the market for uranium,
over which it appears no one in this country
has any real control. If it were possible to
leave uranium out of the picture, both for
last year and for 1960, it would be possible
to claim an increased overall production of
$21 million.
Let me point again to the same graph on
page two, Mr. Speaker. Members wall note
that the shaded portion of the graph indicates
die expenditure of the mining industry year
by year, and relates this expenditure to the
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
525
total value of production. The picture, I
tliink, indicates pretty clearly just how im-
portant the mining industry is to our whole
way of life.
I should like to draw the attention of hon.
members to another graph, this one on page
80 of the report. It shows very clearly just
how important our mining industry is in the
matter of direct tax payments to Ontario's
consolidated revenue fund. The hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) will be pleased
to hear this.
Here again it will be noted that the total
ordinary revenue derived from the mining
industry has always been far in excess of the
total ordinary expenditure of The Depart-
ment of Mines. In 1961 the ordinary revenue
amounted to $18.3 million as opposed to
ordinary expenditure of only $1.5 million.
That surely should commend the operation of
our mining industry to hon. members on both
sides of the House.
I do not intend to say more just now,
except to suggest that a study of the produc-
tion tables on pages 4, 5 and 6, the summary
of developments on pages 7 and 8, and the
list of producing mining operations on pages
9 and 10, might be very revealing. Part two
of the report, which has to do with the
activities of the department itself, should be
of equal interest to hon. members of this
House.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the
increased emphasis that is being placed on
the work of our geological branch, and the
great importance of the aeromagnetic surveys
which we, in conjunction with the federal
government, are carrying out in northern
Ontario, that this report has been aptly
named, "1961, A Year of Exploration and
Development."
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day I would like to
direct a question to the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions (Mr. Haskett). The ques-
tion is in three parts and it relates to the
statement of the hon. Minister to the House
on December 5, 1961, in answer to my ques-
tion: would he meet, as soon as possible,
with representatives of the municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto to clarify responsibility
for setting salary scales for employees of the
MetropoHtan Toronto (Don) Jail. His state-
ment is reported more fully in Hansard for
December 5, 1961, on pages 193-194.
The three parts of my question are as
follows:
1. Has this meeting been held as yet?
2. If so, when may an announcement
of its results be expected?
3. If not, what has prevented it from
being held?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, notice of
the question is acknowledged with thanks.
The question, as the hon. member for Wood-
bine (Mr. Bryden) has pointed out, came in
three parts: Has this meeting been held as
yet; if so, when may an announcement of its
results be expected; if not, what has pre-
vented it from being held?
The answer to part 1 is "no"; so there is
no place for part 2. In answer to part 3,
"If not, what has prevented it from being
held?" I would answer quite frankly "some
of the study and planning required"— and so
as to be abundantly sure that none of the
hon. members should be confused or misled,
may I just add that after the original meeting
had been requested and before that meeting
was held the Metropolitan executive asked
that the agenda be extended.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, in keeping with the
announcement yesterday by the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) that next Wednesday
would be committee day, and in consultation
with the chairman of the standing committee
on agriculture, I would like to invite the
members of the standing committee on agri-
culture to the Ontario Agricultural College
next Wednesday.
At that time it would be proposed to have
a look at the college campus, at the build-
ings that have been built there, and the
proposed buildings under construction, and
to have lunch there and to have a meeting
of the standing committee on agriculture
which would deal with the two bills that
are under consideration concerning the agri-
cultural colleges. I believe they are Bills
48 and 49 if I am not mistaken, or 49 and 50
—I am not sure which, but they are the bills
concerning the federation of the colleges and
the Research Institute of Ontario. They could
be dealt with in committee at that time, and
a bus will be provided by the department to
take the committee there next week. I think
this is an historical event and I think it
should be dealt with in the proper sur-
roundings.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, I have a question for the
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Warrender). I
have tried to follow the correct procedures of
Parliament by having it typed out and sent
to him. I hope he received it in time.
In view of the susceptibility of recent
arrivals to Ontario to be exploited in such
businesses as the building trades, what steps
526
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has the government taken during the past
year to guarantee that the employees' rights
are properly insured? And a supplementary
aspect of this is: does this include, or is it
considered that this will include, the licensing
of building contractors in Ontario?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, a strike occurred in
the summer of 1960 affecting the housebuild-
ing aspect of the construction industry. It
was in this particular area that the greatest
number of immigrants were engaged in
construction work.
This strike was settled, and a construction
industry arbitration board was established
under the chairmanship of Professor J. C.
Cameron who had recently retired from the
staff of Queen's University.
This board heard and disposed of some 129
cases, and in 48 cases wage claims were
adjusted on the basis of consent awards in
favour of the workmen involved, most of
whom were immigrants. This board has now
completed its job but not before it had
awarded many thousands of dollars to
workers, the greatest number of whom were
immigrants.
The government also established a one-man
Royal commission to study the construction
industry. The commissioner is H. Carl Gold-
enberg, Q.C. His terms of reference extend
to some of the matters mentioned in the
question of the hon. member (Mr. Thompson).
At this moment, the report of Mr. Goldenberg
has not been received. I am sure that all of
us are awaiting this report with a great deal
of interest.
As to the licensing of building contractors,
this matter was raised before the Royal com-
mission on industrial safety which sat under
the chairmanship of Judge P. J. McAndrew
and which now reported. This report has
been delivered to the hon. members of this
House.
I am not persuaded that licensing building
contractors will make them any more safety-
conscious or more well-disposed to paying
their debts.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day I have
a question addressed to the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) of which notice has
been given. It is in two parts:
1. Did the hon. Attorney-General or mem-
bers of his staff give directions to a Crown
attorney or to any other person in connection
with the laying of charges against an official
of the town of Eastview?
2. In view of the findings at a recent trial
in the town of Eastview does the hon.
Attorney-General intend to lay charges against
any other individual or individuals?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, my answer to the question is
"yes." Mr. R. P. Milligan, Q.C, Crown
attorney for Stormont-Glengarry was called
in for consultations following an extensive
investigation by the provincial police and was
instructed to prosecute.
In regard to the second question: this case
was concluded last Friday, no report has as
yet been received from Crown counsel and I
understand an appeal has been taken by the
accused.
Mr. Singer: May I ask just a supplementary
question arising out of that? I am not partic-
ularly talking about this case, are there any
other cases that are being investigated and
does the hon. Attorney-General either con-
template action or is he going to carry on
with his investigations?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I have more considera-
tion for the individuals, if there is such a
thing, than to talk about it in this House
unless and until action is indicated.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, again before the
orders of the day, I have another question
on a different topic for the hon. Attorney-
General of which notice has been given.
Would the hon. Attorney-General advise
this House about the progress of his appeal
concerning the disposition of the charges
laid against Magistrate Hall in connection
with the findings of Judge Joseph Sweet in
the York Township probe?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: This refers to an appeal
by the accused, I presume, to the Supreme
Court of Canada from the judgment of the
Court of Appeal for Ontario setting aside
the acquittal by the trial court and ordering
a new trial. I understand that this case is
on the present list for hearing at the present
sitting of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, again before the
orders of the day I have a question of which
notice has been given addressed to the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Cass).
Would the hon. Minister name all present
members of the Ontario Municipal Board and
give the date of their appointment?
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
AfTairs): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for
York Centre (Mr. Singer) would direct his
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
527
eye this way instead of to the former hon.
Minister (Mr. Warrender), I would be
dehghted to reply.
The membership and organization of the
Ontario Municipal Board, Mr. Speaker, now
is as follows:
J. A. Kennedy, chairman, appointed October
1, 1956; R. L. Kennedy, vice-chairman,
appointed February 15, 1951; J. R. Turnbull,
vice-chairman, appointed June 1, 1960; A. H.
Arrell, Q.C., vice-chairman, appointed June
30, 1961; and the following members: W.
Greenwood, appointed January 1, 1953; D.
Jamieson, appointed December 1, 1955; V. S.
Milburn, appointed April 1, 1956; A. L.
McCrae, appointed December 1, 1958; and
H. E. Roberts, appointed June 30, 1961. The
secretary of the board is Miss B. Vickers,
appointed April 1, 1961.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day, I would like to reply to the question
which was asked of me by the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) on Decem-
ber 15. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that
this was the last day of the fall session and
while there was some suggestion yesterday of
undue delay, actually only one day's sitting
of this House has intervened.
The question regarded an alleged meet-
ing which was supposed to have been held by
a group in Smiths Falls to interview applicants
for a supposed vacancy in a local L.C.B.O.
store.
I wish to advise the hon. member that the
whole matter of hiring a new employee for the
Smiths Falls store was entirely without sub-
stance in that there was not then, nor is there
now, any vacancy to be filled.
It is not the practice of the L.C.B.O. either,
to suggest that prospective employees apply
to anyone but the board, and I submit that we
can hardly therefore be held accountable for
the actions of any individual or group of
individuals who may decide they want to con-
sider non-existent or even existing staff vacan-
cies. I might add that the liquor board
receives many applications and recommenda-
tions from people in all walks of life, includ-
ing many recommendations from hon.
members in this House, from all parties, in-
cluding both Opposition groups. We have no
way of knowing, nor do we care, whether
such recommendations result from a meeting
of any group— political or otherwise. We are
interested in the people who apply or are
recommended and the qualifications of such
person only are taken into consideration.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day I would like to make a
statement.
For some time, a special committee of the
Cabinet under the chairmanship of the hon.
Allan Grossman, Ontario's Chief Liquor
Commissioner, has been reviewing the pro-
visions of The Liquor Control Act and the
policy of the government in relation thereto.
The purpose of this study has been to assure
that the provisions of the legislation are
practical and in keeping with the conditions
that exist in this province today; and are
designed to meet the needs and desires of our
people.
In keeping with this objective we have
given particularly close scrutiny to the permit
system. This system was first introduced when
the Liquor Control Board was formed in
1927. At that time it was necessary to have
a book in which liquor purchases were re-
corded. Many years later, in March, 1954,
this procedure was simplified and the present
card system was introduced.
The purpose of first the book and, later, the
card permit, was to prevent sale to minors, to
those on the interdicted list and to boot-
leggers. Both systems were effective in this
respect, but we have been well aware that
the necessity of producing a permit has been
a continuing source of irritation to liquor
purchasers. We now propose to remove this
irritation by abolishing the permit system
effective April 1, 1962, at which time new
permits would normally be required.
Although a permit will no longer be re-
quired, we intend to retain the necessary
control over the possible sale to minors and
to those on the prohibited list. A system has
been devised to retain these controls.
The order form which customers fill out
for each purchase and which they sign, in-
cludes a certificate similar to that which had
to be signed when a permit was purchased.
This means that each time a purchase is made
the customer will certify that he or she is
legally entitled to purchase liquor. The
penalty for a false statement on this purchase
order form will be the same as the penalty
formerly imposed for a false statement in an
application for a permit.
The certificate will mean that we can
maintain our constant check on those who
may attempt to buy liquor for illegal pur-
poses. By eliminating the permit we are at
the same time depriving the provincial
treasury of a much needed source of revenue.
Last year, the sale of permits brought in
about $1,300,000. To compensate for this
528
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
loss in revenue and, at the same time to
remove another slight irritation to customers
due to odd amounts in the price of the pro-
duce caused by the sales tax, we are adjust-
ing file prices of liquor to eliminate the odd
amounts, and adjusting the price to the
nearest five cents.
For example, an item which presently
sells for $4.12 will be priced at $4.15; an
item which is now $3.86 will be $3.90.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Prime Minister
wants to take a lesson in arithmetic.
An hon. member: Who from, the hon.
member?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Not
from you, certainly.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Both these prices that
I quoted include the Ontario sales tax. I
would like to point out that liquor prices
in Ontario are still by far the lowest in any
province in Canada.
(Applause.)
This seems to be a very popular topic,
Mr. Speaker.
This price change, we feel, will just about
make up the loss in revenue caused by drop-
ping the permit system. It is our feeling
that the general public will welcome this
change and be glad to pay the extra few
pennies to avoid the nuisance of buying a
permit and having to produce it every time
they make a purchase.
Also in keeping with our desire to tailor
our liquor provisions to modern-day condi-
tions, we propose to redefine the meaning
of "residence" under the Act. Where a per-
son is legally residing in a camp, it will now
be legal for him to consume liquor within
that area. This will preclude the likelihood
of past situations whereby, for example, a
person occupying a tent could be charged
with an ofi^ence because of a technical inter-
pretation of the term "residence." For
example, you will all recall that a magistrate
ruled he had no authority to decide that a
person drinking outside his tent was not
legally consuming in his "residence."
We also propose to redefine and clarify
the meaning of a "public place" under the
Act to avoid situations occurring in the
past where magistrates have dismissed
charges because they ruled that "licensed
premises" do not constitute a "public place"
within the meaning of the Act. For example,
magistrates have dismissed charges of va-
grancy and so on when these offences
occurred in "licensed premises."
I would like also to announce, Mr.
Speaker, that the budget paid for by the
provincial treasury to finance the work of
the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Re-
search Foundation will amount this year to
$1,065,000, which is an increase of $225,000
over last year. A greatly expanded pro-
gramme is to be introduced by the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond) for the
foundation in our attack on the problem
of alcoholism in this province. This entire
programme will be given to the House in
detail by the hon. Minister of Health when
he introduces his estimates.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that the Cabinet
committee is continuing its intensive study
of the legislation in regard to the sale and
control of liquor. I anticipate there will be
further changes brought before the House
when this committee completes its study and
makes its final recommendation.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, might I address a
question to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) in regard to the statement that he
has just made? These changes that he proposes
—are these to be made by regulation or are
they going to be made by statutory amend-
ment? In brief, are we going to have an
opportunity to debate these, particularly the
one concerning the replacing of the permit
with a declaration? It would seem to me that
we are replacing one piece of paper with
another, and the second piece of paper that
we are going to have is not going to be of
any value unless we have a great army of
civil servants to check up on them.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, that par-
ticular phase of these amendments and
changes will require legislation and therefore
the hon. member (Mr. Singer) will have an
opportunity to make his comments later.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. L. Troy ( Nipissing ) : Mr. Speaker, my
first observation in this important debate is
to commend you for the courtesies which
you have shown and continue to show me,
and I couple in that statement also the mem-
bers of your staff. Whatever the reason, I
note also, sir, that you are more relaxed in
this session than in the two previous sessions
I had the honour to sit in this House.
I extend congratulations to the newly seated
member, the hon. member for Brant (Mr.
Nixoii) who succeeds that late beloved gentle-
man, Harry Nixon, who sat in here for so
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
529
many years; and to the hon. member for
Kenora ( Mr. Gibson ) who succeeds that great
champion of the north, the late Albert Wren;
and also to the newly seated hon. member
for Beaches (Mr. Harris) who succeeds
another fine gentleman, the late William
Collings.
Before I get into the burden of my speech
there is something I would like to bring to
the attention of the House which follows a
statement that the hon. Minister of Education
( Mr. Robarts ) made yesterday. Yesterday the
hon. Minister dismissed a question, which I
asked, as semi-frivolous. It was not asked
frivolously or even semi-frivolously, even
though such was the way it was answered
and was treated by the marionettes from
the other side.
The hon. Minister also went on in his
answer to say that a staff member of the
Ontario College of Education was not reflect-
ing the policy of the government because the
college is in fact part of the University of
Toronto. I wonder if the hon. Minister made
his reply knowing that the present dean of
the college was appointed some four years
ago, and by the Cabinet of his predecessor.
The present dean, I understand, was not
appointed on the recommendation of his
immediate predecessor at the college, nor on
the recommendation of the then acting
president of the University of Toronto.
Because the president of the university de-
clined to make the recommendation for his
appointment, the University of Toronto board
of governors were unable to approve the
appointment. It was for these reasons that
the government of the day, after legal con-
sultations, decided to make the appointment
by an order-in-council and that was done. It
is my understanding that the present dean
who, if the University of Toronto were in
charge of the college, would be retired this
year because of age, has been granted a
year's extension by the present hon. Minister.
It is also a matter of public record that
the estimates of the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion for the current fiscal year contain pro-
visions for $1,175,000 for the Ontario College
of Education.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer by the
hon. Minister yesterday, I thought I should
bring these matters to the attention of this
House so that the operative relationship of
the Ontario College of Education and this
government might be brought more effec-
tively into focus.
Mr. Speaker, I shall add that I was glad
the hon. Minister reassured this House about
that aspect of educational policy I raised
yesterday concerning a peculiarly nauseating
way of practising economy,
I might also call to the attention of this
House a paragraph from the Windsor Star
of February 20 under the heading "Now"
by Mr. Jim Cornett:
The proposal by provincial educators
that birth control is the answer to the
increasing cost of public education is a
pip, a real lulu.
He goes on to refer to the statement and he
finishes with this sentence:
It is frightening to think that we have
men in responsible positions coming out
with such nonsense.
I think I shall again repeat that statement:
It is frightening to think that we have
men in responsible positions—
and, I might add, those men that are en-
gaged in the training of young men and
women to go out to our schools to teach our
children,
—coming out with such nonsense.
I extend my felicitations to the new hon.
Prime Minister of Ontario who now wears
the mantle of leadership of the government.
I had heard long before the recent PC
convention that our dear John in Ottawa had
given the nod of approval to big John here—
and like big John of the ballad he is wide
of shoulder and slim of hip— and that the
result was a foregone conclusion.
Be that as it may, I wish you well, hon.
leader of the government, in your dual duties
of Prime Minister and also Minister of Edu-
cation. Your predecessor in office found the
duties of the premiership quite onerous and
there is an old Irish saying that says, "Be
careful of the lazy man's load".
Since you are chained to your seat daily in
this House as the leader of the government,
it seems to me that the important Department
of Education will suffer, but possibly you
are of the opinion that there is no one in
the House now who can handle one job as
well as you can handle both portfolios.
My acquaintance with the former leader
of the government, the hon. member for
Victoria ( Mr. Frost ) , was somewhat short-
lived, but it was long enough to know that
he was a master of timing. I wish him well
in his present role and recall, for his attention,
the old saying that "Old soldiers never die."
My congratulations to the new hon. mem-
bers of the inner circle whose loyalty to their
new leader has been recognized and I must
say I offer my condolences to those others
530
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who failed to receive promotion. References
have already been made by the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) to the game
of musical chairs and so I shall not labour
that point here.
I am pleased to see that the new hon.
Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope)— I believe
he is down the line now, I do not see him
here— is once more a northerner and a member
for a riding in which a number of mines are
located. I think some of the atmosphere of
the mining camp has had an exhilarating
effect on him.
Certainly I hope he does not make the
mistake of a former hon. Minister of Mines
in this government— who later was hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer and later hon. Prime
Minister of Ontario— who was speaking to a
convention of mining prospectors and
chuckled about his ignorance of mining.
Those who were his former charges, the
present hon. Minister's former charges, I am
sure will miss his joviality. But I warn him
it will take more than joviality and the glad
hand to run that very important department
so vital to the life blood of this province and,
in particular, northern Ontario. I wish him
well.
It is apropros, I think, when I mention
mining, that I call attention to the fact that
the town of Timmins, that capital of the
Porcupine gold camp, is celebrating this year
its golden jubilee. For the benefit of those
from the southern climes, they have a cele-
bration in February and then those who do
not like the rigorous climate of northern
Ontario can come up in the summer time. It
is readily accessible by air, rail and by Trans-
Canada Highway No. 11. I hesitate to say
Trans-Canada Highway because I may offend
those where the highway runs in southern
Ontario.
Hon. members will find the Porcupine camp
a most friendly area. There are all kinds of
diversities there including bear hunting.
Mayor DelVillano will assist hon. members
in this particular feature.
Hon. members of this House will recall that
during the last session when the hon. member
for Halton (Mr. Hall), was extolling the
virtues of the government during the debate
on the budget— I am sure he must have had
his tongue in cheek— he blandly stated that
patronage had been abolished in 1943 when
this present government came to power.
I commend to the hon. members of this
House and particularly to the Chief Com-
missioner of the Liquor Control Board
(Mr. Grossman) the practice of the hon.
Minister from the historic riding of Kingston
(Mr. Nickle) who delegates to the Canadian
Legion in his community the responsibility for
selecting personnel for temporary employ-
ment at the retail outlet stores of the Liquor
Control Board of Ontario. The same practice
I know is pursued by my very good friend
and wartime comrade, the hon. member for
Parry Sound (Mr. A. Johnston).
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr.
Frost) has often stated in this House and out-
side this House that there is a veterans
preference in the public service of Ontario.
After listening for many years to complaints
at veterans' gatherings, I say the only thing
strong about it is the odour. It is something
that is more honoured in the breach than
the observance.
It was my understanding, too, that the
government in its winter works programme
has directed that priority should be given
to employable persons who were either on
municipal relief or were drawing unemploy-
ment insurance benefits. I am sure in the
ridings in which the hon. members of the
government party are running scared— and
that riding certainly is Nipissing— such is not
the case. In fact, the Progressive Conservative
committees in the riding are ignoring muni-
cipal authorities and like small-time dictators
are directing the government agencies as to
who should be employed. It is just another
example of the arrogance of the minions of
this party.
I shall enlarge on this later, particularly
during the estimates under which the Liquor
Control Board comes. I know before the
session concluded in December I had asked
a question of the commissioner (Mr. Gross-
man). I finally got an answer after four
days. He could have given me the answer
off the cuff, because his answer was entirely
different from what I find in the area about
which I inquired.
Now reference has been made by other
speakers in this debate to the recent cam-
paign for the Progressive Conservative leader-
ship, which culminated as expected in the
elevation of the hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Robarts) as leader of the Progressive-
Conservative party and later the seat of
honour as the hon. Prime Minister of this
province.
Several aspects of this campaign were rather
interesting, such as the general tone which
seemed to me not a battle between rivals of
political parties, rather than a struggle
between brothers for seniority in the family
household.
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
531
Also worthy of slight thought was the left-
handed tributes to their former leader, the
hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost), whom
they seemed to damn with faint praise. All
but one had been members of the Cabinet
for some time and one a government stalwart
for several decades. One would think tliat
they would have had some voice in govern-
ment policy in the expansion and develop-
ment of this province, particularly in the
development of what is so fondly called the
treasure house of this province, the great
area known to all hon. members as northern
Ontario.
As they travelled the northland and gave
their pitches to their prospective delegates,
they sang the same refrain that they had
been humming ever since I came to that
wonderful region.
I listened to the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) in his visit to the north. "I know
the north, its people, its vernacular. I can
take the abuse of the north better than any
other candidate," he said. No wonder he
was repudiated by the delegates just as he
has been repudiated twice in this House
during the present session and more recently
—in fact, twice— by the Toronto Globe and
Mail, which certainly is not a paper that
supports my party. Recently, I believe in
this morning's paper, I read something— I
should say it was not commendation, it was
castigation. I commend to the hon. leader
of the government the final paragraph in that
editorial.
Abuse— that is his word for our earnest
pleas for some return for the boundless
wealth that has flowed down from the
Laurentian hills to southern Ontario.
Again this member of the team that sat
on the left of his former leader is quoted:
If I were Premier I would want a close
chain of command or closer liaisons with
the problems of the north.
Apparently it is a slap at his old captain.
Northern ridings have great potentials
in agriculture, lumber, minerals, hydro
power. These natural resources would be
developed quickly or slowly depending on
leadership.
The presumption is that the former hon.
Prime Minister did not give that dynamic
leadership that the hon. Attorney-General
would give. To him it would be full-speed-
ahead up north, to the tune of Cannonball—
hon. members know, of TV fame— but also,
alas and alack, the poor north will never
have that dynamic leadership that the hon.
Attorney-General offered.
The hon. Attorney-General was a favourite
son —
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member
would permit me one moment? I would point
out that I am not calling the hon. member
to order.
If the House will permit me it is my pleas-
ure at this time to introduce to hon. members
of this House a distinguished guest from
across the seas. I do it at this time because
our distinguished guest has very limited time.
It is always an honour to welcome representa-
tives of a member nation of our Common-
wealth. On the first day of October, 1960,
the Federation of Nigeria became an inde-
pendent, self-governing nation. Upon achiev-
ing this independence, the federation decided
of its own free will to remain a member of
the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Our province has a close and rather inti-
mate association with Nigeria, through the
fact that an increasing number of young
people from the federation have chosen to
pursue advanced studies in our educational
institutions.
It is an honour and privilege to present to
this House Senator, the Honourable, Chief,
Doctor Majekodunmi, Master of Arts, Doctor
of Medicine, Fellow of the Royal College of
Physicians, Dublin, Ireland, Minister of
Health for the Federation of Nigeria.
Sir, on behalf of the hon. members of this
House and the people of Ontario, may I
extend to you the hand of brotherhood and
wish that you would take to your hon.
Prime Minister and the hon. members of your
House our greetings and best wishes.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all with-
in this honourable House will say that was a
very pleasant interlude.
Returning to my speech, the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) was a favourite son of
the Toronto Telegram. To the "Tely" he was
that rare mixture in political life— a man
who knows how to get things done without
rocking the boat. Unfortunately for him,
the boat has been rocked by other hands and,
to borrow from the hon. member for Vic-
toria (Mr. Frost), he is tottering on the
bridge. The Toronto Telegram dubbed him
as a humble man.
In his fruitful quest, the hon. Attorney-
General visited Peterborough, where he
brushed off the Liberal opposition as incon-
sequential. In effect, he said there: "Elect
me as your leader and I shall conduct such
a dynamic campaign throughout this province
that I will wipe the platter clean of the
Opposition."
532
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An hon. member: How about the by-
election?
Mr. Troy: Now, Mr. Speaker, is this
humihty? Braggadocio it is in my book.
Probably that would be the only kind of a
house the hon. Attorney-General might gov-
ern. The hon. Attorney-General visited
Nipissing on its Remembrance Day a year
ago; and there this humble man gathered
with local party stalwarts and they had quite
a ball. They characterized the occasion with
gay raillery; and showing his knowledge of
the classics the hon. Minister referred to
the Trojan horse, and boasted at the next
election he and his party would storm the
walls of Troy.
An hon. member: How about that?
Mr. Troy: Little did the hon. Attorney-
General reahze that a year later the wily
Ulysses would be gone; he who had guided
the paths of the Conservatives for 12 years
would be no longer there.
Up in the Lakehead country the hon.
Attorney-General played his cards pretty close
to his vest; altliough he said he knew the
north he certainly was no northern plunger.
He said: "Give me the leadership, give me
four seats in the next election"— what a pipe
dream— "and I will give you another Cabinet
post."
The hon. Minister of Energy Resources
(Mr. Macaulay)— that was the title he carried
in the campaign, and now he is a triune
figure in the government dynasty— with one
breath found the leadership of the former
hon. Prime Minister of inestimable value and
in the next gasp warned that the Conserva-
tives will elect few members in northern
Ontario ridings unless the party adopted a
dynamic programme of northern development.
He had said, I understand, in Kingston: "In
every three or four years we go up north and
talk about development— we go up there and
we do not see them until four years later."
He could not have made a more devastating
comment about his party than I could myself.
I am sure if Diogenes entered this House he
would go straight with his lantern to the seat
of the hon. Minister of Economics and De-
velopment (Mr, Macaulay) because from him
came the bold truth. His party and this
government have failed dismally in their
stewardship.
I ask the hon. members of this House to
reflect here that the hon. Minister has been
a member of the Cabinet for a number of
years; he has been a member of the govern-
ment even longer; and this government has
been in power for 18 years that I have lived
up in northern Ontario. What use did he
make of his dynamic qualities then, as a
member of the Cabinet, as member of the
government? In his leader's house, was it the
family dictum that young men must be seen
but not heard?
The hon. Minister now at the right hand
of the new leader bemoaned pettishly that
his opponents— and I quote his own words
as recorded— some I may call my colleagues-
were not prepared to discuss the needs of
such a programme. This admission by the
Cabinet Minister indicates that his colleagues
were not prepared to discuss it. The north,
I assure this House, will retaliate in kind.
He also prophesied that the image of Leslie
Frost would wane and he warned, as I declare
now, northern Ontario will not buy the same
bill of goods again. Again I reiterate, what
an admission from a member of the govern-
ment that has been in power for the past
18 years.
Now I prophesy, if given the opportunity,
the people of this province will awaken from
their lethargy, and the prediction of the hon.
Minister will be a reality not only in northern
Ontario but in the whole province.
They will not buy this bill of goods again;
and the death-bed repentance is too late.
We have seen the results in three of the
by-elections— two members are sitting here
now in my party, one is to come— and cer-
tainly in a riding which is a very key rid-
ing, the riding of Renfrew South, of which
the former member had been a Minister of
this government.
The hon. Minister, in his campaign in
northern Ontario, promised a special Cabi-
net to expand the development of Ontario's
northland and set up and achieve certain
goals in northern Ontario development.
Briefs and presentations would be soHcited
and meetings would be held to find views
and aspirations of the north.
For many years in this House there stood
a true son of the north— a man who served
his country well in war, who bore to his
grave tlie scars of that service and who later
served his people and this province with
equal distinction. Who better than he pre-
sented to this House the hopes and the
dreams of northern Ontario— which he tra-
versed time and again from the Quebec
border through to Manitoba by sea, by land
and in the air and also on Shank's mare?
That was the late member for Kenora (Mr.
Wren); and did you listen to him? No;
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
533
except, I understand in the recent by-elec-
tion where there were all kinds of promises
of what was going to be done— things the
late Albert Wren had been pleading for for
years.
I ask the hon. Prime Minister and the
other hon. Ministers to pore through their
Hansard, to read and re-read the speeches
of the late Albert Wren. They would not
listen to his voice; at least they should now
take heed to his call from the grave.
A further indication that this government
is falling apart at the seams and that jeal-
ousy is raising its ugly head may be gleaned
from the report and caustic comment at
Sarnia of the hon. Minister who was the
campaign manager for the then and still
hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan). With
one fell swoop the former hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. Cass) cut the opponents of
his boy down to size. "They have not a
clue about many of the matters that concern
the operations of the Ontario government,"
was his cryptic summation of the calibre
of the six other candidates. Who should
know any better than he? Because he was
a member of that council.
The most bitter critic of this government
could only have emulated that vitriolic state-
ment. What an admission by a member of
the executive council of the province of
Ontario! However, I do not think the hon.
Provincial Treasurer could know too much
about the north because in the regional
office— I brought this out before the sales
tax, the retail sales tax— in northern Ontario,
and an area in which is included all kinds
of French-Canadian merchants— in some
places the majority of people are French
Canadian— in the whole office there is not
one who can speak the French language.
That does not show he knows too much about
northern Ontario.
Cabinet Ministers, the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan) observed in one speech,
should get away from Toronto a great deal
more than they do. The people of Ontario
will soon see that his objective is reached.
In fact, some of them will be in quieter
pastures permanently and there they will have
carte blanche to do what they will.
Changes would be rung if he were leader,
warned the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe
(Mr. Downer).
An hon. member: Have you ever read-
Mr. Troy: I must say I have read it over
several times, but then I was so amazed at
the things, that I stumbled over it again.
"Government would be restored, I say
again, to the elected representatives of the
people," said the hon. member for Dufferin-
Simcoe. Too many boards and commissions
running things now in his opinion. With that
statement I heartily agree.
Incidentally, at the time he made this
statement the hon. member was a member of
one of the commissions himself, and I do not
know, but I presume he still is. As far as I
know the axe has not fallen.
"Let us give the government back to the
people." Then he threw almost I might say
a right-cross to the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion (Mr. Robarts): "Our system of education
is badly in need of overhaul."
And to the delight of us in the gallery as
he came out swinging, roundhouse with both
fists, one at his former leader, the other at
the hon. Provincial Treasurer:
"The sales tax is a nuisance tax." Then
again, as we have said: "Too much arbitrary
direction from the top. The further this way
this tendency leads us the more expensive
and inefficient this system gets."
No one on this side of the House could
make a more caustic comment about the
government. He truly echoed the continuing
criticisms of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
A large number of Conservatives appar-
ently agreed with him, as the balloting at
their convention revealed. I listened to tliose
remarks of his to a northern audience and
I could not say anything better. "The north
has not been getting a square deal. A great
deal of the wealth of southern Ontario comes
from the north. Money from natural resources
and local industry is funneled southward
whereas I should like to see", said the hon.
member, "the entire production process and
its profits remain in the north."
He must have been reading our mail, too,
because he said he would restore The Depart-
ment of Northern Development. The hon.
members of this House will know that we on
this side of the House have been clamouring
for a ministry of northern affairs.
A Conservative supporter is supposed to
have characterized the new leader as being
"a touch of Frost". Others apparently hope
that he is a whole lot more than that, because
in the last election the PC's lost 13 seats and
then some in the by-elections. At that time
he did not know of the events to come.
According to those who followed the cam-
paign the hon. Minister of Education promised
no major policy changes, but one feature
writer said he planned a careful and honest
534
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
study of public and separate schools. I agree
with him that a study of the problems that
affect these two systems is overdue.
Maintenance of party solidarity was to be
another objective, and from the rumblings
and tremors that one hears both in and out of
this honourable House, the new leader is
going to have a job on his hands as he per-
forms his dual task.
The jovial qualities of the hon. Minister
of Mines (Mr. Wardrope), as I mentioned
before, are going to be missed by his former
charges.
The hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond)
also toured northern Ontario and his slim
support by the delegates was a surprise to
many observers, including myself, because
his appeal was not so local, his aim was to
develop the province in its entirety. With
that aim I cannot disagree, but unfortunately
we in the north do not have our rightful
place in that broad picture. We in northern
Ontario basked not only in autumn sunshine
last autumn, but we were also in the glow
of the political limelight. As the editor of the
North Bay Daily Nugget wrote in one of his
columns:
Never was a northland wooed so ardently
but we ask like the shy maiden, "What are
your intentions, John?"
I want now to refer particularly to some
of the problems of northern Ontario. I find
that very few people in the southern part of
the province know much about the vast area
that we call northern Ontario. I suppose there
are very few in this House that realize the
first commercial establishment in the part of
Canada which we now know as Ontario was
set up on the banks of Lake Nipissing by
Jean Nicolet who was one of the team of
Champlain. Very few know that the Trans-
Canada route for many decades passed
through the heart of my riding.
Northern Ontario is more than four times
the size of southern Ontario in area, but it
has only one resident for every eight in the
southern part of the province. The population
is thin on the ground and the distances are
very great. These facts of small population,
immense areas, great distances between com-
munities, create many of our problems in the
north.
I think of the handicaps of the farmers: the
growing season is short, the local markets for
the sale of produce are small. High trans-
portation costs in bringing in fertilizer,
machinery, equipment and other supplies and
in shipping out our products have a stifling
effect on this industry. Farming is a high cost
industry in northern Ontario and as a result
many of the farmers are leaving the land.
But this need not be so. Our agricultural
land is most suitable for the production of
forage and vegetable crops. Northern Ontario
potatoes rank with the best in the country
and have won many awards at national fairs.
The provincial government could do a whole
lot more than they are doing now and than
they have done in the past to help our
northern Ontario farmers.
I read here a recommendation from the
farmers' organization in northeastern Ontario.
It points out that due to the high cost of
transportation of chemical fertilizers to north-
ern Ontario and the ever-increasing need of
improving soil fertility, a policy similar to
the lime transportation policy on Hme pur-
chases from southern Ontario would be
beneficial. This amounts to 75 per cent of
the cost of freight or truck charges. More
on that in the estimates of The Department
of Agriculture.
As the hon. Minister of Economics and
other things (Mr. Macaulay) has said, the
high-priced help— and I refer to his colleagues
in the Cabinet— go up north every four years
or so, make a lot of promises and then return
south, as somebody has said, to clip coupons.
Only when the stock market fails do they
think of our northland— also at certain times
in elections.
Help could be made available and will be
made available by my party, when we take
over the reins of government, in the form
of long-term loans through farm co-operatives.
This would enable them to build and operate
storage facilities so that they could give
assistance to farmers and farm co-operatives
in the development of processing of our farm
products and also in the development of facili-
ties such as abattoirs, canneries and so forth.
Thus it would be possible for our farmers in
northern Ontario to market their crops at a
price that would compete with operations in
other parts of Ontario.
We in northern Ontario want to preserve
the farm as an economic unit that can and
will sustain the farmer and his family and
at the same time provide the people of this
province with farm products at reasonable
prices.
Moreover, government assistance, as I
pointed out, in freight rates would go a long
way towards helping our farmers and also all
other industries in northern Ontario. With
sound development and proper planning this
area could be, to coin a phrase as used by
the then hon. Minister of Commerce and
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
535
Development, the brightest star on the world's
horizon.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for
Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Downer) said, northern
Ontario is a treasure house of natural re-
sources. Our forests and mines produce one
dollar out of every 11 of the dollars that
are earned annually from all activities in
Ontario. Our minerals and our forest products
have to compete in the markets of the world.
High freight rates, high production costs,
which are likely to rise with the integration
of the northern Ontario properties with
southern Hydro, reduce the abilities of these
industries to compete. We on this side of
the House recognize the needs of our forest
and our mining industries now increasingly
challenged by foreign competitors. We realize
the necessity of keeping our industry in
northern Ontario competitive, profitable and
expanding so that present jobs will be secured
and new ones created. Only through en-
lightened policies of forest management,
exploration for minerals, taxation of our
natural resources— including the logging tax
—only, I repeat, by enlightened policies will
our basic industries of northern Ontario have
the long-term security, the flexibility and
strength they need to meet the newest chal-
lenges hurled at this province as a trading
province.
This government has been in office more
than 18 years and it has been unable to
provide that security.
I could touch on the highways of the north,
I will not expand more on it until later, but
after all the years— in 1941, I think it was,
the ribbon was cut at the Sturgeon River near
Geraldton— still Highway 11 has not yet been
completed from Atikokan to Fort Francis
and it is 90 miles in length there. There is
a causeway completed but I do not know
when the road is going to be completed. Then
they say the Trans-Canada Highway, No. 17,
will be completed in 1963. I understand,
though I have not been over the road recently,
that it is a long way from Trans-Canada
Highway standards.
We certainly do need roads to our re-
sources, to our forest resources. We need
access roads; we need roads that run north
and south. I do not know why there is
still the opposition, apparently on the other
side, for not connecting the great metropolis
of Sudbury with the tovm of Timmins. We
have the connection between Timmins and
Chapleau and then on to Highway 17, but
we need these north and south highways.
One of our great industries, one of our
greatest resources in northern Ontario, is the
tourist industry, but we do need access roads
to get at other areas from which the people
of the north will develop their economy.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, the party of
which I am a member has long been identi-
fied as a party in favour of immigration, in
favour of development, in favour of realistic
freight rates. It was the party that did those
things and it is the party that will make
growth and expansion a reality. We did it
once, we will do so again.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the
Throne debate, I would like to state first that
I welcome heartily the new hon. members
to this House.
The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon),
who is a son of a great father that I knew in
this House for many years and that I knew
at the time he was Premier of this province.
A very fine gentleman who made a great
contribution to the political life of Ontario
and the agricultural field. I congratulate his
son and welcome him to this House.
Also the new hon. member for Kenora
(Mr. Gibson) who will be a northern colleague
and who will add, I know, his voice and
knowledge of the north to help develop that
great part of the province. I congratulate
him and welcome him as well.
And to our new hon. member for Toronto
Beaches (Mr. Harris), a very fine young man
who fought a great fight in the last election.
I congratulate and welcome him to our ranks
in this House, and to the hon. member for
Eglinton (Mr. Reilly), another fine young
gentleman whom we wish to congratulate and
welcome as an hon. member of this House.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): How
many votes did he get?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well, of course, he
got a little more than the hon. member for
Essex North (Mr. Reaume) did, I think, the
first time he was elected.
Now, I want to say that I wish to con-
gratulate and thank the Speaker, for his
handling of the affairs of this House. I think
we should understand, gentlemen, that the
Speaker's position is a very difficult one to
handle. I think we should consider at all
times that courtesy and consideration of his
ruhngs and his position is a necessity here
and I think we should try, we older members
of this House, to set an example to the new
younger hon. members who have come to our
ranks, to show them that this is not any kind
of a bull ring but the top debating legislative
assembly in this province.
536
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I want to congratulate the hon. member for
Nipissing (Mr. Troy) on a very fine talk.
From some of the things he said and after
a great many years in the north, I can hardly
recognize the place he depicted in his re-
marks about these broken-down roads and
other things. I would tell any strangers to
that part of Ontario if they wish to take a
car from Toronto and go either Highway 17
or Highway 11 they can go clean across their
province on almost all pavement of which
everybody in our end of the province is
proud.
There is the new hon. member from
Kenora (Mr. Gibson), he will tell hon, mem-
bers that both ways from his town of Dryden
there is beautiful pavement. I will tell him
in a little while how many improvements
he has had in his own town during the
regime of the Conservative government.
I have also heard the Opposition talk about
"Why do you not do this, why do you not
do that?" Well, my answer to that is this:
we people of Ontario believe in orderly pro-
gress and steady growth, we wish to build
soundly, but to maintain a constant develop-
ment in our material and social aspects. We
wish to advance with vision and foresight.
Now I think hon. members will agree with
that.
Now I am coming to the part where hon.
members say "Why do you not do this? Why
do you not do that?" On the other hand,
there is no limit to things we would like the
government of our province to do for us.
That is why we are here and Opposition hon.
members are over there. Those in power
have to consider how all social advantages
have to be paid for, indeed, have to be paid
for out of the pockets of our people. Some-
times when I am listening to some hon.
members opposite talk, I often wonder if
they ever think of that. If they really believe
what they say, thank goodness they are not in
power in the province.
Here is something; it is the usual cry of
politicians out of power— and mark that "out
of power," Mr. Speaker— that they will, if
elected, reduce taxes and at the same time
step up social services and other expensive
programmes. I think the public of our
province, Mr. Speaker, is too astute to be
fooled by such appeals as we hear from the
Opposition. It will not work. I would just
say this—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I would point
out that the hon. Minister does not need
any assistance with his speech.
An hon. member: Well, I do not know
about that!
Mr. Speaker: I know it is appreciated by
all hon. members of this House when they
are speaking, not to be interrupted too much.
Up to this point I have assured and seen
to it that every hon. member of this House
has had a good, fair hearing and I intend
to continue along that line.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
I think the public of our province is too
astute to be fooled by such appeals, as I
mentioned, and they will not work. That
policy Willi not work in your own business,
it will not work at your town, township,
village or at city level.
Many of you men who have been in coun-
cils—for instance the former mayor of Wind-
sor (Mr. Reaume) knows what he was like
when he was in the mayor's chair— he did
not go along with every new improvement
and try to raise his taxes. He has changed
his tune since he has been in here; he knows
the province of Ontario has no miraculous
way of obtaining money except from the
people of this province.
This means that the level of provincial
expenditures for the people is limited to
what the people of Ontario can afford to
pay. It often makes me think, Mr. Speaker
— when they are talking and demanding
about giving the people everything they
ask for— about the mouse who got down in
the basement of the brewery one night and
he was running around the edge of this big
barrel full of whiskey and he fell in. He
started to sip it and after a while he got a
little bit tipsy and he started to drown and
he started to yell: "Save me, save me, I am
drowning."
The hon. leader of the Opposition will love
this story, because he heard it in Renfrew.
And the cat heard him and came along
and said, "What is the matter?" He said,
"I am drowning, save me, save me." The
cat said, "All right, I will provided you are
here at 6 o'clock tomorrow night to give
me my supper!"
"Anything you say, anything you say but
save me." So the cat reached down and
pulled him out of the barrel and the mouse
staggered away to his hole, and the next
night at 6 o'clock the cat was down there
for his supper, and no mouse.
Finally he looked around and he saw this
little nose sticking out of a hole and he
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
537
said, "You are a nice one to keep your word,
Mr. Mouse, I thought you said last night
if I saved you, you would be here to serve
me with my supper tonight."
"Oh, yes," the mouse replied, "but last
night I was drunk, I did not know what I
was talking about." That would be the way
our Opposition would handle what they are
saying today, if they were ever elected.
I think that some of the hon. members
do not know what they are talking about
very often and that is why they ask things
that are impossible to give.
To continue, Mr. Speaker, I would say
that what we need in this province is a lot
of conservation coupled with utilization and
those two things must go along together.
This is a province with a wealth of natural
resources and we must, and we do most
assiduously, develop to the betterment of our
people all these natural resources. And where
necessary we must conserve and replenish
for our children and our children's children.
Now that is what we should be doing. The
great-
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): The hon.
Minister made a better speech for the leader-
ship.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well, it is very kind
of the hon. member to say so; I hope he will
enjoy this one.
I think that we have made great strides
in this government in the field of education
of which our hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) is the head. We all beheve that
the wealth of a country is dependent on the
skill and ability of its people and we can no
longer afford to waste even a small percen-
tage, Mr. Speaker, of this great natural
resource, which is our younger generation.
We should, in stages, extend the scope of
educational opportunities to the highest
levels, so that we, as a province, are assured
of the most effective use of our industrial
power by our brain power. Any money in-
vested in this, Mr. Speaker, will pay ample
dividends. That is why I was so proud to
hear our hon. Prime Minister announce yes-
terday that the Lakehead University now had
full degree -granting privileges. This is a
great boon to the whole of northwestern
Ontario, and I know that our boys and girls
will be greatly pleased.
Even the hon. member for Kenora (Mr.
Gibson) will agree that before they had to go
either to Winnipeg, down to the States or
to Toronto; to one of the other great universi-
ties. Now we have that facility, it is a great
step forward; again a step put into effect by
this government over here. Equal opportunity
for all, that is our policy.
Welfare; hon. members all know what this
government has done about welfare, Mr.
Speaker. In welfare I feel we need the positive
rehabilitation approach rather than passive
charity. I think our people want that. No one
among us wants to see suffering and distress,
but equally we hate to see unworthy or
illegal draining of our welfare facilities. We
should, I believe, give greater consideration
to helping people to help themselves; re-
habilitating them to useful respected positions
in society.
I remember an old couplet I heard in years
gone by, that said: "the heaviest load a man
or woman can carry down the afternoon
pathway of life is an empty purse." How true
that is, gentlemen. We are, today, looking
after our aged people. We are looking after
those that are less fortunate; we are looking
after our unemployed.
I said last year, and it still holds good, that
as far as this government is concerned, no one
in this province will suffer. And that is true
and can be proven. People are not suffering
today, or if they are, it is because they have
not been brought to our attention. That policy
will continue, Mr. Speaker, as everyone on
our side of the House knows.
The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Troy)
spoke about roads, highways. This province
has built the finest road system anywhere in
the world, and it needs to. With such wide-
spread natural resources, good transportation
is a necessity, we agree. We have fine roads;
we must keep them that way, moving with
the times and carefully expanding as circum-
stances dictate.
Today we are putting in roads up in the
area of the hon. member for Kenora that are
costing millions of dollars. He knows about
them—
Mr. R. W. Gibson (Kenora): Two decades
to do it, too. It started 15 years ago.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Did it, did it? Hon.
members will hear what has been spent and
built-up over 15 years, I will give them an
outline a little later on in this talk.
Then in Lands and Forests, Mr. Speaker,
another great facet of this government— the
hon. Minister (Mr. Spooner) is here now. I
know of no province with a finer record than
ours with regard to The Department of Lands
and Forests, and I know of no section of our
province in which wise conservation is such
538
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a sure investment. This is our heritage, we
must ensure that no prodigal sons are allowed
to squander it now or in the future.
We have heard our new hon. Minister of
Economics (Mr. Macaulay) bringing in some
of his new proposals. He is a young man for
whom I have great admiration; who will make
a place for himself in the future of this prov-
ince, and who before very long will bring in
projects that will make this province hum as
it never did before. Mark that and put it
down in your book, you hon. members in the
Opposition.
Judicial planning of the use of our natural
resources in this modern age implies many
considerations. Inevitably we will always have
the economic ebb and flow, and, of course,
instability, this always causes more distress
than blessings. But, Mr. Speaker, we must
encourage the secondary industries as the rock
of stability on which our communities of
primary industries can build. We must do this
by financial concessions in development areas,
assuring such communities that they can de-
pend on the province in their early periods
of development and we are giving very serious
thought to that facet.
Now the section of our province that the
hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Troy) spoke
about— where the hon. member for Kenora
( Mr. Gibson ) and myself are from, namely,
northwestern Ontario— is blessed with nature's
bountiful gifts, in the way of timber, water
and minerals. It is a supreme example of the
benefits that can be ours if we plan wisely.
This is indeed a magnificent part of our
province, Mr. Speaker, which must inevitably
grow in economic importance. Effective
utilization and conservation is the way to its
future success. We must ensure that its
mineral resources are made available by
systematic operation; we must ensure that its
land remains fertile and its timber resources
are not squandered. It is a symbol of our
province; it is one key to our future prosperity.
Speaking about the development in that
area, Mr. Speaker— I have heard so much
about unemployment, about a depressed
economy and things of this kind, that it is
amazing to me how our Opposition and the
Opposition in other parts of this country
seem to think they can fool the people by
telling them untruths, and I will say untruths.
For instance, I will just give you a few
barometers recently of how our economy is
getting on. Disciples of the Opposition
parties, opposed to everything constructive
that this government has done, continue to
cry doom. Let us see how well their worries
are substantiated. You know, at times, Mr.
Speaker, they sound like a group of advance
agents for a famine. I cannot describe it in
any other way but just advance agents for a
famine.
I listened to the federal Legislature down
in Ottawa, and it amazes me as to how they
continually can become so gloomy. And the
N.D.P.s— now they have reason for a bit of
gloom themselves; they have somebody to
"Argue" with. Somebody said to me the
other day: "I noticed the Opposition mem-
bers being handed little papers from the back
of their seats to ask questions and so on";
and the thought occurred to me that they
had their Doctor Upper but we have our
Wally Downer, so I think that we are on an
equal plane with them in refuting anything
that they may bring forward. So just tell that
to Doctor Upper, boys, when he brings in
the next note.
The Prudential Insurance Company of
America, one of the world's greatest financial
institutions, summed up the prospects for
1962— you can read it for yourself if you
like in the Bay Street Journal— and it says
this:
Canada's gross national product will show
the biggest rise in six years during 1962 . . .
. . . gross national product will show an in-
crease of 7.3 per cent, bringing the GNP
to a new high of $39.4 billion.
An inventory change from liquidation to
accumulation, of $470 million.
An increase of $580 million, or eight per
cent, in government spending.
An increase of $1.3 billion, or 5.3 per
cent in consumer spending.
A 5 per cent increase in exports with
imports held to a 2 per cent increase.
Long term growth will depend upon the
success of efforts to improve trade balance,
and promote secondary manufacturing.
That is one. You have read the policies
that we are enunciating here and getting
going, and the policies in Ottawa that are
being put in high gear, and what I am trying
to do, Mr. Speaker, is to get all the other
Canadians in this legislative chamber to come
along with both our new provincial and
federal programmes.
The Financial Post of February 3 pointed
to these signs of the times:
Canadian totals. Increase of 1.2 per cent
in housing starts in fourth quarter of 1961
oyer same period in 1960. Retail sales
increased 3.8 per cent in November over
previous month. Iron ore shipments in
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
539
November, 1961, up 22 per cent from
November, 1960, to 1,178,500 tons. Iron
ore exports up 18 per cent. Shipments to
Canadian steel mills up 39 per cent. Re-
versed trend of first eight months of the
year as steel mills renewed activity.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, this government
and the government at Ottawa are seriously
concerned when unemployment reaches seri-
ous proportions. But these governments, un-
like their Opposition, do more than talk about
it. The concern is still present but D.B.S.
figures show very definitely that the situation
is improving; and I might say that last night
the leader of the Liberal party agreed that
the trend had been reversed and was now
improving, I am glad to say.
In this December, when seasonal unemploy-
ment is near its worst, the temporary increase
was the smallest in any year since 1955—
115,000 fewer jobless than there were the
previous year at the same time. For the
last 5 months of 1961 the number of un-
employed was less than in the same period
of 1960.
Mr. Gibson: What does that prove?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: That conditions
generally are becoming better. Now, I know
the hon. member would not know anything
about this up in Kenora because he has got
full employment there; he never has anything
to worry about. He is from the far west part.
It is a very nice place, I agree.
Now, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor-Walkerville ) :
He is giving figures about Windsor now.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Windsor — well
Windsor is not so bad.
Activity in the construction trade is always
considered a sure barometer of economic
health, I think you will agree. We can
therefore take great encouragement from the
fact, as recorded in the Financial Post of
February 10, that the value of contracts
awarded in January was 19.5 per cent higher
than for the corresponding months of 1961.
The total for all of Canada was $230,213,000
an increase of $37.6 million over January,
1961. In Ontario last month's total was
$113.8 million, an increase of $17.8 million
over the previous January. Metropolitan
Toronto's— we will get down to the hon.
member sitting right opposite me there with
studious posture, to his great city— Metro-
politan Toronto's share of the contracts of
last month was $44.4 million, an immense
gain of 124.2 per cent over January, 1961.
And they cried blues!
Mr. Speaker, to indicate that this increase
for last month was not just a short-term
improvement, let me point to the figures for
all of 1961 as opposed to the total for 1960.
The year's increase in the value of con-
struction permits was $167,187,000 to a grand
total of $3,220,937,300. The Metropolitan
Toronto area alone accounted for $420.8
million, an increase of 8.6 per cent over the
1960 total. Now, these are figures that can
be proven. I will give them to the Opposi-
tion if they wish, the papers they came out
of and the facts behind them, yet they cry
doom and gloom, unemployment, we are
terrible, and so on. Of course, the hon.
members have got to try to get elected; I
will admit it, I do not blame them.
Mr. Speaker, lest there be any doubt
that my own part of this province— and I
would like the hon. member for Kenora
(Mr. Gibson), the hon. member for Rainy
River (Mr. Noden) to listen— lest there be
any doubts that my own part of this province
is moving ahead at a rapid rate, let me point
out that the advances there in the last year
have been over a broad front and they em-
brace great expansion of the region's industrial
output.
Extension of grain storage and shipping
facilities, the addition of new power genera-
tion and natural gas installation, new forest
products and mining enterprises, new mer-
chandising and distribution outlets, new
branch banks and financial offices, expanded
educational, hospital and government facili-
ties, new communication and transportation
services, highways construction and improve-
ment programme, activities to provide in-
creased accommodation for the mounting
surge of tourists— Mr. Speaker, I have lived
in Port Arthur since 1919, and I have never
seen an increase in any part of Canada like
there has been in northwestern Ontario in
the last three or four years. I am not talking
as a boy who has been there for a very few
years. I have been there before these boys
were born and saw what it was like at that
time.
I was under the Liberal regime in the
thirties when there were soup kitchens in
the city of Port Arthur, when there were
roads that you could not drive over. The
Liberals stopped construction on Highway
17 when they came to power after the
Bennett government, they would not do any-
thing on Highway 11. I could go on and
speak for hours about the days of poverty
and joblessness in that area under the old
Liberal regime.
More than $25 million in new construction
540
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
was begun during 1961, and there is every
indication that the pace will continue through-
out this year.
Some of the more important individual de-
velopments during the past year, and the hon.
members across there will recognize them,
were: at Dryden, which is the home town of
the hon. member for Kenora— Dryden Chemi-
cals Limited, a $4.5 million plant; Port Arthur
—Canada Malting Limited, $5 million storage
expansion; Bell Telephone, $2.5 million line
— Lakehead to Dryden; Fort William— Great
Lakes Paper Company, a $3.5 million addi-
tion to plant; Port Arthur— Provincial Paper, a
$2.5 million addition to their mill; Port
Arthur-Brayshaw's Steel, $300,000 plant; Fort
William— Canadian Car Limited, expanding
services, personnel now over 700; Sapawe—
James Mathieu Lumber Limited, $500,000
sawmill and chipping plant, expanded woods
staff to 400; Fort William to build a $1
million hotel; Nipigon— Northern Plywoods
Limited—
An hon. member: What did the government
have to do with it?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: It could never have
been done if this government had not been in
power. And I am giving just last year's
figures, this has been going on for years. If
the roads had not been built by this govern-
ment, if the hon. George Drew when he was
Premier had not stopped the export of pulp-
wood, there would not be a pulp mill in our
area. These things were done by a Conser-
vative government, not a Liberal one.
Kenora— Trilake Lumber Limited, new
wood treatment plant; B & B Stone— Fort
William— to merge Supercrete plant with pro-
posed new $200,000 plant; Sioux Lookout-
Forest Products Limited, incorporated by
local interests to develop district resources.
We built a new road for them and a bridge
to do that. Rainy River— Ontario Sphagnum
Moss Limited, to develop peat moss resources
—a local enterprise which my good friend
from there (Mr. Noden) has so much to do
with; Pickle Lake— Fish Processing Plant,
capacity 1 million pounds per year; Motor-
ways Freight Terminal at Port Arthur; Trans-
Air Limited, inaugurating passenger service-
Winnipeg to Fort Frances; Steep Rock— Hugh
Roberts open pit being developed, to ship in
1962; Nickel Mining and Smelting, up in my
friend's area— Wurner Lake— $35 million de-
velopment to produce nickel in 1926; a $1.5
million road to be built which was decided
about two months ago and now the hon.
member says, "Where is the road?"
If it had been under a Liberal regime, it
would not even have been decided upon. We
have spent $50 million in the Kenora riding
in the last 10 years.
An hon. member: What do we get for it?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Do not talk foolish-
ness.
Consolidated Mosher — Geraldton — began
production January, 1962: CanFer has an-
nounced production for 1963, rate 1 million
tons annually; Red Lake — six gold mines
expanded operations in 1961; Lindsay Ex-
plorations Limited, carrying exploration and
development work— near Sapawe; Anaconda
—exploration and development of big iron
ore body. Well, I have become so enthused
to see what this government has done that
I cannot understand how any of the hon.
members have the heart to criticize.
Now just let me tell you something about
highways, Mr. Speaker. The Department of
Highways-
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): What about
Elliot Lake?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well, unfortunately
we have nothing to do with Elliot Lake.
All we do is look after the people. We can-
not supply the market, but we are supply-
ing a market— do not write Elliot Lake off.
As Minister of Mines I am telling hon.
members not to write Elliot Lake off. Ura-
nium will be of value again, perhaps before
they think.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): In spite
of Robert Winters.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Now, The Depart-
ment of Highways— planned or under con-
struction. Somebody mentioned— I think it
was the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr.
Troy)— the Rainy Lake causeway. We are
going to try to get it called the Bill Noden
causeway. A project of greater value than
$5 million, across a tremendous lake, and
we are going to take hon. members up there
this summer to see it. The hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests (Mr. Spooner) I hope will
make the announcement later. But here is
a wonderful piece of construction, and the
road from the Lakehead through to Winni-
peg will be completed in three years, too.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
And the roads in Geraldton, Longlac,
Manitouwadge area, Savant Lake, Picke
Lake, highway connection to Trans-Canada;
Atikokan— Fort Frances road under construc-
tion; the new Pigeon River road and bridge.
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
541
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr.
Chappie) knows all this, but when he gets
on his feet he dodges around and asks about
something that has not been done.
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort William): But no-
body can drive on them.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: How did the hon.
member (Mr. Chappie) get down here?
Mr. Chappie: I flew; what else?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well, I have been
over that road as many times as the hon.
member has, and if anybody says, after they
have ridden over it, that that road is not in
beautiful shape, I will give them $100.
Definitely. But I would want somebody in
the Opposition to prove it; I would not take
their word.
The Department of Health, hospital con-
struction—new or additions at Kenora, Port
Arthur and Geraldton. What about the new
addition to Kenora's hospital?
The Department of Education— vocational
training schools at Kenora, Dryden, Port
Arthur and Geraldton; total cost $4 million.
Federal government— school for Indian
children at Fort Frances; Seaway Terminal
at Lakehead to be completed this year, $8.5
million; a branch of the Industrial Develop-
ment Bank at Port Arthur.
Mr. Speaker, when I hear the northern
members decry this government, honestly I
hide my head in shame. They go around
crying gloom and doom. And gloom- and
doom-mongers in this day and age are doing
one thing— they are selling Canada short; they
are emissaries against good selling for Canada.
And that is what I object to.
I do not object to these hon. members
opposite trying to get into power. That is
natural in politics. But I do object to them
harming the Canadian economy and upsetting
people's minds in telling things that are not
factual. And I always think, Mr. Speaker,
that this party of ours has been a party of
optimism and enlargement and constant ad-
vance. In other words, let me give you a
little-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. members
very respectfully once again that the hon.
Minister (Mr. Wardrope) requires no help
with his speech. We have given good order
to all the hon. members so far this session,
and I would like that to continue. I can
guarantee the hon. members who follow the
present speaker that they will receive order,
too. I would ask the hon. members to bear
that in mind.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Now, I would just like to bring to your
attention something that points up what I
mean in this gloom and doom thing. Because
this party is a party of builders and there is
an old poem that goes like this:
I watched them tearing a building down,
A husky gang in a busy town.
With the old heave-ho and a lusty yell.
They swung a beam and a sidewall fell.
I said to the foreman, "Are these men
skilled;
The kind you would hire if you wanted
to build?"
He gave a laugh and said, "No indeed.
Common labour is all I need.
I can wreck in a day or two
What others have taken a year to do."
I thought to myself as I went my way,
"Which of these roles am I trying to play?
Am I a builder who works with care,
Living my life by the rule and square.
Living my life to a well made plan,
Trying to help everybody I can?
Or am I a wrecker who walks the town
Content with the labour of tearing down?"
Mr. Speaker, that is something I pass on
to the Opposition. We are trying to build
Canada, we are trying to build the economy
of this province, and constantly we are
hindered and decidedly disheartened by the
actions of those who are wrecking and pulling
down. I would like to tell them that in the
future, there is some advice and information
that I pass on to them: "Try to get into the
field of builders with the rest of us to make
Ontario the great place that we are trying to
make it for the future of all our citizens,
both young and old."
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Mr.
Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you
on the marvellous job you are doing. I would
like to also congratulate our new hon. Prime
Minister and welcome the new hon. members
to this House.
I want to deal first with a matter that has
caused general annoyance across Ontario and,
in many cases, genuine hardship. I refer to
the 3 per cent provincial sales tax.
Now, as you know, we of the New Demo-
cratic Party opposed this provincial sales
tax and we are still of the opinion that it
was neither desirable nor necessary to es-
tablish this tax. However, this Conservative
542
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
government, with the help of the hon. Liberal
members to my right, saw fit to impose this
additional tax burden on the people of
Ontario and I suppose we will have to live
with it, at least until the next provincial
election.
But the Act has in its present regulations
many tliat are unreasonable. For instance,
the Canadian Girls In Training, which is a
group of young girls attached to various
churches, raise money by selling little bags
of candy from house to house for 25 cents.
According to the regulations, this is taxable.
Now I know the hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Allan) caused the sales tax to be waived
in this particular case and I suppose in other
similar cases but surely the regulation should
be changed to exempt groups like this and
other charitable and service organizations.
Another more outstanding case was the sale
of poppies by our war veterans.
The most unfair aspect of this provincial
sales tax, to my mind, is the method by which
it is computed. It is really a compound tax,
because when an article is sold the 11 per
cent federal sales tax— where it applies— is
calculated and added to the selling price.
Then the 3 per cent provincial sales tax is
calculated on the total arrived at by adding
together the selling price and the federal
sales tax, so that the provincial sales tax is
not 3 per cent but is much nearer to being
4 per cent. It is actually 3.6 per cent.
If this government is not prepared to
rescind the provincial sales tax— and I don't
suppose it would ever take such a progressive
step— I urge that it cause the provincial sales
tax to be applied to the actual selling price
before the federal sales tax of 11 per cent
is added.
While I am on the matter of regulations, I
would like to tell you of a case I had in
Hamilton in connection with hospital insur-
ance. A resident in my riding applied for
admission to the maternity ward of a hospital
in Hamilton. When her husband was dis-
cussing her admission, he asked for nothing
more than the standard ward accommodation
to which his insurance entitled him.
Following the delivery of the child, he was
alarmed to discover his wife was in a semi-
private room. He discussed this with the
nurse on duty and she told him they were
unable to provide standard ward accommoda-
tion for his wife but that he would not be
expected to pay the higher rate for the semi-
private room. However, in the course of time,
he was billed for the difference in the two
rates. He protested to the hospital and was
told this was correct.
Now, most people would drop tlie matter
here and pay the difference. Fortunately,
he brought the case to my attention. I took
it up with the hospital and got the same
reply. I then followed it up with the com-
mission and they, of course, agreed that it
was the responsibility of the hospital to pro-
vide accommodation and if it was necessary
to provide higher priced accommodation than
that requested and covered by the applicant's
insurance, the applicant was not required to
pay the difference in emergency cases.
Of course this story had a satisfactory end-
ing but I am convinced that the situation has
been repeated many times in many communi-
ties with the result that the individuals just
paid and made no further protest. It seems,
therefore, desirable that Ontario hospitals be
required to post this information in their
admitting rooms and further that they be
instructed to draw this matter to the atten-
tion of the incoming patient and/or the person
accepting financial responsibility for their
hospitalization.
Before leaving this point, I do want to make
it clear that at no time did I feel the hospital
was making a deliberate misrepresentation.
It was, I know, an honest misunderstanding on
their part. My point is that I do not feel an
area of possible misunderstanding should be
allowed to exist and that they should be
cleared up as they arise, and I want to com-
mend the hospital commission on their
prompt and thorough action in this case.
I noticed that the Throne speech pointed
out that 95 per cent of Ontario citizens were
covered by the hospital insurance plan. I
suspect that the remaining 5 per cent is com-
posed of the very people most in need of this
coverage. I refer to the old age pensioner,
those unemployed people on unemployment
insurance benefits, those in receipt of low
wages whose employers are not required to
deduct for this protection because they em-
ploy fewer than 15 people, those in domestic
service and so on.
The hon. Minister can, and no doubt will,
say that the old age pensioner who is solely
dependent upon his pension is not denied
hospitalization even if he does not pay his
hospital insurance premiums. This is true,
but if he is hospitalized under these circum-
stances he must, except for a small sum for
spending money, turn over his pension cheque
to the hospital.
What happens to his personal property
such as furniture, clothing and so on when
he is unable to retain his room or pay for
storage I do not know, and I do not suppose
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
543
this government worries about such things.
Nor do they worry about where he goes when
he is released from the hospital because
obviously he must then look for new living
quarters.
The pensioners, like all the others I men-
tioned, must pay their hospital insurance
premiums three months at a time. It would
be difficult for them to meet the $2.10
individual monthly premium or the $4.20
monthly family premium. It is impossible in
nearly every one of these cases for them to
pay a three-month premium at one time. So
of course the result is that they drop this
protection.
But an even worse fate awaits the man
who transfers from a group plan to pay direct.
He is billed four, five, six up to nine months
in advance. If he leaves the group plan
because he has been laid oflF or pensioned
off and therefore his income has been drastic-
ally cut, and he then gets a bill from the
hospital commission for $25.20 or even more,
he just decides there and then that he
obviously cannot afford this type of insur-
ance and he lets it lapse.
Hon. members may say that this is short-
sighted, but if I had to house, clothe and feed
my family on $36 a week, if I am lucky
enough to draw unemployment insurance, my
decision might have to be the same. Today,
hospital insurance is provided on a means
test basis for persons whose annual income is
$960 or less. This is a totally unrealistic ceil-
ing and should be increased immediately. In
addition, the provincial government should
pay the premiums for heads of households
who become unemployed and are on either
unemployment insurance or general welfare
assistance.
I have recently had several cases of parents
faced with the necessity of placing a retarded
child in one of our provincial hospital schools.
I have never yet been able to have the child
admitted immediately. Although the doctors
in charge agree they should be admitted
immediately, the best they could do was to
give them a high priority rating on the long
waiting list because of the lack of accommo-
dation.
Obviously this shortage must prevail across
Ontario and I suggest, unless current building
will take care, not only of our present needs,
but those of the next few years, this situation
will become even more serious than it is
today. My suggestion is that a number of
small building projects be undertaken im-
mediately right across the province, so that
parents have an opportunity to visit their
children as often as possible. These smaller
establishments could be used for children
who do not require a high degree of clinical
care, and we can reserve the large hospital
schools for the more serious cases.
Unless the hon. members here have actually
had some first-hand knowledge of the difficul-
ties these parents undergo, it would be hard
for them to understand the need. I am sure
the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond)
must be aware of the problems created by a
severely retarded child. More often than not
the parents are in financial difficulties and are
living in crowded quarters which makes an
already almost impossible situation even
worse.
The city of Hamilton has appealed to the
hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Robarts) to
have a technical school for the training and
retraining of the unemployed established in
Hamilton. However, the hon. Minister has
seen fit to by-pass Hamilton and establish
one in London. Clearly this is an indication
of a lack of planning, and I shall explain
why.
In the January 31 issue of the Labour
Gazette, there is a very interesting table,
classifying the labour market areas across
Canada for December. Hamilton is listed as
having a moderate labour surplus, while
London is shown as being approximately in
balance. I might add that only four other
places in Canada are fortunate enough to be
in this classification and there is no listing
under the classification of labour shortage.
So London is in the most preferred listing.
Yet this is the place where this government
saw fit to build a school to train or retrain
the unemployed! I might also suggest that
that is where the hon. Prime Minister lives.
Hamilton is an industrial city and, as such,
is very sensitive to the slightest depression in
our economy. The first to be laid off and the
last to be returned to work is the unskilled
worker. At the end of January, we had
16,306 people seeking employment and this
represents roughly 10 per cent of our labour
force in Hamilton.
While I admit this would seem to represent
an improvement over last winter, I am not
convinced that this is a true picture. I say
this because the number of people on our
relief rolls has increased from 6,531 to 7,181.
In money, this represents an increase of
$64,000, from $166,000 a year ago, to
$230,000 this year, for the month pf Decem-
ber. This also represents an increase of $7
on a per capita basis of those on relief.
A considerable portion of this increase is
caused by people who have been unemployed
544
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
so long that they have exhausted unemploy-
ment insurance benefits and must now be
supported by public welfare. These people
could well have benefited from a retraining
programme. A new school is desperately
needed in Hamilton to accommodate them.
Many would need an up-grading in the field
of general education as well, and this could
certainly be given at least in the subjects
related to tlie trade in which they desire to
be trained.
Now I know this is not looked on with any
great favour by this government but the
need is there. The February 1 issue of the
Observer, a publication of the United Church,
outlines a pilot project which several Toronto
churches are undertaking to provide elemen-
tary grade education to the unemployed in
their neighbourhood. Some of these people
quit school at grades 2 and 4— not because
they wanted to but because of family prob-
lems.
It is a good thing that someone has
accepted a responsibility that really belongs
to The Department of Education of this
province. I cannot urge too strongly that a
school be established immediately in Hamil-
ton and that, in addition to training in various
trades, courses be given in general education
at both elementary and secondary school
levels.
I had an interesting experience the other
day. It seems that patronage dies hard in
Ontario. Actually I am convinced that it will
never die with either a Conservative or
Liberal government, since its seems obvious
their parties have been built on this system.
However, I had a visit from a man seeking
employment with the province of Ontario.
He came to me because he was told that it
was useless to apply unless he had the
support of his member.
This was not someone trying to make a
fast buck through some well paid contract
with the government. He was just a man
seeking a job to provide his family with the
necessities of life. We can look back at the
big scandals of contracts let to political
friends, and to people being given inside
information on stock deals such as Northern
Ontario Natural Gas, and these are bad
enough; but it never stops there. It seeps
down until even the most minor job becomes
the victim of the patronage system.
Now that we have a new hon. Minister of
Labour (Mr. Warrender), I am wondering if
we can expect some changes in The Labour
Relations Act. I do hope that the peevish
attitude which the hon. Minister displayed
when he was unable to force the union to
agree with the demands of the Royal York
Hotel does not indicate that he will look
upon labour's requests for changes in the
Act with disfavour. I would expect that the
minimum he would do, would be to clarify
labour's right to strike, particularly in view
of the decision recently handed down by
Justice McRuer in direct contradiction to that
of Magistrate Ellmore who had declared that
labour had no rij^lit under the Act to strike.
This has been taken to the Ontario Supreme
Court and they agree with Justice McRuer.
It v/ould tak<j a foolish man indeed to
deny working people their onlv economic
weapon in labour disputes— that of their right
to collectively withhold their labour. I am
sure the hon. Minister is not that foolish.
However, we do have some very foolish
representatives in the various levels of gov-
ernment. And I am sure the hon. Liberal
members to my right will be interested in
the story of one of their party members,
who is an alderman representing ward four
in Hamilton, and how some less foolish
Liberals on city council managed to bail
him out.
As some of the hon. members will know,
the Operating Engineers Union in Hamilton
was forced to strike their members who
were employed by the city of Hamilton.
While this union was on strike, and during
the time that negotiations were also under
way with the Hospital Workers Union,
whose members are employed in the city-
owned hospitals, Liberal Alderman Kostyk
was foolish enough to move in city council
to have workers in all the city's essential
services, as well as transportation, subjected
to the process of compulsory arbitration.
Now the senior alderman in ward four
is Alderman Powell who is a trade union-
ist, and it would have seemed proper that
he be allowed to speak on this subject on
which he is extremely well informed. But
Alderman Kostyk had previously given notice
of his motion, and some of his more know-
ing Liberal friends on city council were
prepared to bail him out. Liberal friend
number one was Mayor Jackson, who
quickly recognized Liberal friend number
two Alderman John Munro, the Liberal
Federal candidate in Hamilton East, who
moved a motion that it be sent to the legis-
lative and reception committee. In the
course of time the committee sent the motion
back to the city council with a recommenda-
tion of non-concurrence, and no one voted
against the recommendation.
Now I do not really think Mayor Jackson
and Alderman Munro are really very well
FEBRUARY 21, 1962
545
informed on trade union matters, because
Alderman Munro especially is like a lot of
other Conservative and Liberal politicians
who run around claiming a knowledge of
the trade union movement on the strength
of a union card they gained as school boys
working a couple of months during their
summer holidays.
However, following the notice of motion,
the trade union movement made their think-
ing very clear because there was not a trade
unionist in Hamilton that did not know the
type of contract these workers would have
to accept once they were deprived of their
right to strike. They all knew that this
would be the opening wedge to spread com-
pulsory arbitration into other union opera-
tions.
In case there is any doubt in the minds
of the hon. members that Alderman Kos-
tyk is a Liberal, I point out that he is an
executive member of the Hamilton East
Liberal Association.
Section 89 of The Labour Relations Act
should be deleted because it is being used
in negotiations as a threat by the municipali-
ties. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this
is the section that permits a municipality to
remove its employees out from under The
Labour Relations Act, even though their
union is properly certified and has in fact
been operating under a signed contract. Dur-
ing the negotiations of the Hospital Workers
Union in Hamilton, a member of the hospital
board of governors publicly stated through
the press that it might be necessary to invoke
this section.
This is a type of blackmail designed to
force the union to take whatever settlement
the city offers. Kitchener used the same
threat and there are others.
I am sure it was never the intention of
this House that this become a weapon in the
hands of the employer but that is how it is
being used at this time.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr.
Speaker, I move the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the
House we will go on tomorrow to second
readings— anything on the order paper might
be called— and the Throne debate.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.30 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 22
ONTARIO
Eegisilature of Ontario
©ebateg
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Thursday, February 22, 1962
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis* Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 22, 1962
Statement re distribution of electoral districts, Mr. Robarts 550
Hospital Services Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 552
Public Hospitals Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 552
Ontario Code of Human Rights, bill to establish, Mr. Warrender, second reading 553
Crown Timber Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, second reading 559
Lakehead College of Arts, Science and Technology Act, 1956, bill to amend,
Mr. Robarts, second reading 561
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Gordon, Mr. R. C.
Edwards, Mr. Boyer 562
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Trotter, agreed to 574
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 574
549
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, February 22, 1962
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we wel-
come as guests students from the following
schools: in the east gallery St. Anselm's
Separate School, Toronto and in the west
gallery Our Lady of Perpetual Help Separate
School, Toronto and Our Lady of Fatima
Separate School, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day I have
a question I would like to ask the hon. Min-
ister of Labour (Mr. Warender), a copy of
which has been given to him. Since the sport
of skiing is experiencing the greatest boom
of modern outdoor sports and so many ski
tows are now in operation and others are
in the stage of construction, would the hon.
Minister advise if ski lifts and ski tows are
inspected by his department? I specifically
ask this question because of a fatal accident
that happened in the State of Michigan not
too long ago.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, in answer to this ques-
tion posed by the hon. member, I think I
should give some specific information as to
the operation of ski lifts and ski tows.
At the present time there are in operation
in Ontario 175 ski tows and 5 chair lifts,
that is, ski lifts. All of them are licensed by
The Department of Labour and all of them
are inspected at least once a year by the
inspector of the elevator inspection branch
of the department. Sometimes chair lifts
will be operated in summer seasons for sight-
seeing. If they are so operated, they will be
inspected twice a year.
Drawings and specifications of all new ski
lifts and tows must be submitted to The
Department of Labour for approval by our
engineers before construction and installation
may proceed. Upon completion it will be
tested and inspected before a licence is issued
and it may be put into operation. During
the present fiscal year specifications and plans
for 35 new tows and lifts were examined and
approved.
Mr. Newman: My thanks to the hon. Min-
ister.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I
have two questions to ask the hon. Minister
of Economics (Mr. Macaulay). The first ques-
tion is: Does the government plan to reorgan-
ize the Ontario Northland Railway Com-
mission?
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Eco-
nomics): I would say to the hon. member
that the answer to the question which he has
asked cannot be given in a yes or no fashion.
The department at the moment has under-
taken a three-prong survey in relation to the
Ontario Northland Railway Commission and
it will depend on the recommendations which
come out of that survey as to what policy we
will contemplate in connection with it.
I would, however, say that the surveys are
designed to look into the operations of the
railway, their integration with the northern
development programme which the govern-
ment will be announcing in the House before
long, as well as our economic programme for
the development of the province, to see that
the railway will be in a position to carry
out its functions in the most efficient and
advantageous manner. When the survey is
made available to the government— which I
hope will be in a matter of a few months—
I will be in a better position to give a direct
answer to the question which the hon. mem-
ber raised.
Mr. Troy: Just as a supplementary ques-
tion: does tlie hon. Minister not agree then
that the programme, that is, reorganization,
is in order?
550
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The second question: will the report of
the preliminary survey made to determine
the feasibility of the port of Moosonee as an
ocean port be tabled in the House and, if so,
when?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: There has been no
preliminary report, of which I am aware,
of the nature referred to in the question of
the hon. member. There has been, and I
referred to it in the House some time ago,
a report prepared by the federal Department
of Mines which was a hydrographic, hydro-
metric, topographic and soil test survey. Is
this the one to which the hon. member
refers?
Mr. Troy: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is not a feas-
ibility report.
Mr. Troy: Well, I presume it has something
to do with feasibility of Moosonee as a port?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, it does not.
Mr. Troy: It does not?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
would like to address another question to the
hon. Minister of Energy Resources (Mr.
Macaulay), a copy of which I have submitted
to him through you.
Has the Langford committee reported on
the problems related to gas storage; secondly,
will the House have an opportunity to discuss
the recommendations of the Langford report
before the energy board makes a decision
on Imperial Oil's application for a sizeable
storage area?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I can only say in
answer to the hon. member's question, part 1,
that the report has not yet been received.
However, I am advised it will be available
before very long. That is, within the next few
weeks.
As to the answer to the second question, the
energy board has power to deal with applica-
tions which are made in relation to storage,
but the board has been asked not to deal with
the application of Imperial Oil until such
time as the Langford report is available. Now,
I want the hon. member to understand that
I have given no undertaking as to debate here
in the House in relation to this; all I say is
that the energy board's decision in relation to
this matter v/ill not be given until such time
as the Langford report is available and the
board is made aware of the policy of the
government.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
I might ask a supplementary question. Is the
hon. Minister then in effect saying that the
government will come to a decision on the
Langford committee report without an oppor-
tunity for debate in this House?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, I am not saying
that; all I am saying is that the report is not
yet available and when the report is avail-
able the government will make known both
to the House and to the energy board what
its policy is in this matter.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
should like to give the House an outline of
the recommendations which I propose to
make in connection with the representation of
the people of Ontario in the legislative
assembly and the redistribution of electoral
districts.
The last redistribution of seats took place
in 1954 and was handled by a select com-
mittee consisting of hon. members from both
sides of the House. As I recall, the committee
was unanimous in its recommendations. The
situation which confronted the legislative
assem.bly and the select committee in 1954
was in most respects similar to the conditions
that exist today and which in my opinion
again make it imperative that steps should
be taken to provide for a more realistic and
complete representation of our people in this
assembly. By 1954 our population had grown
tremendously and there had been marked
changes in its concentration. The urban
centres, particularly Metropolitan Toronto,
had expanded much more rapidly than other
parts of Ontario, some of which indeed had
experienced little or no change.
The amendments which were made in The
Representation Act at that time reflected the
increase in our total population and the build-
urt of nopulation in specific areas. You will
recall that there were eight new constituencies
established at that time, three of which were
in Metropolitan Toronto and one each in the
Sudbury, Ottawa, Hamilton, London and
O ;ha^^'a~Ontario county areas. As I say, the
situation today is very similar to that of 1954.
Since the last redistribution, our total
population has increased from approximately
5,200,000 to 6,300,000, which is slightly more
than a 20 per cent rise. The population
increase has not been spread evenly over
Ontario and a great deal of the increase has
occurred in the urban areas of the province.
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
551
For example, a very rough estimate suggests
that while the total population of the province
has increased by about 20 per cent since
1954, the population of the municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto has jumped upward by
at least 25 per cent, with even greater in-
creases in some of the townships and towns
bordering on, or just beyond the borders of.
Metropolitan Toronto.
Within Metropolitan Toronto itself, the
population of the city proper has remained
static since 1954 while the increase in the
entire area has taken place in the suburban
municipalities which have mushroomed. So
not only has a definite disproportion developed
in the representation, between Metropolitan
Toronto and the whole province, but also as
between the various parts which make up
Metropolitan Toronto itself. Disproportion, I
would say, to a much lesser degree exists in
other parts of the province.
The population in several of the electoral
districts has become extremely large and this
has placed a very heavy burden upon the
members themselves, making it difficult for
them to represent the interests of all their
constituents as fully as they might desire.
There can be no disagreement that fair-
ness to hon. members involved and the best
interests of the people they represent, war-
rant our taking steps to adjust constituency
boundaries in order to bring about a more
equitable distribution of seats in the House.
A great deal of thought has been given,
Mr. Speaker, to the method by which these
ends might be achieved most satisfactorily.
As 1 understand it, the previous practice
has been to refer the matter to a select com-
mittee representative of all parties in the
House and thoroughly familiar with the
problems involved.
However, in view of the very close study
which must be given population trends, con-
centration of population in certain areas,
the development of certain political entities
within our province and the traditional
boundaries of many of our electoral districts
of lesser expansion, it is considered that this
task might better be handled at this time
by an independent commission with full
powers to investigate these matters which
I have mentioned.
(Applause)
I am delighted to observe that I can do
something which will get complete appro-
bation from the other side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I intend therefore to recom-
mend that this House, by resolution, appoint
a commission consisting of three impartial
and independent persons who would inquire
into the distribution of electoral districts and
recommend to the assembly such changes
and additions as they deem appropriate.
I shall also recommend that the House
instruct the commission in formulating its
recommendations to take into consideration
the population picture, the varying condi-
tions and requirements of representation as
between rural and urban areas; the tradi-
tional boundaries of the electoral districts
of the province; the community or diversity
of interests of the population of the various
districts; the means of communication and
the physical features within various areas
and, with particular reference to rural elec-
toral districts, the existing municipal boun-
daries.
Having reached its conclusions, the com-
mission would be expected to make its
report to this House. I assume that a major
factor in the commission's deliberations will
be the figures contained in the reports of
the 1961 census.
Those reports have not yet been com-
pleted. When they do become available I
shall take the necessary steps in this House
to give effect to the plans which I have
outlined to you and which I am sure you
will agree are a reasonable approach to the
problem of insuring the fullest measure of
democracy and efficiency in the operation
of our system of parliamentary government,
and adequate and ejBFective representation
for the people of our province.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask, before I make these
remarks, just one question of the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts)? I was not too clear
in my mind whether the task to be assigned
to the independent commission is going to
recommend actual redistribution, or recom-
mend principles on which it should be
based.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, it is my
intention that it will recommend actual redis-
tribution.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to com-
mend the hon. Prime Minister for taking this
step. To my mind, and I think certainly to
the minds of my hon. colleagues here—
Mr. Speaker: Is there any point of order?
Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think there
is. I think that the hon. Prime Minister has
made a statement and surely someone on tliis
side is entitled to say something to it.
552
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Ministers are expected
to make statements such as this. It is
their duty to make them. It does not neces-
sarily mean tliat it sponsors a debate on the
matter of tiic statement.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thought
the government would be happy to hear us
say some nice things about them for a
change.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question I would like to ask the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts), but would you permit
me this one brief comment? We are running
into difficulties here, sir, and that is if the
government-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: I have a very good idea
who is going to be leaving that party first
and maybe he should be silent. And he will
not be lea\dng voluntarily— from what I view
from this side of the House.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I did say that I would
answer a question, but I was not prepared to
sit here and listen to the comments made
which are completely out of order.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the point I
just wanted to draw to your attention is,
that I agree that it is the right of the hon.
Ministers to maJke statements, but when the
hon. Ministers make statements on a policy
issue and then indicate as the hon. Prime
Minister has just indicated, and a few mo-
ments ago the hon. Minister of Energy
Resources (Mr. Macaulay), that we will be
denied the right of a debate before that deci-
sion goes into effect, I suggest to you that
this is an affront to the right of this—
Mr. Speaker: Order! A resolution to this
effect will be presented, at which time full
debate will be allowed.
Mr. MacDonald: But the hon. Minister of
Energy Resources indicated earlier there
would be no debate on the issue. However,
I do not want to argue that.
My question to the hon. Prime Minister
is this: can he give us some indication as to
the likely timetable of this, in view of the
fact that Mr. Hees indicated to the House
of Commons— the day before yesterday if I
recall correctly— that the census figures would
be available very shortly? Is it the intention,
for example, to have a report back from this
commission before the end of this session, or
is it the fall session?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Hees, I believe,
said that he expected the final census report
to be available in June; as I read the news
report this would mean that it would be im-
possible to get a report back this present
session. But we will see how these census
figures come out and what they are.
I do not know what shape they are going
to take. All I know is that there is not
sufBcient information available from the cen-
sus at this time for this commission to com-
mence an intelligent approach to the job
that I envisage they will do. However, the
commission will be set up prior to the end
of this current session.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE HOSPITAL SERVICES ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Heatli)
moves second reading of Bill No. 51, An Act
to amend Tlie Hospital Services Commission
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC HOSPITALS ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
Bill No. 52, An Act to amend The Public
Hospitals Act.
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort William): Mr.
Speaker, on Bill 52 I would like to state that
in this particular instance I cannot see why
in The PubUc Hospitals Act the hospital
commission should have the right to be re-
sponsible for hospitals— as far as cost is con-
cerned—for the distribution of lands. There
is no reason why the present system cannot
be carried out, as far as hospital boards are
concerned, in the handling of their own
affairs. I think that the hospital services
commission at the present time has all it can
do to look after the area in which it is now
operating. If you will look at your budget
statement you will find that in the year
1960-1961 there was $277 million handled
by this particular commission. For the year
1961-1962 $334.7 million is estimated.
We do not know, we have no indication
at all, how much this particular commission
will handle in 1962-1963. There does not
seem to be any indication that the commission
will stay witliin any reasonable amounts.
When you have a commission that seems to
be operating in this manner, and in this
direction, you wonder whether you should
give them control of this particular respon-
sibility. I feel that the commission itself should
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
553
be looked into— to the point where we have
a little more idea of the economies which they
have, or intend to, put into force.
I have seen at the present time no indica-
tion of any economy. Anything that this
particular commission asks for it gets, ap-
parently without any criticism or any indica-
tion there is going to be any curtaihng of
their operation or desire. When the Blue
Cross was in charge of this particular type
of operation we had it within reasonable
bounds. At the present time this commission
does not indicate that it is going to make even
an attempt to stay within reasonable bounds.
Regardless of what it does, apparently we
are willing to accept it. This year the govern-
ment is tossing in $32 million in lieu of asking
the voters to put up more in insurance to
cover the extra money which the commission
says it has to have.
Giving this commission further respon-
sibihty— taking into consideration the experi-
ence we have had with it— I do not think
is entirely justified. I feel that we should look
at this thing very, very carefully before the
bill itself is put into legislative force.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps I could throw this in be-
fore the hon. Minister (Mr. Dymond) replies.
The explanatory note states that there is no
change in the principle of the bill. I think,
Mr. Speaker, the problem here is that this bill
is so small that it is in essence a technical
matter and I do not know how one avoids
detail and principle. But may I ask the hon.
Minister this question? What are the circum-
stances that have prompted this amendment;
are they detail or principle?
Hon. M. B. Dymond ( Minister of Health ) :
Mr. Speaker, this principle now exists. My
hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Chappie)
speaks about holding Blue Cross within
bounds. The Department of Health had this
responsibility while Blue Cross was operating,
and this is simply transferring it to the
hospital services commission as all respon-
sibility for general hospital was transferred in
1959. The only difference is to clarify this,
beyond any doubt. Apparently there have
been some questions raised by tlie legal
people as to whether or not all land, all prop-
erty belonging to the hospital board, board
of governors or trustees— or whatever the body
responsible may have been— as to whether or
not they must apply to the commission for
permission to dispose of any part of the
property. This is only to make it absolutely
clear that no public general hospital in this
province can dispose of any of its property
without prior approval by the hospital services
commission. This does not place any financial
responsibility on the hospital services com-
mission in any way whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE HUxMAN RIGHTS ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour) moves second reading of Bill No.
54, An Act to establish the Ontario Code
of Human Rights and to provide for its
administration.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): In rising to move second reading
of Bill No. 54 I should like to say that it
gives me special pleasure to place it before
the House at this particular time; first,
because it is Brotherhood Week— an occasion
when the principle of the bill is very much
in the public mind; and secondly, because the
national co-chairman of this year's Brother-
hood Week is the distinguished and beloved
member of this House whose name will
always be closely associated with our Human
Rights Code. I refer, of course, to the hon.
member for Victoria (Mr. Frost).
Mr. Speaker, I think all parties in the
House can feel proud of the fact that our
province has pioneered in this field of legis-
lation and that the bill before us today is a
further and very important step in a develop-
ment which began as long ago as 1944.
Now, what is the aim of our human rights
legislation? Let me quote from the remarks
made here some time ago by my prede-
cessor, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr.
Daley ) , who, I think, summed up its objective
very well indeed:
The aim of Ontario's human rights legis-
lation is to create at the community level
a climate of understanding and mutual
respect in which all our people, of what-
ever racial, reKgious or cultural background
—new Canadian no less than native born-
will be made to feel that all are equal in
dignity and rights, that each is a part of
the whole Canadian community and that
each has a rich contribution to make to the
development and well being of our prov-
ince and nation. Few will disagree that
this is a prerequisite for the development
of a truly healthy Canadianism.
To the extent that this concept has been
practised down through Canada's history it
has brought us very great rewards— and in
every aspect of our community life. Just
stop to consider for a moment what our
culture has gained in enrichment from the
554
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
contribution of those who have come to us
from so many lands— in music, in art, in
drama, in science, in education, not to men-
tion sports.
Now, nobody would suggest that prejudice
can or has been dug out of our provincial
community and eliminated by the mere pas-
sage of statutes, but there is no question that
its outward manifestations can and have been
curbed. Through the body of laws which has
been built up during the past two decades,
significant advances have been made in the
breaching and the removal of artificial bar-
riers denying equality of opportunity to our
fellow human beings.
The first law on our statute books was The
Racial Discrimination Act of 1944 which pro-
hibited the publication or displaying of any
notice, sign, symbol or other representation
expressing racial or religious discrimination.
That provision was retained in toto in The
Fair Accommodation Practices Act of 1954
and is incorporated into the bill before us
today as its very first section. In 1951, the
Legislature passed The Fair Employment
Practices Act and three years later, as I have
indicated. The Fair Accommodation Practices
Act. In 1958, The Ontario Anti-Discrimina-
tion Commission Act was placed on the
books and a commission was appointed to
plan and conduct educational programmes
designed to eliminate discriminatory practices.
Last year, this House changed the name of
the commission to the Ontario Human Rights
Commission and redefined its functions. This
House also amended The Fair Accommoda-
tion Practices Act to prohibit discrimination
in the renting of dwelling units in buildings
containing more than six units.
Up to the present time. The Fair Employ-
ment Practices Act and The Female Employ-
ees Fair Remuneration Act— better known as
the equal pay for equal work law— have been
administered in The Department of Labour
by the fair employment practices branch.
The Fair Accommodation Practices Act has
been administered by other officers of the
department. The Human Rights Commission,
with its educational functions, has been a
third entity operating within the context of
our total human rights programme.
Now, what we propose to do is to bring
all of these operations together under one
roof and make the enforcement and admini-
stration of the anti-discrimination provisions,
as well as the planning and carrying out of
educational activities, the responsibility of
the Human Rights Commission. To my mind,
therefore, a very important principle is
involved in Bill No. 54. Legal sanctions, as
contained in the F.E.P. and F.A.P. Acts, or
alternatively, the educational programme
which has been the main responsibility of the
commission, are each only one side of what
must be a co-ordinated, two-front assault on
the problem of discrimination. Optimum
results in this field, as experience indicates,
can only be obtained through a marriage of
law enforcement and education. The bill
before us today accomplishes that marriage
and, in doing so, places the province of
Ontario once again in the forefront of the
human rights field.
I am pleased to be able to inform the House
that in the very near future we shall be
announcing the appointment of a full-time
officer, a distinguished and gifted citizen of
our province, who will be responsible to the
commission for the direction of its greatly
broadened programme.
The commission, in addition to administer-
ing the legislation, will continue and acceler-
ate its education programme. I may say that,
under the leadership of Mr. Louis Fine, the
commission has, during the past two years,
been carrying on an intensive campaign to win
active allies in its work. I am happy to inform
the House that these efforts have met with
notable success. We now have the active
support of over 7,000 individuals throughout
the province who are assisting us in a
practical way. These include 1,200 clergymen
of all denominations, newspaper editors,
librarians, school teachers, the managers . of
radio and TV stations, trade unionists, hotel
and resort proprietors, service clubs, women's
institutes, home and school associations and
the leaders of a wide variety of community
organizations.
Among other things, they have assisted us
in giving effective distribution to over 600,000
copies of our two main publications, "Social
Justice in Ontario" and "Human Rights are
in Your Hands," and of our other literature.
I doubt if there is a single city, town or
hamlet in Ontario in which some of this
material has not been distributed in the past
two 3^ears. I should mention that two editions
of these publications have appeared in the
French language. We have already published
four issues of our bulletin, "Human Relations"
and will soon produce a fifth. This publication
has drawn very favourable comment from
readers across Canada and it has been warmly
welcomed by the Labour Committee for
Himian Rights and other groups in the field
of civil liberties. I am sme that all hon.
members of the House would want to join me
in expressing our warm thanks to all those
who have co-operated with us in this work.
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
555
I should like also at this time to express
our very sincere appreciation to the Post-
master General of Canada who recently
granted us permission to display our human
rights posters in Ontario's 3,500 post offices.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say
that we have attempted, while incorporating
the various provisions of our several human
rights statutes irito this bill, to clarify a
number of points so that the protection
afforded to our people will be strengthened
and broadened. These matters will, of course,
be discussed in detail in the committee of the
whole House.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say at the outset that, as far as
this group is concerned, we will support the
principle of this bill wholeheartedly.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I am certainly glad
to kriow that.
Mr. Bryden: At the proper time we will
make-
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): We de-
veloped it.
Mr. Bryden: —we will make some sugges-
tions for improvement, as we see it. But any
suggestions we have are, relatively speaking,
of a minor natm-e and there is no question
that in its broad principles this is a very
important bill which represents a very impor-
tant step forward in this province. We, in this
groui3, congratulate the government ;md the
hon. Minister (Mr. Warrender) on having
brought it in.
When the bill was up for first reading, Mr.
Speaker, I asked the hon. Minister at the
time if it incorporated any new prin iples or
was merely a consolidation of existing legisla-
tion. As I recall his answer at the time he
stated it was merely a consolidation; there
were no new principles in it. I think, Mr.
Speaker, that in that answer he did not really
do justice to his bill. There are, as I see it,
one or two new principles which are very
important principles and I think they repre-
sent an important step forward.
First of all, I think it is an important prin-
ciple in itself to consolidate all of this legis-
lation into one statute. This has been quite a
slow process in the province of Ontario. I
will concede and give credit to the govern-
ment for having brought in legislation in
this general area, but, in my opinon, it has
done so very slowly and often reluctantly,
and in bits and pieces. It is only now really
that the government has been prepared to
recognize the total subject matter of this
bill as one problem, whole and indivisible.
I can remember debates in this House a
decade and more ago— I was not then a
member but I sat in tlie gallery often and
listened to them — where members of the
G.C.F. group of that day were enunciating
that very principle and were asking for
enactment of one overall comprehensive stat-
ute dealing with the entire problem of
human rights. At that time it was not pos-
sible to convince the government.
In fact I can remember one occasion in
this House when the original— what is the
name of that old bill? I am glad we are
getting rid of this name at least— Female
Employees Fair Remuneration Act was first
before this House. The G.C.F. members of
that day urged the government very strongly
that thit legislation should be consolidated
Willi such other legislation that existed at
the time to deal with discrimination and
that it should all be put under one commis-
sion for administration.
The hon. Prime Minister of the day, now
the hon. member for Victoria (Mr.
Frost), scoffed at the suggestion that was
then put forward. I can remember very
well he made quite an eloquent speech in
which he pooh-poohed the idea that we
should tell the women of this province that
the)' are a minority. He suggested that in
what I thought was a very specious argu-
ment and still do. His objection to the pro-
posal at that time was that the women of
this province were not a minority. He said
we would make ourselves ridiculous by
suggesting to them that they are a minority
and then he went on to ask— in a question
that he never quite finished: "Why, what are
our wives to think of us?" And at that point
Miss Agnes MacPhail, who sat on the Oppo-
sition benches, interjected: "I often wonder."
Mr. Speaker, I am glad now to see that
that rather obscurantist attitude has finally
dropped out of the thinking of the govern-
ment. This legislation is not really legisla-
tion for the benefit of minorities. I think
it was a false premise on which the hon.
Prime Minister of the day based his objec-
tion to including equal pay provisions in
general legislation of this kind.
After all, all of us are in a minority in
some asixjcts of our lives; but this is not
legislation for the protection of minorities,
it is legislation directed against discrimina-
tion. To put it in a more positive form:
dfrpcted or aimed at establishing and con-
firming basic human rights. And it really
556
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
does not matter whether it is the minority
or the majority that suffers. When human
rights are interfered with, it is desirable that
public policy should try to prevent it.
As a matter of fact, there have been cases
where members of majority groups have
been discriminated against.
I remember quite a remarkable case in the
state of New York where a white man
appealed to the Human Rights Commission
of that state because he had applied for a
job as an elevator operator in a residential
apartment and he had been refused employ-
ment because the policy of the management
was to hire coloured people only. He appealed
to the commission of New York state, on the
ground that he was being discriminated
against on account of his colour and he won
his case before the commission; and it was
quite proper that he should have done so,
because that was exactly what was happening.
So it is not really a problem of minorities
we are dealing with; it is a problem of human
attitudes and the establishment of human
rights, and it is desirable that all of these
matters should be consolidated into one
statute as is now being done and what is
even more important should be put under
one single administration.
This is a second important new principle
enunciated here which previously the govern-
ment always resisted. I am glad now that
they have accepted the logic of the situation
and are putting the administration of the
Act, including its enforcement, in the hands
of the human rights commission. For a decade
and more it was always— well, it was im-
possible—to persuade the government that is
the way the matter should be handled.
Enforcement was really in the hands of the
Minister of Labour.
Even when the human rights commission
was established, it was not established until
just two or three years ago, but even after
it was established, a complainant made his
complaint to the Minister, under most of
the statutes at any rate, and then the Min-
ister was authorized, though not required,
to institute certain proceedings. We all
know, Mr. Speaker, that over the years it
was often, in fact I would say it was usu-
ally, very, very difficult to get the then
Minister of Labour to act on complaints
under these various statutes.
I would go further and say that there
would have been little, if any, enforcement
of these statutes in the past if it had not
been for the interest that the labour move-
ment took in forwarding the cause of human
rights in the province.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: That is not true.
Mr. Bryden: The labour movement has
frequently been subjected to very much abuse
both outside this House and sometimes, I
regret to say, even inside it. But this is a
field where I think, as in many others, they
have shown their great interest in human
rights and human welfare quite apart from
any benefit that they or their members might
licrsonally derive.
They have always devoted part of tlieir
resources towards having formal educational
machinery, not only for the education of
their own members in matters of this kind,
but also to assist in the elaboration and
application of public policy. The activities
of the labour movement through the joint
labour committee on human rights in calling
the attention of the government to violations
of some of our human rights legislation in
the past and in insisting, and sometimes in
having to go to great lengths, to organize
public pressure to get action from the govern-
ment, are examples of this. In all those
activities, they have performed a great service
to this province in the field of human rights
and I think at this time their service should
be recognized.
I do not, in making specific reference to
them, wish in any way to behttle the very
important efforts of other organizations such
as the Canadian Jewish Congress, which has
also done great work in this field. But one
thing that should be borne in mind is that
this was a particular area where the labour
movement itself could not possibly, in any-
body's mind, be thought to have a vested
interest of its own that it was trying to
promote. Therefore, in a way, I think it
may have had greater influence on public
opinion than some other organizations which
did very fine work as well but had a clear
interest of their own in the field.
At any rate, though we now have reached
the stage where we have unified administra-
tion, I regret to see that the administration is
still not entirely in the hands of the com-
mission.
The procedure for enforcement that is set
forth in part 3 is certainly an improvement
over the previous procedure. I still think that
it is a little cumbersome and complicated.
Under section 12 a complainant goes to the
commission, which is good, and the commis-
sion looks into the complaint and tries to
adjust it on the basis of education and per-
suasion if it can; that is all good. But then
if it is unable to efi^ect a settlement, the
matter must go to the Minister who may then
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
557
set up a commission of inquiry, and then
certain other procedures follow.
In my opinion, that is unnecessarily com-
plicated. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, it
would be better if the government would
consider putting the administration entirely in
the hands of the commission. Let it try educa-
tion and negotiation first but, if that does not
succeed, let it hold hearings and let it make
directives. Then let the enforcement pro-
cedure follow in much the same way as the
Act now envisages.
I think that the machinery which is now
proposed, although it is an improvement, is
still unnecessarily cumbersome.
I would also like to congratulate the
government on incorporating into the bill the
principles set fortli in section 17 which I
believe was in one of the Acts being con-
solidated but not in the others. That is where
there is a conviction, the Minister may apply
to the Supreme Court for a continuing order.
I think that is a very useful enforcement
procedure in those cases which I hope will be
fairly few, where it is necessary to adopt
punitive measures. I think probably it is
more useful than the penalty that may be
imposed to have the continuing order, and
I am glad to see that the hon. Minister of
Labour has now made that principle applic-
able to the whole range of human rights
legislation.
There are one or two other points I would
mention, Mr. Speaker. We have argued this
out before. I will merely mention it at the
moment.
With regard to apartment buildings, I
believe that to restrict the provision to apart-
ments or buildings with more than six self-
contained dwelling units unduly limits the
eflFect of the bill.
I would certainly say that six-plexes ought
to be subject to legislation of this kind. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, I would say that even
smaller units should be.
I realize there is a problem of judgment
here, and one does not wish to interfere in
the domestic afiPairs of any person, but a
six-plex is really quite a large building. I do
not think the landlord in the six-plex has so
close an association with his tenants, even if
he lives in the building which is not usually
the case, that he should not be asked to
comply with this legislation along with all
others. In fact, I would say landlords in four-
plexes ought to be required to comply as
well.
One other point that I would mention is
with regard to the equal pay section of the
bill which is now section 5.
I notice that the government has not seen
fit to improve upon the previous legislation
which is now being consolidated into this
statute. The prohibition against discrimina-
tion in regard to pay rates as between men
and women apply only in cases where the
same work is done in the same establishment.
Now that is very narrow and restrictive
terminology, Mr. Speaker, it means that in
a very large number of cases the intent of
the legislation can readily be evaded by an
employer simply making a very small difi^er-
ence in a job that he gives to a woman as
compared to one that he may give to men,
yet on the basis of that he can make a very
large diflference in pay.
These, however, are matters of detail. As
far as this group is concerned, we will deal
with them again when the bill is in com-
mittee.
But, notwithstanding some of our reserva-
tions on detail, I would like to reiterate again
that we regard this as a very important piece
of legislation, a great step forward. Certainly
the members of tliis group have always been
extremely interested in legislation of this
kind. We have for many years advocated a
consolidated statute with a unified adminis-
tration. In recent years even the Liberals,
who a decade or more ago, when these
matters were before the House, showed very
little interest, are now taking a substantial
interest in them. I feel quite satisfied that the
principle of this bill will be adopted with
enthusiasm and with unanimity by this House
I envy the hon. Minister his opportunity tO'
present such a bill to the House, and I con-
gratulate him on having done so.
Mr. J. J. Wintenneyer (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, I want to take this
opportunity to tell you and the House that
we of the Liberal Party are wholly in agree-
ment with the principle of this bill, we
always have been and we always will be.
There will be others in our group who will
speak on this, but I do want to take this
opportunity to express my commendation to
the government in its efforts to improve
human relations in this province and to
congratulate the government for their efforts
in introducing this particular piece of legis-
lation at this time.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to repeat the
comments of my hon. leader; however, I
558
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
would like to bring to the attention of this
House the second "whereas" and that is:
And whereas it is public policy in
Ontario that every person is free and equal
in dignity and right without regard to
race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or
place of origin.
We still forget one bit of discrimination
tliat we do find, and that is age discrimination.
I think here we have an opportunity to show
what we think of our older people. In this
Act should be written in that word "age", so
jthat an individual writing to The Department
of Education would not be confronted witli
a reply such as the following. This was re-
ceived from the Ontario College of Educa-
tion, February 8, 1962.
Please note again on our printed sheet
that a candidate should not be over 45
years of age.
Now, surely age alone should not disqualify
an individual in the teaching profession.
Were that so then possibly all teachers reach-
ing that age should be retired instead of
being allowed to continue. So I would only
like to reiterate that the government should
take into consideration inserting the word
« _ »
. age .
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, so
seldom do I agree witli the hon. members on
the other side of the House that this is one
occasion where I wanted to rise to add my
words of agreement.
I think that one reason why we can all
agree on the principle of this bill is that the
principles that are in it are in many ways
the history of our race and of our people.
We in this nation have had a peculiar back-
ground where we have been— in comparison
with many societies over the years that have
gone by— outstanding in what we have done
to help the individual. Our system of gov-
ernment is so greatly opposed to that of the
Russian system, we emphasize the individual.
That is why we can join together in agree-
ing that no one should be discriminated
against because of their race, their creed,
their nationality, colour or ancestry.
But I would like to emphasize what the
previous speaker just said about age. I have
in my district many people who cannot find
work simply because they are over the age
of 40 years and I think that we have still a
long way to go in this regard.
The Appenticeship Act forbids anyone
over the age of 21 being an apprentice, and
certainly this is something in the principles
of our legislation we must do something to
improve. Despite the numerous occasions
that have been brought to the attention of
this government, they have still sat back and
done nothing and I think it is time that they
went to work on it.
Finally, there is the enforcing of the bill. I
do think, because of the Ontario Human
Rights Commission, that this can be enforced.
That body has a good reputation, and I
hope that the government does its best to
see to it that this bill is< enforced; because
if we use, as an example, how they enforce
labour safety regulations, this department has
got a pretty black record. I hope that, from
the enforcement clauses in this bill, this de-
partment sees to it that the principles are
enforced and does much to improve its poor
record in this regard.
Hon. J. P. Roberts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say a few words con-
cerning this bill because, as I have suggested
on a couple of occasions, I consider it to be
a very important piece of legislation.
If you go back to the beginning of this
type of legislation and the human rights
legislation that has been introduced here, I
think you will find that over the years there
really has never been a sharp difference of
opinion on the underlying principles between
the various groups in the House.
The principles simply stated are these, and
I will read this.
If you discriminate against any person
because of race or creed in respect of his
ordinary rights as a citizen you deny that
equality which is part and parcel of our
democratic way of life. If you deprive any
particular group of people of the ordinary
rights enjoyed by all other people then
those who should be most indignant are
not the people against whom the discrim-
ination is practised but rather those whose
basic principles of justice and equality
have been insulted.
These, Mr. Speaker, were the actual words
used 18 years ago when this particular course
of legislation was commenced.
Just for a moment I would point out to
you what we are trying to accomplish with
legislation of this type. There are two prin-
cipal and closely interrelated purposes. The
first is to make secure in law the inalienable
right of every person, and the second is to
create at the local community level in our
society a climate of understanding and mutual
respect among all our people, so that every
person, new Canadian no less than native
born, will be afforded the unhampered oppor-
tunity to contribute his ; maximum to the
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
559
enrichment of our society, of our province
and our nation.
I am quite certain that none of us here
today has any doubt whatsoever that this
measure— as well as those that have gone
before and of which this is the logical and
natural follower— I am sure that none of us
would doubt that this legislation does reflect
in large measure the conscience of the people
of the province.
I would never deny that there are still
pockets of prejudice in Ontario. There are
matters that have been raised by other
speakers here this afternoon; and I think that
as time goes on we must set our minds to
these problems as well. However, we must
recognize, in addition, that law alone will not
be sufficient to accomplish what we are after;
because if law alone would make us sinless
we would be certainly pure as the driven
snow because we have plenty of laws in this
province at the present time.
What we are really trying to do, and the
purpose of the bill, is to combine the sanction
clauses of the existing legislation with our
extensive programme of education and en-
lightenment and thereby make the law the
ally, if I may put it that way, of sense and
decency.
I think the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer ) , the hon. member for
Woodbine (Mr. Bryden), and I, all realize
that this bill is an important step in what we
are trying to achieve. The codification of the
Act will promote understanding and accept-
ance of the principles involved in them. What
we are really attempting to do is to place
education and legal sanctions together, Mr.
Speaker, in one administrative setup in order
that we may co-ordinate and promote the
entire human rights effort of the government
and of the thinking portions of our society.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CROWN TIMBER ACT
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves second reading of Bill No.
56, An Act to amend The Crown Timber Act.
Hon. J. W. Spooner ( Minister of Lands and
Forests ) : Mr. Speaker, I gave an explanation
on first reading and I think that the explana-
tory notes that are attached to the bill are
quite sufficient. I would be pleased to answer
qiiestioris if there are any.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am
puzzled by the second section in the principle
involved in this. Up until 1953, if I recall
correctly, when The Crown Timber Act was
passed, there was no obligation at all upon
any company for regeneration over the land
in which there had been a cut. In 1953 the
Act absolved the companies of all responsi-
bility for regeneration for the cut until that
date, but fixed them with the responsibihty
for regeneration from that date forward. I
am a little curious as to why this change,
which means that instead of it being a
statutory obligation it is now going to be
subject to negotiation and special agreement
with each one of the companies.
I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if the
hon. Minister would explain why the govern-
ment has felt that this change should be made
and whether it is not going to open the door
to an uneven application of the law. In other
words, in one area a company would be forced
to carry through with a regeneration policy
that is much more vigorous and in another
area another company would be permitted to
get away with a less vigorous regeneration
policy.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the hon. member's question, I would
remind him that the natural regeneration in
the forest is not the same in all forests and
for that reason, where in some cut over areas
that have been affected by the forces of
nature in a different degree to other places,
the planting of trees is required, or some
type of scarifying or similar forestry activities.
In other areas the natural regeneration is more
than sufficient. By having this amendment
to the Act, the foresters then will be able
to analyze the needs of the regeneration of
the forest based upon the actual situation
as it exists from time to time. From that
we will be able to enter into agreement with
the particular operating company or com-
panies so that the regeneration which will
be required to be assisted, that is, assisted
beyond the forces of nature itself, will be
decided upon for a particular area.
I do not know that I can explain it to
any greater length than that. I think that
gives the House the general picture of what
the situation is and how the foresters intend
to deal with the matter. It is not possible
of course, to say immediately after an area
has been cut over exactly what will have to
be done to it in order to rebuild the forest.
It takes time; sometimes two or three years
may be sufficient and in another case it may
take tv/ice that long or even longer. So the
foresters advise me that in their opinion this
would be the proper method of dealing with
this.
560
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I might say that I have had officials of my
department studying this question of regenera-
tion for quite some time. We have come to
tlie conclusion that this would be the better
way of handling it rather than attempt to
make some general rule that is intended to
apply throughout the province when such
general rules have not been found to be the
logical manner of handling a situation of this
type.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the hon. Minister very much
for his explanation. I think I now see the
kind of thing that is in the government's
mind and the department's mind. In fact, on
t\vo or three occasions in past estimates of
his department, I had raised with his pred-
ecessor the need for the government to lay
down some standards because— as I spelled
out in some detail, I think, about two or three
years ago after visits that I made personally
in the Marathon limits and the ones just to
the west— the Marathon Company operated on
the basis that 85 per cent was natural re-
generation; therefore you needed a little more.
Whereas, just to the west a company was
working on almost precisely the opposite kind
of assumption that you could not count on
natural regeneration, therefore you had to
have a great deal of the artificial planting of
trees.
As I take it, the hon. Minister is now in
effect saying that you cannot lay down a
standard that is applicable everywhere be-
cause you have different weather conditions,
different soil conditions and everything else,
therefore you are going to do it on the basis
of negotiations with each company. Mr.
Speaker, this is an answer to the problem that
previous Ministers had indicated they were
working toward, and it may be an effective
answer. I think we will have to wait until
experience gives us some sort of indication.
However, there is one aspect of this which
still interests me, Mr. Speaker, and I would
like to raise this with the hon. Minister. Is
there going to be any obligation, in the agree-
ments that are made, for a regeneration of
the species that were there before— or more
particularly of the premium species? There is
this kind of a situation, for example, in Mara-
thon where— because of the particular mills
that they have and their product— they are
not as interested in having as high a pro-
portion of the regeneration of spruce as some
other companies. Does this mean that, in
effect, in the regeneration of the forests the
govenunent is willing to tolerate— because of
the nature of the industry that has been estab-
lished there— a regeneration of the inferior
species rather than trying to keep as high a
proportion of the premium species in our
forests?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, in every
instance we will attempt to improve the forest
by regenerating the superior species, as the
hon. member calls them.
There is another matter which should be
brought to the attention of the House. At the
present time, particularly in southern Ontario,
we are attempting in our Crown manage-
ment units and similar plans of manage-
ment to regenerate the good hardwood
species, and I would say that the procedure
has met with much success during the past
few years. But we are bearing in mind that
the best forest is, of course, that which is of
the species which will bring the greatest
return to the economy of the province. I want
to assure the hon. member and the House that
those are our plans and, of course, we are
dealing with nature and we have many prob-
lems to contend with— insects, fires and so on
and so forth. But I would say the department
people have made great advances in com-
paratively recent years, in forest management
in all of its different phases.
Mr. Chappie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. Minister a question on this? To what
degree is the person who does the cutting
responsible for this reforestation? Does he
have to do the work himself— plant the trees,
develop the area— or is this done by the
government, so that he takes over when the
forest or the trees reach a certain degree of
maturity?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, there are
perhaps as many different kinds of agree-
ments with timber operators as there are
actual numbers of agreements, and where the
foresters are able to analyze the needs for
reforestation it can be— and in many cases, is—
provided for in the agreement entered into
before any cutting is done. In other cases the
agreement provides that, if the natural re-
generation is not sufficient then the reforesta-
tion will be done on a co-operative basis
between the department and the operators. It
depends on what the local and the actual con-
ditions of a piece of forest land are. From that
the foresters will decide what work will be
done in the way of regeneration practices. It
may not entail the planting of trees at all.
It may entail the type of logging operation
which is used. It makes a difference to the
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
561
forest and to tlie soil as to whether the log-
ging operation uses tractors or horses. All
these things are considered by the foresters.
And today in The Department of Lands and
Forests we have, I would say, sufficient
number of well-trained foresters who are
working through our different district offices.
We have 22 districts in the province. The
foresters are able to figure these things out
on the ground, on tiie site, and from there
come up with the best proposal that can be
established— bearing in mind their knowledge
and the actual conditions of the soil site and
the timber area itself.
Mr. Chappie: It is all a matter of negotia-
tion, then?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: That is correct.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE LAKEHEAD COLLEGE ACT
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves second reading of
Bill No. 58, An Act to amend The Lakehead
College of Arts, Science and Technology Act,
1956.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I
recall the statement of the hon. Minister of
Education (Mr. Robarts) last year, before
the private bills committee, when the bills
to grant charters to Northeastern University
and North Bay College were being deliber-
ated. He then made the statement that no
more charters would be granted until the
university committee had considered them.
Has the university committee— of which the
hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost) is the
chairman — approved of this particular
charter?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, this is an
amendment to an existing Act which
brought the college into being. To go into
the history of this, the Lakehead College
of Arts, Science and Technology, started
originally as an institute of technology.
Then, in order to serve the needs of that
area of the province, they were given the
power and, I believe, developed the first
two years of a university course. In otlier
words, they have been giving university
courses there in first year and in second
year, and then sending their students on to
other universities in the province. They
have done this by working out— in co-opera-
tion with the other universities in the prov-
ince—the courses they would give in the
first two years. The other universities would
accept those students into the second, third
and fourth years of honour courses.
Now, in the logical development of this
institution the time has come for it to give
a third year of a general arts course, and
they therefore want power to be able to
grant degrees when they give the complete
course of studies leading to a degree in their
own institution. That is the purpose of this
bill. It is not a new charter. It does not
create a new university. The college is there,
it has been functioning as a university in
the first two years. Therefore, this is not
the creation as the hon. member seems to
think, nor is it the granting of a new charter.
They have had their charter for some years.
It only gives tliem power to grant degrees
now that they have developed to the point
where they are going to give the third year
of a general arts course.
I am quite sure that this matter has been
discussed by the university afEairs commit-
tee but I do not sit on that committee any
more myself and I cannot state specifically
—however, I would be happy to send the
bill to the committee if anybody would like
me to do so. But I point out that this is just
a logical development of a plan that has been
going on for some considerable years.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have
no objection to Lakehead College being
given the opportunity to grant degrees. But
I cannot see any difference between that
particular institution and North Bay college
which has a charter also. All we asked for
was a charter to grant degrees in that col-
lege. It was denied them, and under the
statement of the hon. Prime Minister— his
particular statement to that committee— that
no further approvals of any university to
grant degrees would be given until this par-
ticular committee, which had been set up,
had approved of it. They were going to
make a survey of the whole province. The
North Bay college also has had a charter for
years, but it was refused.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, just to
complete this, I am quite certain that this
matter has been considered by the university
affairs committee but, as I say, I was not
there when it was so I cannot give a 100 per
cent assurance. But I will check and find out,
because I am quite sure the legislation was
checked out with them before it was brou^t
in.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
562
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to speak in this debate, I commend
you f6r the very efficient way in which you
conduct the affairs of this House. I would
^ay that you are growing in wisdom. And
also 1 wish to add my words of welcome to
the new hon. members who have recently
taken their seats. I believe they will add
much to the debates in this House in the
near future.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was not
intending to speak in this debate but the
matter I wish to bring before the House I
could not bring in any other way than in
this manner. And I agree with your judg-
ment; I think you were correct in your
decision.
The reason I am speaking on this debate
is that this morning I had a telephone call
from our industrial commissioner of the in-
dustrial commission in Brantford. He was
very much concerned with an address that
was made last evening by the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) as leader
of the: New Democratic Party. In the ad-
dress of which I am speaking, the hon.
member dealt at some length with the
Cockshutt farm implement company which
was known for many years as the Cockshutt
Plow Company. Now, the Cockshutt company
started many years ago, with a very small
beginning, and it expanded to a very thriving
industry in the city of Brantford— until these
last. few years. It fell on very lean periods,
and the men working there were working
probably only six or seven months a year, and
it was; getting progressively worse.
But last night, the hon. men^ber for York
South, and I quote from his speech, said:
Thousands of Canadian farmers who
bought Cockshutt equipment have no
assurance that they will be able to get
parts and services, so that they may have
a $1,060 machine idle sitting in their fields,
for the want of a $5 part.
Farm leaders in Ontario approached the
government in December with an urgent
request for a Farm Machinery Act such as
the one the New Democratic Party leader
Tommy Douglas gave the farmers of Sas-
katchewan back in 1949. This would have
obligated any company selling machinery
to provide parts and services for ten years,
precisely the kind of protection needed in
a case like the Cockshutt sales. But the
Conservatives, with the support of the
Liberals, sent the request off to the
Minister for study, a familiar way to avoid
real action. Now Cockshutt is gone. There
is no continuing obligation for parts for
the farmers who bought its equipment.
One wonders whether the delay was not
designed to relieve the Cockshutt firm of
its obligations to persons who have patron-
ized it for generations.
Well now, the Cockshutt farm company
is still in business and this kind of thing
just hurts the farmer. I am interested in the
liundreds of men who will be employed in
that industry. It has been taken over by a
new company and it will take "some months
before they get organized.
I have no doubt that some of the older
employees will be hurt, I do not know how
badly. Everything is being done that they
will not be hurt. But I would like to point
out that the old Cockshutt labour force was
approximately 1,200. These 1,200 people
averaged about seven months a year and this
has been going on for some years. This
figure included the foundry and forge em-
ployees.
This new company, the White Oliver Com-
pany—by the way, I have met the principals
of the company and spoke with them—
purchased the old Cockshutt firm. They did
not buy the foundry and the forge for a
reason, and the reason was that it was an
old, dilapidated, inefficient and unprofitable
foundry. The new Cockshutt company is
farming out its foundry and forge work to
local industry so it would be done locally
anyway, thereby cutting their costs a,nd at the
same time assisting other Canadian companies
in maintaining their labour force. The new
Cockshutt labour force, less the foundry and
forge— listen to this, hon. members— will build
up to one greater than previously carried
and will have a 12-month production sched-
ule rather than a six-month to nine-month
schedule.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): They are
just kidding the people of Brantford.
Mr. Gordon: The hon. members are kid-
ding themselves. I am living v/ith those
people and I do not want them to be kidded,
and I do not think hon. members are kidding
them either.
When the White Company bought Cock-
shutt they did so recognizing 'hat the Brant-
ford plant, while operating at a loss on sr»me
production terms, was able to build several
machines such as the swathers and the com-
bines and the discs and the cultivators more
efficiently and economically than any of he
White Oliver plants in the U.S.A. Conse-
quently, the Brantford plant will build not
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
563
only for the Cockshutt organization, but for
White Oliver, U.S.A. and increase the export
market as well. Those items that they pro-
duce will be turned out with much more
efficiency.
The Cockshutt products which are not
being processed economically in Canada will
be produced in the White Oliver U.S. plant
but will be marketed under the Cockshutt
name through the Cockshutt dealer organiza-
tion in Canada.
The general manager informed me this
morning that the hon. member's suggestion
that farmers will have no assurance of getting
repair parts for Cockshutt machines could
not be farther from the truth or more irre-
sponsible.
The new Cockshutt company is maintain-
ing and will continue to maintain the highest
possible standards of parts, services to their
customers. "To us," he told me, "they are
the most important people in the world and
since we intend to stay in business and to
expand it, that will be our continuing phi-
losophy."
Now, you do not think for an instant, Mr.
Speaker, that a company will come over and
put $15 million into this company and make
nothing out of it. They are here to make
money, and the only way they can make
money is to do business. As long as there
is any Cockshutt machinery in Canada parts
will be available.
I gave my reasons for speaking about
this: because I am very concerned about the
Cockshutt company, I do not want them to
be hurt. I am concerned about the hundreds
of men who will be employed there. This
kind of propaganda, I think, will really hurt
them and the employment that they so wish
to have.
As I rose to speak I said I had only just
one subject. Generally, as hon. members
know, in the Throne debate we are allowed
to roam all over creation, but I will not take
the time of the House any longer. I think
I have made my point, and I hope-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
hon. member has missed the point.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know
what results the hon. member speaks about,
but I am speaking for the little fellow in
Branlford.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate
I should like at the outset to join with the
others who have congratulated you, sir, and
add my congratulations to you.
The hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope)
capably pointed out yesterday that your job
is a difficult one and we on this side of the
House respect your position. We have admira-
tion for you in the way you have conducted
your duties and we are sure that this trend
will continue.
Although I have not been here very long, I
should also like to add my congratulations to
the new members who have already entered
this House, and of course I need not say that
I am a little bit delighted that more of the
new members are Liberals than -subscribe to
the other party.
With respect to the by-elections, it is
interesting to note that in the early session
of the present sitting of the Legislature there
v/as much said from the other side about how
these by-elections were to be a little election
in the province of Ontario and how they
would test the feeling of the people. The
Conservative members were very certain that
they would of course support the ruling party.
It is very interesting to note that very little
has been said on that side of the House since
the election arid I am sure that you can under-
stand that we on this side feel that we do have
something to contribute when we suggest
that the people of Ontario are finally getting
wise to the type of administration which has
been practised in this province over the past
18 years.
It is also interesting to note the fence-
mending which has been going on. It is
noticeable in the press; the Cabinet Ministers
are running here, there and everywhere, try-
ing to create a new image for the present
government, but I am afraid it is not going
to be possible to create that new image. I
think the people of Ontario have now had a
little bit of an object lesson, shall I say, in the
presentation of the retail sales tax which they
must be reminded of each day they make a
purchase.
It is also interesting to note the caucus
meetings on the government side of the House
which are becoming much more frequent. Up
until this point, Mr. Speaker, it has been "be
nice to government day"; the government has
been commended on two or three pieces of
legislation, and I would like to hasten to
assure you that it is not my intention to carry
on with that philosophy. But before turning to
that point, I should like to comment very
briefly on the matter which was- raised by the
hon, member for Brantford (Mr. Gordon)
when he referred to the speech which was
made last night by the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald). He made mention of
564
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tlie Cockshutt Plow Company in Brantford,
and he went on to great lengths pointing out
that these things, of course, could not happen
under the New Democratic philosophy be-
cause they were going to present a planned
economy which would take care of every-
thing.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): I thought you
were going to do that, too.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, that shows how
misinformed the hon. member can be. I do
not think our party has ever indicated that we
were going to enforce a planned enonomy
throughout tlie country.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, it just so
happens that a few days ago a paper came to
my desk which indicated the success of this
planned economy which, I might tell you, has
already been practised in one province of this
great country of ours. I thought this informa-
tion might be interesting to the House. This
planned economy took place some years ago
in the province where I was bom, the province
of Saskatchewan. At that time they decided to
have a planned economy and to set every-
thing in operation and have the government
run many of these things and have a pros-
perous province. It is somewhat interesting to
note that there are less people in the prov-
ince now than there were several years ago.
Mr. Br>'den: That is not true.
Mr. R. C. Eldwards: The first project which
was set up was a leather tannery in the city
of Regina. Its purpose was to tan cow hides.
Well, it operated for about two years, lost
$73,000 and closed down. This is not original;
my informant tells me about the only hides
that were tanned were the hides of the
Saskatchewan taxpayers. So then this planned
economy group decided to establish another
factory. They established a shoe factory, also
in the city of Regina, and the socialist premier
of the province boasted in his speech that the
plant could manufacture shoes for $2.75 a
pair and still make money. But despite his
verbosity, my informant tells me that within
several years the plant was bankrupt and
closed down with a loss of $83,000. On and
on we could go. A spray paint company was
formed whose purpose was to paint the rural
buildings in Saskatchewan, but I guess the
farmers did not have too much confidence in
that operation; they did not buy the service,
and so the company ceased its operations.
A woollen mill was set up in Moose Jaw,
and when it finally closed down it had a
deficit of some $830,000. And so it goes.
I should suggest to the hon. members that
before they buy—
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Which company was it that fired
all its employees on Christmas Eve? And told
them if they did not come back and work
and do some decent production they would all
be out of work?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): What
does the hon. Minister think he is doing, re-
enacting Weyburn?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I thank the hon. Minis-
ter for bringing this to my attention. I would
say to him that I only have 12 or 14 com-
panies here and that one is not included, but
I am sure there are others which I do not
have.
Mr. MacDonald: The information of the
hon. member is both faulty and inaccurate.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, I am sure tlie
hon. member for York South will be pleased
—he states that my information is faulty and
inaccurate, and I am sure he will be pleased
to get the right facts and bring them here
and present them to the House so they might
be properly stated.
Mr. Speaker, my real purpose here is to
point out the faults of the government. You
see, the real people, the real villains I might
say, are the hon. members in the benches
opposite. Before doing that, I should like,
through you, Mr. Speaker, to direct some
remarks to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts)— I am sorry he has left his seat—
with respect to the matter of accommodation
which is provided to private hon. members
of this Legislature.
Theoretically, sir, the hon. members come
to this Legislature to represent the people
of their own riding, whether or not they are
supporters of the government in office. As
such they are representatives of the people
of Ontario to whom this Legislature is re-
sponsible. Yet it has been a constant source
of irritation to me since arriving here some
three years ago that the present government
has shown little respect for the representa-
tives of the people. I am sure, Mr. Speaker,
that if it were commonly known that many
private members of the Opposition must
search from pillar to post to find a place to
work while in Toronto, that the public would
demand some remedial action. |
Surely the government would not think,
Mr. Speaker, of hiring the lowliest clerk
without providing a desk at which he could
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
565
work and yet it is a fact that hon. members
of this House are left without even a chair
and desk at which to sit when outside this
Chamber. If a constituent comes to this city
to talk with his representative on business
it is necessary to meet him somewhere out
in the halls. If he wishes to talk to him
privately, about the only place available is
the members' dining room. Certainly you
would not call this privacy but it is at least,
Mr. Speaker, a place to sit.
I wonder if a corporation spending over
a billion dollars yearly would suggest that
the persons having any say with respect to
the control of that corporation, should not
at least have a reasonable place in which to
do their work. This matter has been brought
to the attention of this House previously.
How the government can justfy its action
in building great pretentious buildings such
as the new Department of Highways build-
ing on Highway 401, as well as the many
other promised buildings such as the one in
Kenora— when they were trying to influence
the voters in a by-election— and fail to recog-
nize the need for the members themselves
is beyond reasonable comprehension. In my
considered opinion, such an attitude can only
be considered as gross inconsideration of the
electors of the province of Ontario who have
elected these members as their representa-
tives in this House. In this matter I am
somewhat bewildered and almost jealous of
the fortunes of the members of the NDP
to my left. I was quite surprised when I
walked past their door on the third floor to
find that there is provided a desk with tele-
phones for each member so that they can
conduct their business. Perish the thought,
Mr. Speaker, that I am suggesting that any-
thing be taken away from them, more power
to them; however, I am wondering if their
good fortune is not due to the fact that per-
haps they have been a little bit more vocifer-
ous than tliose of the voices of the official
Opposition.
In any event, even the amount of accom-
modation available to the hon. members of
the NDP would be an improvement to the
private members of the official Opposition.
Surely the time has come for the hon.
Prime Minister to have this situation rectified.
Once again I appeal to him to show that the
Opposition members receive the same cour-
tesy that is extended to nearly every clerical
employee of the government. Surely, Mr.
Speaker, this is a reasonable suggestion?
I have made tliis suggestion in all sincer-
ity. I hope that the hon. Prime Minister,
Mr. Speaker, if he is really trying to create
a new look for this government, will take a
serious look at the accommodation with
which he provides the hon. members of this
House in which to do their business.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that because of
this attitude, which seems to reflect from
the government down, toward hon. members
of the House that it is sometimes difficult
to understand the attitude of some of the
officials. I cannot but think that the atti-
tude of some of these officials in many cases
are dictated by the responsible Cabinet Min-
isters in charge of their departments.
For some time now I have been receiving
representation from members of the public
who reside in my riding who have all been
complaining of the fact that Hamilton has
been overlooked with respect to a trades
training school. Accordingly, sir, I wrote to
the deputy Minister of Education asking
why Hamilton had not been considered. I
would think, sir, that this would be a
reasonable request coming from an elected
representative of the people in the area
which was concerned. You can imagine my
surprise and consternation when I received
a reply stating that the hon. Minister (Mr.
Robarts) had been in touch with the mayor
of the city of Hamilton, who was aware of
the situation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am led to wonder
whether or not the responsible Minister has
any knowledge of the chain of representa-
tion to this Legislature. The mayor of Ham-
ilton happens to be a very good friend of
mine. He is a fine fellow and I like him,
but he is elected as the mayor of Hamilton;
I am one of the five representatives that are
elected to represent the people in the As-
sembly and I would think that such matters
would be the concern of the direct repre-
sentatives of this House. This answer is not
different from the attitude of some other
departments of government, where it is the
policy of the Conservative government to
avoid the member of the constituency, par-
ticularly if he happens to be a member of
the Opposition.
An hon. member: Shame.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Perhaps it might be
a good suggestion, Mr. Speaker, to give all
senior members of this administration a
refresher course in the matter of electoral
representation.
I might say that it was only after I made
a direct appeal to the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) in his dual capacity as Minis-
ter of Education, that I was supplied with
any kind of an answer to my question.
566
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would like to say here, sir, through you,
to the. hoh. Minister of Education that I
believe that Hamilton is a city which should
be considered in this training plan. Certainly
it is a centre of industrial activity, and one
where these training plans might be of some
benefit to the people participating, when
they have completed their training. I draw
this to the ' attention of the hon. Minister
of Education at this time, and I can only
hope that since there are two hon. Cabinet
Ministers from the Hamilton district who sit
on his side of the government, that some
positive action will be forthcoming in !he
Hamilton area without undue tlelay.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I turn to a
m;rtter which we, on this side of the House,
rcrisrder to be of pnramount importance to
this Legislature. I would refer you, sir, to
the motion which was made on February 20,
1932, by the hon. leader of the OpposUion
(Mr. Wintermeyer). This motion, which
called for an immediate adjournment of the
House to discuss a m;it er of great public im-
prr'ance, was, in your wisdom, not per-
mitted. My purpose is not to question that
m":tter in retrospect. A vote was held ^nd
f:^e o\'e''whelmin<r majority of his government
s'.-pnoried your ruling.
The next dry, sir, on a miHcr of pri\ilege,
fh? hon. IcLlder of the Opposition rose in his
place and attempted to place on the record
of this House some of his reisons for suggest-
ing that the hon. Prime Minister had misled
the hon. members of the House. My hon.
leader endeavoured to do this by reading from
the text of the speech in questiori, which was
delivered by the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) on Monday, February 19, 1962.
After r^neated interruptions from some of the
hon. Cabinet Ministers opposite, you and your
wisdom ruled that the hon leader of the
Opposition might not read into the record
from this address.
I STiggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the
Cabinet Ministers were particularly vocifer-
ous at that time because they knew full well
that there was merit in the statements of
my hon. leader, and they were prepared to
use every means possible to see that he was
not allowed to continue.
Mi\ Speaker: Order! I would point out to
the hon. member that Cabinet Minis" ers on
this side of the House had nothing to do wifh
the Speaker's decision on that occasion. It
w^s strictly a Speaker's decision that it was
not a point of order, and was ruled upon as
such. I must draw that to the attention of
the hon. member.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I thank
you, sir. I should like to point out that I
said at the very beginning I was not ques-
tioning the wis lorn of your decision. I merely
was trying to indicate to the House that I
felt that ihe Cabinet Ministers opposite were
endeavouring to influence that decision, sir.
^fr. Speaker: That is the point. I v/ould
ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark
that the Cabine" Ministers were influencing
the Speaker on that particular point of order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! It is well known to
the hon. members of the House that this point
of order was taken at that time and it is
iillowcd to rest at that.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Spe.iker, I
vvi h draw any inference that seems to be held
thit T, in any way, suggested that you were
influenced, sir. I trust that this meets with
y(Air approval.
An hon. member: I wonder if it has ever
h ipi erjed in the past.
Mr. R. C. Edvv-ards: Mr. Speaker, I con-
sider this a very serious matter, and it is my
i-^J;erit to stay fully within the rules of this
House and to conduct myself as an honour-
able member of this House.
I do not intend to be upset by the political
manoeuvring of the hon. members in the
1 enches opposite. I would hasten to point
(,vit to you, sir, that I hold no brief for any
hon. member of this House who would use
the privilege accorded to him as a member
to personally attack any other hon. member
of this House. I emphatically state, sir, that
the remarks I am about to make are not
intended to be personal attacks.
I have a personal admiration and respect
for the hon. Prime Minister and the hon.
Attorney-General of this province; on the
other hand, sir, it is the solemn responsibility
of the Opposition members in this House to
ensure that justice is done and to prevent,
where necessary, the government from pre-
senting a wrong impression to this House.
Does it not seem to you, Mr. Speaker, that
it is extremely coincidental that not only the
hon. Opposition members of this House, but
also a great majority of the press, would
incorrectly interpret the intent of the hon.
Attorney-General's address?
The hon. Prime Minister in this House on
February 20, 1962, stated by inference that
small portions of the speech were being
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
567
removed and that certain conclusions were
being drawn from those portions. At the
same time, Mr. Speaker, he refused to table
that speech so that hon. members of this
House could judge for themselves whether or
not such was the case. I have now had the
opportunity to read that speech in its
entirety—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): The
hon. member read it because I gave it to him
earlier.
An hon. member: Well, that is good.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: —and I cannot agree
v/ith the observations of the hon. Prime
Minister. The hon. Attorney-General of this
province—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That it not the first
time the hon. m.ember has misinterpreted me.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: —the hon. Attorney-
General has stated on numerous occasions
that the efforts of the Opposition in this
whole matter of crime were aligned for the
purposes of political expediency. One would
tliink, Mr. Speaker, that if his own inten-
tions v.ere pure he would refrain himself
from any comment of any kind with respect
to any of the aspects on the now constituted
Royal commission to investigate crime in this
province.
I suggest through you, sir— and the hon.
Attorney-General is not in his seat— I suggest
through you, to the hon. Prime Minister that
it is the duty of the hon. Attorney-General to
refrain from any comment whatsoever, now
that the matter has been handed to a Royal
commission.
He, Mr. Speaker, more than anyone else
in this House, should be discreet with respect
to this matter, and yet he, more thaii any
other person in this province, seems to be
doing all in his power to lampoon this
commission in the public mind before it is
even given the opportunity to demonstrate
its effectiveness. The hon. Attorney-General
has from the outset been outspoken in this
entire matter. He stated at the beginning
thr.t this commission was not necessary. I
suggest to you, sir, that he is still of the
same opinion as emphasized in his recent
speech, and it now appc-^rs that the hon.
Prime Minister supports that view as evi-
denced by his defence of the hon. Attorney-
General's speech when he answered the
question of the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald).
I propose at this time to show the hon.
members of this House that the hon. Attorney-
General still holds to his original view, not-
withstanding the fact that a Royal commission
has now been established to investigate this
affair. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do have a
copy of his speech and, as the hon. Prime
Minister has correctly stated, he sent a copy
over to the hon. leader of the Opposition.
I should like to quote from somewhere
around the middle of page 12 of this partic-
ular speech, and I now quote the hon.
Attorney-General. He states, and I quote:
Another inquiry, this time by a Royal
commission, apart from certain specific
matters to be dealt with, has as one of its
terms of reference inquiry into crime and
the efficiency of the law enforceirient
agencies to cope therev/ith. Sometimes in-
quiries of this kind c jn be helpful, some-
times they can be harmful.
I would underscore those last five words,
Mr. Speaker. I continue to quote. The hon.
Attorney-General said:
For myself, I have maintained and con-
tinue to maintain my own confidence,
speaking by and large, in the Very fine
party of men composing our police forces,
the Ontario Provincial Police and the large
Metropolitan Toronto Police forces. •
He further stated:
I have always been a believer in the
direct approach to crime, namely, search-
ing out culprits, bringing them into the
court and letting the courts determine the
guilt or innocence according to the well
established rules of evidence.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime Minister sup-
ports this theory as he did in the Legislature
on February 20, 1932. I ai,k him to explain
how such reasoning is compatible with the
teniis of reference of the Royal commission.
If this preconceived opinion reflects the
atiitude of his government, how can the
people of this province have any confidence
that the co-operation of The Department of
the Attorney-General will be available as it
should be to the Royal commission in its
endeavours? When the hon. Attorney-General
is supported by the hon. Prime Minister in
these statements, one can but doubt whether
the commission will achieve the co-operation
that is necessary from the government. The
very noticeable attempts by many of the
Cabinet Ministers to stop the hon. leader of
the Opposition yesterday indicates clearly
that this opinion is shared by the Gabinet and
that all are in complete support of the
expressed opinions of the hon. Attorney-
General. ;
568
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, let me quote from another
paragraph of the speech of the hon. Attorney-
General, and I quote directly from page 14
of the text given to this side of the House.
I quote from the hon. Attorney-General. He
states:
The present Attorney-General of the
United States is waging war against a big
crime problem facing him. He has to
smash them and rid his country of them.
In this province we must keep them out,
which is a \astly different situation in our
favour.
Notwithstanding the comments of the hon.
Prime Minister with respect to deleting
portions of the speech and drawing conclu-
sions, I am sure that all hon. members of this
House will agree with me that it is not
necessary to read the whole speech to under-
stand the intent of the comments of the hon.
Attorney-General in this statement. He has
already made up his mind that there is no
reason for the Royal commission, and I sug-
gest to you that these statements prove it.
He declares that the big difference between
the United States and Ontario is that big
crime exists in the United States but not in
Ontario, where the problem is simply to keep
them out. The hon. Prime Minister and the
Cabinet in supporting these views are clearly
in agreement with this principle.
I would ask hon. members of this House
to consider with me to determine whether or
not the statement of the hon. Attorney-
General, when implying that the forces of
organized crime were prevalent in the United
States and that wv must keep them out of
Ontario— would any reasonable person not
think that this was a categorical statement?
Would any reasonable person not think that
this was an attempt to influence the commis-
sion? How does such a statement, Mr.
Speaker, fit into the terms of reference to the
Royal commission, and I quote, "to inquire
into and report upon the extent of crime in
Ontario and the efficiency of the law en-
forcement agencies to deal with it." I ask
the hon. members of this House to ask them-
selves this question. Would not this state-
ment, Mr. Speaker, indicate to any unbiased,
reasonable person that the hon. Attorney-
General has indicated a lack of confidence in
the commission already and in the terms of
reference?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
That is not the first time you have mis-
interpreted me.
Hon. members: Oh, sit down, sit down.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Braced The hon.
Attorney-General should have sat down the
other night and not made the speech.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: It is one of the best
speeches I ever made in my life.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this is
more serious than just the remarks of the hon.
Attorney-General. I suggest to you that the
hon. Prime Minister, in supporting such a
statement, is in effect placing Cabinet
approval on this line of reasoning, and as
such has placed the Opposition members of
this House in the place where we now have
grave doubts as to the co-operation which
will be forthcoming from the government of
this province.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If I had no more brains
than that I would keep quiet.
An hon. member: What did the Globe and
Mail tell you to do?
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Attorney-General
is going to drag the whole boat down with
him.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, up until
January 18 of this year I think, a comment
such as just came from the hon. Attorney-
General— something to the effect that we have
not any more brains than that and I did not
get the rest of it— but I would remind him
that a large percentage of the people of
Ontario do not feel that we have as few brains
as he seems to think we have.
Mr. Speaker, in leaving this subject let me
hasten to say that these views which are being
expressed by us have also been expressed to
varying degree by many of the editorials in
the press of this province since the speech by
the hon. Attorney-General. To the statement,
Mr. Speaker, that portions of the speech had
been withdrawn and that wrong conclusions
were taken from those portions, I would re-
iterate my earlier statement that the respon-
sible Minister of this department should be
discreet enough not to place himself in such
an intolerable position in the first place.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chamberlain resigned,
so should he.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: It is all very well, Mr.
Speaker, for one to stand up and endeavour to
create a smoke screen by suggesting that
Opposition members are speaking with the
thought of political expediency. I think that
it is becoming clearly evident to all hon.
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
569
members of this House— and to the electors
of this province as well— that it is not really
the Opposition that have political expediency
in mind. It just might be that somebody on
the other side of the House might have the
same suggestion.
I should like to leave that aspect for just
a moment— or for good— as far as this brief
talk is concerned.
I should like to deal with another matter
which I believe is of paramount importance
to a large proportion of the people of this
province. I would like to refer to the report
of the Royal Commission on Industrial Safety
which was presented, and which has been
available, to all hon. members of this House
since late in the year 1961. I should like, for
the purposes of discussing this matter, to
read from part of this report in order to lay
the groundwork for what I hope to say a
little bit later.
Page 3 of the report states:
Each of the Acts and regulations designed
for the protection of workers is considered
in detail in later sections of this report.
And numerous recommendations are made
to simplify, clarify and modernize the
present legislation. Some of the Acts and
regulations were found to be archaic and
outmoded. This is particularly true of The
Building Trades Protection Act which is
almost unknown and unenforced.
Your commissioners have recommended
that this Act be repealed and replaced by
a construction safety Act incorporating part
8 of the National Building Code.
The ultimate responsibility for the en-
forcement of the proposed Construction
Act and Trench Excavators Protection Act
should rest with The Department of
Labour, and the legislation should be
amended accordingly.
At tlie bottom of page 4, I read again from
the report:
Safety regulations relating to foundries
and ionizing radiation have been formu-
lated but not promulgated. And the workers
in these fields are not at present protected
by legislation.
Your commissioners recommend that
regulations covering these fields be imple-
mented at a very early date. The highest
accident frequency rate in the province is
in the logging industry, yet there is no
legislation for the protection of workers in
this field as in the sawmills.
It is recommended that this deficiency
be corrected by the adoption and enforce-
ment of logging and sawmill regulations.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to
refer to the publication which arrived at the
desk of all hon. members some time during
the year 1961. It was entitled The Ontario
Economic and Social Aspects Survey, pub-
lished by the Ontario government, and for
which the hon. Prime Minister of Ontario (Mr.
Robarts) seems to take full credit since his
name, along with the hon. Treasurer of
Ontario (Mr. Allan), is foremost in the
publication.
The purposes of The Department of Labour
are set out in that pubhcation, and I quote
from page 32 of that document. Speaking of
The Department of Labour this document
says:
The department's primary concern is the
safety and economic protection of the pro-
vincial labour force.
It seems to me that perhaps the responsible
Minister, together with the senior officials of
his department, should consider very carefully
the purposes of his department as set out in
this official publication. If the facts, Mr.
Speaker, are accepted as set out in the Royal
commission, this government must accept full
responsibility for having failed to carry out
the duties and obligations which it under-
takes to fulfil when assuming office. This is
all the more alarming, sir, when we stop to
contemplate that Canada, and indeed Ontario,
is fast changing from an agricultural to an
industrial society.
The policy of appointing boards and com-
missions to take the responsibilities which
rightly belong to the elected representatives
of the people has too long been the irre-
sponsible attitude of this government. The
fact that we have now obtained a new leader
of the government, sir, is of little significance.
The simple fact of the matter is that it is still
the same old party, and responsibility cannot
be avoided by simply using a revolving door
as far as the responsible Cabinet Ministers
are concerned.
Let me attempt to prove my point by
quoting from the commission report, in refer-
ence to the attitude of The Department of
Labour officials on page 7. I quote:
The testimony of the officers of The
Department of Labour generally, with
respect to the adequacy of their Act, their
enforcement and the number of inspections
and inspectors required, indicates a degree
of satisfaction that is inconsistent with the
requirements of keeping pace with a grow-
ing industrial technology.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not make this
statement. This statement was made by a
570
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Royal commission, which was appointed to
investigate into the matter of industrial safety.
And as yet insufficient action has been taken
by the responsible hon. Minister to carry out
the spirit and intent of that report.
We discussed earlier in this sitting a bill
which came to this legislature and which
simply, in effect, appointed another committee
to report on the report of the committee which
had already reported. This statement, Mr.
Speaker, which was made by the commission
dealing with the attitude of the department,
with safety Acts and regulations administered
by the department, points out that the depart-
ment of government charged with this respon-
sibility has been derelict in its duties and
responsibilities.
This point is amplified, sir, when the House
is mindful of the fact that in 1950 a Royal
commission was led by Mr. Justice Roach.
Many of the hazards and weaknesses of the
present legislation for safety were pointed out
at that time. What is the point in spending
trust moneys of the people collected in taxes
if the Conservative government does nothing
at all with respect to the reports when they
are received? The reports become nothing
more or less than smoke screens.
The government may be excused for over-
sights when they are not brought to their
attention; there can be no excuse for failure
to act on many of the glaring examples which
were brought to light in 1950 and which are
now being brought forward in the new Royal
commission report.
Page 32 of that report sets out clearly a
lack of responsibility by The Department of
Labour. I quote from that page:
The Department of Labour takes the
position that enforcement of the Act is
surely—
this is speaking of The Building Trades Pro-
tection Act—
—the responsibility of municipalities.
The commission disagrees.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I also dis-
agree. If we note that the government itself
states that the safeguarding of the worker
against various hazards of life and health is
the major responsibility of The Department
of Labour— as set out in the Ontario Economic
and Social Aspects Survey which I quoted
earlier— how in the name of reason can this
department take the position that any Act,
which deals with such matters, is solely the
responsibility of the municipalities?
Since this report has been made public.
I have received communications from many
of the trade unions in the Hamilton area
which represent some thousands of workers.
These people are concerned about the in-
action in The Department of Labour to take
the actions which are set out and suggested
in this report. I suggest to you, sir, that if
the department does not intend to take the
advice and at least act in a reasonable man-
ner on the suggestions which are presented,
the commission should not have been
appointed in the first place.
I suggest to you, sir, that the hon. Min-
ister of Labour (Mr. Warrender) and the
government opposite must assume responsi-
bility for every person who is fatally injured,
who is seriously injured or who is injured
at all, if they fail to bring forward legisla-
tion at this time, which will implement the
suggestions as conta^ined in the report, and
then proceed to bring them forward at a
later date. I think the working force in the
province has a right to expect The Depart-
ment of Labour will carry out its responsi-
bilities and will act on the various reports
which they themselves have requested, and
v/hich have been made public.
I suggest in closing that the reason the
commission, which was recently set up to
study some of these matters, was not asked
to report to this assembly— as set out in the
McAndrew commission— was simply because
the government did not want again to be
in the embarrassing position of not acting
on the suggestions put forward. The fewer
people that knew about them the better.
Thank you.
Mr. R. J. Boyer ( Muskoka ) : Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure, I am sure, for us all to be
back here again in this honourable House
resuming our work after the long recess at
Christmas time.
Sir, I am going to suggest to you that the
experiment which was begun two years ago
of dividing our session in half, and meeting
in the fall and again in the winter, has not
proved quite the success that we hoped.
Beside the disadvantages there are to the
private members of this House— and tliey are
considerable— I think there is a loss in the
continuity of the business of the House, and
I would suggest to the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) and to the government that,
beginning next year, the House meet early
in January and sit as long as is necessary
and complete its work in one phase and not
in tv/o.
In this connection I would like to point
out that two other important legislative bodies
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
571
in Canada have already done this; the Parlia-
ment of Canada had for a time been meeting
in the fall, adjourning over Christmas, and
then taking up their work again; the Legis-
lature of our sister province of Quebec had
for some time being doing the same. This
year, both have reverted to the fornier
system and started their sessions in the month
of January.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by
speaking of your work and the impartial way
in which you regulate the debates of this
House, and also to thank you for the co-
operation which I, as a private member of
this House enjoy, and your helpfulness in
many situations, I would also like to com-
pliment the illustrious member for Peter-
borough (Mr. Brown) on becoming the
chairman of the committee of the whole
House and your deputy, Mr. Speaker.
At the beginning of the present debate the
main motion was moved by the hon. member
for Toronto-St. George (Mr. Lawrence) in
a very fine speech which demonstrated his
talents. Although it is some time since we
heard him, I am sure we very well remember
the impression that he made in his fine
speech.
The hon. member has served for some time
on the Fire Marshal's Advisory Committee
and for that reason I have seen quite a bit
of him in my own riding as he has come to
the Ontario Fire College at Gravenhurst,
in which he is very much interested, from
time to time.
And then the hon. member for Renfrew
North ( Mr. Hamilton ) who comes from the
same general part of Ontario as I do,
seconded the motion, and in his very fine
address spoke of a number of matters of
interest to our wonderful part of this wonder-
ful pro\'ince. I may say this, that both our
ridings border on the constituency which has,
since 1937, so ably been represented by the
hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost) and I
am sure that all in this House regret the
annoimcement which appeared in the morn-
ing paper that the hon. member for Victoria
had decided to retire from service as a
mcTViber of this Legislature.
One of the things that has happened
since the hon. member for Victoria retired
hem the leadership of his party and from
the position of first Minister of Her Majesty's
govern rent in Ontario, is that he has been
sworn in as a privy councillor of Canada.
You understand, Mr. Speaker, that in the
provinces Cabinet Afinisters and leaders of
government are entitled to be styled honour-
able only while they retain office, while
members of the Dominion Cabinet and others
as privy councillors, bear tliis title or style
during their whole lifetime. And tlius the
lionour given in this way to the hon. member
for Victoria has been well deserved and is
satisfying, I am sure, to us all. It will be
recalled that a similar honour was received
son^.e years ago by another former Prime
Minister of Ontario, the hon. Mr. Drew.
And now in Ontario we all have a new
Prime Minister, the, hon. John Robarts. The
lender of th.is House was chosen as the leader
of his party in an entirely democratic way,
in the greatest and most enthusiastic party
convention ever held in the history of the
province. It is in fact a convention that can
hardly be matched even on the federal level.
In the present debate we have had a
great deal of attention paid to that con-
vention by Opposition speakers. The hon.
member for V^oodbine (Mr, Bryden), who
I am happy to see in his seat, took up nearly
half of the time of his speech in the Throne
speech debate, sneering at the convention,
picking out a few details here and there, but
overlooking the general worth of such a great
gathering in the political life of our province.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, of a
saying of the late Dean Inge— that a fault of
many v/ould-be reformers is that they mis-
take the particular for the general. And
certainly this is consistently true of the
famous five that cluster in the area across the
House behind the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald).
Then we have had other Opposition
speakers doing their worst to deprecate the
good results of that great historic occasion.
I have said that the choice of that conven-
tion was arrived at democratically. The hon,
member for Nipissing (Mr. Troy), who has
disappeared from the House for a few
moments, said yesterday in his speech in
giving what, I would say, was a somewhat
semi-frivolous analysis of the convention re-
sults—that the—
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): It was not semi-frivolous.
Mr. Boyer: Well, perhaps it was frivolous;
Mr. Speaker, I will accept the hon. leader of
the Opposition's correction that it was a
frivolous analysis on the part of the hon.
member for Nipissing. I would say, Mr.
Speaker, he was off^ering to us a very wrong
conclusion— which is not exactly a new experi-
ence for my friend and neighbour from Nipis-
sing because he often gets beyond his depth
—but he endeavoured to persuade you that in
572
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
some manner or other the choice of the con-
vention was dictated by the Rt. hon. Prime
Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker). Now,
this is utterly wrong.
I can point out to you that federal mem-
bers, and Cabinet Ministers from Ontario,
were not voting as a unit for any particular
candidate; nor was there any suggestion or
pressure, from any top source in our party,
on the delegates. The delegates voted as they
saw fit, and I ha\'e to tell you that when
I returned home from that convention I
found that people who had watched the
con\'ention proceedings on television or heard
the same by radio were very well satisfied
with the choice made.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it was not an easy,
choice to make between seven very highly
competent and experienced public servants;
but when the convention was over, those
responsible here for the administration of
government in this province returned to their
great work and began anew under the new
government to promote policies for the ad-
vantages of the people of our province.
It was necessary, sir, even though it was
not the most favourable time for a govern-
ment so newly in office, to call five by-
elections. These have taken place, and will
bring into this House five new members, all
of whom will make their presence felt here,
I am sure. But the advantages that the chief
Opposition party had at that time are not
going to be theirs again, and future election
contests in this province are going to be on
not only a more even basis but will certainly
be to tlie greater advantage of the Progres-
sive Conservative Party. The government, sir,
was a new government.
I would like to point out, too, that a factor
in the situation was that the third party's
character had changed to some extent. People
who were familiar over many years with the
letters CCF and had at least some idea of
what they meant, were quite unfamiliar with
this new designation of a group which is
pretty well the same, I suppose— NDP, what-
ever meaning those letters have.
Consequently there was a certain amount
of confusion with respect to this third party,
and I do not know whether they are going
to be able to improve their lot in the political
life of the province and country. They have
been having quite a few troubles in their
own ranks this week, although I am going
to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think that the hon.
gentleman who left their ranks with such a
flourish at the weekend is going to be counted
by most people as a sorehead— which is of
course not a very appealing attitude in
politics.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that day by
day there is a fresh appreciation of the
leadership abilities of the hon. Prime Min-
ister of this province, and of the continuation
and extension of good government under his
fine leadership.
Some people have written in various places
that he is not a Leslie Frost. Well, of course,
he is not Leslie Frost. He is John Robarts,
and he has his own particular viewpoints and
his own abilities and these will become more
and more apparent to the people as the days
go by.
The personality of the leader of our prov-
ince is a most engaging one; is a most kindly
one. I know this very well from certain
occasions in my own riding when the hon.
Mr, Robarts has met hundreds of the people
of Muskoka at official events there. He has
made friends with them freely and easily. He
is just that kind of man, Mr. Speaker, and
tlic people of Ontario will soon get to know
this. In this House, I say to you, since the
opening day of this session, there has not
been a moment, when the hon. Prime Min-
ister has not been on top of every situation
which has arisen.
I believe, sir, that I know quite a bit about
the attitude of the hon. members of this
House who support the government, and I
can assure the House that they are united
behind the hon. Prime Minister in the tasks
he has undertaken. And, Mr. Speaker, he
will be continuing to carry on those tasks
for a good many years to come.
It is very natural, as we refer to the hon.
Prime Minister to think of the advances
which have been made in The Department
of Education under his leadership. There
ha\'e been some very notable changes, includ-
ing the remodelling of secondary schools-
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): You
must be a Robarts* man.
Mr. Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you
that all hon. members on this side of the
House are Robarts' men.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): I am glad the
hon. member did not say Roberts' men.
Mr. Boyer: Well, the hon. member can
take that as read, as well.
There have been some very notable
changes, including the remodelling of the
secondary schools system so that in the light
of world conditions— as they are in the kind
of world in which we live— our young people
FEBRUARY 22, 1962
573
will be better prepared to face the world.
This, of course, is bound up, sir, with many
matters in which the government of Canada
has concern— the problems of employment
and qualification for employment in an in-
creasingly technical age— and the great suc-
cess this week in Colonel Glenn's wonderful
exploit demonstrates to us how the age in
which we live is becoming more and more a
technical age.
So it is that, by agreement with the prov-
ince, Ottawa is to pay a major share in the
construction of expanded facilities for com-
posite schools, and vocational and technical
schools across this province. There are to
be two such schools established in the Mus-
Icoka district, with one in Parry Sound town
as well. By this means every young citizen
of Muskoka will have opportunity to acquire
a high school education of an academic
nature, or one of which vocational training
will form a part.
This is a tremendous development, sir. It
is one that has spread across our entire prov-
ince. It could not have been undertaken, I
submit, on the scale that has developed, had
local municipalities been obliged to pay their
share of the capital cost, and I can testify
that in some cases this development has solved
for some time to come the problems of accom-
modation for an ever increasing number of
registered students.
Indeed, the registration of students in our
schools is an index of the great growth and
development of Ontario over recent years.
You can consider that when the war ended
in 1945 the number attending elementary and
secondary schools was approximately 660,000.
In the ten-year period from 1950 to 1960 the
increase in enrolment was 646,000 pupils, and
it is estimated that in the ten-year period be-
tween 1960 and 1970 the enrolment in
elementary and secondary schools will add at
least another 625,000 pupils.
Now, surely it is an amazing thing that in
the years from 1950 to 1960 the enrolment
of pupils in Ontario increased by an amount
about equal to the entire enrolment at the
end of World War II; and in the present
decade the increase will again be about equal.
In each of these two decades, then, the addi-
tional numbers of pupils have been about the
same as the total school enrolment in 1945
which had been building up during the entire
life of our great province's educational system.
I would say, sir, that I was mentioning
some of the facts at a home and school meet-
ing in one of the municipalities in my own
riding. After I had left and gone home— after
a day or so— I received a letter from one of
the gentlemen who was present, who said that
he had never realized that there was this
great problem in school accommodation in
our province. He said that for himself he
would never again criticize the sales tax which
was necessary for the revenues of this prov-
ince.
Now I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I think
it is a fact that a great many people do not
understand the necessity for this tax, and we
would perhaps have done a great deal better,
if we had called this tax an education and
health tax because it is to be used entirely in
those two departments. I think people should
understand that situation to a greater degree
than many may.
I can remember the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) in the year
1957 telling this House that we should not
talk about Ottawa giving us any more money,
that we should impose taxes in Ontario, raise
the revenues we need ourselves. And the sales
tax was one that he mentioned. In fact, at
other times, in speaking around the province
of Ontario, he said that there should be an
education tax and this was what he had in
mind.
Interjections by hon, members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would ask the hon.
members to keep strict order during this
afternoon. It is very difficult for me at times
to know who exactly has the floor. I would
ask hon. members also, when the Speaker is
on his feet, that at that time at least, the
hon. members should all be silent. Now I
would ask the hon. member to proceed.
Mr. Beyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was
referring to this tremendous development in
school population that has called for many
changes and has placed a great strain on
the provincial treasury. In the present years
we have seen the estimates for The Depart-
ment of Education come to first place among
all the departments of government. The
expenditure for the current fiscal year will
be perhaps around $270 million. This is an
overall increase from the amount of $57.7
million of ten years ago, of over 400 per
cent. This increase in provincial budgeting
has been brought about not only by the
grants paid for new classrooms, new build-
ings, new facilities, which have been con-
structed almost generally throughout the
province, but also by the higher scale of
grants paid. This scale is still rising.
One objective of the improved school
grants has been to lessen the burden of the
574
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
cost of education on real estate taxation in
the municipalities, particularly on the home
owner and farmer. School grants are ar-
ranged with the object of creating the great-
est possible degree of equahty of education,
whether it is education for young people
in the cities, the towns, the villages or the
rural areas. I would mention to you, sir,
that in the district of Muskoka we have 25
organized municipalities, 18 of which are
townships. They have good schools. Prac-
tically every one of them has a new and
completely up-to-date central school build-
ing.
In the years that I have had the honour
to be the member for Muskoka, my wife
and I have attended many official openings
of new school buildings in the district of
Muskoka and now we are being invited to
go back to some of those same schools where
they are having a party for the opening of
an addition to the schools. What is happen-
ing in Muskoka I am sure is happening
throughout most of Ontario. The school
population of Ontario is growing at a faster
rate than the general population. The gen-
eral population rose from 4,471,000 in 1950
to 6,089,000 in 1960 or somewhat less than
50 per cent, while in the same period school
enrolment increased from 743,000 to 1,389,-
000 or just under 100 per cent. This is
another indication of the problem of accom-
modation and provision of instruction staff
and so forth that we have in this province.
Now, I do not believe that the standards
of education have been lowered; quite the
reverse. I believe young people today are
very well educated considering the far more
complex world in which we live and the
greater number of things that they are called
upon to understand than we were when we
were in school. Just lately the hon. Minis-
ter of Education (Mr. Robarts) announced a
change in the certification of elementary
school teachers to authorize four standards
of certificates. By this means there are
greater incentives for teachers in our ele-
mentary schools to improve their qualifica-
tions and to keep abreast of the latest
educational methods, to further education
of themselves in departmental summer
courses or in other ways. This is a change
which will affect many, and yet I believe
that all will approve of this as another step
in the overall improvement of the educational
system of Ontario which is one of the world's
finest educational systems.
There are great problems ahead of course,
in education, in which so many are involved,
and so many have a part in the administration
of our school system. Many of the problems
of schools must be settled on the local level
among the ratepayers and the parents con-
cerned. These cannot be as well decided
under our democratic system by centralizing
the authority in Toronto or other places and
reducing the local authority of school admin-
istration. Consequently, those who talk about
the province taking over completely in the
educational field, or in any other field, and
paying all the expenses, are actually ad-
vocating full provincial control. The partner-
ship in this field of thousands of devoted
people who ser\'e as school trustees should be
retained, I submit, in the fullest degree.
Now, sir, there are several other matters
on which I would like to speak to the House
—one in particular relating to the principal
factor in the economy of my own riding.
I mean the tourist industry. There are
several things that I would like to draw to
the attention of the House in that connection.
I hope that I will be able to do so in a later
debate and I thank you for your attention.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale) moves the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the
House, we will go on to the items that are
on the order paper, tomorrow. There will be
more second readings and we will resume
the debate of the Throne Speech. We will
resume at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.45 o'clock, p.m.
No. 23
ONTARIO
Eegisflature of Ontario
Betiatesi
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Friday, February 23, 1962
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $2.00. Address, Clerk of the Hoitse, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, February 23, 1962
Interim report, select committee on The Municipal Act, Mr. Beckett 577
Approval of impartial referees and arbitrators, bill to provide for, Mr. Roberts, first
reading 577
Police Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 578
Statement re public housing, Mr. Robarts 579
Greater Oshawa community chest, bill respecting, Mr. Thomas, second reading 582
City of Belleville, bill respecting, Mr. Sandercock, second reading 582
Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Incurables, bill respecting, Mr. Trotter, second reading 582
Village of Markham, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second reading 583
Township of Nepean, bill respecting, Mr. W. E. Johnston, second reading 583
High school board of the township of Nepean and the collegiate institute board of
the city of Ottawa, bill respecting, Mr. W. E. Johnston, second reading 583
Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association of
Cornwall, bill respecting, Mr. Newman, second reading 583
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Warrender, Mr. Trotter,
Mr. Beckett 583
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Cowling, agreed to 597
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 598
577
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we wel-
come as guests students from the following
schools: in the east and west galleries, stu-
dents from Hillcrest Public School, Hamilton;
in the west gallery students from Winona
Public School, Winona; and under the
Speaker's gallery a group of teachers from
the Georgian Bay area.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. H. E. Beckett (York East): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to present an interim report of
the select committee on The Municipal Act
and related Acts. There will be a copy on
every hon. member's desk.
I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that last
March a select committee of this House was
appointed to inquire into and review The
Municipal Act of the province, and related
Acts of which there are about 46, for the
purpose of modernizing, consolidating and
simplifying such Acts and making such
recommendations as may be necessary for
their improvement.
In the related Acts are a lot of the impor-
tant Acts dealing with the municipalities such
as The Assessment Act, Local Improvements
Act and The Planning Act— and they are all
related because they deal with subjects which
deal with the municipalities' everyday work-
ings.
This committee, during the short period
from April to November of last year, reviewed
many Acts with various officials of different
departments and different municipal govern-
ments, and received many briefs dealing with
the various Acts which have been considered.
As the interim report indicates, Mr. Speaker,
the review of The Municipal Act and related
Acts is a huge task and it will take consider-
ably more time to prepare a final report.
FRroAY, February 23, 1962
I think I can say, and the hon. members of
the committee will agree when I say, that it
is essential that when you have a revision of
any one or more of the municipal statutes you
must undertake, with due regard, the whole
body of the municipal law. In other words,
one cannot just take one Act and revise it
and consolidate it. One has to consider all the
Acts related to The Municipal Act. And the
committee feels that more time is required to
give it a thorough study.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
APPROVAL OF IMPARTIAL
REFEREES AND ARBITRATORS
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
to Provide for the Approval of Impartial
Referees and Arbitrators.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, anticipating that the House would
like an explanation on first reading, I would
say there is a problem at the present time in
connection with the sufficiency of arbitrators
and the qualifications of them, and that the
use of judges as arbitrators has been quite
extensive. Sometimes people try to simplify
it by saying: "Well, if we don't use judges,
whom do we use?" Labour and management
take the view that there are probably other
persons who are competent, but generally
speaking they are not known because, again
generally speaking, judges have been used.
This bill provides for a panel of suitable
persons; it provides for the appointment of
a board of supervisors and it would be sug-
gested that one of the chief justices of the
Supreme Court would chair that board of
three. The board of supervisors would review
persons who might apply for use of the title,
"Approved Impartial Referee and Arbitrator."
The board would also have power to cancel
that approval and the action would be sub-
ject to an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
578
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This would not mean that only persons ap-
proved would be used as impartial arbitrators.
The parties concerned would have the same
choice they have now, including judges. This
bill certainly does not exclude judges. But
there would be this panel to go to look at, if
the parties wish to, and choose from.
It does not mean that there would be any
work arbitrarily distributed at all; it means
that there would simply be a list of names of
people who had been selected by this super-
visory board, who have been put in this
category because of being certified as being
capable to be that type of impartial referee
or arbitrator. It really means, in a three-man
arbitration, the middleman, the third man;
or in a single arbitration, the one impartial
arbitrator.
The principle is the same as with, say.
The Chartered Accountants Act, where certain
people who have the qualifications get a
degree of chartered accountancy but that
does not prohibit other people acting as
accountants. The same applies here. This is a
selected group of people, chosen on their
capacity, certified by this board, but it is in
no way compulsory.
The bill, I would point out too, is a bill
that does not come into force until it is pro-
claimed. So there will be ample time to
judge its merits and it would go, as I antici-
pate most of the other bills in this group
would go, to the committee on legal bills.
THE POLICE ACT
iA
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Police Act.
♦* Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, at the
present time local boards of commissioners
of police are composed, by statute, of the
head of the council, a county or district court
judge designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-
in-Council, and a third member designated by
the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The pur-
pose of this bill is to authorize the Lieutenant-
Govemor-in-Council to designate two persons
as members.
It means, in efiFect, that the reeve or mayor,
the elected representative, still remains a
statutory requirement of the composition of
the commission, but that the other two are
not necessarily in any particular category of
citizenship. The choice would be that of the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council .
Nothing is eliminated by this, but we are
merely going a step further than we went a
short time ago when we took from the statute
the specific requirement that a magistrate
would be the third member. At the present
time, as the statute reads, there is the choice
of one, and statutory requirements as to two
of the three members. By this bill there
would be a statutory requirement as to one,
the elected representative, and a choice as to
the other two. This, of course, to some extent,
fits in with the previous bill that I introduced.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to ask one question,
if I may. Does that mean that the other two
appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-
Council would have to be members of the law
profession?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The answer would be
"no". As I say, there is no specific statutory
requirement laid down if this amendment goes
through, except with respect to the one
appointment.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day I should like to speak on a matter
which I consider of the greatest public con-
cern. I refer of course to the Cockshutt case
in Brantford which the hon. member for
Brantford (Mr. Gordon) discussed here yester-
day.
I would like to say at the outset I agree in
the main with those things which he said and
would like to corroborate the facts which he
stated at that time.
However, I want to say, sir, that the other
night I happened to catch the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) speaking on
TV. Ordinarily I would have turned oflF the
TV because I see enough of him around here
—I am sorry he is not in his seat today— but
I should say that when I saw his genial
countenance on TV I knew that there was
some trick involved in what he was about to
say. So, although ordinarily I would have
turned it off, I wanted to wait for the—
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order. I have been concerned
for some time, as I think many other hon.
members have, with the way in which the
government abuses the device of making
statements before the orders of the day.
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member a point
of order?
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister (Mr.
Warrender) is on the point of making a
FEBRUARY 23, 1962
579
straight debating speech, using a device that
will prevent reply from the other hon.
members. I submit his statement should be
ruled out of order.
Mr. Speaker: I see no point of order on
which the hon. member rose.
Mr. Bryden: I submit to you that the hon.
Minister is engaged in a straight political de-
bate but is using a device that will prevent
an opportunity for reply and I submit it
should be ruled out of order in all fairness.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. members will
realize that on a previous occasion I men-
tioned that statements before the orders of
the day should not be controversial or
argumentative, otherwise they will raise con-
troversy and argument. I have made that
quite clear to the hon. members, in regard
to statements before the orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Speaker, in fair-
ness I must say that my statement may be
controversial and for that reason I am pre-
pared to sit down at this time and wait the
earliest possible moment to continue on with
my address.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day I have
a statement to make which I do not think will
be controversial, at least at this stage of the
game. And I think it is a statement that is of
great interest to the people of the province,
and perhaps to the hon. members of the
House.
I have pleasure in announcing today a new,
broader and bolder approach to public hous-
ing on the part of the province of Ontario, the
first such approach ever made in the province
and far ahead of any comparable programme
that we can find in any other jurisdiction.
Hon. members: Let us hear it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Just wait for it. If the
hon. members wait long enough, they are
going to hear quite a few things in the course
of time. This programme provides for four
immediate things:
1. an immediate and forward-looking
attack on the major problems of housing
those presently in need of low rental
housing;
2. valuable supplements to what is now
available through the encouragement of
various specialized types of ownership or
non-profit low rental housing;
3. it will embody an effort to encourage
and assist in the conservation of housing
in borderline areas and of the acquisition
and rehabilitation of housing earmarked for
preservation in redevelopment areas; and
4. it will provide assistance in the solu-
tion of new and future housing problems
in the province through the encouragement
of special studies and research.
The programme upon which we are em-
barking is a 12-point programme and I
propose to go through these 12 points this
morning. It involves several proposals which
will be carried out by the province alone on a
trial basis, as well as three which will be
co-operative efforts undertaken jointly with
the federal government.
Last week the hon. Minister of Economics
and Development (Mr. Macaulay) went to
Ottawa and discussed with his federal col-
league, the hon, David Walker, the Minister
who is responsible for the operations of
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation,
the programme in its entirety. Studies are
now being undertaken by the housing branch,
jointly with CMHC, looking towards the sub-
mission to the two Ministers concerned of a
joint programme on the three points requiring
co-operation.
These three points are as follows:
1. The acceleration of the current fed-
eral-provincial housing programme and, in
particular, the planning of steps to simplify
and speed up the operation. It is hoped
that shortly it will be possible to announce
jointly with the federal government the
results of the studies now being undertaken
on this point.
2. We are also discussing jointly with
our federal opposite numbers the provincial
proposal to acquire existing housing for
public housing purposes wherever required.
Present policy and present legislation, both
on the federal and provincial levels, permit
the acquisition of existing housing in re-
development areas, and it is expected that
the first use of these powers will be made
during the 1962-1963 budget year. If the
new proposal were to be adopted, both fed-
eral and provincial legislation would have
to be amended. Studies are now under
way involving both the staff of the housing
branch of this government and of CMHC,
looking into the possibility and the value
of this extension. It is felt that the acquisi-
tion of existing housing, outside of redevel-
opment areas, for public housing purposes
might be a faster and more economical
way of meeting the requirements for pub-
lic housing as they exist in the province.
580
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
particularly in municipalities where hous-
ing of a suitable type is available for pur-
chase at reasonable prices.
3. The problems of providing public
housing in Metropolitan Toronto are ad-
mittedly more complex than they are in
any other mimicipality. This is due
primarily to the fact that there are four
governments involved in such projects; the
federal, the provincial, the metropolitan
and the area municipality governments.
Because this complication, combined with
the greater need for public housing to be
constructed on a large scale, is apparent,
we have proposed, and our federal partner
is considering with us, the possibility of
setting up the Metropolitan Toronto
Housing Authority as a company em-
powered to negotiate, secure approvals,
call tenders for, and construct public
housing projects within that municipality.
At present the Authority is authorized to
administer public housing projects and to
assist Metropolitan Toronto by undertaking
or by participating in research studies con-
cerning housing problems within that muni-
cipality. The advantage of extending the
functions of the Housing Authority would
be to provide one agency to deal with
public housing rather than a partnership
made up of four separate municipalities.
If the details can be worked out and the
scheme set in motion— and we see no
reason why they cannot— it should result
in the simplification and speeding up of
public housing development in Metropolitan
Toronto. In a sense this is an experi-
mental project and, if successful, it may
well be extended to other municipalities
throughout the province. This proposal
requires no change in the present legisla-
tion and it is hoped that an early con-
clusion to the joint studies now under way
can be expected.
4. Item 4 presents a completely new
departure in public housing. The province
will undertake, on an experimental basis, a
new form of public housing operation called
a rent certificate plan. The Metropolitan
Toronto Housing Authority will be author-
ized shortly to lease existing privately
owned housing units, whether single family
or multiples, which are available at a
moderate rental. The Authority would then
place in these units their own tenants, at
rents in line with the standard rent scales
charged in normal federal-provincial pro-
jects such as Lawrence Heights and Regent
Park South. The Authority will pay to the
landlord rents determined in the lease, but
will collect from the tenants rents based
on their family incomes just as they would
do in normal housing projects. It should
be stressed that the units would be avail-
able only to families eligible for normal
federal-provincial public housing. While
the present intention is to carry out this
particular scheme in Metropolitan Toronto,
it may be possible also to carry it out in
other suitable municipalities.
As I have mentioned this scheme is being
undertaken on an experimental basis. The
experiment is being carried out by the prov-
ince alone. Should our experience prove
successful, and should the federal authorities
then be interested in entering into the scheme
jointly with the province and the munici-
palities, the project may be extended. How-
ever, I must stress that the experiment will be
carried out on a very limited basis only, since
nothing is known in practice of the workings
of such a scheme. If the programme should,
for any reason, prove impracticable, we will
withdraw from it entirely, placing tenants
who may be in such private accommodation
in new normal public housing as it becomes
available.
5. We plan to explore what can be done
to encourage by practical means, preventive
maintenance of housing, particularly in
areas which might otherwise ultimately be-
come depressed areas resulting in expensive
redevelopment. This will involve detailed
studies undertaken jointly with the com-
munity planning branch of The Department
of Municipal Affairs, Central Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, and, perhaps, the
municipalities, before a positive scheme can
be mapped out. It is hoped that by a year
from now a comprehensive programme of
encouragement for preventive maintenance
of housing stock may be announced.
6. Meanwhile, the programme envisages
as its sixth point the provision of assistance
to individuals and to municipalities to assist
them in acquiring and rehabihtating
housing units in borderline districts which
do not yet acquire urban development. The
pro\ince possesses, under the terms of The
Housing Development Act, the power to
guarantee loans. Studies will be carried
out to see how such a plan can be worked
out. Similar guarantees or assistance could
be available to municipalities interested in
acquiring and clearing non-salvageable
residential properties in borderline areas,
to make way for public purposes, e.g. pub-
lic buildings, parks, etc. It should be
stressed, however, that details will have to
be worked out jointly with the community
FEBRUARY 23, 1962
581
planning branch of The Department of
Municipal Affairs, and with various inter-
ested municipalities so that assistance of
this type will not be given except in areas
which are worth preserving. It is also
hoped that the joint discussions now under
way between provincial officials and those
of Central Mortgage and Housing Corpora-
tion will result in joint action on a federal-
provincial basis as an ultimate possibility
in this field as well.
7. We feel strongly that in addition to
accelerating and improving the public hous-
ing programme we should also look at other
possible approaches to housing of low in-
come families which might provide accept-
able alternatives, or, in many cases,
preferable alternatives to the present
system. There are numerous possibilities
under study but it is proposed to initiate
this year a programme of encouragement for
limited dividend housing. At present The
Department of Welfare makes grants in
aid of limited dividend housing companies
constructing limited housing for the elderly.
The housing branch makes, without charge,
surveys of need and demand for municipal-
ities interested in promoting such projects.
In addition to continuing the present pro-
gramme we now intend to work out a
schedule of grants to limited dividend
housing companies constructing projects
for family housing and for housing of
physically handicapped groups requiring
special types of housing units, e.g. para-
plegics or the blind. The proposed grants
will be paid only to limited dividend com-
panies operating on a non-profit basis. They
will not be made available to limited divi-
dend projects carried out by private
builders operating on a 5 per cent profit
basis. The amount of the grants in indivi-
dual cases will be determined in accord-
ance with the needs of the municipality
concerned and the purpose of the grants is,
of course, to encourage the development
of such projects and to make possible the
reduction of their rents to a level which
can be met by low income families.
8. We intend, and this is our eighth
point, to do what we can to encourage
housing co-operatives producing single
family housing units for ultimate individual
ownership. Our purpose in doing this is
to stimulate the active co-operation of
persons wiUing to assist in constructing
their own houses since these are mainly
from the same income groups as are public
housing tenants. The assistance would take
the form of assistance in securing interim
financing, that is to say, financing up to
the time when mortgage money becomes
available to the co-operative. We are
studying a plan to assist by guaranteeing
loans for interim financing and by provid-
ing technical advice and supervision dur-
ing the interim financing period. Similar
programmes have been carried out in Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland and in certain
areas, mainly those of the smaller com-
munities, they have achieved very notable
results. Talks with groups interested in
sponsoring co-operative housing will com-
mence very shortly so that the study can
go forward.
9. The public housing programme, as it
has been carried out up to now, cares
mainly for the needs of the larger organ-
ized municipalities. There are, however,
other needs within the province. The ninth
item of our programme deals with studies
to be undertaken to determine these special
needs and to determine the methods by
which those needs may be met and the
problem solved. The study will look partic-
ularly at the needs of communities too
small for the present public housing pro-
gramme; at the special housing such as
housing of Indians who have left the re-
serve to work in mines or mills, etc., and
the special problems of new industries
locating in unorganized territories. These
and many others will be examined and
plans worked out to meet their special re-
quirements. Further changes in our pro-
gramme can then be initiated to take care
of these problems.
10. Our 11th and 12th points deal with
research and educational grants. Before
touching on them, however, I would like
to mention, as point 10, that we intend
to set up, as soon as possible, a permanent
housing advisory committee, either as an
off- shoot of the economic council or in-
dependently. This committee will be made
up of representatives from the various
parts of the province, of the various inter-
ested professions and special groups whose
advice and assistance can be of value. Its
purpose will be to assist in the continuous
devclc:>pnient of the province's housing pro-
gramme in line with the changing needs
of the province and to ensure that the
programme also meets the sectional re-
ciuirements which may vary considerably
from one part of the province to another.
Meml^ership in tliis committee will be an-
nounced shortly when arrangements con-
cerning its setup have been completed.
11. This leads me to the last two points
582
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of this programme. Number 11 deals with
grants for research, etc. While there has
been in the past no formal policy for such
grants, provisions have nov^ been made in
the housing branch's budget to make such
payments possible. The purpose is to en-
courage interested bodies or individuals to
undertake studies on subjects related to
housing, and particularly public housing
in Ontario, and to foster research projects
aimed at clarifying the general problems
within the province and assisting in their
solution.
12. Finally, as our 12th point, we are
planning to work out, jointly with CMHC
and those connected with the house build-
ing industry, a means of assisting the
house building industry in the form of
fellowships or educational grants for indivi-
duals in suitable subjects to be determined,
to promote development of new ideas or
better techniques within the industry.
CMHC, on behalf of the federal govern-
ment, already does a large amount of this
t5^e of work, and the province is prepared
to carry out its programme either on its
own, or jointly with CMHC, with a partic-
ular eye to ideas or techniques of special
value within the province of Ontario.
I should stress that this programme is
being undertaken by the province on an
experimental basis. It is obvious that we
cannot leap into many of the matters that
I have mentioned here without further study
and consultation with interested persons and
bodies which have had experience in these
fields. It is hoped, however, to make an
immediate commencement on a number of
the proposals and to clarify our position on
the others as quickly as the progress of our
studies becomes available and we are able
to make final decisions as to the actual action
that we are going to take.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, will the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) advise this House
whether it is the intention of the govenmient
to introduce any legislation at this session to
implement the intentions that were outlined
here?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes, there will be some
legislation, Mr. Speaker. I cannot tell the
hon. leader of the Opposition specific-
ally in regard to which point, but there will
be as the programme is developed. It will
require amendments which will be brought
in here. I have not introduced them in the
House yet.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Do we have the assur-
ance of the hon. Prime Minister that specific
legislation will be introduced during this
session to implement the entirety of this pro-
gramme?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Not tlie entire pro-
gramme. Some of it does not require legisla-
tion, as I pointed out; some of it does and
some of it will require joint studies. As I say,
we are conducting studies now with the
federal people. But we intend to implement
the programme. I have given the whole pro-
gramme this morning so that hon. members
can see the broad range of what we are doing.
Some parts of it will require legislation which
will be introduced here at this session.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, will the
hon. Prime Minister give assurance to this
House that we will have an opportunity to
debate this whole programme?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, I would think yes.
The vehicle for debate will be the legislation
which we introduce and I would be quite
happy to debate anything that I have said
here this morning, in whatever piece of legis-
lation that we introduce, should the Opposi-
tion choose to raise it.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): We are all going to be in favour of
this anyway.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
OSHAWA COMMUNITY CHEST
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa) moves second
reading of Bill No. Prl, An Act respecting
Greater Oshawa Community Chest.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF BELLEVILLE
Mr. E. Sandercock (Hastings West) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr3, An Act
respecting the City of Belleville.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale) moves second
reading of Bill No. Pr4, An Act respecting
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Incurables,
Toronto.
Motion agreed to; second reading of tlie
bill.
FEBRUARY 23, 1962
583
VILLAGE OF MARKHAM
In the absence of Mr. A. A. Mackenzie
(York North), Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park)
moves second reading of Bill No. Pr8, An Act
respecting The Village of Markham.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWNSHIP OF NEPEAN
Mr. W. E. Johnston (Carleton) moves
second reading of Bill No, Prl3, An Act
respecting The Township of Nepean.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
NEPEAN AND OTTAWA BOARDS
Mr. W. E. Johnston moves second reading
of Bill No. Prl5, An Act respecting The Higli
School Board of the Township of Nepean and
the Collegiate Institute Board of the City of
Ottawa.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Y.M.C.A. AND Y.W.C.A. OF CORNWALL
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville), in
the absence of Mr. P. Manley (Stormont),
moves second reading of Bill No. Pr23, An
Act respecting The Young Men's Christian
Association and The Young Women's Chris-
tian Association of Cornwall.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): This is the first opportunity I have
had to speak in the Throne debate and I
am very pleased to do so.
At the outset, sir, I should like to commend
you, as is the custom, and I do not do this
in any perfunctory way, for the fashion in
which you carry on your duties as Speaker
of this House. I think all of us on both sides
of the House will admit, in their calmer
moments, even though sometimes there are
intimations to doubt your rulings, sir, that
you are doing your job in a very competent
and impartial way.
Now to get into those matters which I was
about to discuss before the orders of the day
—and I am grateful for this opportunity of
speaking now because it gives me much
greater time to go into the details I would
like to go into— I started out by saying that
I wanted to speak about the Cockshutt
incident in Brantford. And I reminded the
House that as the hon. member for Brantford
(Mr. Gordon) had spoken on this matter
yesterday during his Throne debate speech,
and also I indicated that I supported what
he had to say and corroborated those things
which he told the House because they are
factual.
I should have gone on yesterday before the
orders of the day, sir, but I felt that I should
wait because I wanted to check certain facts
and I believe it is only right that hon. mem-
bers in this House when speaking should be
sure of their facts and not just repeat hearsay
evidence or even those things which they
make up, which come here as outright false-
hoods.
Now, sir, I want to come to the address
made by the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald) over TV on February 21.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, I
happened to have TV on at the time when
his smiling countenance appeared on the
screen. I kept the TV tuned on, as I say,
because it was a most unusual condition it
seemed to me for him to be in. I am used
to having him appear in this House with his
lip curled and his fangs bared, waiting to
get at some juicy morsel, or smear somebody,
and it occurred to me that I should wait and
see just what the gimmick was. Well, I did
not have to wait very long, Mr. Speaker,
because as he got into his address and turned
that smiling countenance to one of more
serious mien, it became obvious that he was
out to get somebody and this is what he did.
That word is spelled "m-i-e-n" but it could
be spelled the other way with equal force.
He got into the Cockshutt matter, but what
disturbed me even beyond that— not only the
smearing of this company, but the smear he
made on the fine city of Brantford— but in
addition he got into the ideology of his party
and left the impression that only through
economic planning, as he called it, could
many of these great abundant gifts from his
party be made available to the province of
Ontario.
Here was the tenor of his remarks. I quote
from the manuscript which he read from, the
night that he gave this famous telecast:
Now, the Cockshutt firm, under the new
name, CKP Developments, is going to take
its millions, earned over the years from
our agricultural communities, and invest
them in real estate in Florida.
So all the people involved in an old
Canadian firm, with 1,400 jobs and millions
584
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of dollars, have been sacrificed to the
greater investment prospects in Florida real
estate. That's free enterprise.
Thirdly, thousands of Canadian fanners
who bought Cockshutt equipment have no
assurance that they will be able to get parts
and service, so they may have a $1,000
machine idle on their hands for want of
a $5 part.
In fact, tliis whole Cockshutt deal
provides a most illuminating commentary
on free enterprise, and the problems of
government in implementing any real
economic planning.
Then he goes on, paragraph after para-
graph, and ends up by saying: "That's free
enterprise in action!"
Then somebody lowered the boom.
I got into this because Mr. G. E. Vincent,
president and general manager, wrote me,
dated February 21, the same night as his
address, and he starts out by saying:
It has come to the writer's attention that
Mr. Donald MacDonald, leader of the
N.D.P., is to make a speech on radio and
television tonight, and that copies of this
speech have already been distributed to
the press gallery.
Now I looked into this and I found out
that the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) knew that his statements about
Cockshutt Farm Equipment Limited were not
correct before he made them. Hours before
his broadcast time, the CBC in Toronto and
at Ottawa had been advised of the in-
accuracies of the statements he was to make.
Yet he persisted in going ahead with his
programme of half truths, innuendoes, mis-
statements and falsehoods. This is all given
in the letter which was indicated by the
hon. member for Brantford yesterday.
I say that I listened with great interest
to the remarks made by the hon. member
for Brantford yesterday. He was quoting
from evidence he had received first-hand; I
checked on the information, I find it to be
true and I corroborate it; and these are not
falsehoods coming from some big American
"whatever the term used by the hon. member
for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) is."
Now I know this will not be too acceptable
to the hon. members opposite in the socialist
group, but nevertheless it is going to be
said no matter how long we have to stay
here. I am happy in a way that the hon.
member for York South did go ahead with his
remarks, although they were a smear on the
company, the city of Brantford, and probably
will result in discouraging other industries
locating in that city. As a result of his broad-
cast we now find— we all are aware— what he
and his party mean when they talk about
"economic planning."
These CCF socialist, NDP-ers, are bound
that they are going to bring economic plan-
ning to this province, to this country; and
now, after these disclosures over TV, it can
well he said that tlie socialists are caught
with their plans down. That is spelled
p-1-a-n-s.
Now what the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald) and his national leader
should be really telling Canadians is what
they will do for Canada with their economic
planning. The attack Wednesday night-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I am in no hurry, Mr.
Speaker; I can outwait all of them.
The attack Wednesday night by the hon.
member for York South on Brantford and
one of its main industries is a classic example
of just what he and his fellow members of
the NDP mean by economic planning.
Let us examine how the ideology preached
by the hon. member for York South is able
to distort and twist facts, all in the name of
democracy and economic planning. Indeed,
he n;iade no effort to learn the true facts, and
ignored them when they were brought to his
attention through the CBC prior to the broad-
cast.
He charged in his broadcast that all the
people involved in an old Canadian firm, with
1,400 jobs and millions of dollars, have been
sacrificed to greater investment prospects in
Florida real estate. He sneeringly labelled
this as free enterprise.
What he did not tell his viewers was that
the old Cockshutt labour force was approxi-
mately 1,200 people. They worked an average
of only 7 months per year, and this figure
includes foundry and forge employees. White-
Oliver, who purchased the old Cockshutt firm,
did not buy the foundry and forge because
both were old and decidedly inefficient and
unprofitable.
He did not advise his viewers that the new
Cockshutt is farming out its foundry and
forge work to local industry, thereby cutting
costs and at the same time assisting other
Canadian companies in maintaining their
labour force. The new Cockshutt's labour
force— less foundry and forge— will build up
to one greater than previously carried and
will have a 12-month production schedule
rather than a six-to-nine month schedule.
FEBRUARY 23, 1962
585
I got this information first-hand, contained
in a letter to me, as I say, from G. E. Vincent,
the president and general manager of Cock-
shutt Farm Equipment of Canada Limited,
dated February 21, 1962, in case somebody
wants to refer to it some time in the future.
Nor did the hon. member for York South
feel it necessary to report that this Brantford
plant of the Cockshutt company is able to
build several machines such as swathers, com-
bines, discers and cultivators more efficiently
and economically than any plant in the United
States. Contrary to the hon. member's view,
the Brantford plant will build these items not
only for the Cockshutt organization, but for
United States plant and the export market as
well.
The charge by the hon. member for York
South that farmers will have no assurance of
getting repair parts for Cockshutt farmers is
just another example of that irresponsibility
licensed by his particular brand of economic
planning and socialism.
The fact of the matter is that Cockshutt
has a tremendous stock of repairs in all parts
of Canada. The company maintains this stock
of repairs and certainly will continue to add
to it as new machines are produced.
For the hon. member for York South to
suggest, as he did, that a farmer would be
stuck with a $1,000 machine for want of a $5
part is the worst kind of irresponsibility be-
cause it is a deliberate attack on an industry
which is vital to the future of Brantford. His
charges, now beyond recovery, will un-
doubtedly cause industries desiring to locate
in the Brantford area to have second thoughts.
And this is one of the most dastardly parts
of his whole speech.
Despite the terrible damage the hon.
member for York South has done to Brant-
ford, at least we can all now be on our guard.
If this is the economic planning envisaged by
the CCF-socialist-NDP group, it is well to
know what they really mean when they talk
about economic planning. They really mean
half truths, false statements, innuendoes and
the destruction of the plans of communities
to attract new industry.
Every citizen of Ontario should realize now
what these socialists would do to their own
municipalities in the name of economic plan-
ning.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): On a point of
privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to con-
gratulate my friends from the Liberal ranks
for their co-operation in helping the hon.
Minister (Mr, Warrender) to make a state-
ment that he could not make earlier under the
rules.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would point out that
I called the hon. member to order immedi-
ately. I would also point out to hon. members
of this House that any hon. member who
wishes to rise on a point of order is certainly
privileged to do so at any time. However, I
am sure you will agree the Speaker must
bear in mind that if hon. members abuse
that privilege, it is the duty of the Speaker
not to recognize them. Now there was no
point of privilege as claimed by the hon.
member and I would ask him to withdraw
what he said, since there was no point of
privilege.
Mr. Bryden: I would like to ask, sir, on
what basis I am asked to withdraw a state-
ment which is a plain statement of fact? I
will apologize to you, sir, if my point was
not a valid point of privilege but as to making
a statement of fact, I do not see on what
basis I should be asked to withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the hon.
member there is no equivocation about what
I ask; it was not a point of privilege on
which he raised his supposed point. There-
fore what he said must be withdrawn, purely
on that basis.
Mr. Bryden: On the basis that it was not a
I^oint of privilege in your view, sir, I will
withdraw it.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, may
I at the outset take this opportunity to thank
you for the splendid way in which you have
been guiding this House. I think you carry
out the duties of your office with dignity and
firmness, and as a member of this House, I
am grateful that we have an outstanding
person such as yourself in this office of
Speaker of the House.
Instead of the hon. member for Woodbine
(Mr. Bryden) rising on a question of privilege,
I think I should have done so. And I would
have, except I had this opportunity to speak,
because I would not want to be accused of
ever co-operating with the Tories. That is
something I have never been guilty of doing.
I assure the House I do not work along with
them at all.
I would like to congratulate, Mr. Speaker,
the newly-elected hon. member for Kenora
(Mr. Gibson), the newly-elected hon. member
for Brant (Mr. Nixon) and also the newly-
elected hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Harris).
586
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The two Liberals who have been elected,
the hon. members for Kenora and Brant are,
I think, something like the pathfinder squad-
rons that they had in the air force during
the war. They set out to find the target, and
when they found the target they blasted away
and then led the way JFor the many planes
that followed later. Hon. members opposite
are going to find that there are going to be
many Liberals follow, to such an extent that
we are going to take over the goverrmient
the next time there is an election.
So I thank especially the hon. member for
Kenora and the hon. member for Brant for
the fine way in which they are leading us
on to greater heights and to better govern-
ment for this province.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House
have had quite a bit to say about the need
for better health services in Ontario. We
have done our best to emphasize the pressing
urgency of better services, especially in
regard to mental health. The Throne speech
always pays generous lip service to the prob-
lem but little else. It is not that nothing has
been done. Grudgingly, after public embar-
rassment such as in the case of the Orillia
Hospital for Retarded Children, the govern-
ment makes some small improvement, but a
very feeble improvement in comparison with
the problem that faces us here in Ontario.
This government will not lead either in
the health field or any other field unless
pressured to do so by public opinion. That
is why I am suggesting a select committee of
this Legislature to investigate the state in this
province of mental health services and how
they can be improved.
I am well aware that this goverrmient often
uses select committees and Royal commissions
as excuses for putting off the making of deci-
sions; to give the appearance of taking action
but in efi^ect avoiding this responsibility for
leadership. However, a select committee can
serve at least one good purpose. It brings
into focus public attention on the problem
or problems being studied. And pubhc atten-
tion is most certainly needed in the field of
mental health.
It is shocking how little leadership is shown
by this government, when one remembers that
mental health— or the lack of it— represents
the biggest single social and medical problem
in Canada. In its various forms, mental ill-
ness keeps more people in hospitals than all
other diseases combined, including cancer,
heart disease, tuberculosis and every other
crippling and killing disease.
In any single day, about 70,000 sick people
are living in Canada's mental hospitals; as
many people as would comprise a city about
the size of Saskatoon, twice as many as Monc-
ton. In Ontario, there are 23,000 beds in our
mental hospitals and in a typical year they
are used to treat 32,000 patients over and
above the very large number who are seen
in outpatients' clinics and counselling services.
The true cost of mental illness is tremen-
dous. One expert calculates that the cost of
running Canada's mental hospitals for a year,
paying welfare charges for families of the
mentally ill plus the indirect cost of loss of
earnings, family breakdowns, suicides, crimes,
accidents, if eliminated would:
Wipe out personal income taxes for every
Canadian earning up to $5,000 annually; or
present all newly-weds with a $10,000
home; or
put a deep freeze unit in every home in
Canada; or
provide university scholarships to train
50,000 doctors, nurses, dentists, teachers and
engineers at no cost to the individual.
This problem of mental health has become
such a vast and difficult problem striking
equally across all groups of society regardless
of race or economic status because govern-
ment, and this government of Ontario in par-
ticular, does very little to solve the problem.
Let us take a look at how little is actually
done.
There is a hospital for emotionally dis-
turbed children at Thistletown, which is one
of our few efforts in research in mental
health. There is a brand new, well equipped
laboratory for research in this hospital, but
it has been empty since the Ontario govern-
ment took over the hospital in 1957. This
government is either not interested or is
incapable of finding any qualified personnel
to operate the laboratory.
One director of a mental institution in
Ontario who looks after 1,600 patients esti-
mated that 1,000 of these 1,600 could still
benefit from intensive treatment if the facili-
ties were available. Tremendous strides have
been made in the knowledge of mental ill-
ness but little or nothing is being done,
especially by the government of Ontario.
It is known that occupational therapy is
of tremendous help in curing mental illness,
yet in spite of all the knowledge that is
available to this government, the total num-
ber of trained occupational therapists in the
provincial mental health service is 44 to look
after a patient population of 23,000, the
majority of whom could benefit enormously
from having some productive pastime.
In one mental hospital in Ontario that has
FEBRUARY 23, 1962
587
1,800 patients, there are only two occupa-
tional therapy workers.
Despite the fact that every year 15,000
mentally-defective children are born in
Canada and that we now have a national
total of 500,000, we are doing next to nothing
to study this problem, although it is known
real progress could be made if personnel were
supplied. Ontario is typical of this neglect.
We in Ontario not only lack highly skilled
help, we also lack regular staJBF in our mental
hospitals. We spend only $5 per day per
patient in our mental hospitals. A bed in a
general hospital where patients are treated
for physical illness or injury costs the public
up to $30 a day.
When one considers that our greatest prob-
lem in regard to health is mental health, it
is obvious that this government is not doing
nearly what is required to meet the prob-
lem.
One other matter that has given cause
for discontent and has been one of the main
reasons why we have not been able to obtain
proper staff in our mental hospitals, is the
problem of pay of attendants in mental in-
stitutions. Attendants in mental institutions
must play a difficult, dual role of nurse and
warder, and yet they get far less than
guards in the Don jail or in penitentiaries;
and certainly even these guards and jailers
are underpaid. The comparative figures are
as follows:
An attendant in a mental hospital for the
first two years gets from $2,760 to $3,120,
and then $3,120 to $3,600; supervisors re-
ceive from $3,600 to $4,050. A guard in a
jail starts at $3,480 to $4,050; a corporal
receives $4,050 to $4,400; a sergeant from
$4,400 to $4,800; and a lieutenant from
$4,800 to $5,250.
It is reported in a Toronto daily news-
paper that the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond) has promised to look into this. I
will venture to say that he will look into
it and then look the other way. The hon.
Minister says he is interested and I do not
doubt him, but it is more than obvious that
the all-powerful treasury board in this Tory
government has little interest and could not
care less about mental health in the province
of Ontario.
Our federal government allots $1.50 per
head per year for research on defence, and
$3 on atomic energy; but we spend only 4.50
cents per head per year on research into the
cause, diagnosis and treatment of illnesses
like mental derangement and retardation.
The present hon. Minister of Health started
a mental health research foundation and
from private resources, $500,000 was donated.
The government has not seen fit to add to
these private funds, nor has much assistance
been given to the mental health research
foundation.
This government's approach to the mental
health problem over the years is in many
ways best illustrated by the Penetang Hos-
pital. There are two divisions, as hon.
members probably all know, of the Fort
Penetanguishene Hospital. One is the Oak-
ridge or maximum security division housing
270 men detained either because of alleged
connection with some crime, or because as
inmates of another Ontario hospital they
have proved unmanageable.
The other division houses 200 men and
200 women patients. These patients are
either there on purely civil grounds, either
as voluntary patients or because they have
been medically certified as insane. Also
mixed in with these people is another group
of persons held behind bars in Oakridge who
have committed no crime nor have they
given any trouble. Leonard Bertin, the
Toronto Daily Star science editor, has re-
ported that their presence there is: "a
reflection on the unfortunate state of the
rest of the hospitals, where buildings are long
outdated and are in some cases a disgrace
to the province."
It is possible for a person to be committed
to a hospital for the mentally ill such as the
hospital at Penetang for the rest of his
natural life. He can be committed to that
hospital, either by a court or by physicians,
and can be kept there until he dies without
any opportunity of a review of his case
except by a review of the staff of the hospital;
a staff incidentally which is undermanned
and underpaid.
Some years ago, there was what has been
called the McClure commission which in-
vestigated the cases of those people who used
insanity as a defence when charged with a
crime. This commission suggested that every
year a board of independent experts should
review the cases of each of the judicial
patients in provincial hospitals.
These recommendations were not accepted
by the provincial government here in Ontario,
but it seems that this will be the solution to
some extent in solving the problem of not
only those mental patients who are held in
our institutions because they pleaded mental
insanity, but also it would provide a review
board for those people who have been kept
in our mental institutions because they were
voluntary patients or because they were com-
mitted for other reasons.
588
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, we had a discussion here
yesterday on the bill of rights for people in
Ontario. But when we bear in mind that
there are people in our mental hospitals that
could be kept there for the rest of their lives
with little or no recourse, hon. members can
see that there arc still many facets in our
laws that we must improve if we are really
going to give individuals in this province a
real and tnie bill of rights.
Our provincial hospital at Penetang has
been called a "provincial disgrace", a place
for voluntary patients kept in buildings that
are long outdated. I am glad to see that it is
reported in our newspapers that the hon.
Minister of Health hopes to rebuild the
section of Penetang which is reserved for
non-judicial patients from the local surround-
ing area, which includes Collingwood and
Barrie "as soon as funds are available in seven
or eight years".
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, despite all the pub-
licity that has been given to this problem,
despite the fact that this is an obvious dis-
grace to the province of Ontario, despite the
fact that the way we conduct the Penetang
hospital is contrary to everything that medical
science tells us is the right way, this govern-
ment talks in terms of "hoping to do some-
thing". Imagine! Hoping to do something
in seven or eight years.
Well, they are not going to be here much
longer and there is going to be a new govern-
ment in this province and the work will be
done long before that time.
Despite statements published by the hon.
Minister of Health assuring that the police
have only to ask the assistance of an Ontario
hospital to get an emergency case admitted
for treatment, Ontario still continues to jail
the mentally ill; and the mentally-ill people
who really have a rough time in the province
of Ontario are those who have committed no
crime. Under Ontario law, as now interpreted
by the legal advisers of the mental health
department, provincial mental healtli hospitals
may not accept persons charged as mentally
sick by the police unless they have been
charged as well with another crime. In other
words, as long as a person has committed
some offence against the law, a magistrate
can send such a man to a hospital for exam-
ination but if a mentally-ill person has been
picked up by the police but has not been
charged with a crime, the mentally-ill person
is merely lodged in jail.
This fact was brought prominently to the
attention of the Ontario public by the warden
of the Renfrew county jail who complained
of the archaic conditions at his jail which
have resulted in violent mental patients being
tied to cell beds for a period of days. The
Canadian Press reports read as follows.
This is from Pembroke. It is entitled:
Mental Patients Tied to
Jail Beds— Warden
Archaic conditions at Renfrew county
jail have resulted in violent mental patients
being tied to cell beds "for a period of
days", jail warden Thomas Chambers said
yesterday.
Reporting to County Council on "utterly
impossible" conditions in the jail, Mr.
Chambers said that during the last two
months the jail has accommodated 10
mental patients.
"Three of these were extremely violent
and dangerous. In some instances mental
patients have to be strapped to the bed
and tied hand and foot for a period of
days. In some cases they are kept in jail
for a period of 10 days to two weeks before
their admittance to hospital can be
arranged."
Mr. Chambers said 25 to 35 men are
jammed into cells designed 50 years ago
for seven or eight prisoners. First offenders,
hardened criminals, and alcoholics of all
ages were imprisoned together, with no
means of segregation.
Two prisoners nearly succeeded in saw-
ing their way out of cells two months
ago, he said.
"The situation can be remedied in only
one way— expansion", the warden told the
council.
Certainly from that press clipping, Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that at fault is not only
The Department of Health but The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions and The Depart-
ment of the Attorney-General.
Protests of Warden Thomas Chambers
brought about a press release from the
Canadian Mental Health Association which
in part read as follows:
Time and again this association has
pointed out that mentall>-ill people have
been sent to jail by Ontario law officers
and has called for a halt to this barbarous
practice.
Said Bertrand Gerstein, President of the
Canadian Mental Health Association, Ontario
Division:
Yet somehow it continues despite state-
ments published by the Minister of Health
assuring that the police have only to ask
FEBRUARY 23, 1962
589
the assistance of an Ontario hospital to
get an emergency case admitted for treat-
ment.
We think it is high time for the
Attorney-General, the magistrates, and
other law officers to take some positive
action to get mentally-disturbed people to
emergency quarters in local hospitals. Over-
crowded or not, jail is no more a place for
mentally-ill persons than for a coronary
victim. Both need medical treatment
quickly, not penal custody
concluded Mr, Gerstein.
Now the hon. Minister of Health has
publicly given assurance that no person
suspected of being mentally ill should ever be
taken to jail by police or remanded there by
magistrates. However, despite the hon.
Minister's assurance, the practice continues.
Officials in the government say, and I
quote: "The law is the law and a ministerial
direction cannot change it". The law states
that where a person is charged with an
offence in addition to the charge of being
mentally ill, he may be remanded to hospital;
but a person who is charged only with being
mentally sick shall be sent to a safe and
comfortable place.
Because the mental hospitals are not
specifically named as a safe and comfortable
place, the legal officials seem to think that
mental hospitals should therefore not be con-
sidered as such. I know that in reply to a
question, the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) said in this House that he considers
a mental hospital a safe and comfortable
place, and I am glad to hear that, but
despite what he says and despite what the
hon. Minister of Health says, in practice the
jailing of the mentally ill still goes on.
There are only four beds set apart in the
Toronto Psychiatric Hospital for mentally-ill
patients picked up by the police and there
is usually a long waiting list.
Two recent cases, both reported in local
newspapers, indicate what normally happens.
One was of a woman who caused a com-
motion in an Avenue Road church declaring
that she was the daughter of God and de-
manding the money owing her.
She was taken by police to the city hall
and seen by Justice of the Peace Stuart A.
Williamson whom Senior Magistrate Elmore
has directed to deal with such cases. Mr.
Williamson explained that he had no alter-
native but to remand her to the Don jail
for examination and she was taken off scream-
ing: "I may be ill but I am not a criminal."
The second case was a man who removed
his clothes in a city hall cell and then naked
started climbing the cell bars. It was later
established that he had distributed $1,000
among people he met earlier in the day. He
too was remanded to the Don jail.
Persons who have committed no crimes
end up in the Don jail because they are
mentally ill.
Once a person has been seen in the Don
jail by doctors and diagnosed by them as
mentally ill, city hall authorities rush com-
mital papers to the mental health branch
at Queen's Park by despatch rider. From
then on, the business of finding accommoda-
tion in an Ontario hospital and informing
the Don jail is normally dealt with by mail.
A sick person may remain in the cells for
anything from 48 hours to eight days or
more. Protestations of the hon. Minister of
Health and the hon. Attorney-General to the
contrary, very little has been done about
this problem.
Now, as late as yesterday evening the hon.
Minister of Health was quoted in the paper
as the result of his discussions with the Metro
welfare committee as follows, and this is from
the Toronto Daily Star, yesterday's paper:
Ontario Health Minister Matthew
Dymond told Metro welfare committee
today his department will look after
apparent mental health patients detained
by police. In a letter Dr. Dymond said
Ontario hospitals at Toronto, New Toronto
and Whitby will accept patients at any time
but he said they would have to be sent
there by the police.
In other words, the same procedure as I
have outlined just before making this quota-
tion. It still prevails, that sick persons will
still remain in a jail from 48 hours to 10
days simply because they are mentally ill,
not because they have committed a crime.
Metro Chairman William Allan said he
would ask the police commission to investi-
gate arrangements with the health depart-
ment to have persons detained in hospital
instead of at the Don Jail if they appear to
be suffering from a mental illness. I am
convinced this distressing matter can be
solved quickly, he said. [That is Metro
Chairman Allan.] Alderman Margaret
Campbell said it was remarkable that the
health department had always had facilities
while the issue had been debated in public.
Swansea Reeve Dorothy Haig said, they
just have not bothered.
Well, I do not believe facilities always have
been available here in the city of Toronto.
590
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We have only four beds for mentally-ill
people picked up by the police in the Toronto
Psychiatric Hospital and our hospitals here
have far too many people in them now. I
can agree if the government says there is
not proper space, but if there is not proper
space this has been a neglect of the govern-
ment for a period of 18 years and the respon-
sibility still rests with this government. I
think Swansea Reeve Dorothy Haig speaks the
truth when she says: "They just have not
bothered."
The last part of this newspaper clipping I
think has some good advice for the hon.
Minister of Health.
Last week Dr. John Griffin, director of
the Canadian Mental Health Association,
said use of the Don jail for holding
mentally-ill prisoners is condemned by
police magistrates, municipal officials and
psychiatrists, yet nothing was being done
to stop it. He suggested banging a few
heads together at the official level.
I think possibly the hon. Minister of Health
should bang the heads of the treasury board
togetlier and get some funds to do something
about this pressing problem of mental health.
Dr. Barry Boyd, the newly appointed
superintendent of the Penetang Hospital, has
said, in referring to the problem of the
mentally ill:
This is not a problem that can be solved
in Penetang— it is one for the community
to solve. Every intelligent citizen should
stay awake for a night or two and ponder
over it.
That is why I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that
a select committee of this Legislature be
appointed to look into the problems facing
the mentally ill. Perhaps, the resultant
publicity will cause enough public interest
to pressure this government into far more
than it has been doing. Mental health is a
major health problem facing our province
and our country today and yet government
sleeps on. Let us have a select committee
and perhaps, just perhaps, this government
will try to do something to improve the
situation of these mentally ill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down I
would like to address myself to one more
problem that is facing not only the province
of Ontario but all of Canada; and of course
I am mainly interested in how it ajBEects
Ontario.
In Ontario today, there exists a social
problem of such magnitude that it can be
rightly called a crisis, and this crisis will
continue to worsen unless we take immediate
steps to stop it. Thousands of adults are
unable to find satisfactory employment, and
the consequent unemployment is caused at
least in part by insufficient education and
obsolete occupational skills. This situation
will become more acute with increasing auto-
mation of business and industry.
The Canadian economy is bound to suflFer,
but worst of all, the spiritual and social cost
to the community is bound to be enormous.
Education, re-training and upgrading of skills
is not the whole answer to our problem but
it can go a long way in solving this crisis.
In Toronto alone, we spend $1.5 million
per week in unemployment benefits to assist
the unemployed. We must see to it that these
people get more than just a government
cheque. We must help the people to help
themselves. The unemployment insurance
cheque must be combined with opportunities
for rehabilitation through work, job training
and community work designed to pave the
way to a productive place in society for
those who were once unskilled.
This is the situation in Canada today: over
70 per cent of Canada's unemployed in one
recent year had no schooling past Grade 8;
one-third of Canada's children are still
leaving school with less than Grade 8 educa-
tion; Canada has only half as many skilled
workers in proportion to ix)pulation as the
United States— one-third as many as Germany.
I was surprised to learn that, Mr. Speaker.
We think that we are well advanced, but in
proportion to our population we only have
half the skilled workers as the United States,
only one-third the skilled workers that Ger-
many has.
To continue: a recent national employment
service survey in Toronto showed 19,340 jobs
for skilled workmen going unfilled and 23,000
unplaced workers— unplaced because they
could not qualify for the 19,000 empty posi-
tions; an estimated 2 million Canadians are
functionally illiterate today, that is, they are
not capable of taking and applying further
training; the core of unemployable persons
is getting larger. Last winter it was estimated
at 80,000— and now the estimates run as high
as 200,000 for all of Canada.
In the tremendous prosperity of the forties
and fifties, many hundreds of thousands of
Canada's young people left school for the
high-paid unskilled jobs in construction and
road-building and mining work. During that
period, the number of potential job-seekers in
Canada rose by approximately only 5,000
a year.
FEBRUARY 23, 1962
591
Then the "war babies" came upon the
labour market. By about 1957, there ap-
peared 100,000 teenagers a year on the
market. The crop in 1958 and 1959 was
111,000.
To quote from a report by A. V. Pigott,
director of the Canadian Association for Adult
Education, he says:
In 1960-1970, 1 million young people
will need employment at a time when room
must be made for immigrants and married
women— a time when there are fewer
people living on investments and more
elderly people hoping to work. The prob-
lem will not be solved by keeping out
skilled immigrants— we need skills, married
women and older workers— we need their
ability and experience.
Unemployment is striking hardest at the
younger people. In March, 1960, in the city
of Toronto 74 per cent of the heads of fam-
ilies and 48 per cent of the single people
unemployed and receiving relief were under
40 years of age.
This is a tremendous social waste, Mr.
Speaker, and it is coming about because
governments, and particularly this govern-
ment, are taking very little or no interest.
During the autumn of 1960, nearly 40 per
cent of the recipients of welfare in Scar-
borough were under 29 years of age. Even
those young people without adequate train-
ing who do find jobs must accept those with
little future or security. Generally, Grade 10
is required even for menial jobs and Grade
12 for the lowest position in an office. Ontario
provides an example of the numbers lost to
even these jobs.
For example, in a recent year, we had
397,000 pupils entering elementary schools;
33 per cent dropped out before high school;
35 per cent dropped out before junior matri-
culation; 24 per cent were out before senior
matriculation, and only eight per cent entered
university.
Two-thirds of these students, Mr. Speaker,
dropped out before junior matriculation; in
other words less than one-third of these stu-
dents are available for training in a nation
which needs trained men.
About one-quarter of the secondary school
students in Canada are enrolled in vocational
courses, however, about three-quarters of
those who leave secondary school obtain jobs
which are largely technical and for which
training ought to be of a technical or voca-
tional nature.
When we say that one-quarter get trained
but three-quarters of our students go into
vocational work, we can say that we are
sending out a huge number of people onto
the market that are untrained.
At present, good training facilities are not
being provided for this large group of the
population. It would appear that far less
than two-thirds of the students who will go
into vocational occupations have an oppor-
tunity for technical training.
If we do not attack this problem, Mr.
Speaker, of the poorly trained and unskilled,
we will have to pay the bills of our neglect
in the form of relief, unemployment insur-
ance at an ever increasing rate. Today, the
bill for unemployment insurance benefits
alone amounts to $500 million a year. Added
to this are the costs of family breakdowns,
crime and social unrest.
If we leave a hard core of thousands of
people who are permanently unemployed and
eventually unemployable, we will nurture a
cancer that will give us nothing but trouble
in the future. It should be evident to all that
we must be able to aflFord to spend large
sums of money on imparting skills to people
whether they are employed or unemployed.
If we make it possible for those who are
already semi-skilled to upgrade themselves,
they will climb the ladder and leave room
at the bottom for those who at the present
time have no employment.
If the thousands of people on whom we
spend half a billion dollars a year in unem-
ployment relief had been at work, they would
have earned more than double that amount-
double the figure again to cover the produc-
tion they would have brought about, add
one job for every so many employed being
necessary for their service, and so it goes on.
Unemployment is an unhappy and an ex-
pensive condition. Education and training
can do much to solve the problem.
And mind you, Mr. Speaker, I am not
saying it solves the problem entirely. I am
saying that it can do much, it can go a long
way to solve the problem of unemployment.
Seventy per cent of British university
students are supported on generous terms.
The students in Russia receive a salary. In
Canada, one student in six receives some kind
of financial support.
The demand for unskilled workers is drop-
ping ofiF and will continue to do so. The term
semi-skilled is taking on a new meaning at
a higher level than it had formerly. Many
people are as obsolete in the world of work
as are the tools they handled and the
machines they tended a few years ago. From
592
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
1949 to 1959, employment in Canada in-
creased by 24 per cent. The changes in
occupation took place as follows:
Now remember that our employment in-
creased in ten years 24 per cent, but employ-
ment in the professions increased 71 per cent;
the skilled 38 per cent; the white collar 34
per cent; the semi-skilled only 19 per cent;
and the other types, that is the unskilled, de-
creased 27 per cent. So the unskilled worker
and the semi-skilled worker are caught in a
vise and this will become a cancer of the
future in our social life and in our economic
life if we do not do something to solve it
forthwith. The demand—
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Our federal-provincial trade training school
programme, costing over $100 million, insti-
tuted last year, was to take care of the
situation the hon. member mentions. Our
government acts without delay in these
matters.
Mr. Trotter: I hear the hon. Minister from
Port Arthur (Mr. Wardrope) and I will give
him very shortly figures as to the record of
this government and how little they have
been doing.
The demand is definitely in the field of
the skilled worker. It is obvious that gov-
ernment is going to have to concern itself
much more with the training and re-training
of adults and with pursuing the problem of
preparing youth for the world of work.
It is a fact that there is a demand in
Toronto and elsewhere for skill. Many con-
tinuing job opportunities go begging for
persons to fill them while we have large
numbers of job applicants in our files.
Populationwise we are a very small country
and the only way we can maintain a high
standard of living is to have a high standard
of craftsmanship, to be creative and to be
venturesome. We cannot afiFord to waste
either our raw products or our talents.
Ontario's record in re-training the unem-
ployed is mighty poor. Schedule "M"— it is
now called Programme 5, but for years it was
known as Schedule "M"— of the special voca-
tional training project agreement between
the federal and provincial governments first
came into effect in Canada in 1945 and has
been continued up to the present time
through the vocational training agreement
and is now referred to within the last year
as Programme No. 5.
While Schedule "M" was signed by British
Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova
Scotia in 1945, Ontario did not bother to sign
the agreement with the federal government
until 1948. Even then, Ontario failed to im-
plement the programme. The idea was,
imder Schedule "M", that the federal govern-
ment would pay 50 per cent of the cost of re-
training imemployed workers. In the past
year, the federal government has upped its
ante to 75 per cent of the cost.
M. J. Fen wick, assistant to the director.
District No. 6 of the United Steelworkers of
America, pointed out in an address of Febru-
ary 11, 1961, that Ontario's training record
was less than two per cent of the workers
training in Canada under this scheme.
Now that is a shocking thing, Mr. Speaker,
only two per cent of all the workers trained
under the scheme were trained in Ontario.
This despite the fact that we are an industrial
province, the leading industrial province, and
despite the fact that we are the largest prov-
ince, only two per cent trained in all of
Canada were from Ontario.
Of 23,100 people trained under the scheme
up until November of 1960, Ontario had
trained only slightly over 1,000 people. Mr.
Fenwick claimed that his investigation led
him to conclude that although Ontario had
trainees listed under Schedule "M", no actual
Schedule "M" training had taken place in
Ontario. He claimed that apparently this
province had been registering night class stu-
dents and others as Schedule "M" trainees to
pad the records. When he made this charge,
representatives of the provincial government
were present and the charge went un-
answered.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that The Depart-
ment of Education, under which this training
programme comes, needs a full-time Minister.
This is not a part-time job and I think when
we see results such as this even when the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) was work-
ing full time on the job, they were not doing
a very good job. I think this is one more
item to point out that the hon. Minister of
Education (Mr. Robarts) should confine him-
self with that department.
Prior to February, 1961, Ontario had a
very poor showing despite the fact of the
rapidly growing technological unemploy-
ment. In the fiscal year 1957, no workers
were re-trained. In 1958, 151; in 1959, 177;
and in 1960, 65. All of these, so far as we
can find out, were in Windsor. Enrolment
in Ontario in the year 1960 under Schedule
"M" amounted to a mere 1.4 per cent of the
national total. It is a shocking record.
According to a table supplied by the Cana-
dian vocational training section of the federal
FEBRUARY 23, 1962
593
Department of Labour, Ontario had nine per-
sons in training, ostensibly under Schedule
"M" in November of 1960, six in commercial
courses and three in welding. This compared
with 119 in Newfoundland, and 113 in New
Brunswick.
After 15 years of indifference, the govern-
ment of Ontario in January of 1961 finally
instituted a stepped-up programme under
Schedule "M", but just how feeble this in-
creased programme is in comparison with the
needs of the times I will demonstrate.
Besides Schedule "M", which was included
in the federal-provincial re-establishment
agreement in 1945, which was legislation of
a Liberal government, there were other
schedules. For example, under Schedule "P",
which is training for primary industries,
Quebec has trained over 58,000 people;
Ontario a mere 10,000; Manitoba 32,000;
British Columbia over 72,000; and yet
Ontario, still the largest province and the
threat industrial province, has trained only
10,759.
It is obvious that Ontario has taken very
little interest in the re-training of its unem-
ployed. The hon. Minister of Education who
is responsible for this training has paid little
or no attention to the advancing technology
and the needs of the work force of Ontario.
For example, the total cost of Ontario's
re-training programme for the unemployed in
the year ending March 31, 1960, amounted to
just over $18,000, including the federal share
of 50 per cent.
Now the federal government pays 75 per
cent of the cost. This means that every dollar
of improvement to the programme in terms
of facilities, living allowance, instruction, etc.,
will cost Ontario 25 cents. With this assist-
ance and prodded by a growing public
impatience the Ontario government last
November made one of its dazzling announce-
ments—one of its better headline-getting
announcements— of the millions it was going
to spend on re-training.
Let us take a look at this effort. Of 6,893
unemployed people interviewed in Toronto
for re-training courses only 1,829 could
qualify.
The main reasons why the vast majority
could not take the courses were as follows:
45 per cent had a Grade 8 or less education.
The courses usually call for a Grade 10 edu-
cation. A desired course was not available
for 16 per cent. Twenty-six per cent could
not get by on the living allowance. A married
man with three children must live on $36
per week. The average wage in Toronto is
$80.00 per week and of all the people that
were turned down, only 15 per cent were
turned down because it was felt they did not
have the proper motivation.
Despite all this 1,829 were available. But
even at its best only 515 are on course at the
provincial institute of trades.
Hon. members can see that the programme
that the province now has comes nowhere
meeting the problem and I am safe in saying,
Mr. Speaker, that such a programme as
announced by the government is a phony
programme.
At the present time there are over 60,000
unemployed in Toronto, 120,000 unemployed
in Ontario. It should be obvious that the
government is making no real effort. No
matter how big the headlines, the programme
is a phony.
And I think there is no better illustration
of that, Mr. Speaker, than the memorandum
that each hon. member of the Legislature
received from the educational department of
the Italian community, the promotion centre
here in the city of Toronto. It is a well
drawn-up memorandum, it is very terse and
to the point and sets out exactly and illustrates
very well just what kind of a retraining pro-
gramme we have here in Toronto and in
Ontario. This is from the memorandum:
Ontario's Vocational
Re-training Programme
The problem: under existing Ontario
laws and practices it has become impossible
for an adult to learn a designated trade
unless he is prepared either to join the
armed forces or unhappily becomes an in-
mate of a penal institution.
And this despite the fact, Mr. Speaker, that
we had headlines last November saying that
the government was going to spend $100
million on re-training. But the memorandum
goes on:
In November of 1961, in what was
widely heralded as a serious effort to cope
with the growing unemployment problem
among immigrant workers, the Ontario
Department of Education gave its approval
to a programme for the re-training of un-
employed citizens under Schedule Five,
which included a series of courses at the
provincial institute of trades.
Tlie courses provided for 50 per cent
academic training and the remaining time
to be devoted to an orientation programme
by which the student would move from
shop to shop spending approximately 100
hours in each and acquiring the basic skill
in each of a number of trades.
594
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Well, Mr. Speaker, this was fine, and so
they went ahead in December of 1961 to
line up prospective students and then in
January of 1962 tliey hired 13 instructors for
the provincial institute of trades to carry
out the programme. Then on January 9,
1962, a battery of national employment
service counsellors processed 225 applications
for the up-grading classes. Mind, even as a
pilot effort, this would have some hope, but
at the most this is 225 in a city where there
are 60,000 unemployed.
Then one day after they processed these
225 applicants this is what happened on
January 10 of this year: the provincial
institute of trades, where the courses were
planned to take place, received instructions
from The Department of Education that all
practical work in the designated trades was
to be stopped.
On the afternoon of the same day, 180 un-
employed citizens with high hopes reported
for training in anticipation that both
theoretical and practical work would be avail-
able. They were informed that unexpected
problems had arisen re the practical phase of
the course and that for now the academic
phase only would be given.
Now it has been possible since 1945 to
have thfs type of course; and this government
today, after all its big announcements, is still
having its practical problems. So for all
intents and purposes, these people are getting
no training.
On January 14, 1962, the Italian Com-
munity Promotion Centre dispatched a tele-
gram to the Hon. John P. Robarts, Prime
Minister of Ontario.
They are a group here in the city and I
know of one church in my own riding where
they have been doing work on this re-training.
I do not wish to mention the names of the
various people concerned, but certainly
responsible people— I again repeat that this
is typical. I know of other instances, but be-
cause this memorandum is before every hon.
member here in the Legislature I am refer-
ring to it. Certainly different churches and
different social groups in the west end of
Toronto have done their best for this
particular group of Italians.
This is not only a matter of Italians, this
is a matter of all the unemployed here not
only in the city of Toronto but in Ontario. It
is the question that they need training and I
do not care what their racial background is.
On January 14, 1962, the Italian Com-
munity Promotion Centre dispatched the
following telegram to the Hon. J. P. Robarts,
Prime Minister of Ontario:
ITALIAN COMMUNITY OF TORONTO DEEPLY
REGRETS REVERSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
FIRST DECISION TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL AND
ACADEMIC TRAINING FOR ITALIAN IMMIGRANTS
AT THE PROVINCIAL INSTITUTE OF TRADES
UNDER SCHEDULE FIVE.
IT IS THE SINCERE HOPE OF THE ITALIAN
COMMUNITY THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL
RECONSIDER THIS REGRETTABLE ACTION AND
IMMEDIATELY REINSTATE ITS FIRST PLAN TO
PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVE TRAINING UNDER
THIS SCHEME.
The upshot of it all has been that the
government has not seen fit to re-establish
its programme or to bring it back into action
—to activate it as they promised.
On January 16, 1962, bricklaying, plumb-
ing, steamfitting and painting instructors were
informed that their employment would ter-
minate on Friday, January 19.
On January 18, 1962, the timetable at the
provincial institute was reorganized and an
announcement was made that there was no
shopwork in the designated trades. Some
practical work was provided in welding and
in cabinet-making, since these trades were
not considered then designated. Classes
operated from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m.
On January 22, The Department of Educa-
tion, apparently after consulting the director
of the apprenticeship branch of The Depart-
ment of Labour, discovered that any work in
cabinet-making was also unacceptable to The
Department of Labour.
Then again on the same day, the provincial
institute of trades were informed that
cabinet-making instructors would terminate
their employment as of January 26, 1962, and
that this phase of the programme would
cease.
Then on January 26 the attendance classes
averaged 105 men, of which 28 men were
taking basic training in academic subjects, 38
in academic subjects plus welding, 21 men
taking blueprint reading plus academic sub-
jects, and 29 men taking for the last day
cabinet-making plus academic subjects.
Now, this is just typical of the feeble
efforts the provincial government has made
in re-training. We have a situation of hun-
dreds of thousands of unemployed in Canada,
60,000 alone in Toronto, and this is the
poor feeble effort being made by the govern-
ment here. Certainly the Italian community's
memorandum shows us how feeble this re-
training programme really is.
FEBRUARY 23, 1962
595
Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous, pressing,
urgent problem of Ontario's untrained un-
employed, and if it is to be solved we must,
among other things, do the following— here
are some suggestions for you, you are so short
on ideas over there, so here are some sug-
gestions for you:
(a) encourage our school children to
remain in school longer;
(b) encourage vocational training and
enhance its prestige;
(c) give those taking the courses decent
living allowances;
(d) give municipalities greater access to
low-interest funds; special help is needed
by certain areas of the province more
economically depressed than others; second-
ary industry needs sponsorship in order
to give more stable conditions; and
(e) increase our university population.
But most of all, Mr. Speaker, give the
province some leadership. It is a shame and
a disgrace that the greatest province of a
great nation has thousands of unemployed
when the cause of freedom needs everybody
at work. We need a new government in this
province, Mr. Speaker, and the great win
of the Liberals in the recent by-elections is
a sign of hope for progress in the province
of Ontario.
Mr. H. E. Beckett (York East): It is a
privilege-
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Is the hon.
member the chairman of the redistribution
committee?
Mr. Beckett: Why not? I would like to
do that. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that
would be a privilege.
However, it is a privilege for me, Mr.
Speaker, to say a few words on the Throne
debate and also on municipal government
and the general body of municipal law in
force today in the province.
It was over 40 years ago that I first entered
Scarborough township council and York
county council— and at the time, Mr. Speaker,
you really only had to know something about
The Municipal Act, The Assessment Act and
The Local Improvement Act. However, today,
besides many more Acts and regulations,
there are scores of private bills of which you
must have some knowledge. The field is
ever growing larger and therefore much more
difficult to understand.
The Baldwin Act of 1849 has well deserved
the title of "The Magna Carta of municipal
government in Canada." Though the Act of
1849 may appear to many to be merely a
matter of historic interest, such is not the
case, since it still stands today as the statute
upon which all our municipal institutions are
based and from which in principle no radical
departure has been made.
It brought into existence the basic unit of
the township council from which all other
councils have been developed, and that Act
fixed the number of a township council at
five, and the five to be elected annually, with
one of them to be appointed as reeve and,
if the population was sufficient, another as
deputy reeve.
The council back in those days was given
general authority to carry out the affairs of
the municipality, pass certain by-laws, ap-
point officers, buy real estate for the purposes
of the municipality, establish schools, under-
take works, improve roads, license and regu-
late trades and businesses of various kinds,
and impose and collect rates and borrow
money sufficient for the municipality. For
urban municipalities, there were only a few
existed at that date and they were given
similar powers. As a matter of fact, it was
a common council with no boards or com-
missions.
In 1924, Mr. Speaker, a similar bill was
proposed here, not in the Legislature but
before a committee, to have the common
council of the municipalities of the province
of Ontario; but it only got to committee
stage.
It is now well over 100 years since the
original statute of our present system was
passed, and while many amendments and
amplifications have been made to keep pace
with municipal progress, the basis has re-
mained unchanged throughout the 15 con-
solidations and revisions of The Municipal
Act made from 1859 to 1960.
During the 112 years which have elapsed
since the time when local home rule was first
granted, there has been a tremendous devel-
opment in municipal affairs; and it now
seems a far-off day from the time when the
problems which chiefly confronted a muni-
cipal council centred around the questions of
stoning the main roads and streets, providing
ditches, laying wooden walks, erecting gas
lamps, employing police, pounds, fences, and
other matters which now appear simple and
inexpensive, though at that time they were
very important. But even up to the end of
the last century, the conduct of municipal
affairs was largely free from the complications
of the present age; probably the biggest
596
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
problem and financial burden which until
that time municipal councils had to face,
was the subsidizing of railways, and that is
something that you wonder about.
I can remember very well, when a pro-
posed railway was to be built east from
Toronto, that all the local municipalities were
asked if they would guarantee a certain
amount in debentures. That was done in
quite a few instances, in the subsidizing of
these railways, so many of which proved to
be disastrous financial commitments for the
municipalities.
The past 60 years has witnessed a remark-
able transition, revolutionary in many of its
aspects, in municipal enterprise and activity.
There was a day when municipal undertaking
was confined to the provision of works and
services of a very limited character and ex-
tent, and beyond these limits it was not
thought advisable or competent for a muni-
cipal council to embark. There was a clear-
cut line between matters of public and private
enterprise, and any invasion of the territory
of private capital was strongly protested.
Nor was it thought proper, Mr. Speaker,
for a community to enter into the field of
religious, philanthropic and charitable organ-
izations, except perhaps by the granting of
some monetary aid by way of encouragement.
However, that is all changed today, and it
is now somewhat difficult to conceive of any
activity or interest into which it would be
felt that a municipality could not launch,
whether it is a matter of general community
enterprise or of a sectional or even individual
character.
It is not easy to particularize as to the cause
of this revolutionary transition, since it is the
multiplicity of these causes, coupled with
the remarkable difference in mental outlook
upon human affairs, which go to the root
of the change. Not only the state, but the
municipality, has been obliged to take the
place of the parent and assume the respon-
sibilities of the individual in many human
relations— as is readily seen and observed
when municipal undertakings for schools,
recreation, hospitals, charity, child welfare
and other moral and social influences are
examined. And in the field of public works
and services the change is probably more
apparent when we look upon our utility
undertakings, highway systems and the like.
Around The Municipal Act, however, there
has had to be built up that general body of
municipal law to take care, in a legislative
way, of the various phases of activity and
enterprise into which municipalities have
ventured or been drawn. To such an extent
has this grown that it now occupies about
one-third of the statute journals of the prov-
ince, requiring reference and cross-reference
to all manner of legislative enactments of a
public nature, and a keen memory for all
the special and private legislation which most
of the urban and even some of the rural
municipalities have obtained to serve local
needs.
The consequence, Mr. Speaker, is that the
body of municipal law in force today is so
vast in extent, so complicated in its nature,
so full of pitfalls for the unwary, it is possible
for but the few of the legal fraternity who
have specialized in the subject to be able to
say that they have any intimate grasp and
understanding of the law so as to properly
interpret it correctly to advise municipal
bodies and their officials. It is really to be
wondered that the many thousands of
personnel, comprising the various municipal
bodies and officials throughout the organized
municipalities of the province now numbering
nearly 1,000, are able to function; and it
speaks well for the intelligence and honesty
of purpose on their part, and the skilled legal
advice they are able to obtain, that so few
of our municipalities wander into serious
trouble through non-observance of the re-
quirements of the law.
The development of the past 60 years has,
however, made such a marked impression
upon the conduct of municipal affairs, that the
time has arrived when it is not only desirable
but necessary to undertake a survey of our
municipal institutions and to determine
whether our system as originally founded, or
as it has been developed and amended, is
sufficient for the present and the future.
While during the past 60 years or so there
have been many consolidations or revisions
of The Municipal Act, The Assessment Act,
The School Acts and other municipal legisla-
tion, such work has to a great extent been
confined to the legal and not to the practical
and administrative aspects, and there has been
no attempt to consolidate or revise the whole
body of municipal laws so as to bring it under
any comprehensive, co-related and co-
ordinated system.
Basically, our present municipal system is
founded upon the creation of a corporation
formed of the inhabitants of a particular
locality, with the conduct, management and
administration of their communal affairs
vested in an elected body called the muni-
cipal council, composed of a specified
number of the inhabitants chosen by the
FEBRUARY 23, 1962
597
remainder of the inhabitants. Originally the
council reigned supreme within the ambit
of municipal affairs as provided for in the
municipal statutes and, except in respect to
schools, the reign of the municipal council
continued untrammelled for a great number
of years, even to the point of incurring debt
for municipal purposes without reference to
the inhabitants. Gradually, however, inroads
began to be made upon the domain of the
council as municipal authorities spread and
as the calls upon the public purse grew to
substantial proportions.
An early limitation placed upon the scope
of a municipal council was with respect to
its power to incur a debt not to be authorized
without the approval of the inhabitants. In
other directions, the breach of the council's
citadel was enlarged, and specific functions
of municipal government were centred in
newly created bodies and functionaries. Par-
ticularly, Mr. Speaker, has this era of de-
centralization developed in the past 60 years,
until now we find, on looking over the muni-
cipal arena, that the municipal council has
been shorn of much of its pristine glory and
in many respects now serves but as a collect-
ing and distributing agency between the
general body of the citizens and the bodies
or functionaries managing and administering
various municipal enterprises and under-
takings.
The result, Mr. Speaker, is that today
we are blessed or cursed, as the point of
view may be, with a great number of bodies
which govern and administer our municipal
affairs. In the average city in Ontario today
we will in all probability find a council, one
or more utility commissions, police commis-
sion, parks board, town planning board, board
of health, board of education, vocational
school board, library board, and perhaps
other boards or commissions, the members
of which are elected by the people or ap-
pointed by their elected representatives. And
to this must be added the great number of
other bodies of a public or quasi-public
nature which, in reality, serve the muni-
cipality in their particular fields just as the
council and other bodies mentioned may do,
although they are not necessarily the creatures
of the general municipal statutes.
Under this latter category fall such bodies
as boards of trade, chambers of commerce,
industrial commissions, harbour commissions,
highway commissions, hospital boards and
innumerable others. While in the small urban
and in the rural communities the situation is
not quite the same, yet even there the tend-
ency has been towards the creation of bodies
separate from the municipal council to look
after some work or project of a special
nature. If to all these elected or appointed
bodies are added the great host of municipal
and public officials, who, in an executive
capacity, administer local aflFairs, it will
readily be conceded that we have enough
if not a surfeit of municipal government.
While it may be quite easy, Mr. Speaker,
to say that the people have been given only
what they wanted, when all these additional
bodies have been created, it is a question
whether such a statement is really true and,
even if true, whether compliance with the
apparent demand was warranted or sound.
The fact is that in the age of legislating
for municipal needs there is too great a
tendency to wholly absorb prevalent ideas
to the exclusion of the lesson of previous
events, and without any due regard being
paid to the future. We live too much for the
present and are satisfied to ask for and to
be granted what appears to be the thing of
the moment.
Too little attention, I maintain, has been
paid during the past 60 years of develop-
ment to the logical outcome of all the
schemes which have been put forward for
municipal progress, and the time has now
arrived when some serious and conservative
thought must be given to the ultimate out-
come of our municipal institutions. It be-
hooves the leaders in the municipalities and
in this Legislature, and everyone, to consider
very carefully whether or not the craze for
decentralization has gone far enough and
perhaps even now too far, and if it would not
be advisable to retrace our steps to some
extent and restore to municipal councils, and
thereby to the people, greater and more direct
control over municipal undertakings and
expenditures.
Thank you.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park) moves the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before moving the adjournment of
the House I would like to move, seconded
by the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
( Mr. Macaulay ) , that this House meet at
two o'clock on Monday next and that Rule
2 be suspended so far as it applies to this
motion.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition ) : Will the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) advise the House whether it
598 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is his intention to continue the suspension of on Monday in order to complete the Throne
the rule indefinitely, or is this for a particular debate.
occasion only? j^^^^^ ^g^^^^ ^^
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It is for a particular
occasion. I mentioned earHer in the week Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker we will
that I would hke to wind up the Throne continue on Monday as I have outHned.
debate on Tuesday. Now in looking at the ^^ >,t,i^ j. ^ c
number of people who wish to participate in Hon. Mr. Robarts moves adjournment of
the Throne debate, I think it can be com- *"® House,
pleted on Monday. If we sit at two, I think Motion agreed to.
it might be possible to complete it without a
night session. If we do not complete it by The House adjourned at 12.45 of the clock,
six o'clock, we will have a night session p.m.
#
No. 24
*
ONTARIO
Hegisilature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty'Sixth Legislature
Monday, February 26, 1962
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
i: •
CONTENTS
)\
„!*?».
..^ .^ .^^v'i?^ Monday, February 26, 1962
, Presenting report, Mr. Yaremko ;...:. 601
Conclusion of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Belanger,
'^\ Mr. Newman, Mr. Spence, Mr. Gisborn, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Grossman 601
jMotion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 643
'^y?r
iww*»w>**at»—
/lib/ioM
601
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, February 26, 1962
The House having met at 2 o'clock p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we wel-
come as guests students from the following
schools: In the east gallery, Nelson High
School, Burlington and St. David's Separate
School, Toronto. And in the west gallery,
St. Gabriel's Separate School, Willowdale
and Heather Heights Public School, Scar-
borough.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Orders of the day.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I rise
on a question of privilege.
On Friday last the hon. Minister of Labour
(Mr. Warrender) spoke in the Throne Speech
—unfortunately I was out of the House at
the time with another commitment— and dur-
ing the course of his speech he delivered
something of a blistering attack upon myself
with regard to some of my comments on a
telecast on Wednesday night. I am not go-
ing to discuss the content of that telecast
because there will be other opportunities in
the House to deal with issues, about which
he is apparently extremely sensitive. How-
ever, in the course of his remarks— and I
have checked with the actual Hansard trans-
script— he sums up one point in this way:
In reference to myself he said, "Indeed he
made no effort to learn the true facts and
ignored them when they were brought to
his attention through the CBC prior to the
broadcast." That is the end of the quota-
tion.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Labour
was very dogmatic and very assertive but
he was nonetheless in error. Nothing was
drawn to my attention by the CBC prior to
the telecast. I may add by way of explana-
tion that a wire arrived from the industrial
commissioner in Brantford on Thursday
morning at my office; it was timed for some
time on Wednesday afternoon so we checked
with the telegraph company and they have
apologized for its late delivery and have
sent an explanation back to the sender. I
had no word either directly from Brantford
or through the CBC prior to the telecast.
The hon. Minister of Labour, I repeat, was
in error, as he often is.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary)
begs leave to present to the House the
following:
The annual report of The Department of
Reform Institutions, Province of Ontario, for
the year ending March 31, 1961.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, may
I first thank you, sir, for your kindness and
hospitality to me personally, as I— a new
member— have gone through the procedure
of becoming a seated member of this House.
I greatly appreciated your interest and your
co-operation. May I also, through you, sir>
thank many other hon. members on both
sides of the House for their kind interest in
my election and also for their good wishes
to me on the assumption of my seat. I have
found, during the past week that the reservoir
of goodwill that has been bequeathed to me
by the late member for Brant, my father,
has been almost overpowering and I promise
you that I will endeavour to conduct myself
in this Legislature always with the thought—
and with your help— to maintain tliis reservoir
of goodwill at its present full capacity.
While I am passing out some bouquets and
expressing myself in a personal manner, I
would like also to compliment various hon.
members of the government for the way in
which they have handled some small business
matters that I have been asked to draw to
their attention by my constituents. They
must have very efficient staffs working for
them because I know these small matters of
business have been certainly well attended
to, and I thank the hon. Ministers concerned
very sincerely.
602
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this
House I certainly feel all the ordinary qualms
when I rise to address this august gathering,
particularly when I feel that the late repre-
sentative whose seat I have taken was such a
master of debate himself. However, I am
reasonably familiar with the Chamber and
the buildings, having been brought here since
I was a very young boy and, as I look around
the Chamber, I still see the benign counten-
ance of Mr. Stalin admiring our proceedings
from the stonework on both sides; and, of
course, there are many other oddities about
the building and Chamber that are reason-
ably familiar to me
As a matter of fact, as most of you know,
my father came to this House first at the
age of 28, and as a Minister of the govern-
ment. In those days evidently there were
some considerable differences as far as Min-
isters were concerned, and as far as their
facilities were concerned. This was brought
to mind just last night when my mother was
discussing some of the procedures that ob-
tained in those days and the Ministers of the
government in 1919 all had private apartment
facilities adjoining their offices.
So, when the Nixons moved into town,
they simply moved into the Parliament build-
ings and set up light housekeeping. It was
not until the odour of frying fish penetrated
this Chamber that the then Prime Minister
decided that this nice arrangement had gone
far enough and he called a halt to it. So I
would like to call the attention of the hon.
member for Wentworth (Mr. R. C. Edwards)
who was just criticizing the office facilities
the other day, that even the Cabinet facilities
have deteriorated to some extent.
However, all of us on this side have the
opportunity of seeing the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) and the hon. Minister of
Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay) having a
light lunch from time to time during the
afternoon, so probably the facilities have not
deteriorated too much. Actually it is a very
good idea, as the hon. Minister of Energy
Resources no doubt would know, that a little
glucose taken in the late afternoon never hurt
anybody.
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Brant has had
more than its share of publicity in the last
few weeks and I would like to deal briefly
with one or two items in connection with it.
First of all, we were certainly gratified at the
interest taken by the people of Ontario in the
by-election that has recently been concluded
in that riding, which, as you know, occupies
most of the county of Brant, as well as some
municipalities in the county of Norfolk and
one municipality in the county of Oxford.
During the campaign, we had the oppor-
tunity to hear all three of the party leaders
in this House, as well as many private hon.
members, in addition to several hon. Cabinet
Ministers who saw fit to come up to our
riding. And in this connection, may I say
that we were certainly pleased to hear the
interest taken in the affairs of Brant riding
by the then hon. Minister of Highways (Mr.
Cass) and the present hon. Minister of Agri-
culture (Mr. Stewart). In their progress
through the riding they made some very use-
ful comments that I think would certainly be
of interest to this House. For one, we are
now expecting the re-engineering and re-con-
struction of the famous Cockshutt Road-
there is that word again entering into debate
—which runs south from the city of Brantford
through the county. We understand that the
re-engineering and re-construction will cost
in excess of $800,000 and we are looking
forward to its early beginning and certainly
a good job being done upon it.
We are also pleased that the hon. Minister
of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, saw fit to make
a speech concerning tobacco marketing in
the areas so concerned in our riding and we
were very pleased at his interest in the
marketing plan and applaud his remarks on
that occasion strenuously.
The other event that has brought my riding
and the riding of the hon. member for Brant-
ford (Mr. Gordon) somewhat into the news in
recent days has been the disclosure that meat
which has been cut from fallen animals, or
dead animals, has been offered for public
sale; the centre of this nefarious practice
appears to have been Brantford and Brant
County, much to our embarrassment, and
much to the embarrassment of the many fine,
but small, abattoir and meat-sales businesses
with which the hon. member for Brantford
and myself have been associated in the last
few weeks, as they have come to us with
their troubles.
As you all know from reading the public
press, this meat scandal is actually province-
wide, but the names of Brantford and Brant
seem to be more closely associated with it
than any other in the consciousness of the
people who are buying meat.
Mr. Speaker, you are familiar with the
fact that meat can be insi>ected under the
auspices of the federal government and much
of the meat now distributed in this province
is so inspected. If you are not already
familiar with the details, however, I would
like to draw to your attention that, in order
to come up to the levels required by the
federal meat inspection policy, it is necessary
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
603
for very exi>ensive and far-reaching improve-
ments to be made on the many small
slaughter-houses in operation in Brant
County, as well as the other counties through-
out the province. I believe that to come up
to the standards of federal inspection is
financially out of the question for these
small abattoirs. If the government is going
to force them to do this— probably by simply
allowing the housewives who do not wish
to buy uninspected meat, to apply economic
pressure to them— it is not realistic, in other
words, for the government to expect them
to come up to these high standards.
I personally feel— and certainly I am speak-
ing for the people concerned in our county—
that the consumer must be protected, certainly
by a very careful meat inspection process, I
would say, under the auspices of the provin-
cial government, with levels of inspection
which can be attained by these smaller
abattoirs.
There is no doubt that if the consumer
forces these small businesses to come up to
the level of inspection of the federal govern-
ment—which is designed for inter-provincial
shipments, or international shipments— many
of these small businesses will be forced out
of business, and the market will be left to
the eight or 10 large packing-houses and we,
on this side, certainly feel that this would
be a disastrous turn of affairs.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that no member of
this House would expect the hon. member
for Brant to sit down without referring, in
some small measure, to Indian affairs. I, for
one, have heard the late member make a lot
of verbal mileage out of this topic and I
have been subjected to much of it myself,
and it is certainly the duty, I would think,
of the member for Brant to bring the
Indian affairs to the attention of this House
since the riding of Brant encompasses the
largest Indian domain— at least, with the
largest population— in the province.
You may be pleased to know, sir, that in
the recent by-election, the Indians in Brant
County took part in the election in much
greater numbers than they have in the
past. We feel that they are gradually over-
coming their prejudice against taking part
in the affairs of the province of Ontario and
we look forward with great pleasure to the
day in which this part of our electorate will
take full responsibility for their affairs, as f^T
as the provincial government is concerned.
Already, our Department of Highways is
constructing an excellent road from one end
of the reserve to the other. Now this is
something that has been hanging fire for
some time and the Indians are certainly very
grateful for this construction as it goes for-
ward. But there is one other aspect to this
construction, which I would like to bring
before the House, and that is that this road,
if it were extended somewhat, actually to
the extent of about another three miles, would
be a great boon, not only to the Indian popu-
lation, but to the other citizens of Ontario,
who make use of, and travel in, that area.
You may not be aware of the fact that the
Grand river divides the Indian reserve into
two parts and, during the past few years,
since the ferry across the river has fallen into
disrepair and is no longer usable, Indians and
others concerned in going from one part of
the reserve to the other, have had to make a
16 mile detour to cross the Grand river,
either at Brantford or Caledonia. Now this is
a considerable hardship and I would heartily
recommend to the hon. Minister of Highways
(Mr. Goodfellow) and his department that,
while he is undertaking the reconstruction of
this highway through the reserve, he might
look carefully into the reconstruction of the
ferry across the river and see to it that it is put
in working order for the Indians, and for the
convenience of others associated with it.
Now, by a fortunate chance, Mr. Speaker,
the location of this ferry is just at the old,
colonial homestead once occupied by the
famous Indian poetess, Pauline Johnson,
whom you may have heard quoted under
other circumstances in this Chamber. This is
a beautiful home in the centre of the rich,
Indian lore and culture of the Six Nations
domain, and at present a committee of
Indians, in co-operation with a committee of
interested citizens, is working on its restora-
tion. I believe The Department of Travel
and Publicity has erected a plaque there, but
I think that this would be an ideal spot for
co-operation between the hon. Minister of
Travel and Publicity (Mr. Cathcart) and his
department, and the hon. Minister of High-
ways and his department, because here, in
the centre of the Six Nations reserve, in a
part of Ontario that is densely populated by
other citizens, would be the perfect spot for
a tourist attraction involving Indian culture.
Here we would have a beautiful and famous
home beside the picturesque Grand river, and
it is picturesque largely because of some
considerable improvements made by the
various municipalities up-river from that
point. It would be on the main road through
the reserve, and I am sure that if the hon.
Ministers concerned would see fit to take
action on this, it would make a marvellous
contribution to our centennial celebration
604
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which is coming up in the near future, and I
hope that the hon. Ministers concerned will
seriously consider this suggestion. Perhaps,
in this connection. Chief Trail-Blazer and
even, let me see. Chief Calm Pond, I believe,
the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost), who
has not been in the House since I have come
in, would use their good offices with the hon.
Ministers concerned and speak on behalf of
their Mohawk brethren in furthering the
suggestions.
Before I leave the topic of Indian aflFairs,
it has also come to my attention that, although
the people of the Six Nations reservation are
rot organized as a rc^gular municipality under
I'he Department of Municipal Affairs, they
are, in a sense, a self-governing entity with
their own council and their democratically
elected chief, but when they apply for certain
aid and help, from the various departments
of the government, they are denied this help
and aid because, as the officials concerned say,
they are not a regularly constituted and
organized municipality. Cases in point that
have come to my attention recently have to
do with the community programmes branch
of The Department of Education, the re-
stocking programme of The Department of
Lands and Forests and the availability of
travelling bookmobiles or libraries, which I
believe are also directed by The Department
of Education.
On three separate occasions, the chief and
the various committees of Indians concerned,
have asked the departments of government
for help with the building of a community
hall and the institution of a community rec-
reation programme in the Sour Springs area
of the reserve. They have asked for help in
the re-stocking of the lands and lakes with
birds and fish and they have asked for the
services of a travelling library. Now as I
understand it, sir, they have been denied these
advantages because they are not a regularly
organized municipality. I certainly hope that
the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr.
Cass) will look into this carefully and see that
these services are made available to our
Indian friends on the Six Nations reserve and
elsewhere.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to
occupy the valuable time of this assembly,
but there is one further point that I would
like to draw to your attention and it has to
do with a topic that has been previously
raised in the Chamber when I have been here,
that is the apprenticeship age in the desig-
nated trades to which the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) referred briefly, 1 believe, last
week.
As hon. members know, the designated
trades are controlled by the apprenticeship
branch of The Department of Labour. As
the regulations concerning apprenticeship now
read, a young person may enter into an
apprenticeship in the designated trades be-
tween the ages of 16 and 21. It has already
been brought to our attention that this is
affecting certain people who have been taking
training for the unemployed in the Italian
community of this city of Toronto. But it
has never been brought to the attention of
the House that it is affecting other people,
in other parts of the province. The board
of education in the city of Brantford, by
which I was employed until recently, has a
very far reaching and broad plan for the re-
training of the unemployed.
In this connection they are offering a
course in motor mechanics which is available
only to people registered as persons being un-
employed. This course is of 6 to 8 months'
duration. It is not a makeshift course at all;
these people have direct access to the very
elaborate facilities for the instruction of motor
mechanics at the Brantford Collegiate Insti-
tute. But since these facilities are in use
every day, the unemployed people to whom
I have reference have to use them beginning
at 9 o'clock in the evening and extending
through until 4 or 5 a.m. It seems to me that
no one can doubt the sincerity and the eager-
ness of these people to better themselves in
the light of the circumstances by which the
course is given. Now it turns out, of course,
that since motor mechanics is a designated
trade, the people concerned with this course
now find that it will not be possible for them
to enter into an apprenticeship in the regular
way.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a real
hardship for the people concerned. In the
opinion of the teacher who is conducting and
giving this course, some of the best motor
mechanics in the area will be turned out by
the course and yet it will not be possible for
them to enter an apprenticeship because of
one of the regulations of The Department
of Labour.
It has also come to my attention— and I
cannot say this for sure— but I believe that
Ontario is the only province in Canada which
requires this age restriction on apprentice-
ships. As the representative of some of the
people concerned in this special case that
I have brought to your attention, I would
strongly urge the hon. Minister of Education
and the hon. Minister of Labour to see that
this regulation is changed to at least accom-
modate the people concerned.
Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
605
attention once again that we have the threat
of a night sitting hanging over our head. My
hon. friends on this side have entreated me
to be brief, and so I intend to be. I would
Hke before I sit down, however, to say that
I look forward to joining in subsequent
debates in this House.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly want to commend the
hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon) for his
debut in this House. I think that he has
made quite an impression. As he mentioned
in his last remarks, I know that we will be
hearing from him in various debates through-
out this session.
I would like also, Mr. Speaker, to wel-
come the hon. member for Victoria (Mr.
Frost), who has just come into the House,
because we have not seen him for quite
some time, I do hope that he is well.
Mr. Speaker, many hon. members of the
House in their opening remarks on the
Speech from the Throne have spent quite
some time on congratulations to various hon.
members who have become Cabinet Minis-
ters and the reshuffling of other hon. Min-
isters. I am going to combine this in one
statement and say: "Congratulations and best
wishes in your new positions." However, I
will single out the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) and say to him: "May God guide
you in your endeavours and may you re-
ceive the full co-operation of your Cabinet."
May I say a welcome also to the new hon.
members. May they be the representatives
that they wish to be.
To you, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend
you on the efficient way you are handling
your very difficult task of maintaining order
in the deliberations of this session.
In listening to the hon. members of the
House, I find that they may be classified in
three categories: one group is here to ex-
pound the good that their party has done
and why they should continue to govern;
we have another group which is here to
criticize what the party has done or failed
to do; and we have a third group which has
talked a little about his own riding and
topics in general.
I think from the previous remarks that I
have made in this House, hon. members will
say that I have been one who has demanded
something from the government for the citi-
zens of Windsor. I have spoken on behalf
of Windsor because my predecessor had
fallen into the category of the first group
that i mentioned. He was expounding the
virtues of his party to such an extent that
he was forgetting the needs of the people
he represented. I say to hon. members that
if they lose touch with the people who
elected them, they are in for a rude awaken-
ing some day.
Some of the demands that I have made
in the past have been granted, namely, the
teachers' college and the Highway 401 over-
pass. For this I have expressed the appreci-
ation of the people I represent. However,
in my participation of the last two years
in the Throne debate, I have asked for
changes in legislation, which would benefit
not only the Windsor area but also to a
very great extent this province as a whole.
I am not going to forget it, for I feel it is
of utmost importance, not only to this pro-
vince but to the people of the Windsor area,
that such legislation should be enacted. I
am speaking about The Succession Duty
Act. Time and time again it has been
brought to my attention that hundreds— yes
thousands— of Americans, who live from one
hour to two hours* drive from their home
to their place of work in downtown Detroit
would be only too willing to establish in
Windsor or its suburbs if The Succession
Duty Act were changed. They would be
from 15 to 20 minutes' drive from work by
establishing a home on our Canadian side.
However, they do not take advantage of this
because of The Succession Duty Act.
The father of a friend of mine was a
high official of the Chrysler Corporation; in
fact, he was one of the vice-prcvsidcnts. This
gentleman passed away four years ago. For
four years hi^ son has been trying to get this
succession duty affair settled. He cannot get
an understanding between the Ontario govern-
ment and the State of Michigan. All this time
the money left to him has been tied-up and
cannot be put to use. For an American to
die in Ontario costs money and plenty of it.
Lum Clark of the Windsor Star recently
stated that Americans are driven out of
Ontario because they find it too expensive to
die here. Here we are, a province trying
to do all we can to attract new industries,
new capital, greater population. The Ameri-
cans see the opportunities of establishing here
and the potentialities that we have, but when
they hear of this Succession Duty Act, it
knocks them for a loop and they stay away.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that this government
can set up its Ontario economic council and
its associated organizations for all it is worth
and spend thousands of dollars for its growtli
and its development, but unless it looks into
this Succession Duty Act and effect certain
606
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
changes, the. Ontario economic council will
not Ret off the ground. I say: "Start cleaning
up yoiir own house before inviting any visitors
to it."
I am s-ure that if a good attempt was made
at this, the province, and especially we in
Windsor, would ha\e several new industries.
For the third consecutive year I urge this
government to look seriously into this matter.
The Windsor Chamber of Commerce and our
Greater Windsor Industrial Promotion Com-
mittee say that this change would mean more
than 4,000 jobs for the Windsor area. Hon.
members of this government certainly know
the conditions in the city of Windsor as far
as the unemployment picture is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, in my riding there is a little
town known as LaSalle, which today is part
of the township of Sandwich W^est. LaSalle
was once known as Petite Cote which means
small hill. Its residents are traditionally of
French ancestry. The people there are
gardeners and fruit growers. The area is
renowned for Petite Cote radishes and green
onions tliroughout Ontario, Quebec, the States
of Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, in order to acquaint the
hon. members of tliis House with the Petite
Cote radishes and green onions, I have
arranged with the members of the LaSalle
branch of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable
Growers Association to ship in the very early
spring to each hon. member of this House a
few bunches of these radishes and green
onions. I know that after hon. members have
tasted them, they will agree with me that
there are none finer on the North American
continent. They do excel. "
These gardeners also grow tomatoes, carrots,
beets, asparagus, lettuce, cabbage, peas, wax
beans and green beans. They find their
market in Ontario, Quebec and the States.
Mostly, however, they sell on the Detroit
market. Every day during the spring and
summer these gardeners go across the Ambas-
sador Bridge to Detroit and sell their produce
on the wholesale market of that city. They
will leave around 3 o'clock in the morning,
sell their produce around 8 o'clock, return,
gather fresh products again from the fields,
wash, bundle them, pack them and get ready
for another trip the following morning.
Tliese gardeners are competing with the
gardeners around the Detroit area and the
State of Michigan. They must pay duty on
their produce when they bring them into the
State of Michigan. They have been doing
this for generations. Now it seems that
their Canadian colleagues, who are not com-
peting with them, are going to cause them
trouble. It appears that the Canadian Hor-
ticultural Council is demanding that the
Canadian government enact legislation tliat
all products shipped interprovincially Of ex-
ported to other provinces and the States be
in new containers or crates. The LaSalle
growers, as I mentioned, are in heavy com-
petition with the Michigan growers who sell
these products, and they sell them in used
crates or containers.
A new crate for a dozen beets costs a
Canadian 35 cents a crate, whereas an Amer-
ican pays 10 cents for a used container. If the
Canadians who already have paid a duty to
sell their products to the States are forced
by the Canadian Horticultural Council to use
these new containers or crates, they will be
forced out of business. I want hon. members
to remember that the American buyers are
not asking for these new containers, it is the
Canadian horticultural group which is forc-
ing this upon the Canadian grower.
I say, how silly can we get in doing busi-
ness? There must be some very strong lobby-
ing by the Canadian container manufacturers
to have this legislation enacted. Our own
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) has
assured me that his department will be
watching this very closely. I do hope that
the hon. Minister will, because this is very
important to the growers of that area. To
me, such legislation is a detriment rather
than a help to us.
Again, I say that it could be of great help
to the farmer, to the gardener and the nurs-
ery keeper, if their truck licences were not
as high as they are at the present time. I
would recommend to the hon. Minister of
Transport (Mr. Rowntree) that he look into
the legislation of the State of Michigan con-
cerning the licence fee of these people for
trucks which are used only at certain times
of the year. The fee is 50 cents per hundred-
weight up to 2,500 pounds, then 80 cents
per hundredweight over 2,500 pounds. I
would like to read, especially for the atten-
tion of the hon. Minister of Transport, from
the Act of the State of Michigan, under
the section dealing with road tractors, trucks
or truck tractors for farms. It states:
For each road tractor, trudc or truck
tractor owned by a farmer and used exclu-
sively in connection with the farming
operations of such farmer, or used for the
transportation of the farmer and his fam-
ily, and not used for hire, 50 cents per
100 pounds of weight thereof.
And for trailers or semi-trailers for farms
for each trailer or seniii-trailer owned by a
farmer and used exclusively in connection
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
607
with the farming operations of such farm-
er, and not used for hire, up to 2,500
pounds 50 cents per 100 pounds and above
2,500 pounds 80 cents per 100 pounds.
Now here they consider the plight of the
farmer who uses his truck for his business only
at certain times of the year, without restrict-
ing him in using it for his own personal use
the rest of the year. But in Ontario we do
not consider this; we charge him a flat rate
regardless of how he uses his truck. A dealer
in the city may use his truck for a very great
part of the 12 months and pay the same fee as
a farmer who uses his vehicle only a fraction
of the time that the city dealer does.
Again, I say, is this justice? I do hope the
hon. Minister of Transport will consider this
very seriously when and if he sees whether
changes can be enacted.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I was quite
interested in an article which I read recently
in the magazine called Industry. This maga-
zine is published by the Canadian Manu-
facturers' Association. The reason I am
referring to it is because it coincides quite a
bit with the discussion I had with one of my
constituents. This person came to this country
some 12 years ago from Italy. He recently
made a trip to Italy and was amazed at the
development that was taking place there.
Everybody was working, making good wages,
buying freely, and above all, everybody was
very happy. He examined the reason for all of
this and he found that the government, instead
of finding new means of securing revenues
and adding taxes, had actually reduced the
taxes on several commodities, and this had
quite an eflFect on the buying public. They
were purchasing more and hence creating
more employment. This article stated, and I
quotd: ' ' ^
In Canada, the percentage of the gross national
product being taken in taxes by all governments
is about 26 per cent — almost the same as in the
United States. But since the gross national product
per capita is about 40 per cent higher in the
Urtited States than Canada, this must mean that
their tax rate in the States is relatively low, a
possibility, perhaps, which most Americans would
dismiss, or that ours is too high for the country's
good. But is it realistic to urge a reduction in
Canadian tax rate at a time when federal expendi-
ture,s are running ahead of federal income by some
several hundred million dollars, and provincial and
. municipal governments are all spending and seek-
ing more than ever before? To argue that it is
not, is to assume that lower taxes would neces-
sarily mean less government revenues. Such an
assumption ignores the impact on sales and employ-
ment of a worthwhile reduction.
A reduction in corporation taxes means an
increase in the nation's productive capital. The
raw material out of which new jobs are created.
The more new jobs there are, the more people
there are to pay taxes, and the fewer to collect
unemployment insurance — and I may add, also
fewer to collect welfare from the province and
municipality. Similarly, a reduction in income
taxes may be expected to result in increased con-
simier spending, with more taxes being paid on
the higher sales volume. Lower taxes have even
been known to result in lower prices, and a corres-
ponding reduction in government expenditures.
If this has worked in Italy, Mr. Speaker, I
do not see why it could not work here in
Ontario. Why not investigate? Surely if we
want to strengthen our economy, we must look
at all angles.
Mr. Speaker, I want to refer now to a
question I asked of the hon^ Minister of
Education, the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts),
on November 29, 1961, and I would like to
quote from Hansard:
In the Windsor Star issue of Friday,
November 24, there is a story concerning
the new secondary school programme
announced earlier this year by the hon.
Prime Miniister.
Dr. Harry PuUen, deputy business
administrator for the Ottawa Collegiate
Institute Board told delegates to the Ontario
conference on education who were meet-
ing in the city of Windsor, that the new
programme was "hastily conceived and pre-
maturely announced," and that "those who
had to live with the plan had nothing to
do with its conception."
I have four questions to ask the hon.
Prime Minister, who is also the Minister of
Education: Were the superintendents,
directors of education, headmasters or
teachers* federation consulted before the
adoption of the programme?
Secondly, if so, what groups were con-
sulted?
Thirdly, what provision has Ine Depart-
ment of Education made to staflF these new
technical training schools and fourthly, how
many boards of education have made appli-
cation to establish and increase their
technical classes?
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the response
of the hon. Minister of Education was quite
lengthy and he referred to meetings being
held on June 2, to right up until . the date
of this question. The majority of the meet-
ings were held after the announcement of
the programme; this programme was an-
nounced in August
Now at this time, I did not elaborate finrther
on the question, because I knew that on that
date, my hon. leader was going to make his
reply on the Speech from the Xbrqne. But I
do want to say that many of . the various
meetings to which the hon. Minister referred
were held long after the announcements of
the changes that were to take place in the
programme of the secondary schools. The
announcement was niade in August and again
608
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I repeat that the people concerned— that is
the secondary school teachers — were not
consulted before the introduction of these
changes in the programme. The meetings
were held after the announcement of the
changes. This again proves that this govern-
ment does what it pleases when it pleases
them, without regard to the electorate.
Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) the
other day to abolish the use of liquor per-
mits was rather amusing to me. For years,
this government had been extracting a dollar
annually for every individual who wanted to
purchase liquor to consume in his own home.
This was a licence he had to pay to drink
at home. But to drink in a beverage room,
a lounge, or a tavern, he did not have lo buy
a licence. Now, after years of insulting the
public, they remove it. But in its place
they are going to ask him to pay a few cents
extra per bottle purchased. Do they believe
that the public does not see through what
they have in mind? They want to increase
their revenue from the sale of liquor. They
must make more. Therefore—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Cheap-
est liquor in Canada.
Mr. Belanger: Therefore, they hoodwink
the public by telling them you no longer
will have to pay for a liquor permit. How-
ever, they know perfectly well that the few
extra cents per bottle will bring them cer-
tainly more than the $1,300,000 loss in
revenue from the sale of permits. It is a
case of trying to fool the public by telling
tliem: We are taking a nuisance away from
you, but to take that nuisance away, you,
the public, must pay for it.
And then again, in the next breath, they
come up— and as they want to keep the
people in suspense— they say they want to
see how they will react to the lift of the
permit purchase and then they say that there
will be other changes during the course of
this session. They could not come out with
all their liqucn: changes at one time. Oh
no! That would be giving the people of
Ontario too much at one time. They must
keep them on a string and dangle the string
up and down and have the people of Ontario
act like puppets.
They do not realize that in Ontario, there
are hundreds of hotel owners who are con-
templating changes in their establishment,
"But they forget about you people. Yovi
pay the fee."
I say to this government, that the time is
not far away when they will be through
fooling the public in this fashion. They must
remember this. It is an old saying, and it is
still true: "You can fool some of the people
some of the time but you cannot fool all the
people all of the time."
Mr. Speaker, I could go on with the
announcement made by the hon. Prime Min-
ister on Friday about the changes in housing,
but I am going to leave that until later. They
are saying that this is tlie greatest change
that we have had in Ontario. And still, just
a little way further down in the announce-
ment they come along and say this is just
a trial effort, that we are trying. No wonder
we, in the Opposition, do wonder what status
we have now reached. Surely it is time, Mr.
Speaker, that this government take cogni-
zance of its mistakes and do represent the
people of Ontario, or else they should throw
their arms up in the air and say, "We can no
longer represent you."
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkcrville):
Mr. Speaker, this certainly looks like educa-
tion day. We had the hon. member for
Brant (Mr. Nixon), the hon. member for
Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Belanger) and now
myself, three school teachers speaking one
after another. Possibly it is a good thing
for the House.
Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the
debate on the Speech from the Throne, may
I extend through you to the full-time and
regular Speaker not only my compliments
but also my thanks for the many courtesies
that have been extended by him and his
office to me during the past year. My con-
gratulations go out to the new hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) and the new hon.
members of his Cabinet. To the master
political timer, the hon. member for Victoria
(Mr. Frost) my best wishes for his continued
good health. To the newly-elected hon.
members of the House my best as they roll
up their sleeves and get into action, serving
the people of Ontario. To the people of
Ontario the thanks of the Liberal Party for
their kind consideration in returning members
in the ridings of Brant and Kenora and for
their considered intellectual decision in
changing horses in midstream and adding to
our ranks the hon. member for Renfrew South
(Mr. Quilty).
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the
attention of this honourable House an event
of great import to Canadians of Polish
extraction, not only in Windsor and Essex
County but also in Ontario, yes, even in
Canada. This event took place in the city of
Windsor recently. The opening ceremony in
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
609
preparation for the one thousandth anniver-
sary of Christian Poland was celebrated with
a solemn pontifical mass offered by His
Excellency the Most Reverend John Chris-
topher Cody, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Lon-
don, at Assumption Church.
If I may interject here, Mr. Speaker, Bishop
Cody was honoured by Pope John only last
week on the occasion of the 25th anniversary
of his consecration as a bishop. Our con-
gratulations and best wishes go out to him
on this memorable event.
While we Canadians are preparing for
the centennial of our confederation, the
Canadians of Polish background are busy
arranging for the celebration of the Polish
millennium. I am sure that each and every
hon. member of this House looks forward
to the day when Poland, that western bul-
walk against all of the forces of communism,
will once again regain its freedom and walk
proudly on the side of the free world.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I need
remind the hon. members of this House that
February is St. John Ambulance month. The
most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St.
John of Jerusalem— St. John Ambulance— is
that international organization that has done
so much so well in the past in providing a
specialized community service next to none,
is that voluntary group ready to take its place
in any emergency, military, civil or as a
result of a prank of Mother Nature.
The circular black and silver badge with
its eight-pointed cross, that is so commonplace
today, is the hallmark of a skilled first-aider.
I certainly hope that this, the month of their
annual appeal for the necessary funds to
finance for the whole year, are successful. We
in the city of Windsor are most fortunate
having a most capable secretary of the St.
John Ambulance in the person of Mrs. Nor-
man Jones, O.B.E., a really dedicated, altru-
istic, enthusiastic and civic-minded citizen.
Mr. Speaker, back in the year 1845,
negroes from tlie southern states, hearing of
the abolition of slavery under the British
flag, fled their homes in the United States in
search of this freedom. Windsor, the brother-
hood city, a community of approximately
2,000 people at the time, was one of the
places to which these unfortunates fled. On
arriving on the southern shore of the Detroit
river, those negroes wished to express their
thanks to God and so in 1852 in my riding,
a negro congregation under the spiritual
leadership of the Reverend A. R. Green built
a small frame church. The community pros-
pered and a few years later a substantial
church of bricks and mortar was constructed.
These free men and women carried water
about one-quarter of a mile from the Detroit
river to the site of their new construction.
This was well over 100 years ago. Just
recently the city expropriated the site and
has levelled the area in order to construct a
county court building. The present church,
under the Reverend I. H. Edwards— this land-
mark, this religious home of former slaves-
is no more. I would ask the hon. Minister
of Travel and Publicity (Mr. Cathcart) to
have the proper branch of his departroeut
consider the erection of a marker on the
site of this church, the British Methodist
Episcopal Church.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one
comment on a subject that is brought up
every year in this House. Normally I would
hesitate to raise this, but since we have a
new hon. Prime Minister and new thinking, I
do so. I would ask him to settle the problem
and confusion of daylight saving time once
and for all.
Mr. Speaker, on November 8, 1961, I held
an open meeting in my riding to which I
invited one and all to offer suggestions. Here
are some of the suggestions made by con-
stituents:
Mr. Egidio Barei, a construction worker,
suggested that government contracts have
written into them that a person be allowed
to work only 40 hours a week. He com-
plained that there are people working up
to 14 hours a day. His suggestion would
enable unemployed construction workers to
become employed. He also suggested the
licensing of contractors.
Mr. James Hogan, president of local 240,
suggested that turn signals and safety belts
be made standard equipment— that is com-
pulsory—by the automobile manufacturers. He
also suggested action on unemployment and
portable pensions.
Mr. Bill Bielecki suggested that the sales
tax be removed on vitamin pills.
Mr. Emil Zarzecki suggested an immediate
completion of Highway 401.
Mr. Oliver Stonehouse, a city of Windsor
alderman, suggested:
1. Better legislation to deal with desertion
of wives and families so that the deserted do
not become a charge on the municipality.
2. Legislation to curb excessive rates of
financing. The rate of interest to be charged
to be specifically set out
3. Bonus payments for mortgages to be
outlawed, such as the signing of a $5,000
mortgage and receiving only $4,000.
610
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
4. Legislation to overcome the shopping-
hour cliaos which leads to certain suburban
sprawls.
5. Standardized readers and textbooks so
that two or tliree members of a family could
make use of them, rather than have them
quickly outdated.
Mr. Speaker, a housewife, who preferred
to remain anonymous, suggested legislation
to protect the pubUc against the hazards
^d obstructions of modem packaging,
such as concealing net contents, odd weights
and measures, meaningless designations, mis-
leading prices.
Mrs. John Smith suggested that legisla-
tion be passed banning crooked sales— go-
ing out of business, fire, liquidation,
bankruptcy and removal sales. She does not
refer to the legitimate sales but rather sales
of goods which were never involved in any
of the above, and are brought in by the
back door.
Mr. Charles Burke suggested that as an
inducement to keep students in school, and
also as an aid to their futiure education, the
family allowance be given to all children
attending school regardless of their ages.
He would put an age limit of 21 years.
These were some of the suggestions pre-
sented. These are not my ideas, but those
of constituents of mine, who are interested
enough to express their opinions at an open
meeting. Other suggestions made will be
taken care of by the people of Ontario at
the next general election.
Mr. Speaker, two years ago I spoke at
some length on physical fitness. Last year
my remarks were very brief because I
thought that this government had awakened
from its lethargy and was going to do some-
thing about it. Today it is over one year
since the report of the committee set up to
study the problem was submitted to the
hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond), yet
he keeps sitting on it. Why it takes a full
year from the time of submission by a com-
mittee until the time of presentation by the
hon. Minister, I cannot understand. How-
ever, in my few years as a member I must
now conclude that such stalling is indeed
typical.
The need for the programme still remains.
Each year's delay in setting it up is an
added year of delay of development of top
Canadian athletes^ It is an added year in
the lowering of the prestige of Canada in
the eyes of the nations of the world. May
I remind this government that France has
proposed a $280 million five-year plan. All
we do is talk. The Speech from the Throne
in 1960 said, and I quote:
A new physical fitness programme wiU
be inaugurated. Our objective will be to
co-ordinate efforts and to establish prac-
tices that are conducive to good health
and physical fitness.
Two years later, and what do we have?
A secluded report. Maybe this report has
as its parallel the fluoridation report. If we
do not get down to some real action soon
Canada is likely to drop out of the bottom
of the unofficial Olympic points standings.
In the summer games at Rome in 1960 Can-
ada managed only one second-place silver
medal. This was won by the University of
British Columbia eight-oared crew. This was
the worst showing by a Canadian team in
Olympic history.
In France a bill was introduced for a total
outlay of $280 million over the next five years
with the state supplying a little more tlian one
half of this money. Local governments and
private groups will supply the remainder.
This programme calls for 90 new stadiums,
210 swimming pools, more than 1,000 athletic
fields, 933 gymnasiums, and a long hst of
other installations. This whole programme
was brought about when sports writers and
fans screamed about France's dismal showing
in the 1960 Olympic games when the team
won only two silver and - two third place
bronze medals.
The assembly committee on culture, family
and social affairs gave unanimous support to
this bill. Now, physical education and sports
are obligatory parts of the programme of
health, work, studies and military life.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jim Worrall of Toronto,
president of the Canadian Olympic Associa-
tion—and, if I am not mistaken, a member
of the committee that studied the problem of
physical fitness and that submitted their find-
ings over one year ago— said, and I quote;
■ I am very impressed with the French govern-
ment's report. We in Canada have no reason to
be proud of, or even complacent about, our
showing in international sports generally and in
the Olympics in particular. Relatively we did not
do as well as France in the games at Rome, but
it isi not the fault of our athletes. I think the
emphasis must be on government support — not only
federal but provincial and municip^ as well — ^to
provide facilities and trained leadership to improve
the standards of physical fibaess of the population
as a whole, not merely to produce star athletes.
Canadian youth has the potential but must be
encouraged and developed.
This has become too big a job for the small
army of volunteers who for years have been
struggling to keep amateur sport alive. What
is required now is government assistance to provide
the necessary leadership for overall physical fitness.
I regret very much that the hon. Minister
of Health ( Mr. Dymond ) is not in the House,
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
611
because my comment was: are you listening,
Mr. Minister of Health? The fitness of our
young and old is of vital import. The case
has been diagnosed. Supply us the remedies,
Mr. Minister.
Waiting to implement a programme is the
same as waiting to operate on a patient who
needs this type of medical treatment. Failure
to begin a programme only adds to the cost
of operating all the types of medical and
hospital services. Let us get started with the
job. Do it now. Fitness cannot wait.
Mr. Speaker, today is the kick-off day in
the city of Windsor for the community Red
Feather drive. This community Red Feather
drive is promoted to obtain sufficient funds
to operate the many charities supported by
the fund. I am sure that each and every hon.
member of this House joins with me in wish-
ing that large group of volunteers success
in their solicitations as they strive to reach
their financial goal. To the citizens of
Windsor: never was the need greater, nor the
task more trying. Please give.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on a
topic that has been of major concern to my
area for too long a period of time— unemploy-
ment. Its causes are as many as the people
who discuss the topic. To each person un-
employed, his reason is the most important.
Let us look at a few.
( 1 ) Automation on the farm with a steady
declining farm population.
(2) Automation in manufacturing bringing
on changes in the nature of work.
(3) Automation in office procedure.
(4) Lack of training affecting the young
and the old.
(5) Foreign imports affecting local manu-
facturing.
(6) Shffting of trade blocs and markets.
All of these reasons are compounded by a
seasonal surge of unemployed workers.
The unusual aspect of the unemployed
picture is that of the skilled and semi-skilled.
On page 105 of the January, 1962, issue of
the Labour Gazette we see the ratio of un-
filled vacancies to registration for employment
by classes as being: professional and mana-
gerial workers, one unfilled vacancy for each
two and one half persons registered; sales
workers, one unfilled vacancy for each six
people registered for unemployment; personal
and domestic service workers, one for nine;
unskilled, one for 25-with a total of 134,044
unemployed; skilled and seini-skilled, one
for 30.
There are a greater number of requests
for employment among the semi-skilled and
the skilled than there are among the unskilled.
These figures are as at November 30, 1961.
The overall picture for Canada as of
January 1, 1962, is 22,268 unfilled vacancies
for 615,388 persons registered for employ-
ment. From the previous figures hon. mem-
bers can readily see that even though re-
training is a very beneficial programme and
does partially prepare an individual for
another skill and should be encouraged and
enlarged, it is not a complete answer nor is
lack of training a basic cause of unemploy-
ment. The jobs are just not there any longer.
I believe that it is the responsibility of
government in a democratic society to take
the lead in introducing action for a solution.
Unemployment without income is a soul-
destroying, respect-corroding ulcer producing
social cancer. For the short term I fully
believe in the desirability and necessity of
increased social security benefits and pay-
ments to those out of work. I feel that it
is mandatory in our industrial urban society
where food, shelter, clothing and health flow
directly out of disposable income that persons
capable of working, desirous of working but
unable to work, must be provided with an
income to maintain life and dignity without
work. The issue today is not whether there
is or is not unemployment, the issue is how
best to take care of the unemployed and how
best to return them to work so that the
immediate needs of persons and family are
satisfied and future employment is guaranteed.
Because the causes of unemployment are
many and varied the provision of full employ-
ment will be complex and difficult. In the
search for a solution, the government of a
responsible democratic society has an increas-
ing and unavoidable obligation to lead and
labour and management have an ever present
responsibility to co-operate with one another
and with government in working out that
solution.
The object of their joint search and their
united efforts must be full, permanent, gainful
employment for the whole work force. There
can be no other policy, there can be no other
goal, there can be no satisfaction with nothing
less. The goal is to provide jobs, not power
in either management or labour. Because with
jobs we have a stable work force, a stable
society, stable unions, stable companies, stable
profits and stable businesses. Without jobs
there is no business, no union, no wages, no
profits, no management, no dividends.
On this common ground of finding jobs and
providing steady income all the best efforts
612
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of government, management and labour can
find room for action. The task is not to assign
blame for present unemployment to manage-
ment, to labour, to government, to foreign
competition, to changing patterns of pro-
duction or to automation. The task is to
recognize the challenge and stride forward
for the credit of solving the problem.
In order to achieve full employment in
Canada, we need more Canadians. An indus-
trialized economy functions inefficiently
supplying a small population. What Canada
needs is more people, still more people and
still more again. We need millions more
people. We have the raw materials of an
industrial society, we have the facilities to
process them, we have the knowledge, we
have the desire to produce and we do produce
surpluses in everything from wheat, butter,
and eggs to iron, nickel, aluminum, copper,
paper and wood.
What we lack is people to consume our
production. The best place to have our con-
sumers and hence our markets is right here
in Canada. We need an open-door immigra-
tion policy that will attract all the immigrants
that we can draw to Canada, all the time.
We should not turn immigration on and
off like a tap. We should seek out, invite,
entice, encourage and assist immigrants to
come to Canada. In the long run, Canadians
will prosper more and our country will
flourish best if we bring to this country
enough people to consume our production.
Foreign trade is the frosting on the cake.
It simply means that we are feeding, cloth-
ing, or housing someone in a foreign country
with the certain products of our labours.
Usually foreign trade is confined to the special
products the foreign consumer wants at a
given time and at a given price.
Domestic trade is imconfined. It supplies
hon. members and their fellow citizens not
only with one or two special items, but with
everything from birth to death, including
cradles and caskets. It does this year round,
each year, every year without the complica-
tions of currency problems, foreign govern-
ment interference or low wage rate
competition or anything else.
For example, since 1945 Canada has
accepted two million immigrants. The annual
expenditures on servicing these people in
Canada far surpasses the value of all of
Canada's foreign trade. Canadian secondary
industry today is producing, exclusive of our
paper products, less than 15 per cent of the
value of our exports. The mass market for
Canada's secondary manufacturing industry
is the domestic market, not foreign markets,
and the long-term solution for most of indus-
try's problems is a larger Canadian ix)pula-
tion.
Wliat else can be done? Well, there are
many other things that can be done that
could ease the long-term impact of unemploy-
ment. For example, more planning could be
done on the kind and location of our industry.
The mismatching of available skills and job
openings could be compensated for by a broad
approach to the education of our young
people so that they will develop several skills
that will give them maximum flexibility in
a constantly shifting job picture. There can
and should be more teachers and facilities
for the training and re-training of unem-
ployed and displaced workers. There is need
to study the shift of population from farm
to city life with a view to making that tran-
sition, if inevitable, at least as painless as
possible. There is a great need to devise
ways and means of reducing the impact of
seasonable change on the work force so
that tidal surges in and out of the labour
force can be blunted.
There is a vast and urgent need to reform
our economic, social and public facilities
to care for the unemployed and to create
ways and means of feeding the human needs
of the unemployed workers and their depen-
dents. I believe that government has a
prime responsibility to lead in all these
various approaches to the solution.
Mr. Speaker, allow me a few minutes to
bring the Windsor situation into focus. It
was about one year ago that we had a
parade of hon. Ministers attempting to du-
plicate a New York television give-away pro-
gramme by offering everything to Elliot
Lake. I attempted to bring to the attention
of this House the fact that Windsor has
had a hard core of unemployed that needed
attention, yet nothing was done. The total
registered for unemployed was over ten
thousand. As of November 30, 1961, it was
8,793, a figure surpassed only by Toronto
and Hamilton.
Using 1949 figures as 100, the employ-
ment index in Windsor as of September,
1961, is 74.2, or the lowest of any of Can-
ada's urban centures. Toronto's is 134.6;
Hamilton's is 110.2. Surely when a centre
is confronted with as serious a problem as
this, that centre deserves special considera-
tion on the part of the government in an
attempt to relieve the situation. Surely pro-
jects such as a mental hospital, provincial
buildings, should have been constructed
there and areas where the unemployment
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
613
index was very satisfactory could have waited
for their projects. Surely such a situation
should have commanded considered atten-
tion and action on the part of this govern-
ment.
Highways are often said to be the arteries
of a community. The completion of 401
could have, and more than likely would
have, assisted to partially relieve tibis grim
unemployment picture. Let us connect
Windsor with Ontario by completing High-
way 401.
Mr. Speaker, on checking with the unem-
ployment insurance commission, I was told
that over 500 unemployed had been trans-
ferred out of the city, and only 47 new-
comers entered. These figures do not
exclude the many who have left voluntarily
without notification, just drifted away in
hopes of finding employment in another
area.
Of the hard core of idle, none want to
remain as such, but all are anxious to be
doing their share in the advancement of
the economy of Windsor, of Ontario and of
Canada. Many of these are new citizens
and newcomers to our shores. It makes
them think as to otlier ways of life. In
some of them rages an internal civil war,
democracy versus communism. We are being
challenged from without by another way of
life. We are being challenged daily by the
unemployed, whose minds are ripe for other
ideologies.
Mr. Speaker, to illustrate conditions may I
state that Windsor's welfare department paid
out $174,000 during January of this year to
5,497 persons, as compared with $125,000 to
4,160 persons, one year ago, that is in 1961.
That is a 32 per cent increase in the numbers
receiving welfare in one year. The January
payments continue this trend to higher wel-
fare costs, which have been going on for the
past two years, and which saw $1,800,000
paid out in 1961 as compared to $1,200,000
in 1960, an overall rise for one year of 50
per cent.
Last year, high relief costs were the
biggest single factor behind the city's deficit.
The total Windsor area industrial employ-
ment has progressively shown decrease. In
November, 1960, 393 industrial firms reported
27,932 employees. By December, one month
later, it was 27,242, a decrease of 290. By
January, 1961, it was down to 26,908, a
further decrease in one month of 334. As of
January, 1962, it is at 26,256, a further
decrease of 652 people. Such retrogression
must be halted.
In volume 8, No. 7, September 1961 issue
of Ontario Planning, on page 8, we have the
Windsor area story presented very well.
Comparing population tables of 1956 with
1961, that is a five-year period, the per-
centage increase in Windsor was 2.9, repre-
senting statistically an increase of from
185,865 people to 191,237. The average
growth for the seven largest cities in the
province was 17.7 per cent. Windsor, the
fourth largest metro area, has the smallest
growth factor, 2.9 per cent; one so small that
inside of five years it will be surpassed by
both London and Kitchener.
It is said by some:
One of the reasons why unemployment
is so high at Windsor is that industries
formerly located there have been moving
away. Why are they moving away? Be-
cause they did not feel at home in Windsor.
They did not feel that Windsor wanted
them to operate peacefully, successfully,
profitably.
The above several sentences are a quotation
from an editorial in one of the local Toronto
papers on February 16, 1961. This is just
plain tommy rot. That is saying that munici-
palities in which there is unemployment de-
serve to have unemployment. Windsor has
bent over backwards in its attempts to induce
industry, to promote existing industry and to
develop new industry.
The industrial climate since 1956, since
the time Windsor's population growth was the
lowest, has been excellent and I doubt if
it could be much improved. There is always
room for improvement, but very few centres
in Ontario have gone to the extent that
Windsor has in even sending a delegation to
the Continent in search of business. Mr. Peter
Hedgewick of the International Tools Limited
—a Windsor area concern— just returned from
Germany where he was successful in under-
bidding western German firms on a die con-
tract. This is but one of the examples show-
ing the extent of Windsor's employment seek-
ing activities.
The failure to implement the Bladen Re-
port, the failure of the government to encour-
age secondary industry, hurts them.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian content of the
product of a particular manufacturer, for ex-
ample, automobiles, is set by federal law.
The method of computing and auditing this
content is extremely complex. However, I
would suggest that instead of physical con-
tent, the government study the possibihty of
using labour content, or man hours, as a
scale. A large part of a vehicle may be 10
per cent of the vehicle by content, but the
614
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
labour involved in its manufacture may be
only one per cent of the total man hours
expended in its manufacture. I realize that
this is a federal matter, but possibly this
same labour content or man hours principle
may be used in other imports, manufacturing
processes and trade dealings with countries,
all to the benefit of our people. Were such
a scheme given serious study, there is the
possibility that much of the unemployment
in my city would be eliminated.
Mr. Frank S. Capon, of Dupont of Canada
Limited, told a Toronto group recently that
in Canada there is a refusal to face economic
facts. Technical knowledge, he said, now is
suflBcient to enable Canada to produce most
of what it needs by machines. The ultimate
mechanization of all means of production can
be foreseen, he said. Failure to face facts
and to solve problems can only lead ulti-
mately to a breakdown of Canada as we know
it. The remark that is most startling of all in
his address is that the country's unemploy-
ment may reach 25 per cent of the work force
within five years.
All of this leads one to conclude that there
is not enough work available to gainfully
employ every one for 40 hours per week. Is
it not then logical that a committee be set
up to study the eflFects of automation and a
shorter work week, plus other things?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the
editorial from the February, 1962, issue of
Parks and Recreation.
It is entitled:
The Shorter Work Week
—A Definite Possibility
In this New Year the American public
was shocked at the New York Electrical
Union's demands. The union pushed for
a 20 hour week for the same pay clause.
This is a rather unusual case since the
union in former contracts had already had
electrical workers' time reduced to a 30
hour week. Actually they have been work-
ing a six hour day. The demands for a
20 hour week were not met, but they did
succeed in obtaining a five hour day or, a
25 hour week.
A great amount of publicity has come
about as a result of these demands. The
working public was interviewed and it was
found that they do not agree with such
a drastic time reduction. The interviews
brought out two reactions to the publicity.
First, some of the groups interviewed felt
that there was something basically dis-
honest in putting in so little time. A typical
attitude was, "I work more, my father be-
fore me worked more, why cannot these
people work the same amount of time?
Working so few hours we will get nothing
done." The second reaction was "Why
should they receive more than I? Why
should this group be especially privileged?
Privileges of this sort should cover all, not
just a small part of the labour market.*'
The public reaction did not cover the
points expounded by unions as the reason-
ing behind a shorter work week. The
union felt that automation had pre-empted
jobs, thus creating a surplus of labour.
They reasoned further tliat an economic
work load balance would be created by a
shorter work week, in that short hours
would necessitate more people entering the
work market and thereby lessening the
labour surplus. The profit margin would
be lowered but any increased cost that
might be entailed could be passed on to
the consumer.
The main point, however, is that the
shorter work week has made inroads on
public thought and the development of this
area in other industries is a definite possi-
bility.
It is believed practical as a way of put-
ting those on relief back to work. The
move is rapidly picking up steam and we
can look for increases in the shorter work
week in other areas of business since New
York has brought to the fore drastic changes
in the thinking of the public, the unions
and industry. Since industry in a large way
aflFects governmental policy towards its
workers, the shorter work week is part of
the future.
Mr. Speaker, conservation, school drop-outs,
untrained youth have always been of great
concern. It is about time something concrete
was done. The time is opportune to set up
pilot training and employment programmes
for youth including on-the-job and other
appropriate training, local public service pro-
grammes and conservation programmes. We
should:
1. develop methods of promoting the most
effective utilization of the production poten-
tial of the untrained and inexperienced youth;
2. provide useful work experience and
training opportunities for a limited number of
youths through the use of pilot programmes
authorizing projects for on-the-job and other
appropriate training, local public service
employment, and camps to conserve and de-
velop our natural resources;
3. determine the effectiveness of these
different types of programmes for the training
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
615
and useful employment of youth to meet
current and future technological requirements
of an expanding labour market; and thereby,
4. provide Ontario with tested and proven
training and work experience programmes for
school drop-outs and other youths who will be
seeking work in increasing numbers during
this decade. Let us study the feasibility of an
Ontario Youth Conservation Corps.
Mr, Speaker, it was my intention to swak
at some length on education and the present
re-training programme, but rather than burden
the honourable House and hon. members of
this House any longer, I will simply ask that
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) re-
linquish his education portfolio so that the
most important department of this govern-
ment can have a full-time Minister at its
head.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that
the citizens of Windsor are appreciative of
all that has been done for them but today's
situation is unique and merits consideration.
Institutional employment is stable employ-
ment. For example. Assumption University
is today Windsor's seventh largest industry.
Were some of the projects that are being
established in this area, to be set up in the
Windsor area the picture would be much
brighter. Windsor has had difficult times in
the past and has always come through and
will do so again. Thank you.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to take part in this Throne debate I
first wish to congratulate you on the way you
are carrying out your duties as Speaker of this
Assembly. I might say that I have watched
from this seat the very important decisions
which you have been called on to make since
this session started. I might say that you in-
dicated to me that you are fair and impartial,
and to you, Mr. Speaker, I would wish you
well in this honourable position which you
hold.
Mr. Speaker, since the last session many
changes have taken place in this honourable
Assembly. The passing of three hon. members
—hon. members who made marks in this
House, hon. members who took a very active
part in the debates of this Legislature— and I
might say, Mr. Speaker, their passing was
certainly a shock to all of us.
I do want to congratulate the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) on being elected to
that honourable position, a position which
very few in this province ever reach, I might
say that his position is no easy one either,
following the footsteps of his predecessor— a
man who had a vast wealth of knowledge, a
man who was well versed in history— and, I
might say, Mr. Speaker, he will, I know, try
to fulfil his position.
I do also wish to congratulate the three
newly elected members who were seated in
this House last Tuesday. I might say that
these hon. members are all young men. After
getting acquainted with them, Mr. Speaker,
it looks to me that there is a great future for
them in political life, and I wish them well
and a long political career.
I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to say how
it must have pleased the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) when he
looked over the votes that were cast in those
five by-elections that 45 per cent of the
voters who voted, voted for the Liberal party;
and will continue to.
An hon. member: Thank you.
Mr. Spence: Now, Mr. Speaker, in this
Throne debate I would be remiss if I did
not say something about agriculture. Being
in agriculture all my life I am still greatly
interested in the conditions of agriculture in
this province. I know we have a new hon.
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart). I
know that it may take some while before he
gets in full swing but he has a very important
position to fill. I might say in this province
the hon. member, I believe, Mr. Speaker,
the other day the hon. member for Grey
South (Mr. Oliver) brought to the attention
of the Legislature that the farmers in the
province of Ontario were facing a serious
situation. The big processor entering into the
field of production was causing a grave con-
cern to us who are engaged in agriculture.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, over the last
number of years— I believe in the year 1959,
the hon. Minister of Agriculture set up a
study group to go to Europe and look into
the possibility of markets there for some of
our agricultural products, and on the report,
after they returned, Mr. Speaker, it was very
encouraging to read that there was a pos-
sibility of markets in Europe and in England
for some of our agriculture products. Now,
before this session closes I hope the hon.
Minister of Agriculture will try to report
what results that study group's visit to
Europe achieved and give us something here
in the Legislature.
Today it is markets that are bothering us.
Marketing has been a problem with us who
are engaged in agriculture for a considerable
number of years. From time to time we have
been told about efficiency, Mr. Speaker, and
616
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we have increased production in this prov-
ince. ^Ve doubled our production; but every
time we doubled our production, Mr. Speaker,
we received about the same amount of money.
The agricultural industry is faced with high
costs of operation, and I might say if some-
tliing is not done for agriculture in this prov-
ince — something done immediately — that a
good many farmers are going to disappear
in the future.
I believe that in this inquiry committee's
report, which I read very closely, we see very
disturbing notes— warnings to those engaged
in agriculture— that in the past few years
about 38,000 farmers went out of the industry
of agriculture. They predict in this report
that in the next two decades there will be
another 26,000 go.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are in the cost-plus
squeeze, a tendency to the larger farms in
the province, and I for one think that some-
thing should be done to preserve the family
farm. The new Canadians who came to this
country a number of years ago, came with
great expectation and hopes that if they came
to Canada, they would own and operate their
own farm some day. Now that has happened
in the past, but that is fading away. In
the future those who will immigrate to
Canada— if there is any immigration, I might
say, Mr. Speaker— the hope is disappearing
that they will be able to own and operate
their own farm. I think it is a bad thing
when the little family fami disappears, and
I think this government should take every
action that is possible to do something and
make every effort that the family farm will
be preserved in this pro\'ince.
After reading through that report I looked
through different newspapers and I find our
sister province, the province of Quebec, going
to do something for the family farm in the
pro\ince of Quebec. But, Mr. Speaker, they
have a Liberal government in that province
and I must say that a Liberal government
always takes action as soon as a thing exists.
An hon. member: After a little bit.
Mr. Spence: Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope
that the hon. Minister of Agriculture— I was
interested the other day when he announced
that something was going to be done in
the way of marketing— I hope the step that
he has taken will assist the farmers. Last
year I had an opportuntiy to visit the United
States and I might say I noticed the agri-
culture industry in that country seems to be
thriving and receiving a fair share of the
economy. Also we read that in Great Britain
the British government is doing something for
agriculture, and agriculture seems to be on a
firm footing in that country. Now I hope
that something can be done to preserve the
family farm in the province of Ontario.
Now I am going to say here, on September
1 the three per cent sales tax came into force
and that placed a very heavy burden on the
small business people of the province of
Ontario. The people who were least able to
afford this burden— as we know, many have
not been able to afford one of these high-
priced cash registers, and in many small
places where I have called they are using a
scribbler to keep track of the articles sold
and the taxes collected to be sent here to
the government.
Now this is a hardship and I might say as
I did in my last speech in this Legislature, I
said tht we should have some efficiency in
government. This afternoon I am going to
try to point out one of these things to the
hon. Prime Minister and his government, and
that is that the grant system of our public
and district high schools certainly needs some
ON'erhauling.
We had in my part of Ontario a year or
two ago a school section which wanted to
enlarge their public school. I might say
after they discussed what grants would be
available from The Department of Educa-
tion, they found out that it was better-
instead of adding anotlier room on the public
school— it was better for them to build an
entirely new school, because they would get
a lot larger grant. Now today, I might say
in that school section there is a new school
built and the old school is used for a com-
munity hall.
Now I have here, in the Netcs Tribune,
dated in September, a high school district
which had to add more rooms to take care
of the increased enrolment of the pupils in
that district. I might say the school board
architect prepared plans, proposals for what
was needed to take care of increased enrol-
ment, but I might say here, Mr. Speaker,
these plans had tentative approval by The
Department of Education of the province of
Ontario. Now I would like to try to outline
to this Legislature that the grant system cer-
tainly needs adjusting and certainly needs
going into when there is too heavy a burden
on the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.
I think something can be done here at a
time when school taxes are felt by all those
who are property owners and people of the
province of Ontario.
I would like to say that I am for the best
education possible for every boy and girl in
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
617
this province. I want that clearly understood.
I am for new schools if it does not create
a burden on the taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, and
today I am trying to outline to you the situa-
tion that exists in the grant system towards
building new schools here in the province of
Ontario.
The architect met the school board and
he said that there was a proposal to enlarge
this school; you could add on eight rooms,
repair a number of rooms that were built
in 1923 and 1929, and the plan would be
approved by the fire marshal of the province
of Ontario, the health unit and would be
satisfactory to The Department of Education.
I might say the suggestion is, with all the
improvements on the old portion of the
school, that the cost would be $407,000 in
round figures. But, he said, the grant on this
from the Ontario government would amount
to $178,000, leaving a total share for the
district high school area of $229,000.
Then he says we have another plan, the
second proposal, he said you could build 17
rooms on the district high school but he said
you would have to tear down eight of the
old rooms, rooms that were added in 1923
and 1929, which would mean building a
total of 17 rooms at a total cost— with furn-
ishings and everything— of $513,000. Now if
you built a new school, the grant that would
be possible from the federal Department of
Education would be around $301,000, where
in the first proposal the grant would be $178,-
000, by improving the rooms that were built
in 1923 and 1929. Leaving a total for the
school area of $211,000.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, and I believe
around December 14, if I remember correctly,
in this House the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) announced here that in the year
1960, 101 new schools or additions to exist-
ing schools were completed at a cost of $100
million. This means two new schools for
every working day in the year. Now, Mr.
Speaker, if this grant system works the same
across the province— as it does in these two
proposals that the architect outlined to the
school board in this district— I think it is a
waste and I believe that we should have some
efficiency—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Would
the hon. member permit a question? Could
I ask the names of these school sections so
that I may check what the hon. member is
talking about?
Mr. Spence: Blenheim District High
School. I could send to the hon. Prime Min-
ister, Mr. Speaker, the paper I have quoted
these figures from.
This is a serious matter to the taxpayers
of the province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. At
the present time when the cost of education is
so great, I think the government, and the hon.
Prime Minister, should look into these tilings
and see that there is no inefficiency in school
grants. If these rooms that were built in
1923 and 1929, if they cannot be repaired
and improved and save the province a little
money, when the burden of the school tax is
so great on the taxpayers.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that maybe if
we had a little efficiency here we could do
away with this sales tax. Or accept the plan
which the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer) outlined. He introduced
a bill here a short time ago, an exemption of
tax on all articles below $25, except beer,
liquor, and tobacco and so forth. This would
be a great relief to the taxpayers who are
practically paying all the taxes they can stand
at the present time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I might say that I
would like to bring to the attention of the
Ontario water resources commission, in
regards to the sewage disposal systems in our
towns and villages of the province of Ontario.
I would like to say it seems to be among the
property owners that there is a feeling among
them that the cost involved— the Act should
give the property owners the right to say
whether the town undertakes to instal . a
sewage system and water mains. I understand
at the present time the council makes that
decision with the approval of the municipal
board. And I might say, Mr. Speaker, a
number of the taxpayers in these towns and
\'illages are quite concerned because there are
\ ery few industries there or very few indus-
tries locating in their towns to help to lighten
the tax load of the property owners.
I understand the system is that the com-
munity is paying back $2 to $3 interest for
every dollar the sewerage systems cost. I
feel that with towns of less than 5,000 people,
it would be practically impossible to handle
this because the ratio of expenses to tlie
assessment will raise the taxes too high.
Generally speaking, I would suggest that the
Ontario water resources commission re-
appraise their thinking on communities of
less than 5,000 people. I also feel, Mr.
Speaker, that sewage systems in our towns
would rank second to a proper water dis-
tribution system.
I would also ask, Mr. Speaker, what is be-
ing done to encourage industry to come into
our towns and villages? This would greatly
lighten the burden of the taxpayers. I
618
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
certainly wish to say it is of prime impor-
tance to tliis government that industry should
be encouraged to build or to settle or establish
in these towns and villages.
I would like to say here, too, that I asked
a question of the hon. Minister of Highways
(Mr. Goodfellow) on December 7 in regard
to an article in the London Free Press, an
announcement by the deputy Minister in re-
gard to the portion of Highway 401 from
Tempo to Tilbury, which was going to be
made a two lane highway. In the article it
said that the traffic would not warrant a four-
lane highway in this area until 1968. I was
pleased with the announcement of the hon.
Minister that he was going to make every
effort to complete the other two lanes in the
year 1964. We in that area will be looking
forward to a complete opening of 401 right
through to the city of Toronto.
I would like to also add here I am very
pleased with the fine job the Western Ontario
Agricultural School is doing in our part of the
province. A large number of young farmers
are making use of the fine course that is being
taught in that school. I might say also I was
pleased to learn that 80 per cent of those
who have attended in the past at that school
returned to the farm. I believe these schools
tend to improve and help and assist those
who are returning back to the industry of
agriculture. We are very proud, Mr. Speaker,
to say what a fine job they are doing.
There are many other things I might say.
I hope I will take part in the budget debate.
With those few remarks, I thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, in making my small contribution
to this Throne debate, I would first offer
my best wishes to you, sir, and wish you
good health for the coming year. I am
sure, sir, that you will continue to show
the same impartial attitude in conducting
the business of this House as you have in
the past.
I would also, sir, at this time congratu-
late the new hon. members elected in the
five by-elections that took place in January.
I am sure that they will make a contribu-
tion to the political life of this province.
It seems too bad, Mr. Speaker, that such
intelligent young men should become lodged
in the sea of frustration of the Conserva-
tives and in particular the Liberal party,
when across this province there are thou-
sands and thousands of young, serious-
thinking people now finding their rightful
place in the New Democratic Party.
An hon. member: What about Argue?
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): We were
glad to get rid of him.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): They
have not absorbed him yet.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Speaker, in the past
seven years in the House, and before I be-
came a mismber, the CCF party presented
to this House and to the people of the prov-
ince of Ontario a reasonable and logical
programme, one that the province needs
and one that the people deserve. It seems
that we have been talking to a stone wall
for so long that it might be considered
useless to try to convince the government
of the day that they are still on the wrong
side. But I assure hon. members that our
efforts will increase with vigour in the com-
ing year to the point where we will not
have to ask or beg, we will implement the
programme that is desirable.
Mr. Speaker, it seems about the only
thing that has come out of this session so
far is the government's decision to establish
what is called the Ontario Economic Coun-
cil. We need this council, Mr. Speaker,
about as badly as we need more members
on the opposite side. But the establishment
of such a council, Mr. Speaker, is a frank
admission by the government that it is now
time for some real economic long-term plan-
ning. However, even this council will not
solve the problems which face us today.
As has been pointed out, this is an "ad-
visory council," not a "fact-finding" or an
"action" council. It seems that whenever
the government finds itself in a spot it sets
up still another advisory council. Then
when they do their work, gather the material
necessary, the results are shelved once more
and their efforts have been of no avail.
What we need now, Mr. Speaker, is some
immediate action to deal with the present
economic crisis, the problem of creating
some 60,000 more jobs in tlie coming year
for the new people going into the labour
force. This is going to require some real
government planning, both on a short term
and the long term basis. It is all right, to
say, Mr. Speaker, that we have 113,000
unemployed, chronic unemployed. I would
think that 60 per cent of that group are
never going to find their place again in the
labour force in this province. The jobs they
can do are not there, they are considered
too old. They are considered not of the
educational grade to do the work available.
Then we find we have to create a large
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
619
number of jobs for the newcomers. We do
not know whether they have the proper
quahfications to do the type of work that
is going to be available.
But there is another serious problem that
has been overlooked in the past four years,
Mr. Speaker, That is the problem of the
hundreds of thousands of unorganized workers
in this province who are working for sub-
standard wages, in poor conditions and for
long hours.
The main point is their substandard wages.
They are just not able to contribute to the
purchasing power of this province. They
are not able to buy the things that we produce
in this province. They are not able to buy the
things that are produced by the heavy basic
industry. This problem is a responsibility of
both labour and management. Certainly,
where we find the well organized basic plant,
we find a healthy industry.
I am pleased to be able to say that the
Steel Company of Canada since 1958 has
adopted some of the recommendations at the
pleading of the local union and the inter-
national union inasmuch as they have held
the line on their prices since that tune. This
has got to be done by more of the wealthy
industries across this province. Either hold
their prices at a stable level, or reduce them
so that their customers in the fabricating and
the secondary industries can give better
wages to the employees in those groups.
What we need, Mr. Speaker, is some action.
A vastly expanded public works programme
to be undertaken immediately is one of the
short-term priority projects. We need more
hospitals, more schools, more parks and more
recreational facilities. I know that this has
been said many times by so many people,
but it seems that we just do not recognize
the need or do not care.
I visited a friend three weeks ago in the
Hamilton General Hospital. His bed was
shoved back in a corner so tightly that two
persons could hardly get near him to make
a visit. The congestion was something dis-
graceful, I hope that we take a real look at
the need for the building of more hospitals.
If we do not treble these then the problems
we are going to be faced with in the future
will overwhelm us.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there
are things that this government could do
immediately, not just to set the basis for some
economic improvement in the province, but
to come up to date with the times. That is
to revise their labour legislation— their welfare
legislation— at least in hne with the many
other provinces across this country and make
some effort to reach the tremendous social
welfare legislation they have in the European
countries.
We could immediately, Mr. Speaker, estab-
lish a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour for
both men and women. This would go a long
way towards increasing the purchasing power
of our people. At $1.25 an hour, Mr. Speaker
—if they worked a 40 hour week— their take-
home pay would be $50; or if they worked
48 hours, the legal maximum, they would get
$60, a total of $3,120 a year.
That is just under half our indemnity as
members in this House for the few months
that we have to serve. I am sure the hon.
members will agree that this is not exorbitant.
We should establish immediately in this
province, Mr. Speaker, a legal maximum of
an eight-hour day and a 40-hour week. There
is no justifiable excuse to continue on in the
medieval thinking that we are carrying on at
the present time. This should be without
reduction in take-home pay and with not less
than time and a half for unavoidable overtime.
Certainly another contribution could be
made, Mr. Speaker, by an increase in vaca-
tions with pay. Thousands of our people who
are working in the sub-standard industries
are getting no more than one week. I have
explained before what it would mean, if a
million of the workers in this province were
given extended vacations; have explained
what it would mean to steady jobs for the
unemployed.
The government should simplify the certi-
fication procedures in The Labour Relations
Act to give genuine encouragement to the
unorganized to get into a union of their
choice so that they can help themselves and
raise their standards of living.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that these
measures are a prerequisite to sound economic
planning and a must for the 1960's. Let us
see this government take a forward step at
this time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal
with the Royal York strike for a moment.
This strike has been going on now for almost
a year. I do not know the exact number of
people involved but I believe it is between
430 and 485.
I do not think that anyone can deny that
their strike is justified. Their conditions were
inadequate; their conditions were those that
hon. members would not find in any other
industry.
They had done a brilliant job in main-
taining the picket line without violence or
620
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
trouble and I hope that they continue to do
so until they feel they have reached what
they consider an honourable settlement. I
think they deserve the the support of all hon.
members of this House; the public; and the
people of Toronto in particular.
Many strikes take place, Mr. Speaker. Some
are won with emphasis on different provisions.
Sometimes a long strike take place for union
recognition; sometimes for a better health
and welfare programme; sometimes it is
specifically for higher wages. But they are all
settled at one time or the other.
I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that there have
been strikes that the unions have considered
they have lost, but in all cases, as far as I
am concerned, they have admitted their loss
and they have gone back to work, with at
least their union intact and with a feeling
that they still have their souls.
The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Warren-
der), or I might at this time say the minister
of anti-labour, as he is rapidly becoming
known, really fluffed his first assignment. As
we adjourned for the Christmas holidays, we
had an assurance from the hon. Minister that
he had evolved a secret plan that would settle
the Royal York strike. It was very secret; so
secret that it took six weeks to reach the
light of day. When the hon. Minister finally
revealed this plan, it turned out to be nothing
more than a warmed-over version of manage-
ment's proposals. The hon. Minister was
indignant when the strikers, not unreason-
ably, turned it down.
I am wondering whether the hon. Minister
now wishes that his secret plan had not re-
mained secret for all time. It certainly did
not accomplish anything, except to have
organized labour wonder whether they are
now dealing with a minister of management,
instead of an hon. Minister of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, tlie incompetence and the in-
experience of the hon. Minister in his bungling
of that attempt was very disturbing to the
workers in that hotel. I have often, in this
House, criticized the previous hon. Minister of
Labour (Mr. Daley) for his lack of initiative
and for his lack of taking part and trying to
put some drive into settling serious strikes.
But I could never accuse him of being partial
and indignant, or at any time of using coercion
to obtain a settlement. If he could not settle
it, if he could not do anything about it, he
left it alone.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of
Labour in talking to the television and the
press to express his indignation over the
alleged failure by the union negotiators to
keep an agreement they supposedly made
with the hon. Minister of Labour, in my
opinion, became nothing less than an agent
of the C.P.R. management.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): What else was
he? He just p\it forward the C.P.R. proposal.
Mr. Gisbom: I was not too surprised, Mr.
Speaker, because the hon. Minister of Labour
has held several portfolios in this House and
in my opinion he failed in all of them.
Planning and Development, Hydro, Municipal
Affairs and now as the hon. Minister of
Labour. Certainly he will go down as the
agent of management in this particular afiFair.
Mr. Thomas: He will be rewarded though,
later on.
Mr. Gisbom: His efforts and his actions in
this situation made him appear to me like
the lackey who had acquired a tremendous
appetite for the flavour of bootblack. I hope,
Mr. Speaker, that the leaders of this govern-
ment will make sure that we have no more of
this partial, blatant coercion on behalf of
agents of the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like through
you, sir, to have a word with my charming
friend, the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
(Mr. Macaulay).
An hon. member: When did he get charm-
ing?
Mr. Gisbom: Well, I am sure he made a
charming speech to his fairy godchild captive
audience of 30— it did not say how many— but
I am sure he made a very charming speech
to them. I noted in his comments that he took
the opportunity in an insidious way to draw
an analogy between the Communisty Party
and the New Democratic Party. If he calls
this mass communistic psychology, I wonder
what those 30 young godchild Progressive
Conservatives thought of the malarkey he
poured out to them last night.
But the main point of his speech, Mr.
Speaker, was this: A news story in last
Friday's Toronto Daily Star, Febniary 23, was
headed: "Labour Destroying Self by N.D.P.
Link— Macaulay." I would suggest, Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow's news story should read:
Macaulay in Wishful Daydream— Gisbom".
Because I want to assure the hon. Minister
that the trade union movement is going to
continue to take political action, basically
because they are convinced that it is the
policy and the lack of planning of the govern-
ment to which the hon. Minister belongs, that
are responsible for them being deprived of
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
621
a job, deprived of a decent standard of living
and deprived of the human dignity that they
so rightfully deserve.
This concern about organized labour does
him credit, though I would like to see him
display the same kind of concern for big
business involvement in politics. But perhaps
the hon. Minister's concern would not be quite
so great if organized labour had decided—
and here I must ask the hon. members to
really stretch their imagination— if they had
decided to become involved with the Tory
party. I can assure the hon. Minister that
the trade union movement will continue its
support and become part of the New Demo-
cratic Party, not because of any narrow,
selfish interest on their part but because they
feel that as New Democrats they can join
with the farmers, the professionals, house-
wives, in fact all the people of Canada, to
work out a programme that will benefit all
the people.
Mr. Bryden: Who took the picture of the
hon. Minister at that meeting?
Mr. Gisbom: Mr. Speaker, maybe at this
point while we are dealing with labour's sup-
port of the New Democratic Party, I should
say something about the policy of the Liberal
party in regards to labour. Certainly they
have been doing, or attempting to do, a lot
of wooing of the trade union groups. I was
sure they would like to hear of the three
Liberals from Local 1005, out of a member-
ship of 8,000 who expressed some concern
about the method of our joining the New
Democratic Party. After having three weeks
notice that the meeting would take place,
there was no one there to speak on behalf
of the Liberal party, so we cancelled the
meeting and held it a week later. At that
meeting they did have a spokesman. But
strangely enough, his argument was that we
should not join with the New Democratic
Party and support the Liberals, he just said
we should not talk about politics in a union
hall.
For the benefit of the House I would say,
Mr. Speaker, that our local union, with over
8,000 members, is proud to affiliate with the
New Democratic Party. We will use our in-
fluence in the trade union movements across
this province and across Canada to tell them
why. And for the information of some of
those who are so concerned about our con-
tracting-out provisions^ we have 38 members
out of over 8,000 contracted out. I do not
even know who they are myself, contrary to
the remarks of some of those insidious think-
ing people who say we have a black book
and we put their names down and then really
kick them about after.
Let me take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker,
at this time to warn the trade union move-
ment about the Liberal policy in regard to
this. In general, it is not necessary. They
know that in the federal House they held
office for some 22 years and did absolutely
nothing towards helping the programme for
the trade union movement. They have not
forgotten, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Mitchell
Hepburn's famous hussars and his famous
statements in 1937 that he would drive the
C.I.O. out of Canada. Some of this thinking
still sticks with the Liberal party.
The hon. member across the way, Mr.
Speaker, says that is ancient. Does he con-
sider the dictatorial actions of Joey Small-
wood ancient? When this happened the
Liberal party in the province of Ontario and
across this country sat on their hands. They
might, in passing, have said they did not
agree with him. But had they disagreed with
it in the manner it deserved, they would have
risen with strong indignation and condenmed
Joey Smallwood for his dictatorial actions.
Also, when the B.C. Social Credit govern-
ment brought in their infamous legislation to
bar the trade union movement from partici-
pating in politics financially, they accepted it
with some glee. No one will kid me that
they took any other position on it.
But we have also—
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of privilege. Tlie hon.
member is stating inaccurate remarks in con-
nection with the B.C. Liberal party. I would
suggest that he read some of the programme
that they have.
Mr. Gisborn: I did not mention, Mr.
Speaker, the B.C. Liberal party at all. I am
talking about the Ontario Liberal joarty.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Oh, so
we are responsible for the legislation of
British Columbia.
Mr. Gisborn: I did not say hon. members
were responsible for it, but I say, and I still
maintain, that hon. members accepted the
plea, they sat on their hands.
An hon. member: That is what they did.
Mr. Gisborn: If they did not, I would like
to hear one of their labour spokesmen tell us
their position on the B.C. legislation.
We do not have to go outside of the House,
Mr. Speaker, to get some idea of the Liberal
622
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
party's approach to labour's movements in
this province—
An Hon. member: We will never get
another labour vote after this.
Mr. Gisbom: We had the now deceased
member for Kenora (Mr. Wren) whom I
always admired for his forthright position on
the problems of the northland and his partic-
ular riding. He expounded some philosophy
on behalf of the Liberal party when he said
we should get away from international trade
unionism and get into national trade union-
ism. He echoed, at that time, the precise
thinking of the Canadian Manufacturers'
Association and the propaganda they were
pouring out across this country.
We have the hon. member for Essex North
(Mr. Reaume) in this Throne debate taking
on the hon. member for Woodbine (Mr.
Bryden) about his legislation, his bill to ex-
pose campaign contributions, and he said:
Put, also put in your legislation— I
would recommend that you put in your
legislation that the trade union locals have
a secret ballot to decide whether they
would join the New Democratic Party or
not.
This is an indication of what the Lib-
erals would do— legislate the internal prob-
lems of the trade union movement every
chance they get.
Mr. Singer: Is the hon. member opposed
to secret ballot?
Mr. Bryden: We are opposed to hon.
members trying to interfere witli their affairs.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): But it is all right for the hoii.
member to interfere.
Mr. Bryden: We would not interfere at
all. It is their own decision concerning their
own constitutions.
Mr. Gisbom: That is right, I am talking
about interference with their internal prob-
lems iand their internal rights, not their
public responsibilities.
Another indication, Mr. Speaker, that I
must mention of the Liberal Party's attitude
towards labour took place in Simcoe when
a large group of lawyers, I believe the paper
stated, voted with the majority to have court
action in regard to compensation cases. Cer-
tainly if there ever was a move to really
upset one of the finest pieces of legislation
and provide a bonanza for an up and com-
ing young group of Liberal lawyers, this
is it.
An hon. member: Has the hon. member
talked to him, does he know what his name
is?
Mr. Gisborn: These, Mr. Speaker, are
some of the indications and the attitudes
expressed by the Liberal Party in regard to
the labour movement in this country.
Now for something on a lighter side. I
was glad to hear my hon. friend from Went-
worth (Mr. R. C. Edwards) express his vexa-
tion with regard to the vocational training
school in Hamilton. He did not say very
much about the need for it or the fact that
a school will be established in London, but
he was vexed because he was not contacted
instead of the mayor and the committee
in Hamilton in regard to the placing of a
vocational school or vocational college in
Hamilton. I just want to tell him how far
he is behind the time. I was part of the
committee and helped to elect-
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): And that
is what happened!
Mr. Gisbom: —and helped elect a very
responsible trade unionist in Hamilton to
the committee. They are so far ahead of
the Liberal member in Hamilton he does
not know how to catch up. They had dis-
cussions with the city coimcil, they had
been in contact with the Premier of this
province, they had been in contact with
senior officials of the board of education.
I am hopeful that their efforts are going
to bear some fruit and serious consideration
will be given to a vocational training school
in that highly industrialized area of Ham-
ilton.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude at
this point and I assure the hon. members
that they will hear more from this party
before this session is over.
An hon. member: Hear, hear. Is that a
threat or a promise?
Mr. Gisborn: I have been waiting
patiently, Mr. Speaker, to hear or see some-
thing of the Liberal Party's provincial pro-
gramme. I might as well go into the same
wishful thinking and day-dreaming that the
hon. Minister from Riverdale ( Mr. Macaulay )
has gone into the last week, because I do
not think they have got one-
Mr, J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Tell us about it.
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
623
Mr. Gisborn: I do not think they know how
to develop one, but I will assure them that
this fall when the Ontario New Democratic
Party will have its regular convention-
Mr. Wintermeyer: I thought they had one.
An hon. member: Did they not have one
before?
Another hon. member: This will be a
dumbfounding convention.
Mr. MacDonald: We had them regularly
enough— we will not be as dumbfounded as
you were.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the hon. mem-
bers to let the hon. member proceed. I do
not believe he needs any running commen-
tary. I would ask the hon. members for
order.
Mr. Gisborn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
am not bothered in the least. In the fall we
will have our second convention and there
will be developed and presented to the public
the most dynamic programme this province
has ever seen. It will be a programme that
will bring about the social and economic
justice that this province so greatly deserves
and has no chance of obtaining through either
of the two old parties.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, may I at the start, sir, congratulate
you because I sincerely believe that you have
earned the respect of all sides of this House
for your urbanity, your gentle humour and
your kindness. One of the aspects of your
kindness which I certainly appreciated is
that every Christmas you send me, and I
presume you send it to every hon. member
of the House, a little book on proverbs for
daily living. I decided that I would look in
this book in order to try to understand your
cool calmness and I suggest that the hon.
member for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) would
do well to read it, there are some gems of
wisdom-
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): I got a head
start a year-and-a-half ago.
Mr. Thompson: Well, the hon. member
got another one this year as well, which
probably he overlooked. But, Mr. Speaker,
I am talking to you at this point, I realize
that you have obviously read the book, and
I realize that you have assumed some of the
philosophy from the book. I think that in
this philosophy the secret of your own ap-
proach to us is described in one of your
proverbs: "A little explained, a little en-
dured"—I want to emphasize that in view of
having sat here during the last speaker— "a
little endured, a little forgiven, the quarrel
is cured."
May I add, sir, that I was inspired by the
book and thought I would see some proverb
that might be fitting for me as I stood today
to make my remarks on the Throne Speech,
and I saw this, sir. A proverb saying, "A
slip of the foot, sir, you may soon recover,
but a slip of the tongue you may never get
over." This is not the most invigorating
stimulant to encourage me to speak, so I
looked just ahead of that to another proverb:
"Up, sluggard, and waste not life. In the
grave will be sleeping enough!"
An hon. member: No wonder he said that
to the Liberal Party.
Mr. Thompson: This book was not given to
me or my party alone. I imagine you might
have sent two or three of these copies to the
leader of the New Democratic Party-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That
is a very weak comeback.
Mr. Thompson: —but I would say that cer-
tainly you have sent it to the other side of
the House. Quite frankly I am not feeling as
personal about your remarks as the leader of
the New Democratic party because I do not
think it applies to me completely. But I
would suggest, sir, that we;, should look at the
convention, the leadership convention of the
Conservative party and perhaps some of these
gems from your proverbs^ will apply there.
Now, sir, a dynasty has passed in Ontario.
A chieftain has retired, and I am sure I
speak for all the House-when I say we wish
him a most pleasant retirement. I am also
sure that the hon. Minister of Lands and
Forests (Mr. Spooner) will have to replenish
the lakes near Lindsay because the chieftain
was very able in luring votes and I imagine
he is just as accomplished in luring fish.
Before the dust of the leadership battle has
settled, I would like to congratulate the new
hon. Prime Minister of Ontario (Mr. Robarts),
the man on whose uneasy head lies the crown.
I would suggest that he is assuming a very
great responsibility and I am sure all of us
wish him the best of health in this because
we know the personal sacrifice that is required
in public oflBce, the sacrifice from his family
and the tremendous pressure of work that
he has to assume.
624
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, I say that tlie dust of the leadership
convention had probably settled, although I
was inclined to question this. I noticed last
week, sir, one hon. member on the other side
of the House who seemed to me to be more
concerned about whether the dust had settled
or not. I notice him just walk into the House.
And I suspected that he perhaps felt he had
been scarred by the chase for the leadership
and he was pleading, with head bloody and
bowed, before the House. I hope that the
hon. Prime Minister will deal kindly and
gently with those who fell by the wayside
because of the choices that they made during
that leadership convention.
I would suggest to the hon. members on
the other side that I would feel with this
hon. Prime Minister there will not be the
same need for obsequious bowing to him.
Since I have been in this House I imagine
there have been at least 10 pages that have
been spoken by hon. members glorifying the
previous Prime Minister, in the hope that—
I would say about 10 pages of quotes have
been taken—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): The hon. member has just been glorify-
ing him himself.
Mr. Thompson: But not with the same
objective that the hon. Minister has.
Well, sir, there have been 18 years of
smug and complacent Conservative rule, and
I would like to look just a little bit at the
fight that did take place for the new leader.
Were the issues discussed— this is the first
question— did they get out a platform— the
men running for office? Because, believe me,
sir, there were issues that should have been
discussed. I suppose in the 18 years that this
Conservative government has ruled in Ontario
it has had the most peculiar record, possibly,
in the whole of the British Commonwealth.
The immorality that has been exposed with
respect to people in public office.
1 just emphasize again that there were
three of the previous Cabinet Ministers who
were forced to resign because of their con-
flict between private and public interests. We
have seen conflict between private and public
interests in connection with the scandals in
municipal life, in Eastview, in Belleville, in
Arnprior, in York township, Vaughan town-
ship, Mimico and so on. I think that to me
the real blot on the record of the Conserva-
tive government has been their lack of ability
to face up to the issue of public poverty in
the face of private wealth.
This is the richest province in Canada and
yet our cities have slums, children are
neglected, mental hospitals are overcrowded,
and they are backward, and the pleas made
that they have not got enough professional
staff— the pleas made by the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions (Mr. Haskett) that he
cannot attract professional stafF; but I suggest
if we were waging war in connection with
an enemy or nation attacking us, we would
train in a very great hurry people to tackle
the problem and I wish that this government
had seen the urgency to tackle the public
poverty in the face of private wealth.
Now, sir, I was interested to see if in the
leadership race any of the gentlemen who
were running suddenly saw the light and
realized that perhaps the record of the pre-
vious leader had not been particularly bright.
I think it befitting that it was the hon.
member for DufiPerin-Simcoe (Mr. Downer)
whom I read about first, who saw the situa-
tion of the backwardness and the lack of
interest in public morahty and in trying to
help the poverty that there is and the gaps
in prosperity in this province; and he said
it, I think, in the language that is charac-
teristic of his background, and I quote from
the Toronto Star of October 21, 1961, and
this is what this aspirant for leadership said:
I ask myself how in the name of heaven
can we expect to change from the evils
of our government and over-taxation if the
expenditures being made during the cam-
paign are representative of the kind of
government that these men expect to lead.
This aspirant for leadership, Mr. Speaker,
was referring to the others including the
one who became successful, and he was
referring particularly to the hon. Minister
of Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay) who
had a pamphlet — a handy and expensive
pamphlet brochure somediing like those
that we often see on our desks coming from
his department— and it was entitled, "Dedi-
cation, Experience, Responsibility," and the
aspirant, the hon. member for Dufferin-
Simcoe (Mr. Downer), said that as well as
dedication, experience, responsibility, he
said, "I would add extravagance."
Both the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond) and the hon. member for Dufferin-
Simcoe were concerned about too much
government. They suddenly saw the wis-
dom, which they had not seen before when
they served under the then Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost). Again they are quoted as call-
ing for more activity on the part of The
Department of Commerce and Development
in reallocating industry into the province.
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
625
Another point the hon. Minister of Health
talked about was the splendid adventure in
the free enterprise system. I am not not quite
sure if he spelled out his philosophy in
reallocating industry, and his statement with
respect to this splendid adventure in the
free enterprise system.
There was another aspirant, the hon,
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts), and it was
stated that he had campaigned with great
energy, but he did not come out with any
particularly profound insight into the deca-
dence of the 18 years of rule under the
Conservatives. He said, "I have no profound
announcement." This was in the Kenora
Miner. "I have no profound announcement
concerning politics," said the hon. Attorney-
General. "I shall use the beacon, the great
wisdom of Mr. Frost as is reflected in the
prosperity of Ontario, the leader of the
Dominion."
Now, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that not all
the aspirants for leadership were satisfied
with the beacon of the previous hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost). The hon. Minister of
Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay) was not
satisfied. He obviously wanted to chart his
own course and thought that the beacon
that the hon. Attorney-General was follow-
ing might lead into the rocks, because the
hon. Minister of Energy Resources, accord-
ing to the North Bay Nugget of August 10,
1961, said, "With man orbiting the earth
the age of the horse and buggy is over."
Again in the Kingston Whig Standard on
October 18, 1958, he said, "There must be
changes in the Conservative platform if the
party is to succeed after Frost's departure."
And indeed he mapped out a most unusual
course for his party. I think he was guided
very much by the policies of the Liberal
Party, both in Ottawa and here. I notice
a great similarity taking place from the
speeches of the hon. Minister of Energy
Resources (Mr. Macaulay) and those that
had been fought for by the hon. leader of my
party. For example, like the municipal loans
fund which the province was going to
emphasize.
Let me say another thing that the hon.
Minister of Energy Resources had in com-
mon with my hon. leader. He had some
concern and apprehension about the sales
tax because he said, when he was asked
about the sales tax, and I quote from the
Lindsay Post of October 16:
he was not sure that the sales tax was
the fairest method of raising the needed
extra revenue. Personal income tax levy
might be a better method, he declared.
Hon, R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): I never said any such thing in
my life. I never mention^ the sales tax
during the whole of the process.
Mr. MacDonald: Are you questioning the
Lindsay Post?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I do not care what the
Lindsay Post says —
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would be
glad to read from the Lindsay Post and send
it over to the hon. Minister—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: What date is that,
may I ask?
Mr. Thompson: October 16—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I do not know any-
thing about it.
Mr. Thompson: —1961. I would be very
glad to read it:
PC party leader aspirant, Robert
Macaulay, is not prepared to comment on
the future of the 3 per cent Ontario sales
tax, should he become the party leader.
He said Sunday afternoon at Lindsay that
until the tax was introduced, the province
was running in the red to the tune of about
three hundred million.
And I would say he had more insight than
the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan)
when he brought this out. He figured the
tax revenue would cut this by about half.
However, he also said that he was not sure
this was the fairest method of raising the
needed revenue. And in quotes, Mr. Speaker,
and I am now quoting:
Personal income tax levy might be a
better way.
Hon. Mr. Maculay: I never made any
such statement as that.
An hon. member: And to make such a
statement on Sunday.
Mr. Thompson: May I say some more
which the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
has— at least he is alleged to have said— but
he has conveniently, or perhaps not con-
veniently, but anyway, he has forgotten now.
And this is from the Peterborough Examiner
of October 16, 1961. He decried the past
lack of economic planning, especially of
northern Ontario, and he added— and I think
this is an unusually perceptice thing on the
part of the hon. Minister; he added— we have
got to have goals.
626
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An hon. member: We have got to have
what?
Mr. Thompson: Goals. It might mean jails.
Now I would like to say this for the hon.
Minister of Energy Resources. He was
unique of all the aspirants in that he wanted
to have a programme. And he described that
he had a disappointment because the others
did not seem to have a programme. Frankly,
I think that another approach in which he is
unique is that I personally think that the
hon. Minister of Energy Resources reads. I
think that he reads and I think that he has
obviously studied, not only the economic pro-
gramme of the Liberal party, but also some of
the programmes around the world.
Now I know that the previous hon. Minister
of Labour (Mr. Daley) will say that is a
dangerous thing for any young man to do, as
he has to me. Perhaps it is, in the Con-
servative party. But sir, this is where the
contrasts came in connection with the now
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts). Because,
unlike the hon. Minister of Energy Resources,
the hon. Prime Minister really did not want
to discuss any programme. He made this
profound statement at Cornwall on September
25. "There are various fields in which I
have interests but I am not advocating any
great breaks with firm policy.".
Now I would be unfair to say that it was
just the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
who had a programme. The hon. member for
Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Downer) also came out
with an inspiring programme, which I must
say did differ a little from that of the hon.
Minister of Energy Resources. But I think
what the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
had hoped for was that the leadership, or the
apparent leadership aspirants, would come out
with some kind of policy. However, the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond) dodged
this, I thought somewhat effectively, in sug-
gesting that it was not up to the leaders to
make policy, it was up to the grass roots
to do it.
And so, sir, I went to the grass roots, that
is to the 40 or 50 who sat in the Conservative
convention working out a policy. And I saw
the enlightened approach that they were
going to develop, the new approach that
would solve the problems of this great
province.
The first thing that was high on the list
was that the liquor laws should be modern-
ized. Then, with the true sense of respon-
sibility of a provincial government, they said
that more money must come from the federal
government for old-age pensions.
The unsatisfied judgment fund was to be
changed and they were going to cover loop-
holes in the federal Bill of Rights. The
other was that there would be some kind of
an arrangement to attract immigrant families
to work on farms and that immigrants should
be able to be covered immediately by The
Ontario Hospital Insurance Act.
This is what came out of this great con-
vention that we have heard so much about.
Well, sir, I was interested. I was actually
out west at the time, so I had to find out
from reports on the convention from the
newspapers.
I realized the fight that must be taking
place in Toronto, as all eyes were watching
the performance. I was in Calgary at the
time and it was a couple of days before
I was able to get my Globe and Mail, be-
cause I believed that would be the most
objective newspaper to give me an idea of
what had taken place at the conventioi;i. I
picked up my Globe and Mail of October 26,
1961, in connection with this elaborate con-
vention from which a leader was going to
stride forth.
The Globe and Mail, on their editorial
page, this is how they talked of this great
convention: "Organized Idiocy." And they
went on to describe—
An hon. member: Who said that?
Mr. Thompson: The Globe and Mail of
October 26, 1961. And then they went on
to describe how this great Conservative
Party, trying to show a flush of youth, had
had to invigor its ranks by hiring young- men
and some old people, who were supposed to
put on phoney demonstrations for each of
the seven candidates.
Sir, is this the decline and fall of the Frost
empire? This reign, which again I want to
emphasize is peculiar because it has with-
stood the resignation of three Cabinet Min-
isters, it withstood improprieties in public
ofiice, the municipal office, and it withstood
the cry of people about the glaring inequality
in connection with crowded institutions, with
slums, with children in institutions.
I want to emphasize that point. We have
been waiting for a long time to see if the
government would take responsibility for
young children who are in institutions. I
asked the hon. Minister of Pubhc Welfare
(Mr- Cecile) about this two years ago. He
told me it was not a responsibility of govern-
ment, yet the government gives grants to
these institutions. I will be interested in see-
ing the report that comes out in connection
with this.
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
627
All I can say about the convention, Mr.
Speaker, is what was written up by a very
wonderful and penetrating columnist who
died some time ago. She was with the
Financial Post and had been with the
Toronto Telegram. It is Judith Robinson of
whom I am speaking, sir.
May I just simply say that she feels that
after the leadership election there needs to
be a great deal of roof patching. She feels
that it is going to be hard for one particular
aspirant to be able to fit in with the rest
of his Cabinet. Now, I feel that with regard
to this man and some of the things that he
came out with, and I am referring to the
hon. Minister of Energy Resources (Mr.
Macaulay), I would agree with the incisive
ability of Judith Robinson to see some of
these situations. She suggests that Bob, as
she says, should not be in the same govern-
ment with them and hon. members and I
should not be in the same party.
Now, sir, I think that the hon. Minister
of Energy Resources is a man who reads.
He is unusual from many of our celebrated
colleagues on the other side in that having
read he has learned. He came out with some
very intelligent and able things. The only
di^culty is that neither he nor they would
be accepted by that old decadent administra-
tion which has been warped and shrivelled
over 18 years.
Now, the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Ro-
barts) looked at me as though I might be
being a little bit unfair in this.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Oh,
no, I do not. I do not look at the hon.
member as if he were unfair.
Mr. Thompson: I do not think the hon.
Prime Minister should, if he does.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. member is not
unfair.
Mr. Thompson: In regard to the five by-
elections recently, one of the great prides of
the old, big dynasty was that: "We never
lose a by-election. We never lose a by-
election." That is the old refrain, the old
refrain.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: A Liberal never died
before, they just let the air out.
Mr. Thompson: It is an old refrain. Now,
what happened? I would like to suggest in
the hon. member's little proverb book here
there is a great deal of truth that could be
applied to this party, because one of the
proverbs, for March 2, I think, said: "All is
lost that is poured into a cracked dish."
No matter how they embellish it with
words, sir, the Conservative party's dish is
cracked. We see this. We see the almost
desperate endeavour on their part during, the
Throne Speech to embellish the plate, to
hide the crack, cover it up with sticking
plaster or something.
Here was the usual platitudinous state-
ment, looking up to the mountain top. But
another little thing in the hon. member's
book says, and I say this particularly with
reference to the Throne Speech, and this is
the motto for today, February 26. It says:
"A good example is the best sermon." I
would suggest that we naturally will be
cynical of these highly platitudinous remarks
that come from the Throne Speech, because
we have not seen much of a good example
from this Conservative government.
Now, sir, are we too harsh with the beat
of drums and with the wave of an enormous
panorama? The hon. Minister without Port-
folio (Mr. Grossman), the hon. Commissioner
of Liquor— I am sorry I have not got the
title straight but he is smiling at me and I
think he knows that I am referring to him—
was suggesting there were going to be great
provisions in the liquor laws and of course
we looked with anticipation to this, because
the hon. leader of the Opposition had pointed
out very clearly the direction that the hon.
Minister should have taken— pointed out very
clearly the hypocrisy in the liquor laws.
And I remember a couple of Sundays ago
being on a radio programme with the hon.
member for St. George (Mr. Lawrence) and
how sorry I felt for him, because I realized
that there was a conflict of conscience be-
tween the man as a party member and a
bright, able, young individual. He could not
talk about anything on that programme and
in a rather plaintive manner his report to
me was, "Well, you know the liquor situa-
tion was really started by Hepburn."
Eighteen years, and yet they have not
changed it.
And then did they change it? What hap-
pened? As the hon. leader of the Opposition
so aptly said, it was like the squeak from a
mouse instead of the roar of the lion. What
did they change? The permits. But, oh, they
were still nervous about that. Here they
stood with righteousness and sanctimonious
attitude about the reason for having the
permit. I can well recall this. Someone
stood up quivering with righteousness and
told me in this House that permits must stay
to guard our youth in case they should get
628
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a bottle of whisky or some such thing. It was
the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost)
who said that.
An hon. member: On March 17.
Mr. Thompson: Was it March 17? Well,
it was a suitable occasion to discuss it.
What happened to change the whole situa-
tion, as it has done very little? As I look
across at the hon. Minister of Liquor Permits,
I know tliat his title is broader but his actions
do not distinguish him as being much more
than chief of liquor permits. I know he is
very restless and hoped to have broader
changes and get this from just a hypocritical
approach. We are cynical about this, why
should we not be cynical about the rest of
the platitudes that are being placed before
us through the Speech from the Throne?
May I say that to me there was an indica-
tion of the priority v\'hich this government
gives when we had safety regulations which
were so urgently needed, when we have
asked that these regulations should come be-
fore the House, when we have had over 25
men die in Metropolitan Toronto because of
the lack of safety regulations, and yet in
priority the regulations that are changed are
in connection with liquor permits while this
regulation with respect to the safety of
workers is still delayed as it goes through
another council prior to being brought down.
Now, sir, I would be unfair to the new
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Warrender) if
you should castigate him for the lack of
action that has taken place with respect to
safety, because I feel very strongly that the
McAndrews Report which came out— these
conditions were known for many years, and
I, as the member for Dovercourt riding,
have seen and talked with people in my
riding who suffered fear and worry every
time they went to work and did not know
their rights, and I hope that very shortly we
will hear of safety regulations and that they
will have the priority that the government
has given to changing the liquor regulations.
May I say that I think of my own riding
at this time; I think of the very real need,
and feel a concern for the people of a minority
group whom we have invited to come to this
country. Now I know that the hon. Minister
of Travel and Publicity (Mr. Cathcart) has
been critical of me because he says I speak
of ethnic groups and I would say to him I
speak of them because I represent them; my
riding is a cosmopohtan one.
And I, sir, have been concerned at the
tendency for exploitation of newcomers in
our society here. And I have seen examples
of that exploitation. I just read here from
the Toronto Star a new affair of an Italian
immigrant who had come to Canada and puts
in 48 hours a week and gets $35, and they
go on to describe more.
And I would suggest that the hon. Minister
of Citizenship (Mr. Yarcmko)-and I am sure
he is concerned as I am— and I am sure he
knows that in his riding as in mine and many
of the others, there are these cases of exploita-
tion. I would like to feel that citizenship
could mean more than just describing the
colour of the maple leaf, even though I must
say that was done with a poetry that speaks
highly of the hon. Minister's artistic soul,
but I would say this, that the hon. Minister
knows as I do that citizenship should mean
equal opportunity and should not mean
exploitation.
I emphasize that one of the ways in which
we can check exploitation is by ensuring a
minimum wage Act, and amplifying it and
seeing that it is carried out. I would say an-
other way is to examine carefully in our
civil service that where people are applying
through the civil service, who do not have a
knowledge of English, or French, that we
have people to help them. We have invited
people to come to this country who are con-
tributing, but I feel sure that if we look at
many of our welfare offices, if we look in
the federal department at the unemployment
insurance offices, we find that the occasion
for a newcomer to go to these offices is one
of frustration and apprehension in that he
cannot make himself understood and he fears
the officials.
And yet surely in this province of ours one
of the great things is that the services, the
public services, are not feared like a Gestapo,
but they are there as a service to the people.
And I think it is an obligation for us to see
that any minority group who have served us
well with their labour— that we also, when
they are in need, serve them well.
I would also like to talk about retraining.
And I would like to put it to the House in
this way. I have listened for example to the
hon. member for St. George (Mr. Lawrence).
I was going through some of his speeches over
the weekend. And I was interested in his
emphasis on immigration. I know there are
many people on all sides of this House who
believe in immigration, who arc immigrants
themselves or their parents were. Yet I would
suggest in the world today if we believe in
getting new people and if we are going to
follow the policies of the hon. federal Minister
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
629
of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fair-
clough), which are to select skilled people
to come here, then— in view of the European
Common Market and the increased prosperity
in many of the industrial countries— we are
going to have to take people from some of the
less wealthy and more rural countries.
And that requires that we take them with
tlie understanding we are going to have to
help them to integrate into our industrial
society at the start. And if we look on it
just purely in terms of economics, I think
that it could be justified to give some kind
of retraining to these new people coming
because, over a period, if they adjust into our
economy, their children are going to be con-
sumers and they themselves are going to be
contributing. And I would say that an ex-
ample for breaking the way on this is right
now, the opportunity— and it is in connection
with the retraining programme which is going
on near my own constituency — to develop
across this province under Schedule 5.
And I would like again, sir, to ask the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) who is also the
hon. Minister of Education, seriously to re-
consider the decision for not permitting men
—who have had trade training in Europe and
who have come here, and who have been
encouraged to come here— for not permitting
them to be included in a retraining pro-
gramme so they can adapt into the Canadian
economy. I think this is something that should
be worked out definitely with Ottawa, as our
economy develops more and as we encourage
more new people to come in.
May I say, sir, that I do not like to feel
that I am being continuously destructive about
what the government proposes. There have
been some glimmers of light, I think
particularly with respect to housing. We
certainly know that housing was most vitally
needed. I was pleased to see that the hon.
Prime Minister on television last night ad-
mitted that his housing programme was an
emergency. Of course it is an emergency.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I thought I said it was
not a crash programme.
Mr. Thompson! Not a crash programme.
But the hon. Prime Minister said there was
an emergency for this.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, there is a sense
of urgency about it; there is no doubt about
that.
Mr. Thompson: Well, let me just put to
the hon. Minister of Energy Resources just
how urgent it is. I am glad that he— I feel
a kind of spark of warmth for him, in that
he sees this. And I will tell you why,
because none of the other hon. members
has noticed it. But let me tell you this; for
example in Metro unit, in connection with
public housing, this is our bold imaginative
approach: In Metro there were 3,206 all filled
with 10,000 waiting. Ray Timson, writing
a series of articles in the Toronto Daily Star,
suggested that 6,000 persons in this city—
6,000 persons live in multiple family rat-
holes, at rents up to $460 per month.
Now I would like to address that to the
hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope). I
have often felt that he lives and exists in an
enthusiastic cloud. I remember last year
when I was speaking about the tough situa-
tion of people in my riding, and he pulled out
a handkerchief in that gallant way that he
has; he demonstrated to me his cynicism
about the problems of my people.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
I was really crying. I could not help it.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I accept it, but I
would like to see more than tears; I would
like to see action.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I acted as well, which
brought more than tears.
Mr. Thompson: I invited the hon. Minister
to come with me through the riding.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: The hon. member
was not even there.
Mr. Thompson: I apologize I did not recog-
nize the genuine tears and thought it was
cynicism, because when you ask what is a
rat-hole, I would be glad to show you, and
I think you would be appalled at the con-
ditions under which some of our people, our
citizens, are living. I think if you were to
see some of these situations that you would
not only suggest that tliis is an experiment
which may stop. You would have to say
this: It has to go through and it is a crash
programme.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: We have said those
things over on this side of the House.
Mr. Thompson: Let me say how much they
have done, just to re-emphasize. I do not
think the hon. Minister of Mines heard it,
Mr. Speaker. Thirty per cent of the
400,000 dwelling units are occupied by two
or more families with two or more children
630
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
each. These are the rat-hole places I am
talking about tliat get $460 per month. There
are over 10,000 people who want to get into
these housing units.
Sir, I could go on a great deal. One point
that I want to state is in connection with
crime. Now I can apprecite what the pressure
was on the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) to get action in connection with
crime. I am not going to say that it was
entirely his fault, but in the sudden period of
hysteria I must say I was shocked that in
my own riding well-established citizens of a
minority group were enjoying a stag party—
they are reputable men of the community,
lawyers and doctors— and suddenly with this
new flush of enthusiasm to catch criminals,
instead of looking at the situation, the hon.
Attorney-General— and I am not saying that
it is his fault completely, but however, he is
the final man responsible for it— they took
these citizens of Ganada down to the jail.
The grandfather of the prospective bride-
groom was an elderly man who had to suffer
the indignation of being put in jail for about
five hours. There was one man had had an
operation on his leg and he had to stand there.
These are citizens of this country! They
waited and waited and waited for a magis-
trate, and then, finally, it was dismissed; but
with no apology to these people. I suggest that
this type of thing by the police is hysteria.
We have had other examples of this. I
suggest that we get at the real roots of crime,
rather than trying to show that we are taking
action by taking innocent, respectable people
to jail.
Sir, I do not want to go on much longer
with this. I was going to speak for some
length about the inadequacies of the New
Party, because the inadequacies are obvious
to all, but I thought I would not need to
emphasize them because the hon. member
who spoke before me I think demonstrated
that situation for me. But I would like to
say, sir, that in their amendment to our
amendment, I felt they showed again they
were behind the times. Their amendment is
not appropriate at this time and they will
recognize it, if they read it. Secondly, in
connection with the sales tax that they wanted
omitted—
Mr. MacDonald: We got one of the things
the hon. member has been talking about, the
Royal Commission on Grime.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I am glad the hon.
member is hanging onto the coattails, Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the delights that the
leader of the C.G.F. party gets out of hang-
ing onto the coattails of my hon. leader.
The point is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that you
and most of us can see if we look at it. The
G.G.F. amendment is not adaptable at this
time, and therefore, of course, we cannot
vote with them on this. May I say that I
must view with some concern their whole
financial approach to the many programmes
which they are going to initiate. I have never
understood it; there is a certain mystical
quality about the whole bunch of them,
partly because of their vagueness about how
they will finance the many projects they are
considering.
They, like us I am sure, want to see many
reforms take place. But they are suggesting
that the government must raise the corpora-
tion tax about 60 to 65 per cent.
Here is the man, the hon. member for
Woodbine (Mr. Bryden), who just came in,
Mr. Speaker. He gave a vitality to the indus-
tries in Saskatchewan, which included the
shoe business and many others. I am sure
they are employing quite a number of men in
that province.
May I end, sir, with the example of the
hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope)
and this is really our basis for not feeling
happy at all with the platitudes of the govern-
ment. This is an ending in the form of a
poem, sir, inspired first of all by your little
book which had suggested for this day: "A
good example is the best sermon." I would
like to elaborate this poem because I notice
the hon. Minister of Mines got a great hand
when he recited some poetry at the end of
his address. Mine goes like this:
I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any
^ day,
I'd rather one would walk with me than
merely show the way.
The eye is a better teacher and more apt
than the ear.
Advice is oft confusing but example's
always clear.
When we get examples from that govern-
ment, then we may agree to join with them
or vote in agreement with their motion.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Speaker, may I add my words to
those which have already been uttered earlier,
expressing our pleasure at seeing you presid-
ing over the affairs of this House. None of
us can help but benefit from the judgment
and wisdom you bring to the highly respon-
sible post which you hold. The many quali-
ties you possess, plus your great patience, are
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
631
particularly evident on the occasions when
many who pay lip service to your fairness,
challenge your rulings so frequently, and
generally on such trivial points.
May I also, sir, add a word of welcome
and congratulations to those new members
who have recently been elected.
Might I suggest too, Mr. Speaker, if I
may, that the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha) not leave the Chamber, because I am
going to direct some remarks to him.
I wish them success, the new members, not
the hon. member for Sudbury, in the dis-
charge of their responsibilities. I am sure
they will find great personal satisfaction in
this opportunity for public service.
Now, Mr. Speaker, last December, before
the House rose for the Christmas recess, the
hon. member for Sudbury made certain
charges in his speech of Thursday evening,
December 14, 1961, in which he criticized
certain actions of the liquor control board
which I am privileged to serve as chief
commissioner. Hon. members will note that
I asked the hon. member, and gave him warn-
ing, to stay in the House, which is more than
he did that evening for the hon. member for
Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Fullerton) when he
made charges against him.
The hon. member at that time made some
wild charges about patronage in the leasing
of buildings for liquor control board stores
in Sudbury and Capreol. He alleged huge
profits made by the lessors, and so on. I
shall quote the hon. member as at page 477
of Hansard of December 14, 1961, and I
quote the hon. member:
I am going to give him [referring to
me] the facts on two transactions, and
nothing but the facts.
I think it is safe to say that the great
fountain of patronage in this government
is in the liquor control commission. One
of the methods of granting patronage in
the liquor control commission-^a method
of which, for reasons which will become
apparent, I heartily disapprove [and I
will do it in the same fashion as the hon.
member did] and which I condemn, and I
would want to be no part of a government
which carries on this racket— is granting
a right to the individual to build a liquor
store and then rent the property back to
the liquor control board.
In order to get that right, you just can-
not be an ordinary Tory, you have to be
one of the brass—
(Applause)
I would suggest to the hon. members that
they hold their enthusiasm because we are
going to soon find out about these Tories.
—you have to demonstrate your devotion
to the Conservative Party above and
beyond the duty of ordinary mortals.
And that is the end of his quote, Mr.
Speaker.
He went on to charge that our leasing of
the liquor store in Capreol created a
bonanza for the lessor, and by virtue of
some rather spurious and unorthodox method
of financial arithmetic attempted to create
the impression that the liquor control board
engaged in some improper conduct in respect
of its method of leasing these stores in Sud-
bury and Capreol.
May I deal— I will deal with the locations
as they arise.
Mr. E. Sopha (Sudbury): On a point of
order-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —just throw them all
at me, I will deal with them as they come.
May I deal first with the two locations to
which my hon. friend has seen fit to refer?
I will speak first of his charges about the
store at Capreol. Among other things, my
hon. friend said that Capreol was a little
community 20 miles north of Sudbury. By
the time I am finished I will prove to this
House that that was the only accurate state-
ment he made on that evening. My hon.
friend went on to say that the lessor in this
instance has a $25,000 to $30,000 building
on property costing $2,500. A maximum
investment of some $35,000, to use his fig-
ures, for which he holds a 10-year lease,
bringing in $4,380 per year.
My hon. friend then went on to expound
the theory that the whole investment would
be returned in as little as 10 years; that he,
the lessor, would have a tenant forever and
would be, in the hon. member's words, "in
clover."
Now, in taking the figures as presented by
the hon. member at their face value it
becomes apparent that he is either devoid of
any knowledge of financial matters, or, and
I think this is more likely the case, he has
little regard for the intelligence of this House
and certainly less for the good sense of the
fine citizens of the city of Sudbury. He
states that the man's investment is $35,000
and that at $4,300 per year rental he will
have his investment back in 10 years and
then, as he puts it, be "in clover."
632
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He may not know it— but I am sure the
citizens of Sudbury do— that if you take any
interest figure at all over a period of a certain
number of years one could always argue that
the capital invested to produce that interest
would eventually be paid back. To the un-
initiated this might give the impression that
somehow or other there is something wrong
about this, that a man should be able to get
back what his capital investment was in
interest alone.
Mr. Sopha: How about bonds?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Quiet! Order!
I would point out to the hon. members of
this House that on the occasion to which the
present hon. speaker is referring I maintained
the very strictest of order because it was
a very serious evening and I am going to do
the same thing. I think it is just as serious
at this time as it was at that time. I am
going to see that the speaking hon. member
has the utmost co-operation from the hon.
members in order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it seems
rather peculiar that the ones in this House
who are able to dish it out are the ones who
seem to be tlie least able to take it.
Even a government bond, Mr. Speaker, at
5 per cent will return your capital in 20
years at simple interest; and at compound
interest would return your original invest-
ment in about 11 years. A conventional first
mortgage at 7 per cent will return yovir
capital in about 14,5 years and at compound
interest in a little more than 10 years.
In playing with the Capreol figures as my
hon. friend has done— and may I say paren-
thetically, even presuming that there are no
expenses involved— in figuring this he forgot
the figure about the expenses involved and
those which should be charged normally
against gross rental at this store. He produces
a gross income yield of about 12 per cent,
which, even at that, would not be such an
outrageous figure for a rental investment
return.
However, the hon. member, as I have
stated, engaged in some fast, if not neat, foot-
work, by not mentioning the expenses such
as maintenance, depreciation, insurance,
taxes, and so on, which certainly reduces the
net return to this lessor very considerably.
Surely the hon. member does not think the
people of Sudbury are so stupid as to be
taken in by his verbal juggling. I know
many Sudbury businessmen who would laugh
him out of their offices if he came to them
with a proposition that they invest some
money in property and regard a gross rental
return as clear profit without reference to
maintenance costs, taxes, insurance, deprecia-
tion, and so on.
Tine hon. member had much to say about
the property on LaSalle Boulevard in Sud-
bury, including the fact that the principals
of the company lived in Sarnia. What a
terrible thing! He attempted to make quite
a thing about that fact. To quote him, he
stated "four of them are from as far as
Sarnia."
I must confess I cannot see anything wrong
with people living in Sarnia and investing
their money in Sudbury. One would almost
think he felt a passport necessary for them
to get into Sudbury and invest money there.
Perhaps he ought to tell the Sudbury city
council to pass a by-law prohibiting "foreign"
investments from other Ontario cities.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. Minister would—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it is known
to the hon. members of this House that when
any hon. member is speaking, an hon. mem-
ber rises to ask a question and the hon.
member does not actually stop his speech,
it could be made obvious to the hon. member
asking the question that at that point obvi-
ously the speaker does not wash to answer the
question. It is the same on both sides
of the House. Now is there a question?
Mr. Sopha: On a point of order. In view
of the fact that the hon. Minister has spoken
about the maintenance costs and other inci-
dents of tenancy, I think he is obliged to—
I was going to say on a point of order-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sopha: I was going to say, on a point
of order, to table the lease.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the hon. mem-
bers, as I have frequently mentioned before,
to state the point of order.
Mr. Sopha: I am merely asking, on a point
of order, that since the hon. Minister has
referred to tliese things, that he ought to
table the lease. That is all I am asking.
An hon. member: That is all he is asking.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: The trouble with the
hon. member is he cannot take it.
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
633
An hon. member: That is right! We had to
hsten to the hon. member for quite a long
time, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, any
time any of the hon. members want to ask
any questions about leases I would be very
glad to answer them, if there is anything
wrong with any of the leases the liquor con-
trol board has. Obviously, I have not seen
them all. When an hon. member raises
questions, I will be glad to produce them.
Mr. Sopha: All that is true.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am
dealing with specific charges that the hon.
member made. Now let me deal with those,
and if he has any further to make, I will
deal with those as they arise.
The hon. member stated that these people
paid $24,000 for the land— he put a value
between $4,000 and $7,000 on that land-
and he thought it might be interesting to
inquire why they would pay what seems to
be an inflated value for the land. He told
us further that they took out a mortgage
for $80,000 repayable at $638.90 per month;
that they received a 15-year lease from the
board at a rental of $11,895 per year, and
noted an option to renew for 5 years.
The hon. member has attempted to show
us that the lease will bring back about
$165,000 in 15 years, and these people, too,
would be "in clover."
Mr. Speaker, the fact that these people
saw fit to buy the land at all is, in my
estimation, no concern of ours. I doubt that
this House cares how much they paid for it,
nor how good an arrangement they made to
build this building. What does matter,
rather, is the basis on which they are doing
business with the Liquor Control Board of
Ontario. How much we are paying them—
Mr, Sopha: They bought the land only
after they had to deal with the board.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if there
is anything that I have not mentioned here
with respect to the facts, as the hon. mem-
ber stated them, he is at liberty to bring it
out later. Now, if he waits until I finish, if
he controls his exuberance, he may find I am
answering the questions. What does matter,
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, is the basis on which
they are doing business with the Liquor
Control Board of Ontario; how much we are
paying them and whether our lease with
them is a just and proper one.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would point out to
the hon. members, as I have on many occa-
sions, that all hon. members of this House
when speaking will receive equal treatment
and I am going to insist on that. There are
opportunities to come yet when hon. mem-
bers can make replies if they wish to, but at
this particular time one hon. member has the
floor and once again I appeal to the hon.
members of this House to give him the same
attention as has been given previous speakers
all through this Throne debate.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member at
that time, December 14, last, invited me to
get the information relative to these matters.
Well, Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. The
hon. member might better have asked for
them first, before he made his wild and base-
less charges, and save the time of this
House and also saved the taxpayers some
money.
Sir, I had just been appointed Chief Liquor
Commissioner when these charges were
made. I was considerably upset by them.
I was not only interested in satisfying this
House about the actions of the liquor con-
trol board, but I also wanted to satisfy my-
self. Being new to the board, I wanted to
assure myself that the board was really doing
business in the proper fashion.
I am now in receipt of all the facts
regarding these matters raised by the hon.
member and they completely belie every-
thing he has stated. As a matter of fact, in
investigating his claims, certain facts have
come to light which puts into question some
of the actions of the hon. member himself.
I present the facts as they were, and are—
not as we have had them presented to us
in these ridiculous charges. To this end, I
have had my officials secure the services of
a competent and qualified business house to
examine the properties involved, the agree-
ments regarding them and to compare these
facts witli other like properties in the respec-
tive communities.
I have here a report of the Montreal
Trust Company signed by one of the most
highly qualified men in this particular field.
I would like to place his qualifications before
the House prior to my presenting his views:
The gentleman who appraised this whole
situation is Mr. Garth S. Webb, employed
by the Montreal Trust Company in Toronto.
He is a graduate of Queen's University with
the degree of Bachelor of Commerce. He
passed with honours a three-year course
receiving his Fellowship of the Realtors
Institute with the University of Toronto,
634
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and Canadian Institute of Realtors. He
passed the appraisal course as a qualifying
member of the Appraisal Institute and
received accredited appraiser, Canadian In-
stitute, accreditation. He has had seven years
experience in real estate and appraisal. He
is a director of the Toronto Real Estate Board
and is president of that board's salesmen
division. He serves on tlie education com-
mittee of the Canadian Institute of Realtors;
the editorial committee of the Canadian Asso-
ciation of Real Estate Boards; the governing
council, the Canadian Institute of Realtors;
the editorial committee, the Appraisal Insti-
tute of Canada. Listed among his clients are
some of Ontario's outstanding business
houses, which are listed in his report.
Mr. Speaker, this appraisal cost money and
tiiat is why I say tliat the hon. member
should have investigated before making his
ill-founded charges.
The preamble to the report reads as follows
under
Purpose and Method
It is the purpose of this report to analyze
rental conditions with respect to four
L.C.B.O. retail stores in the Sudbury area.
It will determine the market rent for typical
accommodation in the respective areas.
This will be accomplished by reviewing
rents being charged in the district for
comparable properties. These are then
adjusted to give an indication of a fair
rental for subject property. This rental
analysis will be supported by a rough
capitalization of store costs.
Tlie method employed is well-documented
in this appraisal report which contains very
complete and detailed descriptions, figures,
and even photographs for comparative pur-
poses. I will not burden the House with the
voluminous detail contained therein, but will
put into the record the conclusions which
the appraiser arrived at and will then table
the full report so that any hon. member of
this House or the press may examine it at
will. The summary in conclusion of this
report is as follows:
Summary of Salient Facts & Conclusions:
In studying rental conditions in Capreol,
Sturgeon Falls and Sudbury relative to the
L.C.B.O. stores, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. In all cases the L.C.B.O. pays less
rental than would be indicated by the
general market conditions.
2. This reflects the superior bargaining
power of such a strong credit position.
3. Sudbury, Capreol and Sturgeon Falls
are fairly typical of retail store properties
and the comparison is valid.
4. The new Sudbury store is located in
a new area and is self-contained. Its rent
falls between shopping centre and factory
rates and this is quite in keeping with the
respective accommodation.
5. The capitalization of the investment
confirms the rental figures for the Sudbury,
New Sudbury and Capreol stores. Because
of the age of the building and of the lease
no such estimate was made for Sturgeon
FaUs.
I might add that the appraiser included
Sturgeon Falls to get a better perspective on
comparative rentals in the whole of the Sud-
bury area.
I might also add that in his report to us,
Mr. Webb has shown that in respect of the
property in Capreol he was able to conclude,
as a result of his searching examination, that
a fair rental for the property in question
would be some $5,636 per year. In actual
fact the L.C.B.O. pays $4,380 per year. In
other words, we pay some $1,256 less than
the suggested fair rental.
With respect to the property occupied by
the L.C.B.O. on LaSalle Boulevard in Sud-
bury, Mr. Webb, after a similar examina-
tion of our premises and others, stated that
a reasonable rental figure would be any-
where from $10,953 to $12,143. In this
instance the L.C.B.O. pays $11,895 which
is somewhere in between. I submit, Mr.
Speaker, that no one therefore can charge
that this is an unreasonable rental. The les-
sor is only getting a fair return on his invest-
ment.
In the concluding remarks of his appraisal
of this LaSalle Boulevard property, Mr.
Webb states, and I quote:
It is unlikely that other builders under
normal circumstances would be willing to
provide these facilities for any lower
return.
It is interesting to note that even though,
in the words of the hon. member, the lessor
paid $24,000 for the land, the appraiser in
considering its value, valued it at only
$15,000 in arriving at what the rent should
be and, therefore, if we were to take the
amount stated by the hon. member for Sud-
bury as $24,000, and figured the return on
that amount, as the land value, the liquor
board's rental figure would show up even
more advantageously to the board.
These facts speak for themselves: the
liquor control board of Ontario has in every
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
635
particular been meticulously careful in its
dealings with these lessors. The agreement
provides good value for the money spent
on behalf of the people of the province
of Ontario and, of course, at the same time,
has been fair to the owner of the properties
concerned. We always negotiate leases from
a position of strength in the knowledge that
we are a good lessee, because our credit
rating is good, and because there is very
little likelihood of any vacancies and no
trouble in receiving the rent moneys. I am
pleased to say that in the short experience
1 have had with the board I have satisfied
myself, and so wish to assure this House,
that our very competent staff has been able
to secure good leases in the interests of the
taxpayers of this province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me turn to the
charge of "patronage" which has been so
loosely used in this connection. Let me in-
form the hon. member that we have numer-
ous stores leased from prominent Liberals.
For example, we received an unsolicited
letter from a Dr. Lee L. Crowley of Belle
River, a prominent and avowed Liberal, who
in his letter stated that . he had held office
both- in provincial and federal Liberal
organizations. We lease a store from this
gentleman and in reading certain charges in
the newspaper he, unsolicited, wrote to say
that he thinks very highly of our method
of doing business, and in his letter stated
that he felt the Liquor Control Board of
Ontario drives a hard bargain in obtaining
a lease. He also notes in his letter that dur-
ing Jiis relationship with the liquor control
boai:d he had never found that his connec-
tion with the Liberal association had ever
been held against him. I would refer the
hon.. member to his political colleague. Dr.
Crowley, for information as to how we do
business.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would also refer the
hon. member to the two gentlemen from
whom we lease our downtown store in
Sudbury— that is, the store at Cedar and Elgin
streets. He may just discover, Mr. Speaker,
without probing too deeply, that the lessors
in this instance are two gentlemen with whom
I think he might be at least shghtly
acquainted.
Mr. Sopha: They are my landlords, too.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now, let us just find
out whether they are just the hon. member's
landlords.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I am going to
point out to the members once again that I
am not going to appeal to this House only
on behalf of the man who is speaking; I am
going to appeal to this House on behalf of
all members. I know it is a most annoying
thing to be sitting close in the vicinity of a
member who is continually interrupting the
proceedings of the House, and on the basis
of our colleagues who sit near to us I think
all members should be mindful of our inter-
ruptions in the proceedings.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Speaker, as
I stated, I think the hon. member might be
at least slightly acquainted with these gentle-
men. They are known by the names of Dr.
Michael V. J. Keenan and Dr.' George N.
Murphy. Just in case the hon. iriember for
Sudbury should have a lapse of hiemory, I
would remind him Dr. Keenan is president of
the Sudbury and District Liberal Aissociation.
Mr. Sopha: He is not now.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, not just now;
maybe yesterday or a week before or a month
before.
Mr. Sopha: He has not been for ten years.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, was he ten years
ago?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, he was ten ye^rs ago.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I am reminding
the hon. member because it might just be
possible that he might have forgotten these
people who the hon. member says were only
Libral members ten years ago; he might have
forgotten that there was quite a to-do in the
last general election in 1959 because these
two gentlemen— in spite of the fact that the
store they were leasing was occupied by the
Liquor Control Board, had a very large "Vote
for Sopha" sign on the liquor store,, and also
a sign for one Donald Coutur, who was the
Liberal candidate running against the hon.
member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Belisle).
His memory must be awfully short because
there was a great controversy at the time
about having a sign like that up on a govern-
ment building and, as a matter of fact, these
two gentlemen were forced to remove the
sign, as a result of which they to6k the sign
a little further down the way from the liquor
store and put it up on another section of the
same edifice. Patronage, indeed.
Well, I would say that in Sudbury it seems
that the liquor board— if it is engaged in
636
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
patronage— must be patronizing the Liberal
party. Perhaps some changes should be made
in this respect. The hon. member has
succeeded in encouraging me to look into
this patronage witli a view to seeing that
Tories are not discriminated against. There
will be more about Dr. Keenan a little later
on.
Now, sir, what motivated the hon. member
to attempt to build such a big issue on such
a puny base? I will do it in the fashion he
does— he amuses me so much I wish I could
do it as well as he does— as he is wont to do—
you will remember that night in December.
Was it sheer public-spirited devotion to
duty? Was it the self-righteous wrath of an
indignant M.P.P.? Was it an overwhelming
urge to see justice done? Was it an honest
attempt to expose patronage, so abhorred by
the Liberals when out of office, and so
thoroughly perfected by them when in office?
As for example when, by their own admission
in the records of the Liquor Control Board
files, tlie Liberals during the first two years
of holding office fired 913 Liquor Control
Board employees, most of them returned
soldier, replacing them with 957 Liberal
job-seekers?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as far
as I can see from the records I have examined
at the Liquor Control Board, I do not see
one instance of any Liberal being fired to be
replaced by a Conservative or anybody else.
Well, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I can give this
honourable House a clue to the hon. member's
motivation in this case. Mr. Speaker, I have
never in my public career found it necessary,
desirable or attractive to impute improper
motives to any elected representative. I have
always believed in the principle that if a
person tlirows mud some of it will cling to
the person throwing it. I am also conscious
of the fact that continued mud-throwing
destroys the confidence of the people in all
the elected representatives and thereby
hastens the destruction of a free society.
Therefore, I attribute the hon. member's
charges to sheer petulance and vindictiveness
at having lost a case for a client.
Mr. Sopha: Not a client at all; a constituent.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will find that out
in a minute. That is what we are going into.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to examine the
difFerence between a constituent and a client
here.
Mr. Sopha: A client pays and a constituent
does not.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: To use the words of
the hon. member, tliey are only constituents
and not clients, is that right?
Mr. Sopha: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
says yes, they were not clients. To use the
words of the hon. member when he was
making a serious charge against the hon.
member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Fuller-
ton) on that same night, December 14, "I
will merely let the record speak for itself."
I am going to quote the hon. member again
at page 477, and I would like the hon. mem-
ber to pay strict attention to this please,
although I think it is unnecessary because
he has already said that these people were
not clients, they were merely constituents.
He said here:
To you, sir, and to the hon. members,
I must confess my own part because I
would not want to mislead the hon. mem-
bers in any way. I was approached by a
group last year in Sudbury asking me if it
would be possible to make representations
to the Liquor Control Board to get them
tlie right to put up a store, or rent them
premises in a shopping plaza that they
were building in the section of Sudbury
known as New Sudbury the rapidly ex-
panding residential area to the north. On
their behalf I made some inquiries and
introduced them to the late chairman of
the Liquor Control Board. He told me
the type of material he wanted to have
from them. I never at any time appeared
before the board on their behalf. I never
prepared any brief or made any presenta-
tion. My services were confined entirely
to arranging an interview with the late
chairman. Certainly they had my best
wishes. May I add, sir, that I was not
paid one cent for any of those services.
Mr. Speaker, "this group," as he calls
them, were actually his clients and certainly
his services were not— to quote him— "con-
fined entirely to arranging an interview with
the late chairman." I have here copies of
six letters which were written by the hon.
member and by his law partner.
I was hoping the hon. member would not
get up because I would hate to see the hon.
member get up and state emphatically they
were not his clients because there is going
to be a little difficulty here for him if he
does.
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
637
Mr. Sopha: I rise on a point of privilege,
Mr. Speaker. Would you hear me please on
a point of privilege. My point of privilege is
that of the group to which the hon. Minister
refers, only one— only one was—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! State the point
of privilege.
Mr. Sopha: Of the group to which the
hon. Minister refers I know only the identity
of one of them; and that one, sir— only on
other matters was he ever a client.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have not mentioned
any names yet. I do not know how he is
anticipating me.
Mr. Sopha: I will clear this up, Mr.
Speaker. Let us clear this up. The hon.
Minister, if I heard him correctly, said that
I was representing a group who wished to
build a store. He accused me, sir— he men-
tioned the fact, or alleged that they were
my clients, and I want to set the record
straight and say that of that group only one
whose identity I know was on other occa-
sions — quite divorced and separate and
diflFerent and unconnected with this matter-
was a client.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Let the mem-
ber continue.
Hem. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the hon,
member only made matters worse for him-
self, as he will hear as I go along.
Mr. Speaker, I said I had here copies of
six letters which were written by the hon.
member and by his law partner. None of
these was written on legislative stationery, as
one might expect, as are all the other letters
written by the hon. members of this House
when making representations on behalf of
constituents. They are all written on his law
firm stationery. In addition, in every letter
the reference to this so-called group is
"clients." I will now read the letters to this
House and enter them into the record, allow-
ing these letters to speak for themselves. I
shall also table a copy of these letters for the
hon. members.
Mr. Wintermeyer: And the lease too?
What about the lease?
Mr. Grossman: All you have to do is ask
for the lease and I will get it for you.
Mr. Speaker, no one raised the question
of the lease, they were only raising a question
of impropriety as to how much we were
paying and there was no question of that.
We admit what we were paying, there was
no argument about it.
Anyway, to get to the letters, Mr. Speaker,
dated November 21, 1960, on the letterhead
of Sopha and Conroy, Barristers and Solicitors.
To the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, attention
Mr. CoUings, Chairman.
Re: Romaniuk and Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Dear Sir:
We enclose a brief from our clients —
note, from our clients
— who are at present in the midst of planning the
construction of a new shopping plaza. We would
ask that you consider their brief.
Yours very truly,
( signed )
E. W. Sopha
On November 22, another letter on tlie
letterhead of Sopha and Conroy, relating to
this case, re Romaniuk and L.C.B.O., signed
by E. W. Sopha. I will not read the contents,
they do not have any bearing on this.
Several hon. members: Read it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, I have just
as much time as the hon. members:
Dear Sir:
Enclosed please find two architects' sketches of
the shopping plaza, office sketch of the property
and a city map which were omitted in our letter
of November 21st, 1960.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, apparently the
hon. members are shouting: Where is the
word "client"? I must presume then when
they use the word "client" that really proves
that they really were clients. It is signed by
E. W. Sopha.
Mr. Speaker: I have heard so many ques-
tions this afternoon that I would point out to
the members that they are quite out of order,
shouting and asking members questions with-
out first standing. I would point out that
when a member wishes to ask a question he
stands and obtains the floor.
No member of this House can continually
shout across the floor, asking questions. If
the question goes unanswered it is quite
obvious that the member who has the floor
does not wish to answer the question and it
cannot be made any plainer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
members may as well make up their minds
from here on, if they are going to make any
charges across here, they are going to be
638
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
subject to the same thing. This is distasteful
to me. In December-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would first of all
point out to the members of this House that
they are extremely out of prder, and showing
extremely bad manners when there is any
speaking while the member is on his feet. I
will point out that the members of this House
appointed me as their Speaker, unanimously
I believe, and at that time I undertook cer-
tain obligations to keep order in this House.
The obligations I undertook are going to be
carried out and if it means standing on my
feet a great deal, then I will do it. I have
tried all through the various sessions to be
on my feet as little as possible but I can-
not continue in this way if we have constant
interruptions.
I will once again point out to the hon.
members that in this session we have had
many serious charges made. I saw to it
the hon. members making those serious
charges had the utmost in attention, I am
going to continue in that way, and will con-
tinue to be on my feet even more than the
hon. members unless I obtain order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, of
course on that night of December 14, the
hon. member to whom I referred spoke for
about ' an hour making some very serious
charges against an hon. member on this side
of the House and you could hear a pin
drop. There was not a bit of interruption.
I think we are entitled to at least a sem-
blance of that kind of attention.
Dated January 5, 1961, on the letterhead
of Sopha and Conroy, Barristers and Solici-
tor^.
Attention Mr. Collings.
Re: Romaniuk and L.C.B.O.:
Dear Sir:
Mr. Sopha advised me earlier that you had hopes
that there might be some decision or some con-
sideration of the hearing in this matter on or about
Christmas time and my client has asked that I
write to you asking if you had any knowledge of
any decision in connection with this matter.
Yours very truly
( signed )
Edward James Conroy.
—the other gentleman of the firm.
Dated January 12, 1961, on the letterhead
of Sopha and Conroy, another letter— nothing
too significant about this letter, except that
they are referring again to this case, signed
Edward James Conroy of the firm of Sopha
and Conroy.
Now, dated March 6, 1961— very persistent
-tuow on the letterhead of Sopha, Conroy
and, I hope I pronounce it right, Huneault,
Barristers and Sohcitors.
Liquor Control Board of Ontario,
Attention Mr. Collings.
Re: Romaniuk and L.C.B.O.
Dear Sir:
Our clients are about ready to start construction
on this premises and we wondered if your department
was near a final decision so that we might consider
whether or not to make allowances for a liquor store.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, I think it
can be fairly well established from this that
this firm was somewhat involved in setting up
the plans and so on for these clients of theirs
in connection with the plaza.
Dated May 1, 1961, on the letterhead of
Sopha, Conroy etc.
Liquor Control Board of Ontario,
Re: Romaniuk and L.C.B.O.
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1961. My
client has asked me to contact you in that there are
persistent rumours in this district that the decision
has not as yet been definitely made, in that the
proposed area, as we understand it for the liquor
store, is in a light industrial area for which the
planning board not likely to give their approval.
We are further advised that right across the road
from the proposed location is a Presbyterian church
and immediately behind the proposed site is the
commencement of a large ready-mix plant.
We would appreciate knowing whether or not a
decision has been finally made. If there is a reversal
of the decision or a reconsideratioji, must we re-apply
or shall we be notified to re-tender on the proposed
liquor store?
As you can imagine, my clients are extremely
anxious to see the store situated in the commercial
area which they have in mind rather than in the
light industrial area some miles from the commercial
zone and as well on land which they do not own,
of course. To that end, I think, they would be will-
ing to discuss rents, design and other features which
might affect your decision and if there is any possi-
bility of future consideration, we should deeply
appreciate being kept in mind.
This is signed "Edward James Conroy** of
the firm of Sopha, Conroy and Huneault. In
case I forgot to mention, the letter dated
March 6th was signed "Edward James
Conroy'* of Sopha and Conroy.
Mr. Sopha: Am I my brother's keeper?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member forgot that when I read that letter it
said "our clients"— "our clients.**
An hon. member: Big deal.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, of course, it is
not a big deal if it happens to somebody on
the other side.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members will note that
on this last letter there is no pretence or
suggestion that this group is anything but
a client on this legal stationery signed by Mr.
Conroy of the firm. "Must we re-apply*' or
"shall we be notified to re-tender?" So that
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
639
the presumed altruistic efforts on behalf of a
group of constituents has now evolved into
"my clients" or "our clients."
Mr. Sopha: We never got a dime.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if he was
giving them the kind of financial advice
evidenced in the manner in which he used
his arithmetic here, I do not doubt he was
not paid for his work.
; Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are plunging the
depths to discover sinister deals and vile
patronage, permit me to add a tang to this
little morsel of conspiracy which the hon.
member has dredged up.
I am told that the firm of Sopha, Conroy
etc. is now located at 7 Cedar Street, Sud-
bury, which is the same building owned by
the same Dr. Keenan, president of the Liberal
association, and the same edifice in which our
liquor store is located. Quite a connection
for a bunch of Tories, I would say.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I am informed on
"very good authority"— as the hon. member
for Sudbury is prOne to remark— that behind
Mr. Romaniuk, for whom the firm of Sopha,
Conroy, etc. was acting in this case, was the
same Dr. Keenan who is the lessor of the
store at Cedar and Elgin streets. He, this
great Liberal, was to be the financial backer
of Mr. Romaniuk in this deal. He is the self-
same Dr. Keenan who is president of the
Sudbury and District Liberal Association.
Patronage, indeed.
The hon. member has attempted to mislead
the House by suggesting that his attempt to
do something for this so-called group in
Sudbury was done out of a sheer desire to
do something for a constituent.
Mr. Speaker, the letters speak for them-
selves. They speak volumes. If there is
anything j despise it is smug self-righteous-
iiess. I despise it even when engaged in to
the accompaniment of Shakespearian his-
trionics, in which my hon. friend is so well
versed.
The hon. member had a field day during
that night session of December 14. He was
shocked at the actions of the liquor control
board; he was outraged at the Toronto stock-
ateers; then he made some very serious
charges against the hon. member for Algoma-
Manitoulin (Mr. FuUerton).
I think the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha) should look into his own mirror to
find out if he really wears a halo or not.
Perhaps he may decide he is not in a position
to pass judgment on his peers.
The audacity he showed that night in en-
gaging in such a flagrant attempt to bam-
boozle this House, by putting on such an air
of righteousness and pretending to be hurt
because the L.C.B.O. had allegedly jilted his
constituents, is amazing.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to
put the most generous construction on his
motivations in this case and my most gen-
erous construction would be that he was
motivated by his anger at not being able to
get the store lease for his client. The facts
speak for themselves.
I will add no more, except to once again
repeat that this sort of thing is distasteful to
me and I have never had to engage in it.
However, being a Minister in charge of a
department, I suppose from here in I
shall have to accustom myself to being the
target of this sort of careless attack, and
therefore am required to answer because of
the position I am in. This I have done in
this case in as generous a manner as I pos-
sibly could under the circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I think the evidence I have
presented to this House is sufficient to put
the hon. member's charges in their proper
light and to illustrate to the people of this
province just how much credence they can
put into most of the charges which come
from some of the hon. members across the
floor of this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, seeing as it seems to
be the fashion of this Throne Speech to end
with poetry, etc., perhaps I may be forgiven
for quoting Theodore Roosevelt in reference
to the charges which are so frequently made
from the other side:
Men with the muck-rake are often in-
dispensable to the well-being of society,
but only if they know when to stop raking
the muck.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lawrence moved, sec-
onded by Mr. Hamflton, that an humble
address be presented to the Honourable The
Lieutenant-Governor as follows:
May it please your Honour:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and
loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of
the province of Ontario, now assembled,
beg leave to thank Your Honour for the
gracious speech Your Honour has addressed
to us.
Mr. Wintermeyer moved, seconded by
Mr. Oliver, that the motion for an address
in reply to the speech of the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor now before the House
640
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
be amended by adding thereto the following
words:
But tliis House regrets,
1. That this government has failed de-
plorably to recognize the peril of the
inroads of organized crime into the life of
Ontario, and has failed to protect the
citizens of this province from the activities
of the criminal and the anti-social.
2. That the government's bad manage-
ment of the province's finances resulted in
the imposition of a sales tax and that this
tax, ill-conceived and badly-timed, did
produce a maximum of inconvenience to
the taxpayer and a maximum of irritation
for the retailer, when the plan calling for
an exemption of $25 would have been far
more eflFective.
3. That, as a result of the wasteful
extravagance, unplanned spending and in-
eflBciency of this government, notwithstand-
ing the imposition of a sales tax, the
public debt of this province has reached
unparalleled heights, and has thereby
placed an onerous mortgage on the future
citizens of this province.
4. That the government, which has a
responsibility to do everything in its power
to provide an opportunity for every citi-
zen to work, has failed to discharge this
responsibility, with the result that gross
unemployment debilitates the morale of
the people of this province and attacks
the stability of the economy, the commun-
ity, and the family.
5. That the government has failed to
provide leadership in the solution of muni-
cipal financial problems by failing to
institute a financial reform that would have
as its key feature reduction of the property
tax for education and assumption of a
greater share of the total cost of education
by the provincial government.
6. That, in spite of the fact agriculture
is still the backbone of the economy of
this province, the economic position of the
farmer has deteriorated to a point where
his net income is the lowest in history.
This government has failed to provide
assrurance to our sorely pressed farm com-
munity that government efforts will be
directed towards preservation of the family
farm as an efficient economic unit and that
farmers, working individually and co-
operatively with government help, will
remain in control of the production and
prime marketing of agricultural products.
7. That the lack of goverimient leader-
ship in the field of labour-management
relations has brought its legislation into
disrepute and thereby caused confusion
and chaos in a vital area of our society
and economy where clarity and order are
imperative for the public good.
8. That the government's rigid policies
towards the natural resource and manu-
facturing industries have failed to recog-
nize the vital role it can play in assisting
these industries to be competitive particu-
larly by making available its special
services for industrial expansion.
9. That the governn>ent has failed to
initiate reform in Ontario's liquor laws,
which under its administration have be-
come the most widely disregarded and
most thoroughly abused statutes in our
province, and thereby have promoted a
disrespect for law among our people.
10. That this government has failed to
recognize that it has an obligation, by vir-
tue of its jurisdiction over northern On-
tario, to encourage economic development
and habitation in the north.
11. That the government has failed its
responsibility as the parent of the metro-
politan government of Toronto to improve
the stnicture of that government and
thereby provide for the persons in the
metropolitan area equity in assessment
and taxation, greater balance in represen-
tation and leadership in the metropolitan
council that is responsible to the elec-
torate.
12. That the government has failed to
indicate advances in policies and pro-
grammes in the fields of health and wel-
fare.
Mr. MacDonald moved, seconded by Mr.
Gisborn, that the amendment to the motion
for an address in reply to the speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor now
before the House be amended:
(a) By striking out clauses 1 and 2
thereof and substituting the following:
1. That the government has refused to
appoint a commission to conduct a full,
untrammelled public inquiry into the or-
ganized crime in this province in all its
ramification, has otherwise failed to take
adequate steps to protect the people of
the province against this deadly menace,
and has indeed, by its negligence and its
refusal to face up realistically to the
known facts, permitted organized crime
to extend its foothold in the province.
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
641
2. That the government has not seen fit
to eliminate the retail sales tax and to rely
instead on more equitable and progressive
methods of raising money, such as corpora-
tion and income taxes, revenues from
natural resources and a M^eight-distance
tax.
(b) By adding thereto the following:
And this House further regrets:
i. That the government has failed to
disclose any genuine av^^areness of the
imperative need for comprehensive social
and economic planning to provide con-
tinuous economic grow^th, full employ-
ment and balanced development of all
sections of the province.
2. That the government has failed to
act decisively and with a due sense of
urgency to remedy the gross neglect of
adequate safety precautions in important
sections of Ontario industry, particularly
the construction industry, and has thereby
permitted the safety and even the lives
of countless workmen to remain in jeop-
ardy.
3. That the government has announced
no plans to encourage farmers' economic
organizations but on the contrary is con-
tinuing to hamstring such organizations
with restrictive legislation, thereby under-
mining the position of the independent
farmer and the family farm.
4. That the government has not seen fit
to proceed with a programme of health
insurance, covering medical and other
related services as well as hospital services.
5. That the government has failed to
develop a co-ordinated welfare programme
designed to help all those in need regard-
less of category or residential qualifications,
and, in particular, has failed to establish
welfare allowances on a budgetary basis
in line with the Ontario Welfare Councirs
suggested minimum income and to negoti-
ate an agreement with Ottawa for a cost-
sharing arrangement to replace the present
multiplicity of specific grants.
6. That the government has not
announced any intention to proceed with
a bill of rights for this province.
We will first vote on the amendment to the
amendment moved by Mr. MacDonald.
All those in favour of the amendment will
please say "aye".
Those opposed will please say "nay."
The amendment to the amendment was
negatived on division as follows:
YEAS
NAYS
Bryden
Allan
Davison
(Haldimand-Norfolk)
Gisbom
Allen
MacDonald
(Middlesex South)
Thomas
Auld
-5
Belanger
Boyer
Brown
Brunelle
Bukator
Carruthers
Cass
Cathcart
Cecile
Connell
Cowling
Daley
Davis
Dymond
Edwards (Perth)
Evans
Frost
FuUerton
Gibson
Gomme
Goodfellow
Grossman
Guindon
Hall
Hamilton
Hanna
Harris
Haskett
HoflFman
Innes
Janes
Johnston (Carleton)
Lawrence
Letherby
Lewis
Macaulay
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Manley
Momingstar
Morrow
McNeil
Newman
Nixon
Noden
Oliver
Parry
Price
Reaume
Robarts
Roberts
642
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
NAYS
Rollins
Root
Rowntree
Sandercock
Simonett
Singer
Sopha
Spence
Spooner
Stewart
Sutton
Thompson
Trotter
Troy
Wardrope
Warrender
Whicher
Whitney
Wintermeyer
Worton
Yaremko
-75
Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment to
the amendment lost.
We will now vote on the amendment
moved by Mr. Wintermeyer.
All those in favour of the amendment will
please say "aye".
Those opposed will please say "nay".
Tlie amendment to the motion was
negatived by division as follows:
YEAS
Belanger
Bryden
Bukator
Davison .
Gibson
Gisborn
Innes
MacDonald
Mauley
Newman
Nixon
Oliver
Reaume
Singer
Sopha
Spence
Thomas
Thompson
Trotter
Troy
Whicher
Wintermeyer
Worton
-23.
NAYS
Allan (Haldimand-
Norfolk)
Allen (Middlesex
South)
Auld
Boyer
Brown
Brunelle
Carruthers
Cass
Cathcart
Cecile
Connell
CowHng
Daley
Davis
Dymond
Edwards (Perth)
Evans
Frost
Fullerton
Gomme
Goodfellow
Grossman
NAYS
Guindon
Hall
Hamilton
Hanna
Harris
Haskett
HoflFman
Janes
Johnston (Carleton)
Lawrence
Letherby
Lewis
Macaulay
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morningstar
Morrow
McNeil
Noden
Parry
Price
Robarts
Roberts
Rollins
Root
Rowntree
Sandercock
Simonett
Spooner
Stewart
Sutton
Wardrope
Warrender
Whitney
Yaremko
-57;
Mr. Speaker: We will now vote on the
motion moved by Mr. Lawrence.
All tliose in favour of the motion will
please say "aye".
Those opposed will please say "nay".
The motion was carried on tlie following
division :
YEAS
NAYS
Allan (Haldimand-
Belanger
Norfolk)
Bryden
Allen (Middlesex
Bukator
South)
Davison
Auld
Gibson
Boyer
Gisborn
Brown
Innes
Brunelle
MacDonald
Carruthers
Manley
Cass
Newman
Cathcart
Nixon
Cecile
Oliver
m
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
643
YEAS
NAYS
Connell
Reamne
Cowling
Singer
Daley
Sopha
Davis
Spence
Dymond
Thomas
Edwards (Perth)
Thompson
Evans
Trotter
Frost
Troy
Fullerton
Whicher
Gomme
Wintermeyer
Goodfellow
Worton
Grossman
-23.
Guindon
Hall
Hamilton
Hanna
Harris
Haskett
Hoffman
Janes
Johnston (Carleton)
Lawrence
Letherby
Lewis
Macaulay
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morningstar
Morrow
McNeil
Noden
Parry
Price
Robarts
Roberts
Rollins
Root
Rowntree
Sandercock
Simonett
Spooner
Stewart
Sutton
Wardrope
YEAS
Warrender
Whitney
Yaremko
-57.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried:
Clerk of the House: Resolved that an
humble address be presented to the Hon-
ourable, the Lieutenant-Governor, as follows:
To The Honourable J. Keiller Mackay,
DSO, VD, LL.D, Lieutenant-Governor
OF the Province of Ontario
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and
loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of
the province of Ontario now assembled,
beg leave to thank Your Honour for the
gracious speech Your Honour has ad-
dressed to us.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before moving the adjournment of
the House, tomorrow we will take anything
that is on the order paper and after dealing
with routine matters there, we will introduce
the estimates of The Department of Com-
merce and Development for the purpose of
receiving a statement from the hon. Min-
ister (Mr. Macaulay) concerning the eco-
nomic condition of the province, which will
be a prelude to the budget which will be
brought in on Thursday. Of course, Wednes-
day is committee day and the House will
not sit. We will not deal with the individual
items of the estimates of the department;
it is just a method by which the hon. Min-
ister can give an economic review of the
province, prior to the budget.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.25 o'clock, p.m.
No. 25
ONTARIO
Eegisflature of Ontario
Betiatesi
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Tuesday, February 27, 1962
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, Febraary 27, 1962
Welcome to Mr. Leonard Quiltey, Mr. Robarts 647
Second report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Hamilton 647
Bees Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 648
Co-operative Loans Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 648
Horticultural Societies Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 648
Ontario Water Resources Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, first reading 648
Assessment Act, bill to amend, Mr. MacDonald, first reading 648
Report, public lands investigation committee, Mr. Spooner 648
Statement re old age assistance, disabled persons' allowances and blind persons' allow-
ances, Mr. Cecile 649
Presenting reports, Mr. Yaremko 649
Estimates, Department of Economics and Development, Mr. Macaulay 651
Certain lands in the town of Gananoque, bill respecting, Mr. Spooner, second reading 667
Mining Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wardrope, second reading 667
Notaries Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 667
Judicature Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 668
County Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 668
County Judges Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 668
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 668
General Sessions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 668
Judicature Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 668
Juvenile and Family Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 668
Surrogate Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 669
Game and Fish Act, 1961-1962, bill intituled, Mr. Spooner, second reading 669
Agricultural Societies Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, second reading 669
Training Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Haskett, second reading 669
Approval of impartial referees and arbitrators, bill to provide for, Mr. Roberts, second
reading 670
Police Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 673
Hospital Services Commission Act, bill to amend, reported 673
Public Hospitals Act, bill to amend, reported 673
Re Ontario Code of Human Rights, bill to provide for . ..: 673
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 676
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 676
647
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we wel-
come as guests students from the following
schools: in the east gallery, Earl Haig Sec-
ondary School, Willowdale, Christian En-
deavour High School Group, Ridgeway, and
St. Paul's Cathedral Bible Study Group,
London; and in the west gallery, Dewson
Street Public School, Toronto and Burnam-
thorpe Public School, Cooksville.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I have here a message from the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor (Mr.
Mackay) signed by his own hand.
Mr. Speaker: The Honourable the Lieu-
tenant-Governor transmits estimates of certain
sums required for The Department of Eco-
nomics and Development for the year ending
March 31, 1963, and recommends them to
the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, on Febru-
ary 27, 1962.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
clerk had received from the chief election
officer and laid upon the table the following
certificate of a by-election held since the
adjournment of the House:
Electoral district of Renfrew South: Leon-
ard Joseph Quiltey.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
This is to certify that, in view of a writ of
election dated the twenty-first day of November,
1961, issued by the Honourable the Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor of the province of Ontario, and addressed to
John S. Findlay, Esquire, returning officer for the
electoral district of Renfrew South, for the election
of a member to represent the said electoral district
of Renfrew South in the Legislative Assembly of
this province, in the room of James A. Maloney,
Esquire, who, since his election as representative of
the said electoral district of Renfrew South, hath
departed this life, Leonard Joseph Quiltey, Esquire,
has been returned as duly elected as appears by the
return of the said writ of election, dated the twenty-
second day of February, 1962, which is now lodged
of record in my office.
( signed )
Roderick Lewis,
Chief Election Officer.
Toronto, February 27, 1962.
Tuesday, February 27, 1962
Leonard Joseph Quiltey, Esquire, member
for the electoral district of Renfrew South,
having taken the oaths and subscribed the
roll, took his seat.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before the
petitions, I would like, on behalf of the
government, to extend a welcome to the hon.
member for Renfrew South (Mr. Quiltey). I
might not have wished it this way before,
but now that he is here I am deHghted to
see him and I hope that his time here will
be gratifying to him.
I hope that he will be able to serve the
people of that great riding he is going to
represent in the manner in which they were
served by his predecessor.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. M. Hamilton (Renfrew North), in the
absence of Mr. G. E. Gomme (Lanark), pre-
sented the second report of the standing
committee on private bills which was read
as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. Pr5, An Act respecting the Town
of Hearst.
Bill No. Prl2, An Act respecting Ontario
Co-operative Credit Society.
Bill No. Prl9, An Act respecting the City
of Windsor.
Bill No. Pr21, An Act respecting the City
of Ottawa Separate School Board.
Bill No. Pr24, An Act respecting the
Ontario Registered Music Teachers' Associa-
tion.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. Pr2, An Act respecting the Village
of Erie Beach.
Bill No. Prl6, An Act respecting the Town
of Oakville.
Your committee would recommend that the
fees less the penalties and the actual cost of
648
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
printing be remitted on Bill No. Pr4, An Act
respecting the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for
Incurables, Toronto.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture) moves that the order referring Bills Nos.
49 and 50 to the cx)mmittee of the whole
House be discharged and that these bills be
referred to the committee on agriculture.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): May I ask
the hon. Minister, is it the intention to have
these bills discussed at Guelph tomorrow, is
that my understanding? And further, is it
the intention to have them finalized and a
vote taken on the principle of the bill at this
meeting in Guelph tomorrow?
My purpose in asking that, if I may elabor-
ate, is that a number of us who are vitally
interested in these particular bills will not be
able, for various reasons, to be in Guelph
tomorrow. It would seem to me that while
some discussion of the bill miglit properly
take place tomorrow, there might be a further
meeting of the committee here in the build-
ing where all the hon. members would find
an opportunity to attend, rather than try to
finalize it tomorrow when many of us cannot
be there.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, if I might just add to what the hon.
member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver) has said.
I am another member of the committee who
is intensely interested in these bills and will
not be able to get out to Guelph. There are
about three other things to be looked after
back here at Queen's Park.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We can very easily
arrange to have these bills presented to the
whole committee at some later time and then
brought back to the House.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that when this
House adjourns the present sitting thereof it
do stand adjourned until Thursday next at
3:00 o'clock, p.m.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE BEES ACT
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture) moves first reading of bill intituled, An
Act to amend The Bees Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE CO-OPERATIVE LOANS ACT
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Co-operative
Loans Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Horticultural
Societies Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES
COMMISSION ACT
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend The Ontario Water Re-
sources Commission Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Cass: Mr. Speaker, this is a
housekeeping Act and it provides among other
things for the investment of moneys by the
commission in the Province of Ontario
Savings Banks and also for certain by-laws
which may be passed by municipalities.
THE ASSESSMENT ACT
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South) moves
first reading of bill intituled. An Act to
amend The Assessment Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands
and Forests): Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day, I beg leave to present the report
of the PuIdHc Lands Investigation Commit-
tee, 1959.
The Public Lands Investigation Commit-
tee was formed by the former Minister of
Mines, the late James A. Maloney, and me
under the authority of an Order-in-Council
made in 1959. The committee was formed
to inquire into, investigate and make recom-
mendations in respect of the disposal of pub-
lic lands under The Mining Act and The
Public Lands Act and to hold public hear-
ings for the purpose.
Public hearings were held at Peterbor-
ough, Parry Sound, Haileybury, Kirkland
Lake, Timmins, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie,
Port Arthur, Kenora and Toronto. Numer-
ous organizations and individual persons
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
649
appeared before the committee and pre-
sented briefs and presentations were also
submitted to the committee by mail.
The report consists of two parts. Part 1
deals with The Mining Act and the disposi-
tion of public lands for mining purposes.
Part II deals with The Public Lands Act and
the disposition of public lands for purposes
other than mining. The departments con-
cerned with the report are now studying
the recommendations therein contained and
I am hopeful that some of the recommenda-
tions will be implemented by legislation
introduced during this session of the House.
Some recommendations may require such
deliberation and study that they cannot be
acted upon during the time this session is
sitting.
Some copies of the report will be placed
in the legislative library and in due course
copies will be placed on the desk of each
hon. member of this Legislature.
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public Wel-
fare): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day, I am pleased to announce that special
cheques in the amount of $10 will go out
before the end of the month, that is today,
to approximately 40,000 persons who qualify
for old age assistance, disabled persons'
allowances and blind persons' allowances.
This is, of course, in addition to the regu-
lar cheque of $55.
Since the legislation received Royal Assent
February 15, I am indeed gratified that we
have been able to provide the full $65 dur-
ing the current month.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, could I ask the hon. Minister of
Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile) a question? Will
the people in Metropolitan Toronto receive
the full $10 a month or will some be taken
from those who are on welfare? Will it be
taken away from them, some of the $10?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid
I did not understand the hon. member;
maybe my hearing is not too good. If there
is a question, I trust that the Metro people
could answer it better than I. However, if
the hon. member will table the question,
I will obtain the information and let him
know.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary)
begs leave to present to the House the fol-
lowing:
The report of the provincial auditor on the
Public Service Superannuation Fund for the
year ending March 31, 1961.
The report of the provincial auditor on the
Public Service Retirement Fund for the year
ending March 31, 1961.
lion. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Trans-
port): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day, 1 would like to give the answers to two
ciuestions which the hon. member for Well-
ington South (Mr. Worton) sent to me earlier
today.
Question No. 1 is as follows: what rents
does The Department of Transport pay for
driver examination centres in Brantford and
in London?
Question No. 2: who are the landlords?
In answer to these questions I would say
at the outset that The Department of Trans-
port does not pay rental for any driver
examination centres. All leases are negoti-
ated and signed by The Department of
Public Works and rents are paid by The
Department of Public Works. After due in-
quiry and investigation I have this informa-
tion to give to tlie hon. member and to the
House.
The centre at Brantford is located at 221
Grenvvich Street; it is owned by the Welsh
Fuel Company Limited and the rental paid
is $80 monthly for some 450 square feet or
$2.13 per square foot per annum.
Th(^ pr(^mises in London, Ontario, are lo-
cated at 410, 3rd Street, I believe. They are
owned by Piccadilly Holdings Limited and
the rental in London is $280 monthly for
some 1,500 square feet or $2.24 per square
foot p(T annum.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I rise on a
point of personal privilege.
Yesterday, the Chief Commissioner of the
Liquor Control Board, the hon. Minister from
St. Andrew (Mr. Grossman) accused me of
misleading this House in respect of statements
I made here on December 14, 1961. Specific-
ally he suggested that I had made representa-
tions to the Liquor Control Board on behalf
of persons he claims were clients of my law
office. I specifically, sir, repudiate these
allegations.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency in a law
office to refer to all persons who attend therein
as clients. The group to which he referred
approached me in my capacity as member.
The representations I made to the Liquor
Control Board were made in my capacity as
a member. I received no money; my law
firm received no money; there was no expecta-
tion or arrangement that I receive any pay-
ment in any form. Moreover, I made all this
650
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
clear in my statement of December 14, 1961,
and my remarks can be found at page 477 of
Hansard.
The hon. Minister knew this before he
spoke, but he chose to ignore it.
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I should like to address a question to the hon.
Minister of Economics and Development (Mr.
Macaulay). It is as follows:
Recent news reports have referred to the
preparation and publication of a report by
the federal government as to the feasibility
of the development of an ocean port at
Moosonee. The same reports have said that
in the view of the federal government such
a development is not practicable. My ques-
tions are as follows, sir:
1. Has the government of Ontario obtained
a copy of this report?
2. If so, does it intend to table it in this
House?
3. Does the government agree with the
contents of the report?
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of
Economics and Development): Mr. Speaker,
in response to the question asked by the hon.
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha), I would
advise him that on November 27, 1961, at
page 43 of Hansard, the same question was
asked by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr.
Troy) and I at that time gave a rather
lengthy answer.
Secondly, last Thursday, on February 22,
at page 549, the same question was asked by
the hon. member for Nipissing and I again
gave an answer.
It strikes me as perhaps imponderable
common sense if the hon. member would look
in Hansard or attend in the House he would
know the answer to these questions.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
a question directed to the hon. Minister of
Public Works (Mr. Connell), which has been
given to him.
On page 211 of Hansard, December 5,
1961, the hon. Minister reported tenders were
going to be called for the construction of a
tourist reception centre at Windsor. Would
the hon. Minister please answer the follow-
ing questions:
1. Have tenders been called for the above
construction?
2. If so, when is construction to commence?
3. When is it expected that construction
will be completed and the centre opened?
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank
the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville
(Mr. Newman) for notice of this three-part
(luestion which might be answered:
First question: No.
Second question: Not applicable.
Third question: As soon as possible.
However, I would like to amplify these
answers in this way. I am sure that the hon.
member will realize that we did not want to
repeat our customary tourist reception centre
design— which was in the first place designed
for an open highway setting— in front of the
city of Windsor's distinguished new city hall.
We have therefore gone to considerable pains
to design a prestige building in a park-like
setting.
We have considered the architecture of the
new city hall and my officials consulted with
Windsor city officials last week on the de-
sign, traffic flow and other problems. I might
say that the Windsor officials are delighted
and entirely complimentary, as I hope the
people of Windsor will be when the building
is completed. Working drawings are now be-
ing prepared in our drafting room and tenders
will be called in April.
It will be impressed upon the successful
contractor that the building is needed as soon
as possible and we trust it will be in service
for a good portion of this tourist season. I
hope to come to Windsor and turn the build-
ing over to the hon. Minister of Travel and
Publicity (Mr. Cathcart) this summer. Mean-
while, may I point out Windsor will continue
to be served by twice as many reception
centres as any other point of entry.
Mr. Newman: I thank the hon. Minister.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
privilege, my colleague to my right and I
have had the opportunity to look at the re-
ference made by the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development, and I assert
through you, sir, to him, that there has been
no previous question of this nature asked
and no previous answer given. It is typical
of his contempt for the House and for the
hon. members on this side that he answers in
that fashion.
Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the
orders of the day I ask permission of the
House to revert to motions.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that when this
House adjourns the present sitting thereof,
it stands adjourned until 2.00 of the clock
FEBRUARY 26, 1962
651
on Thursday afternoon, and not until 3.00 as
in the motion submitted earlier.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon.
Prime Minister whether or not there will be
a Thursday night sitting this week?
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
House moves into committee of supply, Mr.
K, Brown in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMICS AND DEVELOPMENT
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Eco-
nomics and Development): Mr. Chairman,
this year we are embarking on a new course
in presenting to the hon. members of this
House the estimates of The Department of
Economics and Development by presenting
to the House a statement on the Ontario
economy, separate from the budget which
will follow as presented by the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) on Thursday.
In the past a brief review of economic
trends has been incorporated in the hon.
Provincial Treasurer's budget statement.
As Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment, charged with the responsibility of
directing the government's policies in the
field of industrial and economic develop-
ment, it seemed advisable that I should
render to the House a fuller statement on
the economic health of our province, and
it seemed that perhaps the best time to do
this was immediately preceding the budget,
which will be delivered by the hon.
Provincial Treasurer on Thursday.
It is not my intention to discuss here the
government's financial policies or pro-
grammes. These will be outlined in the
hon. Provincial Treasurer's budget statement.
My task, primarily, is to review current trends
in the Ontario economy and to outline the
framework within which the government's
programme has been formulated.
The economic situation in which we find
ourselves has been brought about by the
conjuncture of several basic economic forces
operating throughout the world. The inter-
action of these forces, many of which had
their origins in the early post-war years,
has created an entirely new environment
in which our economy must function. To
place the Ontario picture in perspective, it
is essential that we understand the nature
of these changes and their impact on Can-
ada and Ontario.
Foremost among these developments has
been the reconstruction and revitalization of
the industrial economies of western Europe
and Japan. In the immediate post-war
period, there was general acceptance of the
need to rebuild the shattered economies of
the war-devastated nations. The establish-
ment of a viable system of international
trade and the facilitation of the flow of capi-
tal and resources throughout the world were
considered essential. To accomplish these
ends, a series of far-reaching international
agreements were signed, including the estab-
lishment of the International Monetary Fund
and the General Agreement on Tariff^s and
Trade.
These are known as the IMF and the
GATT arrangements and I am preparing
short layman descriptions of how these oper-
ate. I will have them available for hon.
members of the House, I hope, before too
long.
The western European nations and Japan
developed a variety of economic controls and
devices to assist the rebuilding of their indus-
tries. These included quotas and high import
tariffs, exchange restrictions, export credits
and various controls designed to channel in-
vestment into selected industries. The United
States and Canada gave direct assistance to
a number of these nations to help them
through the difficult period of reconstruction.
The remarkable recovery of these countries
is now a matter of record. It has become
somewhat fashionable to quote their recent
rates of growth against our rate of expansion
in Canada. Such comparisons are apt to be
misleading, for the period of our most rapid
expansion occurred earlier when they were
engaged in the restoration of their productive
capacity. It was inevitable that their later
expansion would bring about changes in
world trade patterns and cause some malad-
justment in the North American economy.
As a result largely of these developments
in Europe and Asia, the period since 1955
has been characterized by the emergence of
strong competition in world markets. The
manufactured goods of the United States and
Canada have in many cases lost their com-
petitive advantage to the products of modern
low-cost industries in western Europe and
Japan. Products which contain a high-labour
content were most vulnerable to this foreign
competition because of the lower wages pre-
vailing outside North America. One of the
results has been the introduction of more
highly specialized machinery and automated
techniques into North American industries.
This development, which is common to both
652
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the American and Canadian economies, has
reduced the number of production workers
necessary in our factories and has resulted
in a higher level of unemployment.
In response to the competitive pressures in
world markets, western European countries,
in particular, recognized the weakness in-
herent in a limited domestic market.
I might say that this is something that I
do not think we have yet realized in this
country.
From the first years of the post-war period,
plans were being made for some form of
European economic integration. The earlier
successes of the Benelux Economic Union-
Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg—
and the success of the European Coal and
Steel Community paved the way for negotia-
tions leading to the establishment of the
common market. These talks reached fruition
with the signing of the Treaty of Rome on
March 25, 1957— this was the beginning of
the common market when Italy, France, Bel-
gium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the
Federal Republic of Germany signed.
Briefly, the aim of the European Common
Market countries was to remove all barriers
to tile free movement of goods, capital and
labour between the members. That is to
say, it was designed that they should have
no tariffs in between their member nations
and that labour and capital should ])e able
to move freely between these countries, but
they would establish a common set of eco-
nomic policies and erect a common tariff
around their outside against non-member
nations.
The basic iniderlying conception was to
create a vast market, rivalling the largest in
the world. Actually the market possesses
something in the neighbourhood of 300 mil-
lion consumers, larger than the United States
market. Their desire was to create this vast
market capable of supporting large-scale in-
dustries employing the most modern tech-
niques of production, so that in the end, Mr.
Chairman, the economies of the six nations
would be welded into a single economic unit
of great power.
In reaction to the development of the com-
mon market, seven trading countries in
western Europe outside the new entity, the
United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Denmark,
Portugal, Switzerland and Austria, formed
the European Free Trade Association. How-
ever, it was recognized that this was only a
partial answer to the problem of dealing with
the common market. The continued exist-
ence of this organization has been threatened
by the decision of the United Kingdom and
Denmark to apply for entry into the common
market. Since this is likely to be followed
by similar action from several other countries,
this threat is a very real one.
The establishment of the common market
and the possibility of Britain's entry into it
poses several problems for North America as
a whole and Canada in particular. The grow-
ing strength of the western European nations
will undoubtedly increase the competitiNe
pressures on Canadian and Ontario manu-
facturing industries and there is a strong
possibility that Canada will lose the Com-
monwealth preferences it now holds in the
British market.
These would be best described by saying
that our exports to Great Britain fall approx-
imately 95 per cent in an area where there
is no tariff; and some 5 to 10 per cent
in an area where there is a tariff, but there
is an advantage given to those members of
the Commonwealth. Were Great Britain to
join the common market, these preferences in
many ways would be lost. However, it is
worth noting that the common market is also
basically interested in our raw material
exports. So while on the short run the effect
on our exports may not be as severe, in the
long-run, certainly in terms of the finished
product, it may be severe.
Although the effects of this may take place
gradually, there are painful adjustments in
prospect for Canada and Ontario, especially
for some manufacturers who now have export
markets in the United Kingdom. However,
the prospects of a stronger and larger Euro-
pean Common Market also offer challenging
opportunities. As standards of living rise in
western Europe, there will be larger potential
markets and greater opportunities for exporters
of consimier goods as well as industrial raw
materials.
Beyond the immediate effects on our trade
l^y the formation of the European Common
Market is the probability of the concept of
the common market being utilized in other
areas in the world.
That is to say, this is a concept which is
attractive to Europe and it is now in tiie
initiation stages in other areas of the world.
For example, a common market is in the
process of being formed involving several of
the countries in Central and South America.
There is a general recognition throughout
most of the world that national economies are
no longer sufficient to support the technically
advanced large-scale industries of the present
day. . These developments raise problems
which are of particular importance to the
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
653
continued growth and expansion of Canada
and Ontario.
In the face of the powerful economic units
which are developing in all parts of the world,
Canada must reassess its own trading position
and consider what adjustments or basic re-
alignments are necessary to take advantage of
the wider economic horizons that are develop-
ing. I shall be announcing on behalf of the
government our plans to combat this tendency
in a few days.
Since our economy has always depended on
the international movement of goods, it would
be unrealistic to try to isolate ourselves from
the main currents of world trade. The result
of the negotiations between the United
Kingdom and the common market will make
the alternatives open to Canada much clearer.
Each of them will have to be studied carefully
and decisive action taken to ensure that our
economy will have the best possible oppor-
tunity for rapid growth in an international
context.
While attention has been focused on
developments in Europe there is no denying
the fact that the level of Canada's economic
activity is to a large part determined by the
rate of economic progress in the United
States.
The importance of the United States to
Canada's economy is best illustrated by an
examination of the trade figures. Traditionally,
the United States has supplied the market for
almost 60 per cent of Canada's exports while
almost 70 per cent of our imports are pur-
chased from that country. Recently the per-
centage of our total merchandise trade which
is accounted for by our trade with the United
States, has been declining as trade with the
European Common Market countries, other
western European countries, eastern Euro-
pean and Asian countries has taken on
increased importance. Nevertheless, the
United States is our major trading partner
and will continue to be so in the foresee-
able future.
The impact of the American economy on
Canada and Ontario is even greater than the
trade figures would tend to suggest. This
has been caused, in part, by the flow of in-
vestment capital into Canada from the United
States, the import of technical know-how,
managerial skills, product design and a host
of other factors. Another important facet
of the relationship between the two countries
is, of course, the cultural impact of the
United States on Canada. As a result of these
influences the Canadian economy and, in-
deed, the Canadian way of life, reflect many
of the dominant trends in American society.
The dramatic changes in the economic
relationships within the western world have
had no less impact on the United States
than they have had on Canada. In the
last few years the United States has been
faced with a mounting deficit on its balance
of interniitional payments, a slow-down in its
rate of economic growth and mounting unem-
ployment caused by increased competition
and the impact of automation.
In recognition of these economic problems,
the Kennedy administration has proposed an
entirely new programme that would give the
President authority to negotiate a reduction
or elimination of tariffs on those goods for
which the United States and the common
market account for 80 per cent of world
trade. On all other goods the President would
be given the power to negotiate tariff reduc-
tions of up to 50 per cent. An important
and complementary aspect of President Ken-
nedy's proposal is that provision will be made
for the retraining of workers in those indus-
tries which would be adversely aflFected by
European imports. Thus, the proposals recog-
nize the need to cushion the industries most
severely injured in the transitional period.
This bold approach to changing conditions
has been taken in recognition of the long-
run opportunities inherent in the strengthen-
ing of the economies of the major trading
nations in the western world. If this progress
and programme is given approval, it will
drastically alter the long-standing tariff policy
of the United States. This will have a signifi-
cant impact on Canadian trade relations both
with the United States and the European
Common Market. Even if the full efi^ect is
not realized, changes will occur that will pro-
foundly alter the trading conditions under
which we operate.
The present economic situation in tlie
United States should also be outlined briefly
since it has a direct bearing on conditions
in Canada and Ontario. After four years of
sluggish growth, the United States made a
strong advance in 1961, pausing only in Sep-
tember when sporadic strikes in the automo-
tive industries arrested production. Since
then the economy has moved forward, reach-
ing new peaks in production and income.
The only signs of weakness in the Ameri-
can economy during the year were the
relative hesitancy in consumer demand and
continuing unemployment. Total retail sales
showed no real signs of advance until the
last two months of the year. Unemployment
remained well above oflBcial objectives
throughout the year and gave cause for con-
cern in the United States. The seasonally
654
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
adjusted rate was about 6.8 per cent during
the first 10 months. There was a drop in
November to 6.1 per cent at which level it
remained in December. This was, a percen-
tage or two, it might be pointed out, above
that prevailing in Ontario.
On balance, economic conditions in the
United States were favourable in 1961 and
the major economic indicators point to con-
tinuing expansion in 1962.
I would like if I might, Mr. Chairman, to
refer to the impact that the present economic
condition has had on Canada and on the
province of Ontario.
I should like to turn to the changes that
have taken place in the Canadian economy,
which by their nature have had a telling
effect on the development and growth of
Ontario.
In the post-war period the Canadian econ-
omy has undergone one of the most rapid
periods of growth in its history. During this
period of growth the shape and nature of
the Canadian economy have been profoundly
altered.
Underlying most of the developments that
have taken place has been the change in the
living and working habits of tlie Canadian
population. A simple rural-urban breakdown
of the population gives no indication of the
fundamental changes that have occurred.
Not only is a larger proportion of the popu-
lation living in our cities and metropolitan
areas, but the rural environment has been
altered considerably. More than one million
workers were engaged in agriculture in 1941,
representing 32 per cent of the total labour
force. By 1951 only 800,000 workers were
engaged in this field of endeavour, repre-
senting 20 per cent of the total labour force,
and by 1961 this had dropped still further
and has gone down to 11 per cent.
The shift of the labour force away from
agriculture has been occasioned by increased
mechanization on the farm, the growth in
our urban centres and the spectacular expan-
sion of our manufacturing and service in-
dustries, as well as a change in merchandising
techniques and patterns.
Another important development has been
the enlargement of the domestic market
resulting from natural increases in popula-
tion, large-scale immigration and rising per-
sonal incomes. The creation of a larger
domestic market has, in turn, attracted capi-
tal investment into the secondary manufac-
turing sector, and these industries have
become increasingly oriented towards serv-
ing this market. More recently, the slow-
down in population growth, caused mainly
by declining immigration, has reduced the
rate of market growth.
In the immediate post-war years the
expanding Canadian industries were not
subject to competition from industrial na-
tions other than the United States. There-
fore, Canadian manufacturing was influenced
solely by American competition. We special-
ized in certain fields and imported costly
components and capital goods from tlie
United States. In the process, the Canadian
manufacturing industry became a smaller
scale model of American production, a trend
accelerated by the establishment of branch
plants to produce goods for our domestic
market.
At the same time, world demand for both
raw materials and manufactured goods en-
couraged the export of Canadian primary
products and secondary manufactures. With
the recovery of the industrial economies out-
side North America our exports made diffi-
cult headway. For a time this development
did not seriously impinge on our industrial
growth as the burgeoning domestic market
was able to absorb the output of our fac-
tories.
The growth in the domestic market and
the expansion of the industries supplying
this market have tended to reduce the
importance of foreign trade to our national
economy.
Actually we seem to have lost our sense
of urgency as an exporting nation and we
are convinced in this government that there
is a great deal that can be done to revive
this sense of urgency. We must be an ex-
porting nation if we are to remain healthy
and generate a vibrant economy. Our domes-
tic market is too small to sustain the stand-
ard of living we desire for ourselves.
In the period 1927-30 exports of goods
and services accounted for about 29 per
cent of the gross national expenditure in
volume terms. In the 1957-60 period exports
amounted to about 23 per cent of the gross
national expenditure. This was a drop there-
fore of approximately 6 per cent and was
a serious decline. Nevertheless, this is a
far better ratio than in most other nations
and more than four times better than that
of the United States. Canada is particularly
vulnerable to fluctuations in international
trade patterns because of its heavy reliance
on the export of raw materials and foodstuffs
which are subject to wide variations in
world prices.
In the period since 1957 a new set of
factors has been introduced resulting in a
senes of dislocations and adjustments in the
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
655
make-up of our economy. Between 1955 and
1957 Canada reached the apex of a capital
investment boom. Even though investment
was maintained at a relatively high level
in 1958, it ceased to provide the same stimu-
lus to growth. As a percentage of the gross
national product, investment declined from
27 per cent in 1957 to 22 per cent in 1960.
This again was a significant drop.
Concurrently, our domestic markets were
beginning to feel the effect of imports from
western Europe and Japan. These factors
were accentuated by a slow-down in the
rate of growth in consumer demand and by
several sharp downturns in our economy
triggered by recessions in the United States.
This combination of factors has had a depres-
sing effect upon the rate of growth of our
economy which since 1957 has increased by
about 2 per cent a year. As a result, un-
employment has edged slowly upwards from
3.4 per cent of the work force in 1956 to 7.3
per cent in 1961. In January 1962, the
seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was
6.3 per cent in Canada and 4.2 per cent in
Ontario— 4.7 per cent, excuse me.
One of the dominant factors in post-war
economic development has been the expansion
of Canada's trade. In the 16-year period
ending in 1961, merchandise exports increased
two and a half times while imports more than
tripled.
So our exports were up in this period about
250 per cent and our imports were up about
300 per cent. This is what has prompted us
in The Department of Economics and
Development to tackle the problem of import
replacements by Canadian production, which
I will be discussing when we continue with
the estimates of the department.
As a result of the more rapid increase in
imports, surpluses on merchandise account
occurred only twice during the 1950's, the
last one in 1954. In the past two years, how-
ever, this deficit was considerably reduced
and in 1961, for the first time in seven
years, we expect a small surplus.
Although the expansion of our trade with
continental Europe and Asia has been a
notable feature of the last year or two,
Canada's international trade has continued to
be strongly oriented to the United States.
Since 1948 our exports to the United States
have never been less than 50 per cent of our
total exports to all countries, and in 1950
were as high as 65 per cent. Last year, thev
were just over one-half of all our exports. If
the United States has been our most important
customer, it has been even more important
as a supplier of imports. Since the end of
World War II, the United States has been
the source of 66 to 77 per cent of all the
imports brought into Canada. Although the
relative importance of the United States as
a source of our imports has been declining,
it still supplied Canada with 66 per cent of
its total imports in 1961.
In short, 50 per cent of our exports of
Canada go to the United States and of our
imports into Canada 66 per cent come from
the United States. This is not a favourable
balance. However, the change in the premium
on the Canadian dollar will have, and has
had, a strong influence in this matter.
A similar trend has been exhibited in our
trade with the United Kingdom. While both
our exports to, and imports from, the United
Kingdom have increased, they have not grown
as rapidly as our total trade with all other
countries. In the last decade our exports to
the UK in relation to exports to all countries
ha\e ranged from 18 to 15 per cent while
imports have been 9 to 11 per cent.
Therefore in the case of the United
Kingdom we have had a favourable trade
balance. We have exported to Great Britain
more in value than we have imported from
her.
Canada's trade with all other countries has
become increasingly important. Exports to
countries other than the United States and
the Usiitcd Kingdom represented about 20
per cent of the total in 1950 and rose to 31
per cent in 1961. On the import side a
similar trend was evident. In 1961 these
other countries supplied about 23 per cent
of the total imports into Canada.
Again, this is a favourable trade balance.
In short, we were exporting to nations other
than Great Britain and the United States
approximately 31 per cent of our total exports,
and we were importing some 23 per cent
from these same countries, leaving us with a
favourable trade balance with these other
countries. In fact on the over-all picture
leaving us only with an unfavourable trade
balance with the United States.
The increase in imports from the western
European countries and Japan has had a more
marked effect on our economic structure than
the figures would indicate. This is because
these imports have competed directly— and
this is the important aspect of the point— they
have compete^d directly with our domestically
manufactured goods, whereas in the past,
imports from the United Kingdom and the
United States have complemented the manu-
facturing industries of Canada in the domestic
market. It is, therefore, a relatively small
increase in imports from these other industrial
656
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
nations whicli has caused much of the dis-
location in Canadian secondary industry. This
dislocation is caused not nearly as much by
what nation or what per cent of an imbalance
there is but more by what products are they
that are causing the imbalance.
To summarize, we have traditionally had
merchandise trade surpluses with all areas
in the world except the United States. That
is to say we have exported more to these
countries than we have imported from them.
Our merchandise trade deficit with the
United States as well as our deficit on tourist
account are matters to which our people in
this government will give increasing attention
in the months ahead. In the last dozen years
our annual merchandise trade deficit has
rarely been less than $.5 billion. This is in
relation to the United States. In 1956 it
reached a peak of nearly $1.2 billion and last
year was less than $.75 billion— $750 million—
substantially less than in 1956 and 1957 but
still a larger deficit than we would like to
see. Our favourable balance of trade with
other countries has enabled us to offset in part
or in whole this deficit with the United
States. And as I said earlier there is to be
a very modest trade balance in our favour
this year. It has gradually been reduced and
in 1961 for the first time since 1954 we
broke even because of our merchandise trade
surplus with countries other than the United
States.
The merchandise trade balance— this is as
opposed to what you call an inflow of
capital, merchandise are goods as opposed to
capital— is only one element in our total
balance of payments position. Owing to a
combination of factors— the visits of Canadians
to their former homelands and the increased
propensity to take winter vacations in warmer
climates— we have been experiencing a deficit
on the tourist and travel account. It has been
an outflow of dollars as opposed to an inflow
or outflow of merchandise.
Added to this, our payments of interest
and dividends on investments held in the
United States and abroad are steadily increas-
ing. As a result of these developments, we
have experienced steadily rising deficits on
our non-merchandise account from about $600
million in 1956 to more than $1 billion in
1961. In the six years 1956-61 inclusive,
Canada's total balance of payments deficit
with all countries amounted to $7.75 billion,
of which the deficit on merchandise account
was approximately $2 billion.
In short, we are not trading too badly. But
we are spending extensively in cash, outside
of Canada, on travel, interest account and in
dividend payments. Our balance of merchan-
dising trading in tJie world— the outflow or
inflow— is a very respectable record. But our
tendency, because of our tourist account, is
to spend a great deal of money outside of
(>ana(hi. Further, our indebtedness is held
partially outride of Canada, and the interest
on this as well as dividends on equity stock
in companies owned in Canada, means,
naturally, a flow of Canadian dollars outside
of Canada.
We have been able to sustain this outflow
of capital from Canada by the inflow of
capital into Canada, particularly from the
United States. This inflow has taken many
forms. The most significant of these has been
direct investment by non-Canadians in the
Canadian economy. This has been realized
in establishment of branch plants, large-scale
development of our natural resources, con-
struction of new apartments, oflBce buildings
and other assets. In addition, many corpora-
tions, government agencies, have borrowed
directly in the United States money markets
and have brought this money back into
Canada and this has tended to increase the
imbalance of our capital flow.
The capital raised by these and other
methods have allowed us to carry out our
investment programmes and to import vast
quantities of consumer and capital goods.
Without this capital inflow, we could not have
developed to the extent we have.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Would the hon. Minister explain
that latter statement?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: With an imbalance in
our trade, that is importing more than we
were exporting, and with an export of capital,
it is necessary to have an import of capital
and thus the money is generated within the
economy. Because of tlie fact that we have
had approximately a $7.5 billion outflow, of
which in effect only $2 billion has been
caused by merchandise and $5.5 million
therefore in the outflow of capital in terms of
tourist industry, interest on indebtedness,
payments of dividends on capital, there has
had to have been a comparable inflow of
capital somewhere, to not only make up for
the outflow of the capital but also as a means
or an aegis through which we could develop
our own economy.
There are, however, some problems which
have their origins in the deficits we have
accumulated year after year. We have seen
a persistent growth in our net balance of
foreign indebtedness which in 1961 amounted
to about $18 billion.
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
657
In short, the net amount we, as Canadians,
owe outside of Canada, as opposed to the
net amount which is owed to us from out-
side of Canada, is about $18 billion.
We have had continuous pressure on the
Canadian dollar. We have witnessed an in-
crease in foreign ownership of our manufac-
turing industries and our natural resources.
These are problems which we must assess
and face. These questions will be examined
and studied by the Ontario Economic Council
and I will outline some specific policies in
respect to these questions at a later date.
We cannot afford to dismiss these problems
as being the responsibility of the federal gov-
ernment. They directly affect the Ontario
economy and must be our concern also.
In general, 1961 was a good year. I might
just say before passing to that, Mr. Chairman,
that there has been some concern in the
United States in relation to our recent policy
relating to the premium on the Canadian
dollar, but I will come to that in a moment,
if I may.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Is that all
solved to the satisfaction—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We will talk about it
in a moment.
In February, a year ago, the Canadian
economy reversed the contraction phase and
began to expand. The index of industrial
production and the gross national product
have since shown impressive gains. At the
year's end, they were running approximately
6 per cent to 7 per cent higher than the cor-
responding period a year ago. Over the
whole year the rise in the gross national
product was slightly better than 3 per
cent in value and somewaht more than 2
per cent in volume. Salaries, wages and other
incomes reached record highs, while unem-
ployment on a seasonally adjusted basis con-
tinued to decline, and by December was at
its lowest level since November, 1959.
This is in relation to Canadian economy;
the Ontario figures were lower than that and
I will refer to them in a moment.
One of the most encouraging develop-
ments was the recovery in the durable manu-
facturing sector which by the end of the
year was approaching the previous record
level. Non-durable manufacturing established
new records with each successive month
after reaching a new peak in June. Mining
production also showed considerable strength,
led by the increased production of oil and
natural gas in the western provinces.
During 1961, Canadian exports rose to an
tmprecedented $5.8 billion, 8 per cent
liigher than in 1960. Exports to the United
States for the first part of the year were
rather sluggish but strengthened in the sec-
ond half as economic conditions improved.
The major gain, however, resulted from in-
creased trade with Europe, Japan, and China,
reflecting large shipments of wheat and vari-
ous other commodities. As imports rose more
slowly than exports— 5 per cent as against
8 per cent— our merchandise trade was
brought into balance for the first time since
1954.
The expansion of economic activity was
reflected more in terms of wholesale prices
than in the consumer price index. Consumer
prices held fairly stable throughout the whole
year and on average were up only one per
cent from 1960. On the other hand, the
general wholesale price index moved up
strongly as a result of the economic expan-
sion.
Another highlight of the year was the
sharp recovery in corporate profits and the
steady rise in personal incomes. These did
not have any marked effect on corporate in-
vestment or consumer spending, which
tended to lag during the year, even though
there were marginal increases over 1960. As
a result, both corporate and personal savings
increased. This is one of the most encouraging
factors when considering the possibilities for
1962. With the recovery of confidence on the
part of both investors and consumers we can
anticipate increases in effective demand in
all sectors of the economy making for an
excellent year in 1962.
The advocates of certain policies seem to
me to forget that investments, planned
improvements, factory extensions and new
industry are created out of someone else's
savings. There would be nothing to invest had
someone else not saved the money in the
first place. Tomorrow's development comes
from today's savings, and the fact remains
that what one man spends another man must
first have saved.
Canadian monetary and fiscal policies dur-
ing 1961 were mainly directed at combating
the mild slowdown in economic conditions
which characterized most of 1960. The total
supply of money in Canada advanced pro-
gressively throughout the year. As of Decem-
ber 27, 1961, it stood at $15,076 million, an
increase of 9.2 per cent over the previous
year.
The overall easing in monetary conditions
during 1961 was reflected by the entire
structure of interest and money rates in
Canada moving to fractionally lower levels.
658
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The bank rate, set at a high of 3.59 per cent
on January 5, reached the 1961 low of 2.5
per cent on August 31, and from then until
the end of 1961 continued to rise, apart from
a few isolated instances, closing the year at
3.24 per cent.
The exchange rates for the United States
dollar and for the other foreign currencies in
Canada were substantially ajffected during
1961 by declared policies and actions of the
Canadian government. The federal hon.
Minister of Finance in his budget address of
June 20, 1961, announced the government's
intention to add, if necessary, substantial
amounts to oflBcial holdings of U.S. dollars
through purchases in the exchange market in
order to bring the Canadian dollar to a dis-
count in terms of the U.S. dollar. The hon.
Minister stated that this action was designed
to facilitate an expansion of Canada's export
trade, which it has done.
The reaction on foreign exchange markets
to this announcement was immediate and
significant. The average rate for the U.S.
dollar in Canada, which had risen to a one
per cent discount in June— compared with an
average discount of some 3 per cent for
the whole year 1960— advanced to a 4 per
cent premium in early July. This was a com-
plete reversal of about 9 points. There-
after, the rate steadied to the level of a 3
per cent premium, but towards the end of
1961, the U.S. dollar again showed strength,
rising to about 5 per cent.
Now there have been those who have
written extensively in papers, economic
papers, in the United States about the policy
of the Canadian government in its desire to
aid our export policy in relaxing the premium
on the Canadian dollar. It is interesting to
note that these people, who are very critical
now of the government's policy in relation to
the premium on the Canadian dollar, now
that it affects them adversely, never said very
much for many years that it aflFected us
adversely while there was a premium on the
Canadian dollar in terms of the American
dollar. The matter is of great concern. One
may well remember that it was the hon.
members in the Liberal Opposition who
several years ago asked the then hon. Prime
Minister of Ontario (Mr. Frost) why he did
not try to do something to bring the premium
on the Canadian dollar down.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is the hon. Minister
referring to Baron's article—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I am referring to—
certainly what I have to say fits Baron's
article.
Easier credit combined with the imposition
of the 15 per cent withholding tax on new
Canadian bond borrowings in the United
States of America payable in U.S. currency,
effective December 21, 1960, brought about
a sharp reduction in this type of borrowing
by Canadian companies and provincial and
municipal governments during 1961. Total
Canadian borrowings payable in U.S. funds
in 1961 amounted to $133,402,000, or 2.3 per
cent of total Canadian bond financing, as
compared with $240,594,000, or 6.1 per cent
in 1960.
Price improvement continued to character-
ize all sectors of the Canadian bond market
during 1961. On average, federal, provincial,
municipal and corporate bonds closed the
year at levels of some 5 per cent above
those prevailing at the same time last year.
For example, the bid price of the 4.5 per cent
Canada issue due September 1983 closed at
$93.25, as compared with $88.25 in 1960 and
$84.00 in 1959.
In concluding this section on Canada we
cannot help but be impressed by the changes
in world production and trade patterns. We
emerged from World War II with our produc-
tive facilities intact. These were expanded
and modernized. The value of capital invest-
ment in relation to our gross national product
far exceeded that of other western nations.
The net effect was the creation of physical
plant and equipment which required rapidly
expanding sales to maintain operating effici-
ency.
As European and Asiatic countries restored
their productive capacities and entered into
world markets we were faced with market-
ing problems of increasing complexity. The
slowdown in production, aggravated by the
introduction of labour-saving equipment,
created a deficiency in employment oppor-
tunities.
In the face of our growing work force the
net result was a rising level of unemploy-
ment. The failure of the United States to
maintain a vigorous rate of economic growth
rendered oin- task even more difficult. Seas-
onal factors aside, Canada's ratio of unem-
ployment has approximated that of the
United States. Ontario's has been substanti-
ally less. We are now, however, in a new
expansion with our economy gradually adapt-
ing itself to a changed world environment.
Up to this point I have concentrated upon
the changing economic environment and the
developments in the structure of the Cana-
dian economy. My task now is to draw these
threads together and relate them to the
Ontario economy.
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
659
In many provinces a few enterprises or
activities dominate, but this is not the case
in Ontario. This province contains within
it all the elements of the Canadian economy.
Agriculture, forestry, mining, fishing, con-
struction, manufacturing, trade, commerce
and the services all contribute to production
and employment. We have an extremely
varied and diverse economy which encom-
passes nearly all fields of human endeavour.
The impact of the changing world economy
and the internal structural shifts that have
been underway in Canada are of immediate
relevance to Ontario. The province's econ-
omy, because it forms such a significant part
of the Canadian economy, is vitally affected
by these developments. Indeed, in many
cases, the changes that have occurred have
been felt more strongly in Ontario than in
the rest of Canada.
A primary illustration is the case of manu-
facturing. Ontario accounts for about one-
half of all manufactured goods produced in
Canada. The concentration in Ontario of
industries engaged in the more advanced
stages of processing is even higher, as two-
thirds of the products of these industries are
made here. It is these industries which have
been most sharply hit by competition from
western European and Asian countries and,
therefore, Ontario's economy has been
affected more than that of any other prov-
ince. The changes in the structure of manu-
facturing in Canada have had their greatest
impact on Ontario.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the
implications of these changes on other areas
in Canada. The prosperity of western
farmers is vital to us since they are an
integral part of the domestic market which
we service. The construction of a natural gas
or oil pipeline on the Pacific coast or of a
hydro-electric power station in the Mari-
times creates new markets for Ontario's
industries. The well-being and prosperity
of the whole of Canada are of vital concern
to Ontario.
The province accounts for about 41 per
cent of Canada's gross national product;
over 40 per cent of the commodities pro-
duced in Canada are made here. Similarly,
more than 35 per cent of the capital expen-
ditures and 38 per cent of the retail sales
are made in Ontario. Last year, the total
value of mineral production in Ontario
amounted to 37 per cent of the Canadian
total and the province supplied almost 60
per cent of the vahie of metals and 40 per
cent of the value of structural materials. In
agriculture, the net value of farm produc-
tion accounted for 26 per cent of the Cana-
dian total.
Ontario is the commercial and financial
heart of Canada. The money for the explora-
tion and development of resources and for
the expansion of industry and trade is
secured in our capital market. We provide
a host of specialized services to all sectors
and regions in Canada.
I have cited these figures simply to demon-
strate the stake we have in the maintenance
of a strong and growing Canada. It is in
our best interest to promote the general
expansion and development of our country.
We cannot hope to solve the economic prob-
lems facing us today unless we play our
part and contribute to policies designed to
foster the prosperity of all Canadians.
I have already referred to the developing
world economic trends and to the changing
structure of the domestic market, both of
which have had a marked effect on our
economy. For the past twenty years, the
rapid growth in the Canadian and Ontario
populations has provided a rapidly expand-
ing market for consumer goods. This is par-
ticularly true because a high percentage of
the huge flow of post-war immigrants were
young adults. These people required houses,
appliances, furniture, automobiles and the
whole range of durable goods which are
necessities for North American families.
Along with this high level of immigration,
we experienced steadily rising birth rates.
New industries were built up to provide
baby and children's food, clothing, toys and
household equipment.
Prosperity in western Europe has reduced
the incentive of people in these countries
to emigrate to Canada. In 1961 there were
only about 72,000 immigrants to Canada
and less than 37,000 to Ontario. This is the
smallest flow of immigration since 1947,
when shipping space was still scarce and
our immigration regulations were tighter.
Along with the reduction in immigration,
there have been fewer marriages and births.
Because the people who are now getting
married and establishing families were born
in the low birth rate years of the thirties,
the number of marriages in Ontario as well
as the marriage rate has been falling since
the peak in 1958.
The changes in population trends result-
ing both from immigration flow and from
the uneven age distribution of our popula-
tion have had significant effects on the
domestic market for consumer goods. The
demand for housing and for infants' and chil-
dren's goods has been increasing at a slower
660
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
rate. For the next few years, as these chil-
dren advance in age, there will be a demand
for teenage apparel, sports clothes and
equipment and low-priced popular entertain-
ment facilities.
We are not experiencing the rapid growth
of the fifties, when Ontario's population in-
creased by 3.1 per cent a year, and Can-
ada's by 2.6 per cent. Nevertheless, in the
period from June, 1960, to June, 1961, the
Ontario population increased by 1.9 per
cent, slightly under the national average of
2.0 per cent for the same period and much
above tlie Ontario growtli of 1.5 per cent
per year for the first half of tiiis century.
While there has been a sharp drop in
population growth in the past year or two,
this drop is temporary and the growth rate
will turn up again by about 1965 when the
young people born during and after World
War II move into the family formation age
groups. We must also remember that popu-
lation growtli is by no means slow; we are
still growing at a slightly higher rate than
that experienced in the United States over
the past decade and a half and at a much
more rapid rate than that of most European
countries.
Growing population is not the only factor
contributing to demand. In Ontario, our
growing domestic market has been supported
by steady increases in wage rates and in-
comes. For the past fifteen years there has
been an increase in both total personal in-
comes and in per capita incomes. In this area
too, however, there has been a slight slow-
down in growth since 1957. Total personal
income per capita increased at an average
rate of 5.6 per cent a year from 1946 to 1957,
while the average price increase in the same
period was 4.2 per cent a year. In terms of
actual purchasing power, therefore, per
capita personal income rose by about 1.5 per
cent a year. Since 1957 per capita personal
income in real terms has risen by only 1.2 per
cent a year.
Ontario's estimated per capita personal in-
come reached $1,855 in 1961, about $25
higher than British Columbia's, the second
wealthiest province, and well above the
Canadian average of $1,568. Ontario incomes
were up 1.9 per cent from 1960, or, since
consumer prices rose about one per cent over
the same period, about one per cent per
capita in purchasing power. While this is not
a very substantial rise, the picture is actually
more promising than the figures suggest since
incomes were rising more rapidly in the latter
half of the year.
Another factor that should be considered
here is that population, particularly in the
younger age groups, has expanded more
rapidly than the number of wage earners.
Personal income per capita, therefore, does not
reflect the tremendous gains in real income
accruing to our working population. The fact
that personal income per capita has increased
despite the growth in the non-productive
population demonstrates the basic vitality and
strength of our economy. The actual pur-
chasing power of the individual wage and
salary earner has grown to a much greater
extent than the figures quoted above would
indicate.
In terms of retail sales, because real in-
comes have held up strongly, retail trade
has been one of the stabilizing factors in our
economy. The growth in population and the
increasing requirements of an extremely young
population have resulted in continuous rises
in consumer spending. This growth has not
been restricted to conventional trade outlets,
I spoke earlier of the changing structure
of our manufacturing industries. In many
ways, the changes in retailing have been
even more spectacular. Since the war, the
major changes have been the introduction
of the supermarket, the expansion of chain
stores, the construction of shopping centres in
the rapidly growing suburbs and the emerg-
ence of the discount house.
Partly because of pressure on prices brought
on by these new outlets and partly because
we now have a buyer's market for consumer
goods, firm prices for durables have tended to
disappear. Sales and price cuts at the retail
level have become the order of the day and
shopping for price as well as for quality has
returned. This is true not only domestically
but is true internationally. For many years
brand names were a major determinant in
retail selling. As standards of performance
and quality have become more uniform the
diflFerentiation of a brand image has blurred
and in the buyer's market that has developed
price has increasingly assumed its powerful
influence in shaping the production and dis-
tribution pattern.
This does not mean that price can at any
time be isolated from the quality of the
product. More than ever before consumers
are seeking trouble-free performance and
serviceability. While this is a subject which
calls for careful analysis and study in depth
extending far beyond the references which I
can make to it here today, the development
of quality control techniques and the improve-
ment in design constitute objectives at which
Canadian and Ontario industry must con-
stantly aim. This will be the specific study
of a committee of the economic council.
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
661
Through the years we have had in Canada
an expanding market as reflected in retail
sales. Owing to a number of factors the
retail sales in the lirst quarter of 1961 were
slow but there was an upturn in the late
spring and summer and then again at the end
of the year. In total, retail sales in 1961
reached an all-time record of $6,337 million,
about half of one per cent above those in
1960. All signs point to continuing improve-
ment in 1962.
The sales of grocery and combination stores,
department stores and garages and filling
stations have been showing the most notable
increases. Sales of furniture, appliance and
radio dealers have also been somewhat higher.
Last year there was a marked decline in the
value of motor vehicle sales, partly explained
by the lower prices of North American com-
pact cars v/hich have been favourably received
by the public.
Consumer credit continued to rise through-
out 1961 and at the end of the year was
substantially higher than it had been at the
end of 1960. In this area, too, there was a
sharp change in consumer habits. Most of
the increase in credit outstanding over the
year was in small loans from chartered banks.
There were also small increases in department
store credit and in cash loans of small loan
companies.
Population and income are the major
determinants of demand and establish the
size of the domestic market for our productive
industries. The most important of the produc-
tive industries is, of course, manufacturing.
Manufacturing in Ontario provides today, as
it has traditionally, half of the value of
Canada's manufacturing output, almost half
the country's employment in manufacturing
and more than half of its salaries and wages.
It is the largest single source of employment
in Ontario and accounts for about two-tliirds
of the output of the province's goods-
producing industry. The average size of
manufacturing establishments in Ontario is
larger than those in the rest of Canada in
terms of numbers of employees, salaries and
wages paid and the value of production.
The three leading industrial groups in size
—iron and steel products, foods and beverages,
and transportation— combined produce nearly
half the total value of manufacturing output
in the province. Yet, despite their importance,
only one of them— iron and steel products-
has been growing faster than Ontario's manu-
facturing industries as a whole.
In 1961 Ontario's shipments of manu-
factures are estimated at a record value of
$11,750 million. They have recovered from
the sluggishness experienced in 1960 and
should exceed 1959— the previous peak year—
by about one per cent. The upturn in manu-
facturing output in the province, in common
with the upturn in the whole Canadian eco-
nomy, began in the second quarter of 1961
and gained strength towards the end of the
year. The extent of the recovery is indicated
by the fact that the value of manufacturing
shipments in the second half of 1961 was
some five per cent above the second half of
1960, more than offsetting a decline in the
early part of the year.
Despite increasing competition in the
manufacturing field a number of Ontario's
manufacturers have demonstrated that in-
genuity and perseverance can pay off in
developing export markets. I shall speak more
of this matter during the estimates of the
department.
The province's steel producers are en-
countering more success in exporting to the
United States and Europe in the last two or
three years.
An Ontario company manufacturing high
fidelity equipment, concentrating on original
design and high quality, is exporting goods
worth approximately $1 million to the United
States and has recently started selling in
Japan. An Ontario cement company last
year expanded export sales to the United
States and has equally good prospects this
year.
Several other companies are exporting to
the United Kingdom and western Europe. An
increasing number of companies are exporting
refrigerators, stoves and other appliances to
African and eastern markets. Some auto-
motive companies are manufacturing com-
ponents for their parent companies in the
United States. Wearing apparel is being sold
in the United Kingdom and dental equipment
in Sweden and West Germany.
These are but a few examples of the oppor-
tunities that exist for expanding exports to
world markets. We are confident in the
government that there is a tremendous field
in the matter of exports and we will be dis-
cussing with the House very shortly the plans
we have in relation to these matters.
The exceedingly rapid rate of population
growth following World War II called for
heavy capital investment to construct new
homes, factories, roads, schools and numerous
other physical assets. This capital investment
was at an extraordinarily high level all
through the post-war years, but reached its
peak during the capital investment boom years
of 1955-1957. In this last year capital invest-
ment in Ontario reached a level of almost
662
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
$3.3 billion, 37.5 per cent of the national total
and over 25 per cent of our total provincial
product. This rate could not be maintained,
and by 1959 it had dropped below $3 billion
at which level it has continued, still con-
stituting about 35 per cent of the national
total and over 20 per cent of the total pro-
vincial product.
The main reductions have occurred in
manufacturing and in the national resource
and construction industries. Part of the de-
cline in private investment has been offset by
an increase in the investment in goverrmient
and institutional services and facilities, includ-
ing schools, universities and hospitals. Total
capital investment in manufacturing in 1961
of over $500 million was concentrated largely
in iron and steel manufacture, chemicals, foods
and beverages, and paper products.
One of the brighter spots in construction
activity in 1961 was the recovery in the
housing sector. In the past year, 48,144
housing units were started and 43,754 new
units were completed. While starts were up
13.9 per cent over 1960, new completions fell
by more than 3,000 units, continuing a down-
ward trend which began in 1958. 31,936
units were carried over in 1962 which, while
higher than last year, is below the number of
carryovers in 1958-59. In the Hght of present
levels of population growth and family forma-
tion no good purpose could be served by
inflating rates of residential construction,
although there are areas which call for special
consideration.
I shall deal with Ontario's new and bold
housing programme at a later date.
Now in relation to agriculture, changing
living patterns at home and abroad have made
it more and more evident that our agricultural
industry, as well as our manufacturing indus-
try, must be both flexible and efficient. The
increase in eflBciency of agricultural operations
has been remarkable in the post-war period as
continual increases in agricultural production
have been accomplished, as I have pointed
out, with a greatly reduced work force. In
1961 there were only about half as many
workers engaged in Ontario agriculture as
there were in 1946. Increased mechanization,
larger scale operations and more specialization
have all contributed to this increased
productivity.
Ontario's agricultural production in 1961
was slightly higher than in 1960. Farm cash
income, estimated at $895 million, was up
3 per cent above that in 1960 and at an
all-time high. For all the principal field crops,
yields exceeded the average of the past 10
years. Pastures were extremely productive
all season. The volume of milk output showed
a gain of about 3 per cent over that in
1960 while creamery butter production rose
by more than 10 per cent. Estimates of live-
stock on Ontario farms on December 1, 1961,
indicate an increase of more than 5 per cent
in the number of cattle and of almost 7 per
cent in the number of sheep and lambs.
There was a slight decline in the number of
swine. The production of tobacco was esti-
mated to be almost 5 per cent below the
record crop harvested in 1960, when it was
valued at $109 million. With an output of
some 197 million pounds, it was considerably
above the average for the years 1956-1960.
The value of fruit and vegetables was approx-
imately $10 million higher in 1961 than in
the preceding year, when it stood at $90 mil-
lion. Output of apples alone amounted to
5.2 million bushels, a 39 per cent rise over
the 1960 level. Considerable increases were
also recorded for peaches, cherries, sweet
cherries, plums and prunes.
With the increase in world trade it is
becoming more and more evident that, in
order to compete, our agricultural industries
have to be efficient and offer the type and
quality of product that the consumer, at home
and abroad, demands. While the individual
farmer is an expert at the primary level of
agricultural production, his well-being also
depends, to a large extent, on the practical
application of scientific findings and of market
research and organization.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Stewart) and I will be making reference to
plans that we have relating to our joint effort
to improve the agricultural industry in
Ontario. This is a bold and imaginative pro-
gramme, not only to encourage the saving of
the family farm but to improve the marketing
opportunities of our produce. And I shall
refer to this also in more detail later during
the passing of my estimates.
Now, in relation to activity in northern
Ontario, the northern part of our province has
always been a very significant source of
wealth. Virtually all of our forestry and
mineral resources are located in this area.
These industries together with agriculture and
tourism provide the main sources of employ-
ment and incomes for the people in the north.
Since World War II these industries have
been growing at about the same rate or slightly
faster than the economy of the province as
a whole. In the past year there were adjust-
ments in some sectors of mining but produc-
tion of most of our leading minerals was
high, and forestry and the forest-based indus-
tries enjoyed a good year. Although primary
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
66^
paper and sawmill production showed little
change from 1960, the output of fine and
specialty papers rose by 4 to 6 per cent.
The value of Ontario's mineral output in
1961 was estimated at $948 million, a decline
from the previous year when it stood at $983
million. Substantial gains were made by
several minerals, particularly iron ore, nickel
and zinc. As was to be expected, production
of uranium, although still ranking second,
experienced a considerable decrease from
$212 million to $157 million. All other min-
erals together showed an increase of 2.6 per
cent, but this was not sufficient to compen-
sate entirely for the $55 million loss on uran-
ium. The five major metals, nickel, uranium,
copper, gold and iron ore together accounted
for more than three-quarters of total output.
Demand for nickel was favourable last year
in both the United States and Europe.
Ontario's output for 1961 was estimated at
$301 million, 2.7 per cent higher than in the
previous year. This all-time record was at-
tained in spite of the fact that the United
States steel industry— the major buyer of our
nickel— was operating at well below its capa-
city. An increase in the price of nickel by
about 10 per cent— the first major change
since 1956— has had the effect of slightly
inflating production figures. It is expected
that this year production will be maintained
or exceeded. Long-term prospects are good
with markets in Europe, Japan and elsewhere
representing a considerable potential, since
per capita consumption of the metal in those
countries is much below that of North Amer-
ica.
Within our national borders the Inter-
national Nickel Company commenced opera-
tions at its new mine in northern Manitoba.
In Ontario, a new nickel development at Gor-
don Lake, north of Kenora, is scheduled to
start up production before the end of the
present year.
In spite of a considerable decline in 1961,
Ontario's uranium production accounted for
16 per cent of the province's mineral output.
However, further decreases may be expected
for the next few years as existing contracts
which mainly cover defence requirements
come to an end. An agreement for the sale
of 12,000 tons of uranium concentrates to the
United Kingdom is still under negotiation.
Although potential new demand is represented
by the requirements for nuclear power gener-
ating stations, this market is developing more
slowly than hoped. In the meantime, a num-
ber of research organizations are engaged in
the search for non-nuclear uses for uranium,
including my own department; and again I
will refer to this when discussing the pro-
gramme relating to northern development and
also the operations of the Ontario Research
Foundation.
In 1961 the volume of copper production
increased by more than 2 per cent over 1960
but at $122.5 million it was slightly below
the previous year's level. In Ontario, one
new producer commenced operations last
year in the Timmins area.
Ontario's gold output in 1961 stood at $92
million, almost equal to the value of produc-
tion the year before. The industry has de-
rived considerable benefits from the discount
on the Canadian dollar. In spite of this im-
petus, most mines still received aid under
The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
The main difiiculty for our gold producers
continues to be that of rising costs while the
price of the end product is fixed in terms of
U.S. dollars. Although there has been a cer-
tain amount of speculation, United States gov-
ernment policy shows evidence of a deter-
mination to maintain the gold price at U.S.
$35.00 per ounce, as set in 1934.
Our iron ore mines last year surpassed all
previous accomplishments with a record value
of production of $55 million, almost $7 mil-
lion more than in 1960. In Ontario, very
substantial iron ore deposits have been discov-
ered in recent years. Plans to bring several
properties into production are in various
stages of development, from shaft sinking
and testing to the operation of a pilot plant.
Activities are continuing north of Nakina,
south of Kowkash, near Lake St. Joseph,
south of Red Lake and in the Temagami area.
This spring, construction will commence on
a $30 million iron mine in the Kirkland Lake
area which, when in operation, will employ
about 400 men. It is expected to produce
a million gross tons annually of the highest
quality iron ore pellets. New direct ore re-
duction methods offer special opportunities
for the development of Ontario's extensive
low-grade ore deposits. One considerable
advantage is that these processes require no
coke, a fuel which cannot be obtained from
provincial sources.
With construction activity fairly stable,
output of structural materials, valued at $130
million, remained virtually unchanged. The
major component of this group was sand and
gravel, at almost $44 million, followed by
cement ($31 million), stone ($23 million), and
lime ($10.6 million). The production value of
cement showed an increase of almost 11 per
cent over that in the year before.
The production of fuels in the province
increased from $9.7 million in 1960 to $10.7
664
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
million in 1961. Two-thirds of the total was
accoinited for by natural gas and one-third
by crude petroleum. During 1961, 1,147,682
barrels of oil were produced in Ontario: an
increase of 14 per cent over 1960. The 1961
figure is the highest that has ever been
reached in Ontario in over 100 years of
recorded history.
In terms of energy, Ontario is undergoing
a spectacular change in the sources and uses
of its energy supply. The gradual decline in
the use of coal has been more than offset by
the rapid increase in the use of oil and nat-
ural gas. At the same time electric power
production and consumption continues to
expand.
In 1961 an estimated 38 billion kilowatt
hours of electrical energy was made available
for use in Ontario— an increase of 2.7 per
cent over 1960. This is against the judicial
increase of approximately 6 per cent a year.
During the past year the Ontario Hydro-
Electric Power Commission, which provides
90 per cent of the electricity used in the
province, increased its dependable peak
capacity by 3 per cent to more than 6.7
million kilowatts. The commission added
108,000 kilowatts to dependable peak hydro-
electric capacity through two new units at
the Otter Rapids generating station on the
Abitibi river and one unit at Red Rock Falls
generating station on the Mississagi river.
The greatest increase in capacity was, how-
ever, in the field of thermal electricity as the
fourth 200,000 kilowatt unit at the Richard
L. Heam generating station and the first of
six 300,000 kilowatt units at the Lakeview
generating station were placed in service.
The total contribution made by these ad-
ditional units was partly offset by adjustments
in capacity at the Niagara river stations as
expanding operations at the American power
stations resulted in a decline in the amount
of water available for use in Canada.
Additions were also made to the trans-
mission network to increase efficiency and
dependability of service. The rural distribu-
tion system was extended during 1961 by the
net addition of 430 miles of primary distribu-
tion line to serve 22,000 new rural customers.
In terms of a national grid of electricity I
would say to the House that the province of
Ontario stands ready to discuss at any level
any programme which appears to be eco-
nomically sound.
Extension of the use of natural gas in
Ontario continued in 1961— although I have
it here in my notes as 125 million cubic feet
I think it is 125 billion cubic feet. Total sales
were 20 per cent higher than in 1960, at
125,142,098 Mcf.
The greatest increase was in industrial
sales which now make up almost half the
total. Residential customers purchase about
38 per cent of the total and commercial firms
about 12.5 per cent; this is in relation to
natural gas. While there was some decline
in production of natural gas in Ontario in
1961, Ontario production still made up
nearly 12 per cent of the total sold in the
province during the year. A number of new
wells were brought into production in Lake
Erie last summer. The gas pipeline network
in Ontario expanded to link up such places
as Pembroke, Alviston, Elmira, Fergus, Flora
and an ammonia plant at Millhaven.
The establishment of a national oil policy
in 1961 brought significant changes in the
petroleum industry. The policy called for
producers to increase Canadian crude oil
production by 45 per cent in the next three
years or face import restrictions. The onus
is on tlie producers and refiners to find larger
outlets. As a result there has been an in-
crease in exports and an increase in the inter-
provincial flow of Canadian crude into
Ontario.
By the end of September, 1961, Ontario
refineries stopped receiving foreign crude
and by the end of November all inventories
of foreign crude had been consumed. By the
end of 1961 no foreign crude was refined
in Ontario refineries and it is unlikely that
any foreign crude will enter Ontario in the
future. Moreover, Ontario refined products
amounted to 73.5 per cent of total consump-
tion in the province of refined products in
1961 as compared with 71.5 per cent in
1960. Hence, although consumption of re-
fined petroleum products in 1961 was up only
6.7 per cent from 1960, refinery production
in Ontario was up 9.8 per cent, and 11.1 per
cent less refinery products entered Ontario
from other provinces. Ontario refineries
were operating at closer to capacity in 1961—
86.1 per cent as compared with 79.5 per
cent in 1960.
Additions to capacity planned for the next
few years are as follows: 1962, 25,000 barrels
daily; 1963, 31,000 barrels daily; and 1965,
86,000 barrels daily. The expected expansion
in refinery capacity in the next few years will
be supplied by Canadian crude and it now
appears that the targets set by the national
oil policy for production of Canadian crude
oil will be met.
In conclusion I would like to make these
comments in relation to our economy. The
Ontario economy recovered momentum in
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
665
1961 and new records of production, employ-
ment and incomes were achieved in almost
all sectors. While there were some soft spots,
the overall advance offset these and we
realized a 3.5 per cent increase in gross
provincial product.
Some of the outstanding developments in
1961 were the following:
1. the value of manufacturing production
reached an all-time record of almost $11.8
billion, led by recovery in durables.
2. steel production in Ontario was the
highest in history.
3. there were 6,000 more housing starts
in 1961 in Ontario than in 1960.
4. nickel and iron ore established new
value of production levels last year at $301
million and $55 million, respectively, in
Ontario.
5. in agriculture, both gross farm in-
come, at $1 billion, and farm cash income,
at $895 million, established record highs
in 1961, in Ontario.
6. total paper production of 2.6 million
tons was the highest in history, in Ontario.
7. personal income in the province was
another record achieved in 1961, of $1,855
per capita, the highest of any province in
Canada and higher than the Canadian
average.
8. Canada had a trade surplus for the
first time since 1954 as exports rose by 8
per cent over 1960, contributed extensively
to by the general industry in the province
of Ontario.
The general improvement in the economy
was reflected in an improvement in the
employment situation. Employment created a
new high averaging 2,261,000 in 1961, an
increase of about one per cent from 1960.
Unemployment in Ontario, seasonally
adjusted, dropped from 6.9 per cent of the
work force in January to 4.3 per cent in
December, the lowest since October 1959.
Although the rate of unemployment in the
male sector is about double that of women, an
encouraging factor this year has been the
acceleration in manufacturing which has
created new jobs for men.
The seasonally adjusted rate of unemploy-
ment in Ontario of 4.3 per cent continues to
be well below that of Canada as a whole and
the United States which averaged 5.9 and 6.1
per cent, respectively, in December 1961.
The gains achieved by the Ontario economy
during 1961 are expected to continue tlirough-
out 1962. We anticipate that the gross pro-
vincial product will increase by 6 per cent
with the greatest expansion in manufacturing,
some areas of construction, mining, govern-
ment, trade, and services.
Personal incomes have been rising strongly
and the expansion in consumer liquidity to-
gether with greater consumer confidence in
the economy should result in a substantial
increase in consumer expenditures.
Although corporation profits have also risen
in recent months, increased investment ex-
penditures will depend to a large extent on
the assessment of prospects for continued
strength and ultimate demand. It is apparent
that there is still excess capacity in many of
our industries and until this is fully utilized
there will be no large-scale investment under-
taken in the private sector, and I am hopeful
that our programme will also be effective in
this area.
The length and strength of the current
economic upswing will be to a large extent
determined by conditions existing in our
external markets. At the present time there
has been a slowdown in the rate of growth
in some of the major European countries,
which might result in a temporary slackening
in demand for our export products. This
should be more than compensated by the
resurgence in the United States economy
which will increase the demand for our
exports there. Because the United States and
European economies are in different stages of
their cyclical movements, we shall not experi-
ence the violent fluctuations which otherwise
might have occurred. However, if this con-
tinues we can also expect a more gradual
long-term growth. Changes in the structure
of our foreign trade owing to developments
in the common market will not be as signifi-
cant in 1962 as in succeeding years, particu-
larly if the United Kingdom becomes a
member in 1963.
The present expansion in business activity
is definitely stronger than has been the case
over the last two cycles. Consumer durables
have shown a remarkable improvement as
have exports and industrial production. These
are particularly encouraging to future growth
in the Ontario economy.
Our economic prospects in Ontario for 1962
are excellent. We have a sound basis for
expansion, and although we are fully aware
that we are confronted with a number of
problems, we can face the future with con-
fidence.
We recognize that our rate of growth in
the last four years has not been adequate.
We are now, however, in a phase of
666
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
accelerated economic activity. If we are to
provide the 5()0,()0() to 600,000 new jobs
required for our growing work force in the
next ten years, we must develop new policies
to oxercome present problems and ensure a
high rate of economic expansion. This govern-
ment has no intention of presiding over a
stagnating economy. Our economic policies
can be stated in one word: growth.
Today we are confronted witli a need for
basic structural changes in our economy.
Many of these, as I have pointed out, are
already taking place in answer to the changing
economic environment in which we operate.
Since the end of World War II the size
and variety of our manufacturing industries
have undergone a great transformation and
expansion. Many completely new industries
have been set up while firms within older,
more established industries have turned to
new products to fit changing market con-
ditions.
There is still more to be done. Our indus-
tries must achiexe economies of scale and
maintain a tight rein on production costs in
the face of increased competition in both
domestic and export markets. This may
require in many industries a realignment and
rationalization of production facilities. Greater
specialization must be our goal with increased
emphasis on quality. In the accomplishment
of these goals the government pledges its
co-operation and support to industry. In fact,
we will do more than that, we will help to
lead the way.
We are fidly aware of the task ahead. We
are now designing specific policies to en-
courage economic growth in Ontario. The
government has already announced the new
12-point housing programme and the estab-
lishm( nt of the Ontario Economic Council.
Additional programmes will be presented to
the hon. members shortly. In the detailed
presentation of my estimates, I shall outline
the special services to be provided by the
expanded facilities of my department.
We are looking to the new Ontario
Economic Council to come up with the
answers to many of our economic problems.
Committees are now being established to
study and report on specific subjects such
as the tourist industry, industrial research,
industrial development, Ontario development
fund, agriculture and development in northern
Ontario. As I stated before, the activities
of the coimcil will not be limited to the
investigation of problems over which the
government has jurisdiction. We are going to
look into anything and everything which
affects the Ontario economy and use every
method open to us to safeguard our interests
and promote economic growth and develop-
ment in this province.
I am particularly concerned with the work
of the economic committee on northern
Ontario development. This area, which makes
such a significant contribution to the total
wealth of Ontario, is faced with unique
probkuns because of its overwhelming depend-
ence on the resource industries. I look for-
ward to receiving the recommendations of the
council on this matter, and I hope that con-
crete action can be taken in the very near
future. In the meantime, the Ontario North-
land Railway has already started construction
on a new $7.2 million telephone, microwave
and communication system programme which
will be of immense benefit to residents of
the north. In addition, work will begin
immediately on a railroad line to the new
iron mine at Dane.
I should like to rc-emphasize that the
solution to our problems will not be easy. We
know that it will require the fullest co-
operation of all sectors of our economy. To
this end we have included representatives of
industry, labour, agriculture, commerce and
science in our economic council as a partner-
ship for progress. In co-operation with
them we will do our utmost to ensure the
greatest possible economic growth in Ontario.
Of this I am confident, around this our
programmes are built; I am confident the
future is but ours to grasp just as it is the
iiioment in which we may lift our people to
their highest destiny.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, I wonder in view of these wonderful
figures if the budget will balance this year.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, I move that the committee of
supply reports progress and asks for leave to
sit again.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Excuse me, Mr. Chair-
man, before the motion is put, may I ask
what opportunity will be afforded to debate
the presentation that has been made today?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Chairman,
this is part of the estimates. We will go
through all the estimates of The Department
of Economics and Development by vote
where hon. members will have an opportunity
to speak. We will commence the budget
debate as soon as the budget is in. These are
all matters which can be debated in the
budget. I do not think there is going to be
any lack of opportunity for hon. members
to debate.
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
667
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, Mr. Chairman,
this was an unusual step today. I think we
all appreciate it and we were prepared to
accept it, but surely we must be given an
extraordinary opportunity to debate it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: When the estimates for
the department are presented.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, just a moment,
Mr. Chairman, I am making a very specific
point. A presentation was made this after-
noon which took an hour and a half and I
think the Opposition should have an oppor-
tunity to specifically debate this on the
occasion— just a moment. Now the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) has said that
the budget debate will provide that oppor-
tunity. It will not. If the hon. Prime Min-
ister wants to give us the specific assurance
that during those estimates a wide opportun-
ity will be given to debate on this issue—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) would just understand what was done
this afternoon; we have introduced the esti-
mates-
Mr. Wintermeyer: It is quite obvious, quite
apparent.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: —of The Department of
Economics and Development and the hon.
Minister has made his opening statement.
Now it is free for any hon. member of this
House to rise and make any statement he
wishes in the course of the estimates of this
department. There is no change in pro-
cedure, all we have done is change the
timing.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Just wait until the oc-
casion arises, Mr, Chairman. But I want to
make it emphatically clear that we have the
opportunity to debate this—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I have not finished what
I was saying. Hon. members will have all
the opportunity they like to debate anything
that was in this statement, it will all be in
Hansard. Hon. members will have an oppor-
unity to debate it when these estimates are
called again and by that time they will have
had an opportunity to read it in Hansard.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the hon. Prime Minister is in a position to
indicate when these estimates are likely to
be called again?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Any time after Monday,
Mr. Chairman. They will not be called this
week.
Hon. Mr, Robarts moves that the commit-
tee of supply do now rise and report progress
and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
Chair.
CERTAIN LANDS IN THE
TOWN OF GANANOQUE
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves second reading of Bill No. 55,
An Act respecting Certain Lands in the Town
of Gananoque.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MINING ACT
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines)
moves second reading of Bill No. 57, An Act
to amend The Mining Act.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
my recollection is that last year the committee
on mining did not meet at all, or if it did
meet it met only on one occasion. Do I
imderstand that this bill is going to be sent
to a revivified and resuscitated mining com-
mittee for a thorough study?
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
I cannot understand that Sudbury termino-
logy, Mr. Speaker, but it will be sent to the
standing committee and I hope in deference
to last year that the hon, member for Sudbury
will be there, which he was not last year.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, I am not anywhere
lately, but if the hon. Minister wants me to
speak in Ojibway to him, which I know he
docs understand, I would be glad to oblige
him.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE NOTARIES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General)
moves second reading of Bill No. 59, An Act
to amend The Notaries Act.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
There will be a number of these bills going
to the committee on legal bills. This is
simply a tidying up. There was some ques-
tion in the mind of the inspector of legal
offices as to whether there was sufficient in
the Act to authorize the fixing of fees by
regulation and that is now being done.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
668
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE JUDICATURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 60, An Act to amend The Judicature
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE COUNTY COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 61, An Act to amend The County
Courts Act.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I might say that this bill
and a nmnber of others are in relation to the
Silk report, and will all go to the committee
on legal bills.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
biU.
THE COUNTY JUDGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 62, An Act to amend The County
Judges Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 63, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE GENERAL SESSIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 64, An Act to amend The General
Sessions Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 65, An Act to amend The Judicature
Act.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, before that motion carries, might I
inquire as to why we have two bills amend-
ing The Judicature Act at the same time?
Why can we not have it all in one?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: This one will go to the
committee on legal bills, the other one was
an entirely different matter.
Mr. Singer: Would it not be simpler, for
indexing and for the general convenience of
those who might want to consult The Judica-
ture Act, if we have only one Judicature Act
amendment Act a year?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: It will all be put into
the one when it goes into the statute book.
Motion agrded to; second reading of the
bill.
THE JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURTS
ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 66, An Act to amend The Juvenile
and Family Courts Act.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to say a few words in regard
to this bill and the principle behind it. I
think it is long overdue that the government
has done something or at least it is going
through the motions to try to do something
to have trained family court judges.
Recently there was an appointment in
Richmond Hill, and it is an amazing appoint-
ment. When I read the local paper called
The Liberal and learned of the appointment
—it was not editorial comment of any kind—
I was amazed at the type of person ap-
pointed. T am not saying there was anything
wrong witli the person as an individual, but
as far as training is concerned, as far as back-
ground is concerned, the appointment at
Richmond Hill should certainly never have
been made to a family court. I think in a
family court the principle behind such ap-
pointments should be that it be someone
trained in the law. Not only trained in the
law but who has an understanding of human
nature, who has the patience to solve family
problems.
I just want to give you an idea, Mr.
Speaker, of the type of appointment tliis
government has been making. It has been
using the family court for political pay-offs
in order to find jobs for those good, faithful
Tory workers regardless of their qualifica-
tions.
I just want to read what is on the front
page of the Richmond Hill Liberal. This is
evidently, up to this date, what the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) considers
qualifications to sit on the family court. It is
from the Richmond Hill Liberal, Thursday,
January 18, 1962, entitled:
Named Judge of Family Court
It has a picture of George R. Sweeney. It
says here:
A resident of Richmond Hill for the
past 14 years who has been appointed
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
669
judge of the juvenile and family court for
the County of York. He is a graduate of
Trinity College, University of Toronto, in
English, history and political science. Post
college experience in journalism and cre-
ative advertising research was interrupted
by four and a half years service in the
R.C.A.F. and R.A.F. as a bombardier and
navigator in the United Kingdom, Malta
and Burma. His post-war experience was
as an advertising manager and sales man-
ager, including merchandising research
and promotion in the manufacturing in
import and export fields. He is currently
interested in the adult programme for the
retarded and as chairman will start a local
workshop in 1962 in Richmond Hill.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that is the only
item in all his career that shows that he has
some interest in that type of thing that might
be even similar to a family court. The item
goes on:
He is a director of the Toronto Ski
Club and chairman of the operation at
Summit. He is engaged in an instructional
programme for future Olympic games
material. This operation is a pilot project
for future plans in other Ontario centres.
His hobbies and sports include skiing, sail-
ing, theatre and recreation projects.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we find out why he
really was appointed.
He has been especially interested in
political activities, having served as presi-
dent of the Richmond Hill Progressive
Conservative Association and as vice-presi-
dent of the North York association. In
1957 he was campaign manager for C. A,
Cathers, North York's present member
of Parliament, and in 1958 was appointed
returning officer for North York riding fol-
lowing a Progressive Conservative victory
in that* year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the time has come
when appointees to this type of work should
be trained personnel; and certainly in the
area of Richmond Hill there are many people
who could fill that type of job. He may be an
excellent advertising man. He may be excel-
lent at selhng soap. But this is not solving
the serious problem in juvenile courts and
family problems.
So I do hope that the hon. Attorney-
General is going to turn over a new leaf.
Certainly from what we have seen in the
past, this change is long overdue. We should
stop using the family courts for political pay-
off.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I would
just say this, that I thank the hon. member
for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter) for reading, as he
did, the biography of this very fine man,
father of a large family, and a man who,
when there was trouble, was over there as a
bombardier, I have no apologies to make
whatever to anybody in this House for that
appointment.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, I never ques-
tioned the man's integrity. I would say this:
that he is not trained for the job, it is a
political pay-off.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I would point
out to the hon. members that on second
readings of bills the members are allowed to
speak once but not to speak a second time.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): I have not
said anything so I will repeat what he said.
It is a political pay-off, that is what it is.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SURROGATE COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 67, An Act to amend The Surrogate
Courts Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE GAME AND FISH ACT, 1961-1962
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands
and Forests) moves second reading of Bill
No. 69, The Game and Fish Act, 1961-1962.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT
Hon. W. A. Stewart ( Minister of Agricul-
ture) moves second reading of Bill No. 70,
An Act to amend The Agricultural Societies
Act.
bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Reform
Institutions) moves second reading of Bill
No. 71, An Act to amend The Training
Schools Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
670
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
APPROVAL OF IMPARTIAL
REFEREES AND ARBITRATORS
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 72, An Act to provide for the
Approval of Impartial Referees and Arbi-
trators.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the hon. Attorney-
General to elaborate on the principle of this
bill during this reading. I do not quite under-
stand what this covers— I might put it in the
form of a question, sir. Does it cover all
types of arbitration that may come under
pro\'incial jurisdiction, or just specific cases
of collective bargaining arbitration?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I did on
first reading give a short statement, and I
take it my hon. friend from Wentworth East
does not want me to repeat that.
This is a bill which will provide for a pool
or a panel of people who will have passed a
test by a very competent supervisory board,
entitling them to be named with a certain
name as set out in the Act. They will be
regarded as people who are fit and properly
trained for the type of work that is set out;
impartial referees and arbitrators, and
wherever there is a call for these qualified
persons they would be eligible, but their
participation is in no way compulsory. This
is a step forward, I think, because it will
mean there will be people who have been
tested and to whom this supervisory board has
given the stamp of approval. The parties
themselves will always have the choice. They
can go outside that group; they are in no
way held to choosing people in that panel.
In other words, this is not an exclusive
society where you must go for your arbitrator
or your referee. Judges still remain in the
same position, although they may ultimately
be gradually withdrawn. Other people not
in that panel, would still be available on the
choice of the parties if they wanted them,
but this is a step forward, indicating people
who have passed the test for this type of
qualification. As the years go on I anticipate
that it will be a very valuable record of
capacity in that respect.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Speaker, I would cer-
tainly support this important move. There
has been a need for this type of thing for
quite some time and I am sure the trade
union movement will make good use of these
arbitrators who will be available. Because
of the great delay in getting cases started in
the past, we had to wait for one of the few
judges who were participating. But I would
like to make a couple of important sug-
gestions.
I think the bill itself should provide an
area for complaint by anyone in regard to
the panel or any individuals on the panel
through reference to the advisory group. I
would also suggest that The Department of
Labour or The Department of the Attorney-
General should have some specialized groups
on the panels because of the technological
changes in industry, such as job evaluation
programmes.
We have found in the past where we have
had arbitrators deal with cases, that they
have sat for some days and at the conclusion,
they have had the chainnan state that he
felt himself not really competent to deal with
this particular case.
I would suggest that some thought be given
to the training of arbitrators in the field of
job evaluation, so that when they get a case
that involves a C.W.S. programme, as we
call it, that they know the terminology and
all the implications involved with factoring,
out of line differentials, and this sort of thing.
This would be an improvement in giving
cases in arbitration the fullest consideration.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, I watched very
closely for the printing of this bill and I
notice it appeared in our books today for
the first time. Having had only a very short
opportunity to examine its content I should
like most respectfully to ask the hon. Attor-
ney-General through you, sir, whether it is
intended that such a body of approved arbi-
trators and referees will function under the
aegis of some individual, who shall be
appointed to head it up; whether, in that
case, the labour unions and companies who
find themselves embroiled in disputes over
the construction, interpretation, application
or alleged violation— the words usually used
—of the contract between them, wjU apply
to some central registry or some specific
person to have an arbitrator assigned to
them. If that is the case, will the parties
have the opportunity of selecting some speci-
fic individual from the panel, and make
application for that person to be assigned?
Further, is the intention of the govern-
ment through the device of this Act —
coupled with the other bill providing for the
appointment of a chief judge of the county
courts— is it the intention of the government,
or is it, in fact, government policy, that
gradual evolutionary steps, if I may use that
phrase, be taken so that county court judges
will be prohibited from acting in the arbitra-
tion of industrial disputes?
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
671
One could not have failed to note the
emphasis placed in Mr. Silk's report, which
I might add, sir, I was studying during one
of the periods in which I was absent from
the House. I was studying that report and
could not be here. However, sir, I promise
to be here from now on except on Friday,
when I have to be in Little Current. Hon.
members probably would not have known
where Little Current is but it is a long way
north, and I have to go there on Friday.
However, to get back to what I was
saying.
In the Silk report one saw this striking
phenomenon: Mr. Silk said that Ontario was
the only jurisdiction— in the western world,
I think he put it, I think his encompass-
ment went that far— where the second level
of the judiciary, that is, the county court
judiciary, had almost a complete monopoly
upon the arbitration of industrial disputes.
That development has come about since
the end of World War II and I am wonder-
ing, sir, whether it is the policy of this gov-
ernment to inhibit, or to put it a little
stronger, prohibit the county court judiciary
from continuing to act in that capacity.
Certainly, sir these people have engen-
dered the confidence of both management
and labour in their actions as abritrators,
but because they have had a monopoly it
has worked against the building up of a
body of other people, other groups, people
of different training, background and experi-
ence who are available to act as labour
arbitrators.
One cannot help suspect, but it would
take more time of this House than I dare
to this afternoon to go into all the ramifica-
tions of that— certainly the operation of the
second level of the judiciary of the province
has suffered through the extent that county
judges have been engrossed in labour
arbitration. I wish the hon. Attorney-Gen-
eral would rise and tell us what the inten-
tion of the government is, because a great
many people both on management and on
labour side are concerned about the composi-
tion of this body; a body that apparently
hereafter is going to arbitrate the disputes and
iron out the differences that they run into
almost daily in the interpretation of their
collective bargaining agreements.
I am not one, sir, who is given often to
paying attention to rumour, but I have heard
it said among those who are concerned— it has
been mooted about and briiited about— that
this new body will be under the chairmanship
of the person who is presently chairman of
the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Is it
intended that he step down from that posi-
tion and take over the responsibilities, which
are encompassed within the fours comers of
this statute? If such is the case, then I say
the government has the obligation at the
earliest opportunity, and the earliest oppor-
tunity is provided on second reading of this
bill with which we are now concerned, to let
those in this province know what its inten-
tions are, in the future. More than that,
specifically, if county court judges are now
no longer going to be the main instruments
or the main body of persons from which
labour arbitrators are drawn, then what steps
is the government going to take to secure the
fairly large body of persons who are needed
throughout the whole length and breadth of
the province?
I speak, sir, from some experience, having
attended upon arbitrations, acted as counsel
in them, and I know some of the diflBculties
that we encounter in trying to secure the
services of an arbitrator who is acceptable to
both sides. Frequently you go through quite
a dramatic list of people— or quite a lengthy
list perhaps is a better word— of people before
you decide upon someone who is acceptable
to both sides.
Now, just to sum up— and I am speaking
without notes and I am speaking extemporane-
ously, but these things I have thought about
a great deal— I sum up by saying that this
Bill No. 72 is a very great break— there is the
place for the word "dramatic"— it is a very
dramatic departure from what has been the
case, the experience, in this province. We
have had some— I do not know how many,
40, perhaps, or 35— county court judges who
have been doing this work. If it is the govern-
ment's policy that they be prohibited from
doing it, then we should hear now what the
alternative policy is going to be, what recruit-
ment steps are going to be taken, whether in
fact academic people are going to be invited
into this or, in the words of the hon. member
who spoke last, is there going to be some
training procedure in order to provide a panel
of persons who will be acceptable to both
labour and management?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I may say
that I think the hon. member for Wentworth
East (Mr. Gisborn) made some very sensible
suggestions in relation to the development of
this theme. The hon. member for Sudbury
(Mr. Sopha) has referred to the report which
he read when he was in bed, I suppose, or
sick anyway, or somewhere, otherwise he
would have been here. But I would refer to
672
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
pajjes 61 through to 72 for the expression on
that particular subject by Mr. Silk himself
for anyone who is interested, and it is a good
report.
Actually, this is something of a really
evolutionary nature and it will take, as all
evolution does take, time to work out and to
reach perfection. There is no overnight
magic about it, but we do believe that over a
period of time there will be built up a new
group of people who are given a special name
—approved impartial referee and arbitrator,
would be the title. A society of people will
probably emerge in due course, people who
will no doubt organize themselves when it
gets big enough— similar to other types of
organizations such as your public accountants
and that sort of thing.
The personnel, as I have indicated, and I
repeat again, is not a personnel which will be
exclusive. There is no thought of making a
person qualify under that particular Act in
order to be available for arbitration. There is
still a free choice across the board. I think,
however, tliat the time may come over a
period— certainly tlie tendency will be over a
period of time— to have our county and district
judges— and I am speaking by and large now
—assigning and taking up their duties in rela-
tion to their judicial duties as such in priority
to anything else. There is no doubt that that
\Nould be the tendency. It may be that as
a result of a policy in Ottawa and in co-op-
eration with the government here, there might
come a time when they would be excluded.
But there is no thought at the moment of
excluding them. There is no thought of trying
to build up this group of people suddenly
and then sty that that is it, you must take
somebody from there and nobody else is
available. Nothing of that sort.
I could imagine that in the course of
months there will be a lot of good names
available of people who will really have the
type of training in the specialist type in some
cases. Then I think that hon. members will
find that there will undoubtedly be some
favourites. There will be some who will be
linked with this work, or will have those
attributes of settlement, in a much greater
degree than others, and then the parties will
be looking for those favourites. It may be
that there will be some people in that panel
who will not be getting much work, while
others may be getting a lion's share. But
we think that this free selection and free
choice is highly important.
We do think that this is going to be a real
step forward and will assist in solving other
problems in relation to the administration of
justice. I think I cover in that way the three
specific (luestions that the hon. member put
to me.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to ask a question.
Has the hon. Attorney-General (Mr, Roberts)
given any thought to the rate of pay that
they will be receiving so that he will be
getting top personnel?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, again that is a
matter of— I will not say detail— but it is a
matter that will come with this development.
There is a fair amomit of flexibility at the
present time, I think, in arbitrations and in
these matters. I think there is a definite
amount that is fixed so far as a judge is con-
cerned, which is in a category by itself. But
I think these are things that the experts— once
this has been set up- will sit down and work
out.
I would anticipate that the overall result
would be less delay and, we hope, better end
results. I would also hope that the cost of
these proceedings would not be out of line
cither and there would be improvements
rather tlian otherwise in connection with
tliat.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon.
Attorney-General whether the government
has any intention-
Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) asks his ques-
tion, I would like to point out to the hon.
memliers that this is second reading. I have
been a little lax in this matter, but I think
the time has come when I must draw the
hon. members' attention to the proper pro-
cedure. The hon. members must be able
to differentiate between second reading and
asking questions. Questions are usually asked
while we are in committee stage and are
much better answered at that time. I do
not wish to restrain the hon. leader of tlie
Opposition, I just wanted to point this out.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My thought was, however, that questions
which might relate to the principle of the
bill— however, they can be positively stated.
Mr. Speaker, rather than ask the question,
may I suggest that on innumerable occasions
it has been said that it would be wise to
effect a programme of education in the uni-
versities or in one specific university to assist
the training of persons just such as are
referred to in this instance. I was wondering
if the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
673
could tell me whether it would be government
policy to encourage either the creation or the
development of a department in some uni-
versity to assist the training of men of the
calibre and type that he will be looking for
through the provisions of this Act.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I would think it
would be— I am not announcing any policy—
but I would certainly think that sort of thing
should follow in order to have this as
eflBcient as possible.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE POLICE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 73, An Act to amend The Pohce Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Mr. Speaker: At this point, I would hke
to mention that I have been asked to announce
that the committee on education meeting,
called for 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, has
been cancelled to allow the hon. members to
join the committee on agriculture to attend
the meeting at Guelph.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to: House in committee of
the whole, Mr. K. Brown in the chair.
THE HOSPITAL SERVICES COMMISSION
ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 51, An
Act to amend The Hospital Services Com-
mission Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 51 reported.
THE PUBLIC HOSPITALS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 52, An
Act to amend The Public Hospitals Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 52 reported.
THE ONTARIO CODE OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
House in committee on Bill No. 54, An Act
to estabUsh the Ontario Code of Human
Rights and to provide for its Administration.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Mr. K. Bryden ( Woodbine ) : Mr. Chair-
man, on section 3 I would like to urge upon
the government once again that they consider
broadening the provision by reducing the size
of the building to which it applies. At the
present time the bill provides that there may
not be discrimination with regard to occu-
pancy in an apartment containing more than
six self-contained dwelling units.
Mr. Chairman, I am just in the process of
writing out my amendment, I did not realize
that this bill would be called at this time,
but I would like to move, seconded by Mr.
Gisborn :
That section 3 of the bill be amended
by striking out the word "six" in the third
line in clause (a) and in the fourth line in
clause (b), and by substituting therefor
the word "three".
Mr. Chairman: Hon. members have heard
the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, we have over the past several years
been interested in bringing about this type
of legislation. We have submitted bills our-
selves to have something concrete, something
that would bring about the end of dis-
crimination in regard to people renting apart-
ments, particularly coloured people, in the
province of Ontario. No doubt there has
been a real good job done in this regard by
the human rights committee of the Ontario
Federation of Labour. The newspapers and
the press in this province have added support
by following up cases of discrimination. They
have done a real good job in bringing to the
attention of the public specific cases of dis-
crimination.
We can see no reason, since we have at
least agreed with the principle of bringing
in legislation to make it an offence to dis-
criminate, that it should not apply, as has
been suggested by the hon. member to more
than three-apartment dwellings rather than
stop at six-apartment dwellings. We support
the principle in its entirety, with the hope
that we can put real intent into the bill
itself and make it cover the three-apartment
buildings rather than stop at six as mentioned
in the bill.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour ) : Mr. Chairman, I should like to say
a word in opposition to the amendment. I
am just new in the department, as everyone
knows, but I have made some inquiries about
this and I have found from the human rights
674
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
commission representatives that the Act as
it is now worded is working extremely well.
I am told, sir, that this reduction to three
in itself means nothing. An apartment of six
dwelling units is actually a very small unit,
because you can have one house, as is true
in many parts of downtown Toronto and as a
matter of fact some of the older parts of
many of the urban communities in Ontario,
where they have six units and that is a
family dwelling. They have the father and
mother there, with maybe the uncle and aunt,
and the father and mother and the children.
That is theirs, and I think they should have
the right to say whether or not there is going
to be someone in there whom they do not
want or whom they want in place of someone
else. This is not a straight case of discrimina-
tion, it is respecting the rights of individuals
who have their family groups together, as
one entity.
Now, sir, I am told by the representatives
of the human rights commission this has
worked extremely well and I myself cannot
support the motion. I would ask that all
support the present legislation as it is because
it has been admitted it is good.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the example
the hon. Minister gave is certainly a most
unconvincing one. The bill now before us
refers only to buildings containing a specified
number of self-contained dwelling units. It
is not a matter of father and mother having
a flat in a house and having some of their
children occupying other portions of the
house. We are now talking about commercial
propositions, in which landlords— in many
cases, absentee landlords— are renting accom-
modation on a commercial basis.
For example, along the Lakeshore in
Toronto there is a whole street of six-plexes.
It difi^ers very little from the large multiple
dwelling units which surround it on either
side. It differs in one respect, however, in
that this provision of the law will not apply
to that particular group of buildings, whereas
it will apply to other buildings, constructed
in a somewhat difiFerent way, that surround
it.
I am not suggesting, I do not for one
moment believe, that the owner of that group
of buildings would discriminate. I have no
knowledge of that. I am just calling the
attention of the hon. Minister and of the
government to the fact that this is quite a
common type of arrangement in the construc-
tion of commercial property. The present
rather large number of six— actually buildings
with more than six self-contained units—
which applies here, makes it unduly restric-
tive.
Hon. J. P. Roberts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to speak to this
amendment.
It seems to me what in fact the amend-
ment deals with is a question of degree and
not a question of principle. In other words,
the hon. member amended to read "three",
the Act reads "six". Why not two or why
not four?
In other words, we are here dealing only
with a matter of degree and not with the
principle of the bill and what we are trying to
do in the bill. It may be that if you get
below six of five or four, then in attempting
to preserve the rights of certain people you
begin to infringe on the personal rights of
certain other people. This is exactly why we
have the limitation in the bill at all. I would
suggest that in view of the fact that this
legislation has been in effect and is working
very satisfactorily, that perhaps the degree
which has been used in the past, that is, the
six apartment or less, has proven to be a
workable solution to what is indeed a very
difficult problem. As I say, the hon. member
may pick six, five or four, and why is three
better than two?
We are attempting in this legislation to
establish certain principles and to protect
people from discrimination but, at the same
time, we must be alert to guard against in-
fringing on certain inherent rights that
belong to individuals as well. Therefore, I
would speak against the amendment on the
grounds that it is not a question of principle
in the amendment being moved because it
does allow three, and secondly, because this
legislation and the way it has been set up has
been proven to be satisfactory. Perhaps
some time in the future, if there are indica-
tions that some changes should be made, that
might be possible but there are no such
indications today.
Mr. Chairman: As many as are in favour
of the amendment please say "aye".
As many as are opposed please say "nay".
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): I would like to
speak to section 4, if I may.
We have had much discussion here about
the various things which stop people from
finding work and I think one of the things
FEBRUARY 27, 1962
675
Ik
we have overlooked is age. So often people
today are refused work because they are over
the age of 35, even more because they are
over the age of 40. I think if we had it in
our legislation that we were out to help those
people who were still not old, but considered
by some too old because they are 35, it would
go a long way in helping to solve the unem-
ployment situation.
There are many people who are out of
work simply because of age; not that they are
not properly trained or they have no experi-
ence. Many of them are more qualified, far
better experienced and can be depended upon
better than younger people. Employers
today have got into a bad habit of not giving
people employment because of age.
Our own legislation in this province is
largely at fault. The Apprenticeship Act has
been mentioned in this House before, in that
anyone over 21 cannot qualify as an appren-
tice. It is time we cleaned up our legislation.
With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to move an amendment to section 4, sub-
section 1 of this bill so that it would read
as follows:
No employer or person acting on behalf
of an employer shall refuse to employ or
to continue to employ any person, or dis-
criminate against any person with regard
to employment or any term or condition of
employment because of his race, creed,
colour, nationality, ancestry, place of origin
or age.
I move this, seconded by Mr. Nixon.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I speak in
support of the amendment moved by the hon.
member for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter). I trust
that the hon. Minister (Mr. Warrender) will
not tell us that on this occasion the present
provisions of the statute have been operating
satisfactorily.
I regret very much that the hon. chief
commissioner of the LCBO (Mr. Grossman) is
not in his seat, because before he moved up
to the august ranks of the Cabinet, he was a
very strong exponent of legislation to elimin-
ate discrimination on account of age. In fact
I can remember one year, when representa-
tives of each of the parties had notices of bills
on this subject on the order paper, there was
rather a quick double shuffle to permit the
hon. Minister— who was then, as he is now,
hon. member for St. Andrew but who was not
then a member of the Cabinet— to get his bill
in first. The bill was called for debate,
although the others were not accorded the
same treatment, and we had a very interesting
discussion about the problem. We all agreed
it was very serious and that was the last we
ever heard about it either from him or from
the government.
But the problem carries on, Mr. Chairman,
and it is a serious problem. It is one of the
crudest things in Ontario today to see a man
who, because of some unfortunate circum-
stance, perhaps the closing down of a plant,
loses the job to which he may have con-
tributed many years of service and then is
unable to get another job.
I had a man in to see me only today, and
I am sure every hon. member has had experi-
ences like this. His crime is that he is 55 years
of age. He had worked continuously for a
company that I will not name, but it is a large
and prosperous company in this community,
and he had worked for them for a good many
years. Three and a half years ago he suffered
diabetes and because of his disability he had
to give up work altogether. Now he is greatly
improved, Mr. Chairman, and is capable of
doing work again.
This wealthy company, which I have no
doubt makes a great deal of capital out of the
amount it contributes to the community chest,
is unable to find a job for this man now,
even though he is capable of doing some
work and has contributed to them sub-
stantially in the past. He has gone every-
where he can think of but he cannot find
work anywhere because always he is up
against the problem of age.
Once he gives his age his chances are
gone completely. If they were ready even
to give him a chance, to see what he could
do, it would do him no good because now he
is up against pension plans as well. Pension
plans were designed for the benefit of
employees and they do benefit employees,
there is no question about that, but a side
effect of them is this very cruel discrimina-
tion against men who are willing and able
to work, who want to work, who wanf to
make a contribution to society, who do not
want to live on welfare, but who are pre-
vented from getting employment.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this
is a matter to which the hon. Minister ought
to give very serious consideration. In fact,
I would suggest it is a matter on which he
ought to be prepared to act now, because the
government assured us in the last session,
in the session before that, and, I have no
doubt, in many sessions before that— although
I was not here then— that it recognized the
urgency of the problem and had it under
consideration.
676
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think the time for consideration has
ended. The time for action has come and
that the hon. Minister ought to accept the
amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale
(Mr. Trotter) or one that carries out the same
principle in words preferred by the hon.
Minister. This surely is a matter, Mr. Chair-
man, on which this House should be prepared
to act at this session.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Chairman, if you
read the preamble to the bill you will find
that it has to do with certain rights in respect
of race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry
or place of origin.
Sir, the point I am making is that these
rights in respect of which we are speaking
have something in common. Bring in a con-
dition of age, which has no relationship at
all to the present principles of the bill, and
I say you take it outside of the bill altogether.
If something is going to be done about age
then it should be in respect of, or related to,
another bill and it should debated there.
I am not going to decide now whether age
should be the subject of another bill or not;
all I am saying is that I do not believe it
should be included in this bill which has to
do with certain rights or with respect to cer-
tain rights as I have read. There is no rela-
tionship here at all; therefore I think the
amendment should be defeated.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, this specious
argiunent that the hon. Minister has just put
forward demonstrates how slowly Tories
move.
Ten years ago the same argument was
put forth when it was suggested that the
principle of non-discrimination on the basis
of sex should be incorporated in legislation
of this land. It took ten years for the govern-
ment to see the light on that particular
point.
Now they are recognizing the principle
that sex discrimination is related to this bill,
that discrimination on any basis is related to
discrimination on any other basis; so that
the principle of prohibiting discrimination
on the basis of sex is now incorporated into
the bill. I submit that it should not take
the government 10 years more to see that
the problem of discrimination on the basis of
age is also a serious problem and that it
quite properly should be dealt with in this
bill. It is not very difficult or should not
be very difficult to amend the preamble if
that is considered necessary.
Surely the basic principle of this bill is
not one to outlaw or educate against dis-
crimination in certain areas. It is a bill,
and its title declares it to be, a bill in respect
of human rights. I say that discrimination on
account of age is just as damnable as dis-
crimination on any other basis.
I think that we should assert the rights of
human beings to be able to exercise their
rights on all bases and to be free from dis-
crimination regardless of the cause of it. The
principle of age fits quite properly into a bill
that is entitled. An Act to Establish the
Ontario Code of Human Rights.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, we are
going to adjourn at this time. It is 6 o'clock
and we will resume on this bill when we
go back into committee.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee
of the whole House rise and report certain
bills without amendment and progress on one
bill and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole begs to report certain bills
without amendment and progress on one bill
and asks leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before moving the adjournment of
the House; on Thursday the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan) will introduce the
budget.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
The House adjourned at 6.10 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 26
ONTARIO
HtQi&latmt of (J^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Thursday, March 1, 1962
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C»
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 1, 1962
Third report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Gomme 679
Municipal Affairs Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, first reading 679
Municipal Board Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, first reading 679
Statement re federal-provincial agreement on renewable natural resources, Mr. Spooner 679
Statement re extension of service, hospital care insurance plan, Mr. Dymond 680
Budget address, Mr. Allan 682
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Whicher, agreed to 700
Bees Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 701
Co-operative Loans Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 701
Horticultural Societies Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 701
Ontario Water Resources Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, second reading, held 701
Village of Erie Beach, bill respecting, Mr. R. C. Edwards, second reading 701
Town of Hearst, bill respecting, Mr. Bmnelle, second reading 701
Ontario Co-operative Credit Society, bill respecting, Mr. Beckett, second reading 701
Town of Oakville, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second reading 701
City of Windsor, bill respecting, Mr. Manley, second reading 701
City of Ottawa Separate School Board, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second reading .... 701
Ontario Registered Music Teachers Association, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second
reading 701
Ontario Code of Human Rights, bill to establish, reported 702
Certain lands in the Town of Gananoque, bill respecting, reported 714
Crown Timber Act, bill to amend, reported 714
Lakehead College of Arts, Science and Technology Act, 1956, bill to amend, reported 714
Notaries Act, bill to amend, reported 714
Judicature Act, bill to amend, reported 714
Training Schools Act, bill to amend, reported 714
Greater Oshawa Community Chest, bill respecting, reported 715
City of Belleville, bill respecting, reported 715
Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Incurables, Toronto, bill respecting, reported 715
Village of Markham, bill respecting, reported 715
Township of Nepean, bill respecting, reported 715
High school board of the Township of Nepean, the collegiate institute board of the
City of Ottawa, bill respecting, reported 715
Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association of
Cornwall, bill respecting, reported 715
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, reported 715
679
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, March 1, 1962
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we wel-
come as guests students from the following
schools: in the east gallery, Whiteoaks Public
School, Clarkson, and Township School, area
No. 1, Thornhill; and in the west gallery.
Queen Alexandra Senior Public School,
Toronto, and Plains Road Public School,
Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. G. E. Gomme (Lanark), from the stand-
ing committee on private bills, presented the
committee's report which was read as follows
and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. Pr22, An Act respecting the county
of Essex, the town of Leamington, and the
Public Utilities Commission of the town of
Leamington.
Bill No. Pr29, An Act respecting the town-
ship of Etobicoke.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. Pr25, An Act respecting the High
School Board of the city of Sudbmy and the
Neelon-Garson and Falconbridge District
High School Board.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ACT
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs) moves first reading of bill intituled.
An Act to amend The Department of Muni-
cipal Affairs Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Minister would
explain the bill?
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): I think it is quite self-explanatory,
Mr. Speaker.
THE MUNICIPAL BOARD ACT
Hon. Mr. Cass moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Ontario Muni-
cipal Board Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Would the
hon. Minister tell us the necessity for the
surliness, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Cass: I cannot hear the hon.
member.
Mr. Sopha: The surliness; s-u-r-1-i-n-e-s-s.
Mr. Singer: Would the hon. Minister care
to explain the purpose of this bill?
Hon. Mr. Cass: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill
is not self-explanatory; this bill is to amend
certain of the procedures before the Municipal
Board and to define and refine some of the
powers of the Board.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day, there is a short announcement that
I would like to make.
This announcement relates to a new agree-
ment for a period of ten years which has just
been signed with the federal government. It
is an agreement relating to the renewable
natural resources of a large part of northern
Ontario, and the purpose of the agreement
is to improve the hvelihood of persons living
mostly in the remote areas of the north.
The agreement, jointly signed by Hon.
Ellen L. Fairclough, Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration, and Superintendent-General
of Indian Affairs, and myself, representing The
Department of Lands and Forests, will affect
the lives of some 24,000 Indians as well as
other inhabitants of the north. It was spurred
by the success of a ten-year fur resources pro-
gramme between the federal and Ontario
governments which has been recently con-
cluded.
080
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Unlike the former agreement, which was
mainly concerned with the fur programme,
the new agreement includes all renewable
natural resources such as fish, wild crops and
timber. It no longer includes ordinary super-
vision of the fur programme which is now
self-sustaining.
The agreement will help people in northern
Ontario who still depend on these natural
resources for their livelihood.
This agreement deals with the development,
management and harvesting of a number of
resources, including commercial fishing, that
are on a sustained yield production and
quality control basis. It also deals with fish-
ing and hunting for domestic use, sports
fishing and hunting— including instruction
and assistance to guides and outfitters— and
pubhc hunting on Indian reserves. It also
has to do with other natural resources con-
sisting of wild rice, blueberries and other
wild crops; forestry, including pulp and
paper production, forest fire protection and
the training of forest fire fighters; the pro-
cessing and marketing of resource products,
including fur.
An advisory committee, composed of five
members, two from the federal government
and three from the province, has been estab-
Hshed.
The committee will advise the federal and
provincial governments on all aspects relat-
ing to the development, management and
cropping of renewable natural resources,
including the processing and sale of these
products and the distribution of the pro-
ceeds amongst the persons for whose bene-
fit the development programme has been
instituted.
Ontario is to undertake the administra-
tion, supervision and management of all pro-
grammes or special projects initiated under
the agreement. The province will pay a
yearly sum of $200,000 towards the pro-
gramme; the federal government is to pay
up to $50,000 annually as its share of the
costs of administration and supervision, plus
50 per cent of the amoinit spent for other
costs, with its total maximum contribution
not to exceed $100,000 per annum.
Costs of administration and supervision
may include: salaries and expenses, includ-
ing air transportation for overseers, conser-
vation and management officers, biologists,
and others engaged in the supervision and
management of resource programmes.
Costs other than administration and super-
vision may include: field investigations; lake
examination to determine safe volume of
production; management research and fur
marketing projects; transfers of live fur-bear-
ing or game animals; restocking of lakes, and
rehabilitation techniques to bring lakes into
full production, shore installations such as
ice houses, packing sheds and docks for the
primary production of roimd or dressed fish;
and purchase or rental of boats and camp
equipment.
Some of the projects for which the com-
mittee has earmarked funds this year in-
clude assistance to the Northern Ontario
Trappers Association fur auction sales, for
a programme of instruction in fur market-
ing, and quality improvement by helping
trappers to visit sales; completion of fish
marketing studies; continuation of a study
of the woodland caribou; incentive pay to
encourage Indians to clean and turn in jaws,
skulls and other bones for the caribou study;
an attempt to develop a census technique
for counting beaver by aircraft or helicop-
ters; and test fishing in the Albany and Atta-
wapiskat areas of James Bay.
Private operators are not to be discouraged.
Both federal and provincial governments have
agreed that with respect to fish processing
plants, establishments for fur-marketing or
plants for processing and storage of any prod-
uct derived from the resources under the
agreement, they will only enter the field
when private companies have failed or re-
fused to do so after being given a reasonable
opportunity to undertake the work at their
own cost. We, the provincial authorities,
have agreed to employ suitable trained In-
dians on various phases of the resources pro-
gramme.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very im-
portant step forward in assistance to the great
number of Indians, and other citizens, who
live in that part of northern Ontario.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I would like to draw to your attention a very
important announcement which appeared in
the Globe and Mail this morning.
I know that every hon. member will agree
with me this announced extension of service
provided under the Ontario hospital care in-
surance plan is real evidence that the govern-
ment seeks every opportunity to provide more
and better service for the people of the prov-
ince. Not only will better care be possible,
but there will be other direct benefits accru-
ing from this extension.
Conditions which, although they might
justify admission to hospital yet can be
treated on an out-patient basis, are now to
be covered by the insurance plan. This will
MARCH 1, 1962
681
release a certain number of beds for those
who more sorely need admission to hospital.
All of this is further evidence of the gov-
ernment's intention to provide ever better
and more extensive service for those insured
and is but an extension of the pegging of the
premium for a stated period as announced
a few weeks ago by the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts). I may say, too, sir, that it is
the continuing intention of government to see
til at unceasing study is conducted to the end
that every possible service may be provided
under the hospital care insurance plan.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order!
I suggest that the announcement in the paper
and the hon. Minister's explanation now is
really a violation of a tradition of this House.
That announcement should not have preceded
tlic budget. I suggest to hon. members that
the budget is the proper place to make the
announcement. I presume the budget will
intimate that particular undertaking will be
financed by the budget commitment. For the
world of me, I cannol see why that announce-
ment was made prior to the budget time.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, this will
be made perfectly clear when the budget is
brought down. The hospital plan operates
on a calendar year basis and this additional
service has really no relationship to the
budget at all.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, I have a question of the
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Warrender),
a copy of which question I have forwarded
to him. Mr. Speaker, the question is a series
of three, and I will read all three at one
time.
(1) Will the hon. Minister advise this House
whether news reports suggesting that the hon.
Minister of Labour is of the opinion that the
Royal York strike has reached a state of a war
of attrition are correct?
(2) Does the hon. Minister of Labour now
bcHcve that the Royal York strike should or
can be determined by the economic forces of
management and labour only?
(3) Does the hon. Minister of Labour fore-
sen^ or believe that there are consequences in-
volved in this strike that involve the public
good and require governmental intervention?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Libour): Mr. Speaker, this is a rather long
cpiestion in three parts. I shall take a few
moments to give some background informa-
tion sc that we may answer these questions
intelligently and also to the satisfaction, I
hope, of the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer).
Shortly after I was sworn in as Min-
ister of Labour, I took it upon myself to
study all of the issues involved between
management and the union. Having studied
these issues I felt it was time to meet repre-
sentatives of both sides, which I did;
separately at first. We had several of these
meetings and when it appeared that they
were willing to have me mediate, I entered
directly into the picture with both sides at
private meetings which took place on January
25, 26 and 27 in the workmen's compensation
board offices.
As I say, I spent many hours on this,
trying to evaluate the situation so that I
might be helpful as a mediator, both sides
having indicated they would like me to ac-
cept this responsibility. We met for 11 hours
altogether in camera, in mediation.
On the evening of January 26, the Friday,
both sides indicated to me that I, having
heard all the arguments pro and con, should
submit a proposal to them for their consider-
ation, it being my, at that time, "unofficial"
proposal. I prepared the proposal which I
think is now known to all, but lest it is not,
I have a copy here which I am prepared to
file for those who wish to read it.
This proposal was discussed on January 27
for a three-hour period and indications hav-
ing been given that it was accepted, certainly
by the company and with some demurring by
the union, it was taken to the union member-
ship. The following Tuesday it was rejected
by an overwhelming majority.
Following that, indications were that both
sides once again would like me to mediate.
I met once again at least on three occasions
with representatives of the union, who still
said they had faitli in me as a mediator. Also,
I met twice with representatives of manage-
ment. At that time, it was indicated to me
that their positions were frozen so far as my
proposals were concerned. As a matter of
fact, the company indicated a stiffening of its
position, a more restrictive attitude. When
they had indicated that, although they were
considering my proposal, their best offer had
been to take back only 50 per cent of those on
strike and it was unknown when the other 50
per cent would be taken back, if ever.
Faced with this situation, I asked the union
to indicate to me what they would do about
what I call the "back to work" formula. They
indicated that, as far as they were concerned,
and they were quite adamant, they would
insist that all those on strike would be taken
682
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
back to work immediately and if the manage-
ment decided that some would not be taken
back, cause must be shown why that was so.
That was the position of the union repre-
sentatives.
On the other hand, the company took the
stand, which I say became more hardened
after the proposal had been rejected, that
they would not take back all persons and
they would not show cause why certain
persons would not be taken back.
These were the two positions.
Now with that background of information,
sir, I answer these questions in light of my
statement, about a war of attrition. From
what has happened it is obvious that there is
a war of attrition, because no strike could
last as long as this one has— since April 24,
1961— without it being a war of attrition.
In respect to the second question, I would
say, sir, that in view of the fact both sides
have now reached fixed positions, that really
there is nothing much can be done at this
stage to solve this problem. However, sir, I
leave it this way, that when I withdrew from
the mediation, and I did so because I felt
that having reached this impasse, you might
say, that others might want to mediate— they
had indicated that they would like to— that
I should withdraw and leave it free to any-
body else who wished to get into the picture
and try to resolve this very difficult problem.
But I made it clear at that time also, sir, that
if at any time one side or both wished to
change its position, or their positions, then I
was free to commence once again to mediate
to see if I could get them closer together, or
possibly resolve the whole problem. I think
that answers the second question.
In respect to the third, sir, I think the
reply should be that certainly any strike in-
\ olves the public good and certainly one that
has been going on for so long in this com-
munity, certainly would affect the public
detrimentally; and for the last part of that
question, so far as governmental intervention
is concerned, I think I indicated that I have
intervened to the point where no longer at
this time are my services considered neces-
sary. There was an impasse, as I say. But,
to conclude, although union and management
have indicated they would like me to con-
tinue to mediate because of this impasse, I
have withdrawn, and indicated to both sides
that should they need me again I am avail-
able.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): May
I ask the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. War-
render) a supplementary question? Is he
opposed to the present efforts of Controller
Orliffe to settle this strike and, if not, how
can such statements as his last night do any-
thing but jeopardize the current efforts of
Controller Orliffe?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I am not opposed
to Controller Orliffe or anyone else attempt-
ing to mediate this problem, sir, and I do not
think my statement has anything to do with
what he suggested.
Mr. MacDonald: It certainly did.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, that is what
the hon. member says.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I have here two messages from
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
(Mr. Mackay) signed by his own hand.
Mr. Speaker: The Honourable the Lieu-
tenant-Governor transmits estimates of certain
sums required for the services of the province
for the year ending March 31, 1963, and
recommends them to the Legislative As-
sembly, Toronto, March 1, 1962.
And the Honourable the Lieutenant-
Governor transmits supplementary estimates
of certain additional sums required for the
services of the province for the year ending
March 31, 1962, and recommends them to
the Legislative Assemblv, Toronto, March 1,
1962.
Orders of the day.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer)
moves that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
chair and that the House resolve itself into
the committee of ways and means.
BUDGET ADDRESS
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, some ten years ago— on March 20,
1952, to be exact— many of us who were first
elected to the Legislature in 1951, were
present for the first time on the occasion of
a budget address. The period since then has
been most eventful. In what now seems an
incredibly short period of time, one year has
crowded in upon another, nations have been
born while others have ceased to exist, atomic
power has commenced to serve mankind,
astronauts have circled the globe. Ten years
ago this would truly have seemed impossible.
It is a significant demonstration of the times
in which we live.
The hon. Treasurer who delivered that
address, that budget address of ten years ago.
MARCH 1, 1962
683
is with us today, and we are indeed happy
and pleased that he is. Farsighted as he has
been in the matter of Ontario's expansion
and development, in looking back he must be
impressed as we are with the speed and
magnitude of that expansion and development.
And I would like particularly to point out
that the total ordinary expenditure forecast in
the budget statement of 1952 is now exceeded
in 1962 by tlie estimates of one department
—that of Education.
This is the fourth year I have had the
privilege of presenting our fiscal programme
to the Legislature. As in the past, each year
presents its demands for new undertakings
and expenditures. The fiscal and economic
plan upon which we have been engaged is,
of course, not the product of a day or even
of a month. It is a continuing process of
planning and managing our services and
finances in a manner that will promote the
sound economic growth of our province.
Ours has not been an easy task. We have
had to deal not only with the compelling
needs for those services for which we are
directly responsible, but also for those of our
municipalities which are confronted with
the same problems of growth and expansion
that beset the province. I shall refer more
fully to this assistance to the municipalities
and the school boards later in my remarks.
At this point, I would simply call the atten-
tion of the House to the fact that this budget
provides for the transfer to our municipalities
and local agencies of $425 million, which
is 45 per cent of our current revenues and
equal to the province's total budget for all
purposes just nine years ago.
This may seem incredible, but it is true. It
means that next year we will be transferring
to the municipalities more than 2.5 times the
amount of our estimated revenues from the
new retail sales tax. The increase in this
transfer to the municipalities and local
agencies alone, and excluding the province's
$29 million contribution to the new vocational
and technical programme, totals $50 million.
This is a large portion of the sales tax revenue
we will collect next year.
We trust that the municipalities and the
school boards will recognize that these in-
creased transfers are made only at very con-
siderable sacrifice to the province, as witness
the introduction of the sales tax last year.
Nevertheless, we believe that they have
assisted our municipalities to provide a
favourable climate for industrial and popula-
tion growth. Through these large grants-in-
aid, we have been able to stabilize local real
property rates and keep them within man-
ageable dimensions. If the provincial load
of taxation has been increased thereby, that
of the municipalities has been correspond-
ingly lightened.
This budget, like its predecessors, has
been formulated to exert a positive effect
upon the Ontario economy. Our continuing
goal has been to maintain a stable and high
rate of economic expansion. Obviously a
number of powerful forces which influence
the level of our economic activity extend
beyond our control. Nevertheless, we have
continuously sought to formulate and mobil-
ize our resources to foster economic growth
and higher living standards for our people.
It is, therefore, gratifying for me to report
to the hon. members of this House that our
gross provincial product is today running
six to seven per cent higher than that of a
year ago.
Employment has improved. Ontario's rate
of unemployment, on a seasonally adjusted
basis, is down almost 50 per cent compared
with a year ago and is substantially less
than that of the rest of Canada and the
United States. Retail sales showed a modest
increase last year and are expected to rise
more in 1962. The prospects are bright
for continuing growth and for increases in
personal incomes, corporation profits and
savings.
I am confident the hon. members will
agree that this budget will not only contrib-
ute to the maintenance of this economic
momentum, but will facihtate those struc-
tural changes in the economy essential to
our long-term growth. In this budget we
give recognition to the rapid changes that
are occurring in technology, production and
trade, which call for a stepped-up pro-
gramme of vocational training and retrain-
ing. We are also cognizant of the need for
an expansion of our schools and universities.
Indeed, this year our appropriation for edu-
cation totals $329.8 million, an increase of
$60.9 million. Included in this appropria-
tion is $45.4 million for universities, an in-
crease of $8.4 million. Education alone
accounts for half the increase in our budget
this year. Upon the standards of our educa-
tion will depend the abihty of Ontario and
Canada to progress in the highly technical
and commercial world of which we are a
part.
Equally fundamental to our long-term
development is the health and physical fit-
ness of our people. This budget provides
for an expansion of medical, mental health
and dental services and of the work of the
684
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research
Foundation. The budget also makes provi-
sion for an extended housing programme
aimed at achieving higher standards of hous-
ing accommodation for all our people, rec-
ognizing, as we do, that adequate housing
is fundamental to the aims of . our society.
The budget makes provision for an expan-
sion of facilities in The Department of Eco-
nomics and Development, and also for the
creation and operation of an economic coun-
cil, which consists of representatives of gov-
ernment, management, labour, agriculture,
as well as the natural resource and export
industries.
Emphasis will be placed upon measures
to promote increased prosperity in the north-
ern parts of the province. The Ontario
Northland Railway will extend its line to
service the new Jones-Laughlin Iron Mill
at Dane at a cost of $1 million. It is also
undertaking a $7.2 million extension of its
telephone and other communication facilities.
Research will be undertaken into spruce bark
and pulpwood utilization, the jet smelting
process, nuclear energy and other matters.
We will introduce a new Northern On-
tario Health Service to operate in four
centres. In addition, a new bursary pro-
gramme will encourage medical and dental
students to practise their profession in the
less populated regions of the province.
The budget provides for an increase of
200 in the strength of the Ontario Provin-
cial Police. There will be a further expan-
sion of parole, probation and rehabilitation
services.
New measures are being adopted to ex-
pand and improve the parks and recreational
facilities of the province. Provision is being
made for the erection by the Ontario-St.
Lawrence Development Commission of a
fully equipped restaurant adequate to serve
the many visitors to Upper Canada Village.
Increased appropriations are required in
order to pay the provincial share of the
$10 a month involved in raising the old-age
assistance, blind and disabled pensions from
$55 to $65 per month, effective last Febru-
ary 1.
Increased expenditures are required in
order to carry out our highway programme.
There will also be further improvements to
the system of motor vehicle registration and
inspection.
In order to stabilize the premiums for hos-
pital insurance, this year the province will
contribute $57.5 million from its general
revenues. We are also providing a special
additional payment of $2.8 million to the hos-
pitals for capital and debt retirement pur-
poses. Provision will be made for an expansion
of out-patient services.
I cite these examples to indicate some of
the growth factors in the budget of $1,126
million for 1962-1963 that I am presenting
to you today. This is an increase of $128.9
million over our estimated expenditure in this
current fiscal year. I would like to impress
upon you the magnitude of this expenditure
and the revenues which are required to
finance it. There is no magical way for the
province to obtain revenue other than by
taxation or borrowing. While a judicious use
of our credit is not inconsistent with sound
finance, excessive borrowing may compound
our problems. I think, therefore, that we
should not ignore the warning lights that
are now appearing.
So far, despite the maladjustments created
by changes in international trade and a slower
rate of growth than we would like to see,
we have managed to maintain a strong finan-
cial position. We have been able to obtain
an improvement in our tax-sharing arrange-
ment with the federal government. We have
also had the courage to impose a sales tax
which this budget demonstrates conclusively
was unavoidable if we were to assume the
heavy responsibilities of education, health and
other vital services.
The improvement in economic conditions
will be reflected in increased revenues partic-
ularly corporation tax revenue, which last
year declined more than we had anticipated
owing to the reduction in corporation profits.
In the coming year we are also anticipating
larger revenues from personal income and
sales taxes, and from several other sources.
We should aim as far as possible in the
future to obtain the revenues required for
increased services from the normal growth
and expansion of the economy. Our struc-
ture of taxation is one of the lowest in Can-
ada. For example, we have the lowest rate
of any province imposing a sales tax. In no
other province is the personal income tax
lower than in Ontario, and in two provinces
it is 20 per cent higher. One of our largest
sister provinces has a higher corporation tax
and sales tax. Nevertheless, we must strive
as far as possible to confine the extension of
our services to the revenues which are raised
from the expansion of our economy.
In the light of the large grants to muni-
cipalities and educational authorities, very
close examination and re-assessment of ex-
penditures will be made.
Neitlicr our revenue sources nor the growth
MARCH 1, 1962
685
in our revenues are sufficient to meet all the
demands which are being imposed upon us
for educational, health, municipal and other
services. It is therefore necessary to establish
a scale of priorities and exercise the maximum
of economy.
The financial position that I will outline
demonstrates the necessity of the sales tax
imposed last September. Despite the revenue
from this source, the extraordinary require-
ments, particularly for education and health,
are of such magnitude that we will still ex-
perience an appreciable shortfall in revenue.
Thus the wisdom of the decision, that we took
a year ago, to employ a new source of taxa-
tion has been vindicated.
This budget marks the first step in a new
five-year plan. We are glad that the federal
government has embarked on a similar plan.
We are deeply conscious of the importance
of co-operation between the federal govern-
ment and the provinces. Under this plan our
aim will be to maintain an adequate rate
of economic growth consistent with the finan-
cial capacity of the province. Through our
economic council and various departments
and agencies, discussions will be held with
industry, management and labour on ways
and means of fostering more processing, ex-
panding exports and increasing the Canadian
content of our products.
To provide the most satisfactory assurance
of adaptability to economic change and long-
term economic growth, we will continue to
seek new methods of raising standards of
education and job retraining, of improving
health and physical fitness, of safeguarding
our natural heritage, and of strengthening our
system of highways and roads and other
services.
All these aims must be related to the finan-
cial capacity of our people and our industries.
We must avoid any rate of taxation which
will be a deterrent to the type of expansion
and development that our positive programme
is designed to achieve. In other words, we
must keep things in balance. We must pro-
ceed in accordance with good judgment and
good sense and obtain the maximum value
out of every dollar of expenditure.
In the current fiscal year we have managed
to keep our spending below $1 billion. This
year it is estimated at $1,126 million. We
in the provincial government will make every
effort to economize. We ask the municipali-
ties and the school boards to scrutinize their
spending and enforce economy at every turn.
If we are to keep within our objective of
financing expanded services out of the in-
crease in our revenues arising from normal
growth and development, all public spending
bodies must be made conscious of the direc-
tion in which their spending trends are
leading.
Supplementary Estimates, 1961-1962
Before I summarize the financial operations
of the current fiscal year ending March 31,
1962— based on nine months* actual opera-
tions and three months' forecast— I should like
to present for your consideration and ajiproval
a number of supplementary estimates totalling
$13,973,000. (See adjoining table.)
Education
Assistance to school boards to provide and equip
new vocational units $ 9,000,000
Provincial institute of automotive and allied trades-
salaries, travelling expenses, maintenance, instruc-
tional supphes, purchase of equipment 73,000
Teachers' superannuation fund— special contribution 1,000,000
Health
Special grants to public hospitals under the authority
of The Public Hospitals Act and the regulations
thc-eimder- this will prrvide a grant of $75 per
bed to all qualified public hospitals in Ontario $ 2,800,000
Ontario heart foundation 100,000
Treasuf!"'
Public service superannuation fund— special contri-
bution
Total
$ 10,073,000
2,900,000
1 000.000
$ l'^9'^^000
^i
686
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
SuMxMARY FOR 1961-1962
Net ordinary expenditure, including $14
million in supplementary estimates, $35.8
million for sinking fund, and $28 million for
capital payments out of ordinary revenue, is
estimated at $813.3 million. Net capital ex-
penditure is estimated at $211.5 million, of
which $175.5 million is for provincial high-
ways and roads— including $47.5 million for
municipal subsidies; $32 million for public
works, including Ontario hospitals; $2 million
for logging roads and conservation works and
$1.6 million for mining access roads. After
deducting $28 million from net ordinary ex-
penditure for capital construction financed
out of ordinary revenue, our combined net
ordinary and net capital expenditures in
1961-1962 are estimated at $996.8 million-
an increase of $125.2 million over combined
expenditures of $871.6 million in 1960-1961.
As forecast in my budget statement last
year, the major increases in combined net
ordinary and net capital expenditures in
1961-1962 are for education and health, which
rose by $42.4 million and $42.8 million re-
spectively, representing nearly 70 per cent of
the growth in expenditures. Other increases
in expenditure included $9.2 million for high-
ways and roads, $6.6 million for lands and
forests, $4.1 million for public welfare, and
$6.2 million for public debt interest, etc.
When I brought down my budget last year,
I estimated that combined net ordinary and
net capital expenditures would amount to
$1,015,251,000. Estimates of expenditure for
1961-1962 indicate that our outlays will be
some $18.5 million below the amounts appro-
priated by this Legislature, after providing
an additional $14 million in supplementary
estimates.
Net ordinary revenue and net capital re-
ceipts for 1961-1962 are estimated at $815.1
million, of which $1.4 million represents net
capital receipts. This is an increase of $73.4
million over combined net ordinary and net
capital revenues for 1960-1961. All of the in-
crease in revenues is attributable to the retail
sales tax, which it is estimated will yield $76
million in the fiscal year just closing.
I might repeat that; all the increase in
revenues is attributable to the retail sales tax,
which it is estimated will yield $76 million
in the fiscal year just closing.
Although small increases in most of our
major sources of revenue are recorded in
1961-1962, these were more than offset by the
fall in receipts from corporation income tax
of $19.7 million and in mining taxes of $4.8
million.
Principal sources of revenue are: corpora-
tions tax— $166 million; personal income tax
-$120.7 million; gasoline tax-$164 million;
liquor control board— $82.6 million; retail sales
tax— $76 million; motor vehicle licences—
$69.4 million, and succession duty— $40
million.
Our interim surplus on ordinary account is
estimated at $432,000 after providing $28
million for capital works financed out of
ordinary revenue and $35.8 million for sinking
fund. After providing $211.5 miUion for new
capital construction, our shortfall of revenue
in this current fiscal year 1961-1962 is esti-
mated at $145.9 million. By careful manage-
ment we have been able to reduce this
shortfall by $34 million below that which I
anticipated a year ago.
Net Capital Debt
The province's net capital debt as of March
31, 1962 is estimated at $1.2 billion-an
increase of $148.1 million over that of a year
ago. Since the end of World War II, however,
we have invested over $2 billion in high-
ways and roads, hospitals, schools, and other
physical assets, and have added only $758.1
million to the net capital debt.
We have endeavoured to adhere to a policy
of prudent use of our credit combined with a
moderate structure of taxation. I recognize
that some people will say we should have
financed a larger part of our capital expan-
sion out of current taxation, that is by raising
our rates of tax. We have constantly kept in
mind, however, the need for maintaining a
favourable tax environment for industry to
expand and provide the employment oppor-
tunities required by our growing work force.
In terms of both the capital assets we have
created and our growing population, the in-
crease in the net capital debt has been very
reasonable. For instance, the province's net
capital debt amounts to only 10 per cent of
Ontario's total personal income now, com-
pared with 14 per cent 16 years ago. In
terms of the government of Ontario's revenue
it would require only 1.25 years' revenue to
repay the net capital debt today compared
with 3.5 years' revenue in 1946. Thus, while
we have made use of our credit to assist us
in stabilizing our tax system and in financing
our capital programme, our debt today is well
within manageable limits.
To provide for the orderly retirement of the
province's debt, it is our intention to appro-
priate annually from the ordinary revenues
of the province, monies sufficient to retire
over a 35-year term that part of our debt
MARCH 1, 1962
687
which was incurred prior to April, 1943. All
debt incurred subsequent to that date will be
retired over a 30-year term. Moreover, we
intend to make provision for retirement of all
future loans over a 30-year term. These
measures will provide stability in our debt
retirement programme and will assist in keep-
ing the province's credit rating high.
Expenditures and Revenues, 1962-1963
Net ordinary expenditure for 1962-1963, in-
cluding $39 million for sinking fund and $66
million for capital disbursements financed out
of ordinary revenue, amounts to $961.5
million— an increase of $148.2 million over
1961-1962. After allowing for additional
appropriations of $38 million for capital
disbursements to be financed out of ordinary
revenue and $3.2 million for additional appro-
priations for sinking fund, the increase in
departmental expenditures, including debt
interest, etc., is forecast at $107 million.
Of this increase, $60.9 million or 57 per
cent will go to education. An increased appro-
priation of $12.5 million will be required for
health, $5.8 million for public welfare, $3.5
million for municipal affairs and $6.8 million
for the maintenance of our highways and
roads.
The province's capital programme will also
be increased next year by $18.8 million to a
record level of $230.3 million. Just seven
years ago in 1954-1955 the requirements of
our capital programme amounted to only
$80.5 million or about one-third of next year's
requirements. This is an indication of the
government's programme to develop sound
physical assets and, at the same time, support
high levels of employment and income.
In total, combined net ordinary and net
capital expenditures in 1962-1963 are forecast
at $1,125.8 million, an increase of $128.9
million over 1961-1962. The major spending
departments— ordinary and capital expendi-
tures combined— with figures for 1961-1962
appended in brackets, are as follows: educa-
tion $329.8 million ($268.9 million); highways
$264.3 million ($247.2 million); health $144.2
million ($131.7 million); public works $49.9
million ($43.4 million); municipal affairs $43.5
million ($40 million); public welfare $60.9
million ($55.1 million); and lands and forests
$31.9 million ($29.9 million).
Net ordinary revenue and net capital re-
ceipts are forecast at $963.2 million, of which
$1.3 million is for net capital receipts. The
forecast anticipates that our combined
revenues will increase by $148.1 million. A
major share of this increase— $84 million-
reflects a full year's revenue from the retail
sales tax.
As hon. members are aware, this sales tax
was only in operation for seven months in
the 1961-1962 fiscal year. The new arrange-
ments with the federal government for the
sharing of the personal income tax field com-
bined with improved yields are expected to
increase revenues from this source by $32.5
million and an additional $19 million is
anticipated from higher levels of corporate
profits.
Major sources of revenue in 1962-1963 are
forecast as follows: corporations tax, $185
million; income tax collection agreement,
$153.2 million; retail sales tax, $160 million;
succession duty, $40 million; gasoline tax,
$170 million; motor vehicle licences, etc.,
$70.9 million; Liquor Control Board, $84.6
million; timber dues, bonus, etc., $13 million,
and mining profits' tax, $12.1 million.
A surplus on ordinary account of $374,000
is forecast for 1962-1963 after providing $39
million for sinking fund and $66 million for
financing capital construction out of ordinary
revenue. However, since our expanded capi-
tal programme for 1962-1963 calls for outlays
of $230.3 million, the shortfall of revenue on
overall account is forecast at $123.6 miUion.
Social Services and Human
Betterment
Increased productive capacity in Ontario
has made possible one of the highest stand-
ards of education, health and welfare in the
world. No one will deny the vital importance
of good education, good health and adequate
welfare standards to relieve suffering and
distress. We must, however, constantly rec-
ognize that all these services have to be
financed out of the product of our industry
and our labour. The mounting cost of these
services is one that calls for the most care-
ful attention, study and consideration. A
decade ago the combined expenditures of the
Ontario Departments of Education, Health
and Welfare amounted to $137 million.
During this current fiscal year they totalled
$456 million and next year they will increase
to $535 million. A decade ago they formed
37 per cent of our total budget; today that
proportion has grown to 47 per cent.
The rapidly rising cost of these three
services, which shows no sign of levelling off,
must be a matter of the most serious concern
to all hon. members of this House.
Many complex questions arise to which we
have been giving careful attention. A num-
ber of the factors contributing to these rising
688
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
costs are beyond the province's control. Many
restraints or economies must be exercised at
the local level. It is true that the enrolment
in our school system has been increasing
spectacularly, double the rate of growth of
our overall population, but school costs have
been rising even more rapidly.
The same situation exists in the fields of
health and welfare. The use of hospitals is
increasing, but the trend in cost is rising even
more rapidly. In welfare, improved benefits
and a broader programme are also making
their effects felt on costs. The whole matter
is one which might well commend itself to
the careful study of all the hon. members of
this House.
That the government of Ontario has been
giving, and is continuing to give, leadership
in this area is graphically illustrated by the
improvements that have been made in the
educational programme and in the financial
assistance provided to the school boards and
universities.
There is, I think, justification for this.
Never before has the role of education in
preparing our young people for the future
been more vital to our economic and social
progress, indeed, even to our national sur-
vival, than it is today. Some people have
expressed apprehension about our ability to
adapt and adjust ourselves to the new world
environment which is emerging. However, I
would remind them that, while difficult tasks
lie ahead, at no time have the opportunities
for expanding trade and promoting better-
ment been so widely manifest.
As a result of the scientific and technolog-
ical advances of recent years, it has become
increasingly apparent that the existing courses
of our high schools and collegiate institutes
throughout the province should be modified
to meet the new requirements of many pres-
ent-day pupils of secondary school age, especi-
ally those who do not intend to proceed to
higher education of the traditional type. More
commercial and technical instruction at this
level is required. Accordingly, the provincial
government is refunding to local secondary
school boards 100 per cent of approved capi-
tal expenditures made up to April 1, 1963,
for vocational school accommodation. The
province will be reimbursed for 75 per cent
of the payments by the federal government
under terms of the new Federal-Provincial
Technical and Vocational Training Agreement
effective April 1, 1961.
It is gratifying to report that an unprece-
dented number of school boards is providing
vocational accommodation for the teaching
of commercial and technical courses. By the
end of 1961, no less than 202 building proj-
ects had been initiated. In most cases exist-
ing secondary schools are becoming composite
schools, although a number of entirely new
vocational schools are being established. It
is estimated that expenditure made in this
province under the agreement, including the
cost of schools under local boards and The
Department of Education, will total $200
million.
This programme permits considerable re-
organization of the secondary school cur-
ricula. The students are offered three courses:
arts and science, for those who wish to pursue
an academic career; business and commerce,
for students whose interests lie in the direction
of business administration or management;
and science, technology and trades, for those
who wish to enter applied science courses or
technological institutes.
By taking a five-year course in any of
these three divisions, pupils of ability may
proceed to university, teachers' colleges or
technological institutes. For students who
wish to attend secondary school for only four
years, special courses are being designed
in each of these three divisions. In addition,
occupational courses of one or two years'
duration will be offered for non-academic
students preparing for early entry into our
labour force.
To supplement these measures an exten-
sive building programme is underway to
modernize and enlarge technical training
facilities at the post-secondary school level.
Work on the west wing of the Ryerson Insti-
tute of Technology in Toronto is well ad-
vanced and a new building for the Eastern
Institute of Technology in Ottawa will
shortly be erected. A new institute will also
be provided at Kirkland Lake to serve north-
eastern Ontario. Progress is also being made
in establishing four new provincial trade
schools to be located in London, Ottawa,
Sault Ste. Marie and Toronto. None of this
new construction involves any capital cost
to the municipalities.
Excellent progress is being made in re-
cruiting and training the teachers required
to staff our constantly expanding school sys-
tem. Teacher supply for the elementary
schools nearly met the demand in 1961,
although some shortage of staff for the
separate schools still persists. In September,
1961, a total of 6,058 students enrolled in
the ten teachers' colleges throughout the
pro\dnce. In the same month, the Lake-
head Teachers' College commenced operat-
ing from its new building in Port Arthur,
with enrolment totalling 231. Construction
MARCH 1, 1962
689
is also under way on a new teachers' college
in the Windsor area to serve the counties
of Essex and Kent. Teacher supply for tlie
secondary schools has increased significantly.
Our construction programme to provide
new school buildings and enlarge existing
school accommodation in all parts of the
province has continued vigorously. During
last year, 66,150 pupil places were provided
in the elementary school system at a cost
of $53 million and 19,520 pupil places were
provided for secondary schools at a cost of
$32 million.
While these figures reveal a deceleration
in the building programme, I would point
out that the volume of secondary school
construction will undoubtedly advance
sharply in 1962 and 1963 due to the provi-
sion of technical-vocational accommodation
made possible by federal-provincial grant
support.
Just as increasing enrolments have brought
problems of accommodation to local school
boards, higher enrolments in the Ontario
schools for the blind and deaf have made
additional building necessary. A new wing
was added a year ago to the Ontario School
for the Blind at Brantford. A second school
for the deaf is under construction at Milton,
which, when completed, will add signifi-
cantly to the educational facilities avaliable
to deaf children in the province.
The enrolment in our elementary and sec-
ondary schools in this 1961-1962 school year
totals 1,462,000, which is an increase of
73,000 over the previous year and 674,000
over the enrolment just ten years ago. Ele-
mentary and secondary school enrolment has
nearly doubled in that short period of time.
The combined effect of the increase in
enrolment, higher teachers' salaries and im-
proved educational opportunities and stand-
ards is readily apparent in the rise in our
school grants, which in 1962-1963 will total
$208 million, an increase of $26.9 million
over those provided in the current fiscal
year.
Included in this amount are the special
grants that are being made under the terms
of The Residential and Farm School Tax
Assistance Grant Act passed at the last ses-
sion to give local tax relief to residential
and farm property. In 1961-1962 this grant
was $5 per pupil of elementary and sec-
ondary school enrolment for a total expen-
diture of over $6 million. For the coming
fiscal year the basis of the grant will be
$15 per pupil of elementary school enrol-
ment and $5 per pupil of secondary school
enrolment. This means that total payments
under the Act will rise to an estimated $16
million.
In evaluating our assistance to education,
the province's contribution to the teachers'
superannuation fund is often overlooked. This
payment is continuing to rise steadily, and
next year will reach a total of $18.3 million.
Recognizing the urgent need for university
expansion, the province is again raising both
its capital and maintenance grants. In the
fiscal year now ending, capital grants of $17.7
million and maintenance grants of $19.3 mil-
lion were made available to 13 universities
and colleges.
In 1962-1963 our grants for capital and
special purposes will be increased to $22.4
million, while maintenance grants will be
increased to $23 million. The net effect is
that the grants to universities will be raised
in 1962-1963 to $45.4 million, an increase of
$8.4 million over those being paid in the
current fiscal year. In the last two years
alone the province's grants to universities
have been increased by $15.5 million, or by
52 per cent. This is eloquent testimony of
the support we are giving to the universities
and colleges in meeting the demands that lie
ahead. *
The table on page 690 shows our grants
to the individual universities and colleges for
the coming fiscal year.
A detailed list of grants to the various uni-
versities follows and hon. members will sec
this as a statement that will be given to the
hon. members of the House very soon.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the government's com-
prehensive programme of student aid is
clearly achieving its objective of ensuring that
no student who has the ability to benefit from
higher education is denied the opportunity
because of his financial circumstances. In
the fiscal year now ending, more than 5,200
students received bursaries and scholarships
totalling nearly $1,450,000.
Greater use of the facilities available under
the province's student aid loan fund estab-
blished in 1958 is now being made by our
students. In the current fiscal year more
than 4,000 applications totalling more than
$1,750,000 have already been approved.
Scholarships will also be awarded under the
Queen Elizabeth II Scholarship Fund.
Among the functions to be carried out in
association with our educational system is a
programme of physical fitness aimed at im-
proving the general vigour and health of our
school children and our young men and
women. We have appropriated $100,000 in
^90
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Grants to Universities 1962-1963
University of Toronto
for Royal Ontario Museum
for Ontario College of Education
University of Western Ontario
Queen's University
McMaster University
Carleton University
University of Waterloo
Essex College (Assumption University of
Windsor) 650
University of Ottawa— for instruction in
medicine and the sciences
York University
Laurentian University of Sudbury
Lakehead College of Arts, Science and
Technology
Ontario College of Art
Osgoode Hall Law School
Special grants for archaeological research
McMaster University— for the Royal Botan-
ical Gardens
Grand Totals
Maintenance
Grants
Capital and
Special Grants
($000's)
7,100
Total
($000's)
10,750
($000's)
17,850
1,050
—
1,050
1,475
—
1,475
1,650
2,000
3,650
1,650
2,000
3,650
1,425
2,000
3,425
900
2,000
2,900
850
1,800
2,650
1,750
2,400
900
1,250
2,1.50
700
2,000
2,700
350
125
475
185
250
435
225
—
225
150
150
300
10
—
10
100
—
100
23,020
22,425
45,445
1962-1963 for this programme. This will
supplement the national physical fitness
scheme which is now underway.
Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for deal-
ing so extensively with our educational pro-
gramme and its cost. It is a matter of
transcending importance. The net appropria-
tion of The Department of Education which
you are being asked to approve for 1962-1963
totals $329.8 million. This is an average
provincial outlay, excluding the contributions
made by the municipalities, of more than
$200 per student in our elementary and sec-
ondary schools and universities. It absorbs
virtually all the revenue that we will obtain
from the sales tax, personal income tax and
from succession duties. The increase for edu-
cation in next year's budget of $60.9 million
is the largest in the history of our province.
Another of our major challenges is that
of constantly safeguarding and improving the
liealth of our citizens.
Remarkable progress has been made in the
last few years in the reinforcement and fur-
ther expansion of our public health services.
Recognizing that the unorganized areas of the
province are less able to supply adequate
health services, it is our intention this year
to introduce a new northern Ontario health
service operating in four centres.
Furthermore, in order to bring about a more
equitable distribution of family physicians and
dentists throughout the province and encour-
age the services of these essenital professional
personnel in the less populated regions of the
province, a new bursary programme will be
introduced. A number of medical and dental
students will be provided with bursaries on
the understanding that they will repay them
in part by serving in areas of the province
where the need is greatest.
Particular attention will be focused on the
care, treatment and rehabilitation of the
mentally disturbed. Much progress has re-
cently been made in renovating and moderniz-
ing existing Ontario hospitals, but the
establishment of new small hospitals and the
provision of local out-patient and day-care
centres and ancillary supporting services will
place even greater emphasis upon the
diagnosis, active treatment and rehabilitation
of curable cases. The needs of mentally
MARCH 1, 1962
691
handicapped and emotionally disturbed
children are also receiving attention.
In consequence of this enlarged programme
the estimated expenditure for mental health
purposes in 1962-1963 will total $58.4 mil-
lion, which is an increase of $5.6 million over
that in the current fiscal year.
Our hospital care insurance plan, which
has been in operation for three years, con-
tinues to be an unqualified success. The
popularity of the plan is reflected in the
numbers enrolled— slightly over 96 per cent
of the population. To stabilize the present
premiums of $2.10 monthly for a single
person and $4.20 monthly for the family unit
for the next two years, we are including in
this budget an appropriation of $57.5 million
from general revenue to meet this situation,
or $7.5 million more than was provided in
1961-1962.
The provisions and coverage of Ontario's
Hospital Care Insurance Plan are continuously
reviewed and this year a limited extension of
out-patient services will be included under
the benefits of the plan. The new provisions
will include coverage for certain out-patient
services, such as initial and follow-up visits
to conclude emergency treatment started
within 24 hours after an accident. The
Ontario Hospital Services Commission will
also allow, as a plan benefit, out-patient ser-
vices where equipment and facilities are avail-
able at a hospital and where, on the advice
of the medical staff, the services can properly
and safely be performed on an out-patient
basis. These services will be made available
to patients who would otherwise require
admission as in-patients. The cost to the
commission for these extensions of benefits is
estimated at $1,541,000 in 1961-1962. This
new measure should free a number of hospital
beds for the treatment of in-patients and
result in savings in capital construction and
maintenance costs.
Apart from these extended benefits, a new
project aimed at streamlining hospital usage
throughout Ontario is under way. In con-
junction with the province and the city of
Toronto, a hospital-based home care pro-
gramme is being carried out on a pilot basis
by the New Mount Sinai Hospital and the
Toronto Western Hospital. This programme
is directed towards enabling patients to leave
hospital earlier than customary, and receive
medical attention in their homes. It is anti-
cipated that some 300 beds will be released
for active treatment patients as a result of
this experiment.
As in recent budgets, I am includng in
the supplementary estimates the amount of
$2.8 million to provide a payment of $75 per
bed to all qualified public general hospitals
in the province for retiring debt or for some
other capital purpose.
To implement this enlarged programme we
have increased the appropriation of The
Department of Health for 1962-1963 by $13.4
million to $144.2 million.
Welfare expenditures have been si^ib-
stantially increased over the years. In this
current fiscal year, the province will spend
$55.1 million from provincial tax sources—
or more than four times as much as a decade
and a half ago. This large increase in welfare
expenditure arises from four main areas: the
introduction of new social welfare measures;
the extension of the scope and scale of exist-
ing welfare services; the province's assump-
tion of an ever-increasing share of the welfare
burden formerly borne by the municipalities;
and the large increase in population.
You will be asked to approve a larger
appropriation to carry out the province's
welfare programme for 1962-1963. Greater
emphasis will be placed upon rehabilitation,
not only with respect to handicapped persons,
but also through measures aimed at restoring
individuals and families to an independent
status. The increase, effective last February
1, in the allowances to the aged, the disabled
and blind persons to a new maximum of $65
monthly will serve this end. An increased
appropriation will be required in the home-
makers' and nurses' services to keep families
together during emergencies that arise from
accidents, illness or other distressing condi-
tions. Additional funds are also required to
provide supplementary aid to meet extra-
ordinary expenses incurred for shelter, drugs
and other special needs. The programme of
assisting handicapped persons to receive voca-
tional training courses will be expanded. Each
year the number of children placed in
adoption homes is increasing. Every effort is
being made to find suitable adoption homes
for the wards of children's aid societies.
While the primary objective of our many-
sided welfare programme is to provide assist-
ance to those in need, it is evident too that
such measures in themselves act as built-in
stabilizers to our economy, producing benefits
that have an effect on die whole economy.
It is estimated that our expenditures for
welfare in the next fiscal year will reach the
highest level in our his'.ory. The cost of these
services to the province in 1962-1963 is
estimated at $60.9 million, an increase of
$5.8 million over the amount expended in
1961-1962.
692
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Highways and Roads
To ensure and promote the continued
growth and expansion of Ontario's economy
we have continually extended and improved
our highway and road system, connecting and
integrating our diverse and far-spread regions.
This is clearly reflected in the province's total
expenditures on highways and roads, which
have risen from $22.9 million in 1945-46 to
$103 million in 1951-52 and to $247.2 million
in 1961-1962-from $23 million in 1945 to
$247 million in 1961.
Tangible evidence of the use of our high-
ways and roads is indicated by the increase
in registered motor vehicles in the province,
which numbered 665,000 in 1945 and now
total 2,123,286.
During 1961-1962 no less than 473 miles
of paved highways were completed and 78
structures erected. Notable items in the cur-
rent year's programme include: the com-
pletion of five sections of Highway 401,
bringing to 377 miles the stretch of this
trans-provincial freeway now in use; the
widening to six lanes of the Queen Elizabeth
Way between Highway 27 and Highway 10;
the commencement of construction on the
new controlled-access Highway 403, which
will link the Queen Elizabeth Way near
Burlington to Highway 401 near Woodstock;
the extension of Highway 10 to four lanes
between Highway 5 at Cooksville and High-
way 2 at Port Credit; the opening of the
second stage of the $35 million Ottawa
Queensway; completion of the 585-foot
bridge over the Pic River between White
River and Marathon, and the 989-foot bridge
which carries the new Peterborough by-pass
on Trans-Canada Highway 7.
Important as this expansion is, we have
not overlooked the necessity of ensuring that
the existing highway system throughout the
province is reconstructed and repaved in con-
formity with modern engineering standards.
Among our many activities in this area during
1961-1962 were: the reconstruction of more
than 225 miles of the Trans-Canada High-
way, the completion of the long-term 267-
mile paving programme between Longlac
and Cochrane, including the paving of 53
miles between Hearst and Kapuskasing, and
a start on the reconstruction of 22 miles of
Highway 11 to further improve the 625 miles
between North Bay and Nipigon— 'he northern
route of ^he Trans-Canada Highway.
Ontario's total expenditure on highways
and ro-^ds in the current fiscal year amounted
to $247.2 million, of which $71.7 million was
for maintenance and $175.5 million was for
capital purposes. Provincial road subsidies to
the municipalities and unincorporated town-
ships in northern Ontario, which are included
in the foregoing, totalled $73.1 million, of
wliich $48.2 million was for new construction.
Taking into account the amounts that the
municipalities themselves will spend, the out-
lay for highways and roads in the province
in 1961-1962 will total $318.7 million-almost
three times the amount spent a decade ago.
Our programme for the 1962-1963 fiscal
year provides for further expansion of the
province's long-term plan of highway im-
provement and modernization, and also for
continuation of the work on such major proj-
ects as Highways 11, 401 and 403, the
Trans-Canada Highway and the Ottawa
Queensway. Work will also be commenced
on the new controlled-access route to the
Toronto International Airport.
To finance the 1962-1963 highway and
road programme we are providing appropria-
tions totalling $264.3 million. This is an
increase of $17.1 million over expenditures in
the current fiscal year. Of the total 1962-
1963 appropriation, $78.4 million is being
provided for maintenance and $185.9 million
for capital purposes. This includes $80.9
million for municipal subsidies, of which
$29.1 million is for maintenance and $51.8
million is for capital construction. This will
provide for a combined provincial and muni-
cipal programme of $343.3 million— an in-
crease of $24.6 million over the combined
total in 1961-1962.
Agriculture
With the emergence of increasing competi-
tion in world trade and the development of
new food products and modern means of
transportation, it has become evident that all
branches of our agricultural industry have to
aim at the highest levels of efficiency and
quality of production. In the light of meas-
ures adopted to ensure that Ontario agricul-
ture remains in the forefront of development,
it is gratifying to note that in 1961 the
yields of all major field crops exceeded the
average of the last 10 years and that farm
cash income reached the highest point in its
history.
In the coming fiscal year, steps will be
taken to strengthen research and marketing
facilities. The establishment of the Agri-
cultural Research Institute, which will co-
ordinate all research undertaken by the
department, cons' itutes a history-making de-
velopment capable of offering benefits to all
phases of Ontario's agricultural economy.
MARCH 1, 1962
693
Several new buildings have been added in
recent years at the Ontario Agricultural Col-
lege and the Ontario Veterinary College at
Guelph. New projects planned include a $3
million science building and a $1 million
poultry pathology and virology building. Pro-
posed legislation will bring the two colleges
and Macdonald Institute under one admin-
stration, which will permit greater co-
jrdination of activities.
The Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Com-
mission further extended its network of
primary distribution lines by an additional
430 miles last year, bringing the total to more
than 48,300 miles. About 487,000 rural
customers, including 139,000 farmers, are
now served by the commission. This number
does not include customers living in areas
which have been amalgamated with or an-
nexed to urban municipalities. During 1961
the commission actually added some 25,000
to the number of rural customers being
served, including 1,550 new farm customers.
To facilitate the expansion of agricultural
activities, expenditures of The Department of
Agriculture, which in 1961-1962 are esti-
mated at $16.4 million, will be increased by
$0.6 million to $17 million in 1962-1963.
Northern Ontario Development
Hon. members, and particularly those from
the northern parts of the province, will find
much in this budget that is encouraging.
Our programme for northern Ontario is being
accelerated. Several departments, including
The Departments of Lands and Forests,
Mines, Economics and Development, Travel
and Publicity, and Agriculture, as well as the
economic council, the Ontario Research
Foundation, and tlie Ontario Northland Rail-
way, are stepping up their programmes to
stimulate northern development.
The objective will be not only to bolster
the northern economy in the short run, but to
undertake a number of studies and research
projects which will enhance its prospects for
the future. Our objective is to develop new
products, process more of our natural re-
sources in Ontario and expand sales in
markets at home and abroad.
Among the most promising facets of these
developments has been the exploration for
and development of new mines. This has
been facilitated by the federal-provincial
airborne geophysical survey which covered
60,000 square miles in 1960 and another
34,000 square miles last year. During the
coming year an additional 35,000 square
miles will be surveyed. Field parties are
also being organized to follow up these sur-
veys and give assistance in the development
of new resources.
Plans to bring several iron ore properties
into operation are in various stages of devel-
opment. This spring, construction will com-
mence on a $30 million mine and mill plant
for processing and pelletizing iron ore at
the Dane iron ore deposits, 20 miles north
of Englehart. It is expected that this opera-
tion will ultimately employ 400 men. Devel-
opment activities are also continuing north
of Nakina, south of Kowkash, near Lake St.
Joseph, south of Red Lake, Timagami and
elsewhere.
The conservation and regeneration of our
forests is also receiving fresh attention. In
the interests of continuing development and
greater perfection in the management of our
forests, the province's forest resources inven-
tory is being updated. In 1961, a total of
11,300 square miles were rephotographed
from the air; this year a much larger area
is to be covered.
At present more than 156,000 acres of
forest land are under the management of
the department on behalf of municipalities
and conservation authorities. Next year some
10,000 acres will be added to the total. The
province's tree nurseries produced 45 mil-
lion trees in 1961; this number is expected
to be increased to 52 million in 1962 and
57 milhon in 1963.
Under the federal-provincial "Roads to
Resources" programme, initiated in 1958,
some 225 miles of access road will have been
virtually completed by the end of this year.
Construction of an additional 150 miles of
road has been approved under the agree-
ment, estimated to cost $15 million. A
further 100 miles of access roads are being
built or upgraded.
A number of other agencies are collabo-
rating in the study and formulation of
methods that will accelerate growth in the
north. For instance, tlie Ontario Northland
Railway will build, at a cost of about $1
million, a new spur line of 4.7 miles to the
Dane iron ore deposits. Construction is ex-
pected to commence about May 15 and the
line is scheduled to be completed by the
fall. When haulage operations begin in 1963,
the Ontario Northland Railway is expected
to carry about 50 car loads of pelletized ore
a day for five days a week.
The railway has also embarked on a major
communications programme costing $7.2
million, which will provide for the installa-
tion of microwave facilities and the modern-
ization of the vast communications system
694
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which it operates. Work has already started
on improving the facilities at North Bay.
Capital works will be undertaken in various
parts of Northern Ontario, including Kirk-
land Lake, Moosonee, Cochrane, New Lis-
keard, Ramore, Fraserdale and Otter Rapids.
This programme which will be largely com-
pleted by 1963, will provide up to 500 new
jobs in direct on-site employment.
The Ontario Research Foundation will
continue its northern studies this year with
increased government grants. It will start
a new project on cellulose utilization, with
the hope of finding new uses for cellulose
available from northern Ontario black spruce
and will initiate a study on the pulping
characteristics of various trees. Hon. mem-
bers will be requested to approve larger
appropriations for these purposes.
Housing
Hon. members are now familiar with the
new housing plan which was announced last
week; therefore, I shall not attempt to do
more than outline its fiscal implications and
point out that it represents a new and bold
effort by the government to meet public
housing needs in the light of the greatly
changed conditions that now exist.
During the current fiscal year, the province's
capital expenditure on various projects will
total $2 million. This will be substantially
increased, however, as an appropriation of
$5.6 million is being provided for the coming
fiscal year. These expenditures reflect the
increased participation of the municipalities
in rental-type projects, stimulated by the
policy change carried out in the fall of 1960
whereby capital and operating costs were
assumed by the three levels of government in
the ratio of 75 per cent federal, 17.5 per cent
provincial and 7.5 municipal, and rents were
geared to an income formula. Many requests
have now been received from the munici-
pahties for this type of subsidized rental
project and several new housing develop-
ments are underway. Many more are in
various stages of negotiation.
The appropriation you will be asked to
approve involves a many-sided approach to
the problem of public housing. In general,
the shortage of housing accommodation has
been overcome, but there are still pockets
of real need among families requiring rental
housing and particularly among those who
cannot pay an economic rent.
An outline of the housing programme in
that connection follows. Under the federal-
provincial partnership, the Ontario govern-
ment will:
1. Seek to simplify procedures and limit
the delays on present rental housing and
land assembly projects.
2. Acquire, rehabilitate and manage
existing housing units for public housing
purposes.
3. Undertake the establishment of the
MetropoHtan Toronto Housing Authority as
a public company acting as an agency to
simplify and speed up the development of
public housing in the Toronto area.
The province itself will introduce a number
of special projects, among which are the
following :
(a) An experimental and pilot rent certi-
ficate scheme under which existing housing
will be leased for a period of years which
made available to families at rents which
are related to their incomes. The province
will pay the difference between the actual
rents required by the leases and the amounts
the tenants will pay. The object of this
plan is to improve the housing accommoda-
tion of families now occupying sub-standard
liousing and unable to pay higher rents.
The units will be available only to families
eligible for nonnal federal-provincial
housing. Should the experiment prove
successful, it is hoped that federal authori-
ties may then enter into the scheme jointly
with the province and the municipalities
in extending the area in which it may be
applied.
(b) Grants to assist non-profit limited
dividend companies and other groups
constructing non-profit limited dividend
liousing for elderly persons, the physically
liandicapped and families of low income.
( c ) Assistance to acquire and rehabilitate
older properties in redevelopment and
l)()rderline areas.
(d) Advice and technical assistance in
the form of interim financing to groups
interested in constructing housing for their
own occupancy by co-operative effort.
(e) Studies to explore ways and means
of providing preventive maintenance of
housing, particularly in areas which might
otherwise become depressed and ultimately
involve expensive redevelopment projects.
(f) Studies on housing to ensure that
needs will be met in the most efficient and
economical way.
To implement this programme the province
is providing the following appropriations:
$1 million on ordinary accounts and $5.6
million on capital account, the details of
which are also given.
MARCH 1, 1962
695
Ordinary Expenditure
To acquire, rehabilitate and manage existing housing units for public
housing purposes $ 500,000
To operate the rent certificate scheme 50,000
To provide grants to assist non-profit limited dividend housing com-
panies and other groups to construct housing accommodation
for elderly persons, the physically handicapped and families of
low income 150,000
Grants to assist in research studies of housing in all its aspects 50,000
To establish housing authorities as public companies to negotiate,
design and construct federal-provincial housing projects —
Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority 75,000
To establish a Housing Advisory Committee 25,000
Administrative and other expenses 217,000
$1,067,000
Capital Expenditure
Expenditure under the Dominion-Provincial partnership agreement $5,600,000
Aid to Municipalities
I have already drawn to the attention of
the House the staggering amounts that we
are paying to the municipalities, school
boards and other local agencies. 1 wish, at
this point, to expand somewhat more on my
earlier remarks, to indicate the varied local
services which we are assisting. In the 1961-
1962 fiscal year the municipalities, school
boards and other local agencies will receive
assistance from the province in the amount
of $375 million or, in fact, $384 million if
we include the $9 million representing the
province's share of the cost of constructing
technical and vocational schools. In 1962-
1963 this outlay will rise to $425 million plus
an additional $29 million for the vocational
and technical schools, or a total of $454
million. This is a huge amount.
In the four budgets I have introduced in
the House we have transferred to the muni-
cipalities and their agencies revenues of
nearly $1.5 billion. Some 20 years ago only
18 per cent of our total revenues was paid
over to the local municipalities; now it is
over 45 per cent. Obviously, there are limits
as to how far we can go.
To provide the maximum relief to the
owners of residential and farm properties who,
in general, are unable to treat their local
taxes as an expense, and accordingly as a
deduction from income for income tax pur-
poses, the province restricts to residential and
farm properties the benefit of its uncondi-
tional grant to municipalities. In the coming
fiscal year the grants payable under The
Unconditional Grants Act will total $26.4
million.
In addition, under The Residential and
Farm School Tax Assistance Grant Act passed
at the last session, municipalities can similarly
restrict to residential and farm property the
benefit of the special per pupil grant to ele-
mentary and secondary schools. The grant
per pupil in elementary schools for 1962-1963
is being increased from $5 to $15, and the
school board, in receipt of the school tax
assistance grant, or the municipal council on
its behalf, is required to reduce the school
tax rate on home owners and farmers by 10
per cent below that applicable to industrial
and commercial properties.
In other words, after applying this special
per pupil grant, the residential and farm mill
rate for school purposes will be 90 per cent
of the industrial and commercial school mill
rate. A special per pupil grant of $5 will
also be paid to secondary schools, and at
this time no change will be made in the
optional formula that was used last year in
applying this grant. The amount payable in
1962-1963 under this Act, which is of special
benefit to residential and farm property
owners and occupiers, is $16 million.
School and library grants are being in-
creased from $185 million in the 1961-1962
fiscal year to $214 million in the coming fiscal
year, or by $29 million. The province's con-
tribution to the Teachers' Superannuation
Fund is being raised from $17.5 million to
$18.3 million— an increase of almost $1 mil-
lion. The capital outlay for vocational schools
696
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
will be augmented by $9 million to $29
million. Thus, the combined increase totals
$50 million, from $211 million in this fiscal
year to $261 million next year.
To finance the municipal winter works pro-
gramme we are including $10 million in the
estimates. The province's road subsidies are
also being increased by $8 million to $81
million in 1962-1963. Substantial payments
will also be made in connection with hospitals.
To enable the Ontario Water Resources
Commission to carry on its expanded pro-
gramme, $25 million will be provided for
capital and $2.5 million for operating pur-
poses. The Ontario Municipal Improvement
Corporation will also continue to provide
capital to enable municipalities to carry out
various capital projects.
Through these vast provincial expenditures
we have been able to keep local taxation
manageable and at the same time assist in the
provision of new and greatly expanded serv-
ices throughout Ontario.
Revenue CoNsmERATioNs
The outline of the comprehensive pro-
gramme I have presented is a demonstration
of why the province needed additional
revenue. I think hon. members will agree
that our course has been right. We simply
could not meet our obligations to education,
health, welfare, highways and all the other
services which are essential to a modem
expanding economy without the revenue that
we are obtaining from the 3 per cent sales
tax that we imposed last September.
It is easy for those who have no responsi-
bility to dream up painless ways of raising
revenue. On analysis, these ways are neither
painless nor practicable. Tlie fact is that we
had no alternative to obtain additional
revenue, and after a careful examination— the
most careful examination— we concluded that
there was only one real source, namely, a
sales tax. To have resorted to other taxation
would either have been ineffective or have
dampened efficiency and enterprise, and made
our province less attractive as an area for
expansion.
Most of the provinces in Canada have had
a sales tax for a considerable number of
years. The provinces of Quebec and Sas-
katchewan imposed a sales tax more than 20
years ago. For many years, Ontario was able
to finance its expansion without significantly
extending its sources of taxation. We took
the view that its revenue should come from
the growth of the economy and a greater
participation in the fields of personal and
corporation income tax.
The new federal-provincial fiscal arrange-
ments that come into effect April 1 this year
and apply to the taxation year commencing
last January 1, represent an improvement
over those that are now expiring. Under the
new arrangements the province will receive
an increase in its share of the personal in-
come tax from the present standard rate of
approximately 14 per cent of federal rates
of tax to 16 per cent in 1962, and by an
additional one percentage point in each of
the four succeeding years up to 20 per cent
in the year 1966.
This will provide the province with an
additional revenue increment in the first year
of about $19 million, which in each of the
four subsequent years will be augmented, on
the basis of current yields, by approximately
$9.5 million a year. We were gratified by tlie
federal proposal to increase our share of the
personal income tax, but the new arrange-
ments, helpful as they are, did not obviate
the necessity of the province finding an addi-
tional source of revenue.
I am confident that no one will disagree
that the province required increa.sed revenues.
It may be contended that we should cut our
expenditures. But where would hon. members
cut? Would they reduce the appropriation
for schools, universities, hospitals, roads and
highways, health, welfare and other services
so vital to our way of life? Would they slash
our assi.stance to the municipalities? These
services are essential to our continued
economic growth and well-being. No respon-
sible government could have adopted any
other course but to find the additional revenue
required to enable it to play its traditional
role in the development of this province.
In turning to the retail sales tax field, as
many other provinces were obliged to do
before us, we were .seeking a source of
revenue that would not place obstacles in the
way of economic growth. The underlying
consideration was to keep our tax .structure
at the lowest minimum con.sistent with sound
financing in order to en.sure the maintenance
of an economic climate which would promote
expansion and the creation of jobs. We were
anxious to provide the maximum stimulation
to industry and were determined not to place
a greater burden on any class of taxpayers
than was absolutely necessary to preserve a
strong financial position. It was fully ex-
pected, as had been demonstrated, that the
province would still be required to use its
credit in financing its capital programme.
MARCH 1, 1962
697
The sales tax is a tax on income when it is
spent. It does not deter willingness to work
and save, which in a young country such as
Canada is of great importance. The fact that
exemptions under the Ontario plan are very
broad, relieves the tax of regressive features.
Certainly the tax is widely employed, being
used by eight of the provinces and most of the
states of the American union. As I have
mentioned, our rate of tax is the lowest in
Canada and exemptions are more generous
than those in any other jurisdiction.
By exempting food, fuel, rent, children's
clothing, books, school supplies and medical
expenses, we have avoided taxing most of the
items that represent the greatest expense to
families with small budgets. It bears lightly
on low income groups and more heavily on
high income groups in accordance with the
principle of ability to pay. Furthermore, by
granting exemptions on farm machinery and
repair parts, seeds, grains, fertilizer and other
materials, we have taken into consideration
the position of the farmer and have prevented
any upward pressure on the price of food
stuffs. To hold prices and costs down, we have
exempted from tax machinery, apparatus and
materials used or consumed in the process of
manufacture or production of tangible
personal property for sale.
We recognize that the collection of a sales
tax directly, as the provinces are required to
do under the constitution, instead of as the
federal government does indirectly, has certain
administrative disadvantages.
At the federal-provincial conference in
July 1960, we proposed that an amendment
be made to the constitution to empower the
provinces to impose a retail sales tax in-
directly. It was not our intention that any
province should levy a hidden tax, or that
the tax should be imposed at the manu-
facturers* or wholesalers' level. We suggested
that the province should have authority to
impose a sales tax on the retailer in a manner
that would enable him to total up the value
of the taxable items he sold and to calculate
and pay his tax thereon. This would provide
some simplification of the tax from the stand-
point of the retailer. The proposal was not
adopted, however, although the Rt. hon.
Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker)
indicated that he would acquiesce if the
provinces were unanimous in seeking such an
amendment.
Despite this limitation imposed by our
constitution, we are continually striving to
ensure that the sales tax is administered and
collected as efficiently and economically as
possible. Prior to the imposition of the tax,
we studied the methods of administration
employed by the other provinces and
numerous States of the American union. The
information gained has been extremely help-
ful. As we profit from our own experience
we shall constantly be on guard to ensure that
we have the fairest and most economical
system that can be devised. Already experi-
ence has led us to propose a number of
improvements to which I shall refer in a
moment.
Among the various alternative suggestions
advanced is a plan to exempt from tax all
consumer purchases of $25 or less. Obviously,
such a sizeable exemption would have a
drastic effect on the revenue expected from
the tax. The effect of such a change, while
extremely difficult to estimate, would reduce
revenue substantially.
Many millions of dollars of tax revenue
would be lost in tax avoidance. It would pro-
duce a major distortion of normal production,
trade and marketing patterns. Consumer de-
mand would shift from taxable items to
non-taxable items. Piecemeal buying would
become the fashion. The result would be not
only consumer and marketing waste and in-
convenience, but also loss of revenue. To
avoid the tax, consumers would endeavour to
make their purchases by components.
For example, instead of buying a set of
golf clubs, they would buy one or two clubs
at a time. There would be a tendency to
buy kitchen or dining room furniture by
units rather than by sets. The same prac-
tice would develop in the appliance field.
Producers and distributors would seek prod-
ucts selling under the $25 limit. In some
cases this could only be achieved at the
expense of quality. All these effects would
be multiplied many times if, in order to
compensate for the loss in revenue occa-
sioned by the higher exemption, the rate of
sales tax was increased on items that could
not be sold under the $25 limit.
If we make an allowance for the avoidance
of the tax which would result from a $25
exemption, the rate on taxable items would
not be three per cent but closer to eight
per cent. Such a tax, which would apply to
many of our manufactured products, would
cause a serious dislocation to existing produc-
tion and distribution patterns. Manufacturers
of consumer durables would be the hardest
hit.
Furthermore, the adoption of a sales tax
with an exemption even approaching $25
would add greatly to administrative and col-
lection problems. It is well known that these
problems are the least when exemptions are
698
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the fewest. While we have adopted a plan
which provides the most generous exemp-
tions in North Amercia, the administrative
problems now encountered would be as
nothing compared with what they would be
with a $25 exemption.
The suggestion looks appealing, but there
are immense difficulties and drawbacks. Its
adoption would produce not only marked
tax avoidance and a multiplication of ad-
ministrative and collection problems, but a
serious distortion to established economic
production and trade patterns. It is no acci-
dent that no other jurisdiction in the world
has imposed a general sales tax exemption
even approaching $25. We have, therefore,
but to conclude that this is a completely
unworkable suggestion.
Mr. Speaker, in my last budget statement
I dealt fully with the feasibility of obtain-
ing an equivalent revenue from corporation
and personal income taxes and from fringe
sources. I shall not repeat the explanation
I gave at that time and the conclusion
reached, that these taxes simply would not
produce the required revenue without seri-
ous disturbances to our economy. Neither
the circumstances nor the facts expressed at
that time have changed.
As expected, our experience with the sales
tax has suggested a number of amendments
to broaden exemptions and simplify admin-
istration.
The following is a list of changes in ex-
emptions under The Sales Tax Act, effec-
tive April 1, 1962:
1. Food products that are exempt from
taxation under the Act will be expanded to
include insulin, vitamins and certain dietary
supplements that are now classed as drugs
and medicines.
2. The definition of classroom supplies
will be widened to include all instructional
equipment and equipment used for research
purposes by universities. All such supplies
and equipment will be exempt from tax
when bought by schools, school boards, col-
leges and universities.
3. A new definition of students' supplies
will be included for exemption, and any
child or other person will be able to buy
these materials tax free in any store that
sells these supplies.
4. Public hospitals will be able to buy
free of tax certain equipment as defined by
the Provincial Treasurer for their own use
and not for resale.
5. Works of art when purchased by
museums or art galleries whose revenue is
provided by public donations and grants by
public bodies will be exempt.
6. Religious institutions will be able to
purchase free of tax equipment for use in
that portion of their premises where religious
worship is regularly conducted.
7. Religious and educational publications
as defined by the Provincial Treasurer will
be made tax free.
8. Equipment as defined by the Provin-
cial Treasurer, purchased by a person
licensed to trap fur-bearing animals by the
Minister of Lands and Forests will be ex-
empt from tax.
Other amendments will be introduced not
only to make clearer certain provisions now
in the Act but to simplify the collection of
the tax.
Vendors whose taxable sales never exceed
$100 per month will be granted permission
to file their returns on a quarterly or half-
yearly basis rather than monthly as now
required under the Act.
In businesses whicli have a fairly constant
percentage of taxable sales to total sales and
where tests are conducted at frequent inter-
vals to ensure the accuracy of the percentage,
for each period in which tax remittances are
required, arrangements may be made to cal-
culate the amount of tax to be remitted on
a formula basis, thus relieving the vendor of
the necessity of keeping detailed records of
his taxable sales. Where such arrangements
are made, the vendor will of course be sub-
ject to periodic audit with a view to deter-
mining the accuracy of any formula so
arranged.
It should also be noted that small retailers
can largely eliminate the keeping of detailed
records through the use of a receptacle in
which the tax is deposited at the time of
each transaction.
Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know that
there are no tax increases. Having dealt
extensively with the sales tax and the prov-
ince's need for revenue, I am pleased to
announce this: no new taxes and no increases
in tax rates. There will be a number of
amendments besides those I have mentioned
in connection with the sales tax and these
may be summarized as follows:
The Corporations Tax Act will be amended
to bring its provisions into line with the
amended Income Tax Act of Canada pursu-
ant to the adjustments made to that Act at
the last session of Parlaiment.
Minor amendments will be introduced to
The Succession Duty Act:
MARCH 1, 1962
699
1. An insurance company will be permitted
to make a payment up to but not exceeding
$5,000 to a widow under any contract of
insurance without the consent of the Pro-
vincial Treasurer. This will double the
amount that the widow can obtain under
these circumstances at the present time.
2. Interest on non-payment of duty will
not commence until six months following the
death of the deceased.
An amendment will be introduced to The
Income Tax Act that will permit the com-
pletion of reciprocal arrangements with the
province of Quebec whereby the tax collected
by Ontario during a year may be paid over
to the province of Quebec on behalf of a
taxpayer who has moved from Ontario during
the year and is a resident in Quebec on the
last day of that year.
It is expected that a similar amendment
will be made to The Income Tax Act of the
province of Quebec to take care of the situa-
tion when a taxpayer moves from Quebec to
Ontario.
Minor amendments are being made to The
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act to ease the
penalty provisions that are now contained
therein.
On The Hospitals Tax Act, effective April
1, 1962, the exemption from tax on the price
of admission to places of amusement will be
increased from 25 cents to 56 cents and the
tax on the price of admission to places of
amusement between 57 cents and 92 cents
will be reduced by one cent. Also, the
exemption from tax to places of amusement
that are not class D theatres in communities
having a population of less than 10,000 will
be increased from 65 cents to 75 cents.
In this budget I have endeavoured to
provide an account of our stewardship of the
province's aflFairs in the current fiscal year
and to outline our proposed programme for
the coming fiscal year. I think you will
agree that this bvidget sets before you and
before the Ontario people an imaginative,
forward-looking programme, the benefits of
which will ramify throughout every sector of
the economy. The budget itself is a positive
step in a five-year programme aimed at main-
taining our current high rate of economic
growth— a rate of growth capable of produc-
ing more jobs and higher living standards for
our increasing work force.
There are numerous immediate benefits—
an unprecedented expansion and moderniza-
tion of our educational system; improvements
in health and welfare; a bold, new housing
plan; increased municipal assistance; a record-
breaking highways and municipal roads ex-
penditure; measures to promote a vibrant
northern Ontario; an expansion of the
Ontario Provincial Police and parole, proba-
tion and rehabilitation services; measures to
extend and improve recreational facilities and
the physical fitness of our people— all of
which will increase employment and add to
the strength of the Ontario economy.
This budget also lays the foundation for
future growth— new research, the creation of
public capital, new access roads and measures
to stimulate natural resources and manufac-
turing, construction of a spur line to tap a
new iron ore deposit, development of a new
communications system in northern Ontario,
the establishment of the economic council,
and an examination into measures to promote
greater processing, increased Canadian con-
tent in domestic manufactures and expanding
exports.
Attention is also to be given to measures
to maintain our international competitive
position. Our growth, and indeed our eco-
nomic survival, depends upon keeping our
costs in international equilibrium. While this
budget provides for an expansion of private
and public capital expenditures, we cannot
hope that this policy will by itself achieve
an acceptable rate of growth without meas-
ures being adopted to maintain our manufac-
turing industries on a competitive footing.
We cannot lift the economy to an acceptable
rate of growth through public spending alone.
We must create an economic climate and
environment that will enable private enter-
prise to expand vigorously and our industrial
economy to advance from strength to strength.
If we do this, we will have no difficulty in
raising standards of human betterment
through an extension of social welfare
services.
Our record demonstrates that we have not
been content to stand still. We have moved
forward vigorously and dynamically in ac-
cordance with the wishes and needs of the
people. We have been a pioneer in many
fields of economic and social betterment.
Despite a record-breaking expenditure,
there will be no tax increases. On the con-
trary, we are providing a measure of tax
relief by a broadening of exemptions through
the sales tax and certain other reductions to
the hospitals tax. Nevertheless, we have to
face up to the fact that the expansion in our
services has been making increasing demands
upon the province's financial resources, and
we have to take this fact into consideration.
We have provided good administration and
sound financing. We intend to keep it that
700
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
way. As an integral part of our five-year plan
we shall endeavour to equate expenditures
and revenues supported by a prudent use of
our credit. We shall provide the fullest
possible value for every dollar we spend.
By careful planning and single-minded
devotion to our goals and objectives, and with
the co-operation of tlie government of
Canada, I am confident that Ontario can
move steadily ahead. While the future will
give rise to new problems and formidable
challenges, it will also provide rewarding
opportunities for those who accept its dis-
cipline and adapt themselves to it.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce) moves the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask permission of the
House to revert to before orders of the day.
Mr. H. J. Price (St. David): Mr. Speaker,
thank you very much for the opportunity pro-
vided me to remind the hon. members of the
House that this is St. David's Day. This is the
day set aside by the Welsh people to do hon-
our to their patron saint, St. David. As my
riding bears that cherished name I take this
opportunity in the House each year, as do
other members, representing a riding named
for a saint, to do honour to the patron saint
for whom their riding is named.
It might be interesting for the hon.
members to know that the first mayor of
Toronto was elected in 1834 in what was
then called St. David ward. It was not until
some years later, when the wards were
numbered, that the riding was called after
the saint.
This is the second occasion since I have
been a member, in the last 7 years, that the
budget in this House has been brought down
on St. David's Day.
Native-born Welshmen are no strangers as
members of this House. Altliough I cannot
lay claim to be a native-born Welshman, I
do claim to be of Welsh descent. As far as I
can ascertain I am the only member of the
Legislature for the riding of St. David bearing
a Welsh name since 1797. The contribution
of Welshmen to Canada and Canadian history,
such as that of David Thompson, is certainly
well known. They have left their mark, not
only in Canada but in countries which they
have occupied and lived in throughout the
Commonwealth.
I want to take this opportunity of thanking
Miss Potten, of the Speaker's office, and the
hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Lewis)
for presenting me with this daftodil, the Welsh
national emblem.
On behalf of the hon. members of the
House I am pleased to extend our very best
wishes to the people of Wales on this St.
David's Day.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
when I arrived in the Legislature this morn-
ing you can imagine my embarrassment
when I realized that I did not possess the
national emblem of Wales. In fact, this morn-
ing when I left home I intended to put it in
the lapel of my coat; the emblem of course,
is the leek. I want to join the hon. member
for St. David (Mr. Price) in thanking Miss
Potten, your secretary, sir, and also the hon.
member for York Humber (Mr. Lewis) for
helping me out of this predicament.
I have in the lapel of my coat this very
beautiful flower. I regret very much, sir,
that I am not wearing the leek; the leek of
course, to native-born Welsh people— and I
claim to be one— is the national emblem of
Wales. This flower is very beautiful, and
while the leek may not be so beautiful, it has
a very great nutrition value, as any hon.
member who has tasted a bowl of leek broth
will know. To the Welshman, the leek is as
the haggis is to the Scotsman. It is our
national dish.
It is a great pleasure for me to join the
hon. member in paying my tribute to the
Welsh people in Ontario and throughout
Canada. This St. David's Day, to Welsh-
men and Welshwomen throughout the world,
is very sincerely observed by the singing of
the hymns and songs of Wales. I would say,
Mr. Speaker, that it is a very, very great thrill
to listen to these old hymns and songs sung
by Welsh people. I do not think one could
expect a greater treat than that.
Wales is a very small country, with a
population of just over two million people.
The Welsh people, not only in Wales but
throughout the world, have made a great
contribution to our democratic way of life.
History records that no nation in the British
Commonwealth sufi^ered so greatly during the
industrial revolution as the Welsh people.
The Welsh are a very religious people, par-
ticularly those in the southern part of Wales.
Working in the mines, in a very hazardous
occupation, not knowing when they went into
the mines whetlier they would come out alive
the following evening, developed in them that
religious aspect which is so greatly developed
there.
I
MARCH 1, 1962
701
The Welsh nation has been truly progres-
sive in helping to further some of the social
reforms that we enjoy today. It was in 1885,
Mr. Speaker, when the first Labour member
was elected to the British House of Commons,
from the little country of Wales. And in 1900
the British Labour Party began, when elected
to the British House of Commons was the
great Keir Hardie.
Since that time they have progressed.
The little country, with a population just
over two million, is represented in the British
House of Commons by 36 members. In that
membership there are 28 Labour members.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say they are a very,
very fine progressive people, and I am very
happy today to pay my tribute to the Welsh
people in our communities.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE BEES ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Labour)
in the absence of hon. W. A. Stewart (Minis-
ter of Agriculture), moves second reading of
Bill No. Y4, An Act to amend The Bees Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CO-OPERATIVE LOANS ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender, in the absence of
hon. Mr. Stewart, moves second reading of
Bill No. 75, An Act to amend The Co-
operative Loans Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender, in the absence of
hon. Mr. Stewart, moves second reading of
Bill No. 76, An Act to amend The Horticul-
tural Societies Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES
COMMISSION ACT
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
AflFairs) moves second reading of Bill No. 77,
An Act to amend The Ontario Water Re-
sources Commission Act.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have a copy of Bill No. 77.
Bill No. 77 held.
VILLAGE OF ERIE BEACH
Mr. R. C. Edwards, in the absence of Mr.
J. P. Spence (Kent East), moves second read-
ing of Bill No. Pr2, An Act respecting The
Village of Erie Beach.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWN OF HEARST
Mr, R. Bnmelle (Cochrane North) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr5, An Act
respecting The Town of Hearst.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY
Mr. H. E. Beckett (York East) moves second
reading of Bill No. Prl2, An Act respecting
Ontario Co-operative Credit Society.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWN OF OAKVILLE
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park), in the
absence of Mr. S. L. Hall (Halton), moves
second reading of Bill No. Prl6, An Act
respecting The Town of Oakville.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF WINDSOR
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont), in the absence
of Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North), moves
second reading of Bill No. Prl9, An Act
respecting The City of Windsor.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
OTTAWA SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
Mr. Cowling, in the absence of Mr. J.
Morin (Ottawa East), moves second reading of
Bill No. Pr21, An Act respecting The City of
Ottawa Separate School Board.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
ONTARIO REGISTERED MUSIC
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
Mr, Cowling, in the absence of Mr. Morin,
moves second reading of Bill No. Pr24, An
Act respecting The Ontario Registered Music
Teachers Association.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
702
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House in committee of the whole; Mr. K.
Brown in the chair.
THE ONTARIO CODE OF HUMAN
RIGHTS
House in committee on Bill No. 54, An
Act to establish the Ontario Code of Human
Rights and to provide for its administration.
On section 4.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr. Chair-
man, when the debate adjourned last, I rose
to speak on this section. I think the amend-
ment suggested by my hon. colleague to
include the word "age" in section 4 is a most
important one. And I noted carefully the
remarks of the hon. member for Woodbine
(Mr. Bryden), I think it was, who pointed
out that several private members' bills had
been introduced suggesting this, including
the bill by the hon. Minister from St. Andrew
(Mr. Grossman). It is rather surprising the
hon. Minister from St. Andrew did not see fit
to speak in this vein during this debate and,
in fact, is not here now.
This brings to mind, Mr. Chairman, some
remarks— oh, here is the hon. Minister now-
some remarks that lie made in debate last
year on March 15, 1961, and I thought the
memory of tlie House might be refreshed in
connection with this. The hon. Minister rose
and said, addressing the Chairman:
Before you proceed with that, I think
I would like in the records— because I
know some issue is going to be attempted
to be made by others on tliis bill— that the
hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Singer)
was present in this Legislature and did
not think this was important enough to get
into liis seat and \'otc.
Now, it is rather interesting, Mr. Chairman,
that a year ago while I was in the House
and speaking to one of the Ministers of the
Crown, the hon. Minister from St. Andrew
saw fit to address those remarks. Yet, when
this bill was given second reading in tlie
House a short time ago the hon. Minister was
not in his seat and when the bill began to be
debated in committee the hon. Minister was
not in his seat. He is in his seat this after-
noon.
In addition to that, Mr, Speaker, I wonder
if someone on the government side could
indicate to us whether after the passage of
section 4, and the rest of this bill, there will
be tlie right given to government officials to
discriminate against people because of the
colour of their hair? It seems that a certain
incident took place in a government-controlled
institution, where one individual was sus-
pended and two others were fired arising
out of an incident connected with what seems
to be a matter of freedom— a matter which
should be covered by the code of human
rights; that is, whether or not a man can
decide what colour his hair should be.
With those remarks, Mr, Chairman, I would
urge the House to support this amendment
moved by my hon. colleague,
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Mr.
Chairman, in support of this amendment I
would like to point out that discrimination
today is showing up more in age than it is
in anything else.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Davison: Over the years we have had
the problems of race, colour and creed, but
the average person in Canada today does not
look upon that as discrimination. That prob-
lem is not evident. We have the tremendous
problem of age, I think that older working
people today only want one opportunity and
that opportunity is to have the same right
of a job as a younger person. It is a shame
that this government cannot see fit at this
time to include the word "age" in this bill.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, I think that everyone in the
House is in complete agreement with the
idea that discrimination in employment on
the grounds of age is a problem which af-
fects our society today, and a problem with
which we will imdoubtedly have to deal.
I do not think there is any doubt about
that in anyone's mind. We also can recog-
nize in our society today a certain emphasis
upon youth, which, in certain aspects at
least, might be referred to as a fad, and if
carried too far it can become something
which is unjust and perhaps unreasonable.
The other emphasis, of course, is on the
very large problem of age and the denial
of employment to any person purely because
of age. The real problem that faces us in
our society is the resultant waste of talent
and manpower which, in our society, I sug-
gest, we cannot afford. Then, of course,
there is the other very important effect
which the practice of denying a man em-
ployment because of age has on the indi-
vidual in terms of personal frustration ^nd
mental distress— a feeling of insecurity and
liardship— and all these matters are related
to the question of age.
I think that everyone in the House is in
sympathy with these points but there are
three basic factors invoKed in dealing with
MARCH 1, 1962
703
the problem of age in regard to the secur-
ing of employment. These three problems,
which I will point out, are all interrelated
and yet I would say that each one of them
will have to be solved before we will have
any overall solution.
The first of these is, as I have mentioned,
the question of pure fad. That is where for
no logical reason at all, it is assumed that
a younger person might do a better job.
The second factor involved in this is the
question of economic change and the skills
and qualifications of individuals which are
affected by such change.
The development of automation, for ex-
ample, has been mentioned in this House
very often. People are now frequently
pushed out of jobs which they have held
for many years, out of jobs in which they
ha\'e developed certain, special, specific
skills, and they are forced to find new em-
ployment. I think we have all met this
problem. I know I have met it with indi-
viduals in my own riding in London and it
is a very large problem for the individual
concerned.
Now, we are taking steps — and these
matters will be debated more fully when
our programme is placed before the House in
due course— but we are taking steps to pro-
vide training and retraining for people who
find themselves in this position, so that they
may meet the new challenges with which
they are presented.
This is part of the problem of age be-
cause very often the change as the result
of automation happens to people in the
middle years of their lives, people who have
established positions for themselves in the
community, have acquired assets, such as
houses and so on. They have developed a
pattern of living, of educating their chil-
dren, and the problems they face are very
great.
The third factor which I would describe
as bearing on the question of age and em-
ployment is the development of pension
plans for employees. This is a very large
problem, a very practical problem, and one
of great importance because the development
of pension plans in our society has had a very
great effect. It has been of very great benefit
to our people in providing them with security
in the latter years of their lives, in permitting
them to save and create an estate during their
working years to look after the latter years
of their lives.
The development of the pension plan is
one of the great social benefits of the first
part of the twentieth century, I would say,
but it has had some very potent and undesir-
able side eff^ects. One of these, and we all
know this, is that it has tended to make our
worker much less mobile even though all
factors in our society apart from tliis lead to
greater mobility of labour. It has also led
to the side effect of excluding the older
worker from employment because he did
not fit into the pension plan in the particular
industry or plant in which he was attempting
to find work.
It is obvious that pension plans must have
eligibility if they are to be operated on a
sound and firm business basis. We have
faced this limitation in the public service of
the province and our limit for entry into the
pension plan for our provincial employees is
age 55, which I believe is much higher than
any other plan that I know. But we do
employ people over 55 and we have made
special arrangements for them. If you are
over 55 and enter the public service you
enter it on a different basis.
In view of the problems I have sketched
out here and in the light of these circum-
stances which I have drawn to your attention,
the government did establish a technical
committee to recommend ways and means
of achieving portability of pensions between
employers in the province. The purpose of
this committee was to engender interest in
the problem, to create enough interest to
produce research, to bring the whole prob-
lem into focus and to have it examined by
those who would be most affected by any
attempt to create portability in pensions. I
think in this the committee has been success-
ful.
Hon. members have all received a report
of the committee. They have received the
draft bill which the committee has. prepared
and I am sure they have read the news
report of the varying and conflicting opinions
that have been advanced in connection with
portability of pensions and the portability
problem. Later on in this session we will be
dealing with this question of portability
again, because I would hope that there will
be another report from that committee which
can be brought in here to be examined by the
House. The matter is far from settled and
there are many-
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Is the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) bringing in a
bill?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Wait and see.
Mr. Bryden: I have been waiting for two
years and I have not seen anything yet.
704
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, I was
just explaining to the hon. members of
tlie House the purpose of the course that
we are taking on this. We are not in a
lX)sition as yet, and I doubt if we will be in
a position this year, to solidify this situation.
The study that is necessary to deal properly
with a matter as important as this is con-
tinuing and, as I say, the matter will be
brought before the House again.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Too
much fluidity in the government!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: In any event, as to the
amendment that is presently before the House
in relation to this bill, I am in sympathy with
the objective of the amendment but I am
firmly of the opinion that it will not do what
the sponsor of the amendment thinks it will
do. I would point out if we examine the
amendment it is very wide— if I may put it
this way-wide of the mark that the hon.
mover may be thinking of. If we take a look
at what this amendment really means, then
this will further illustrate the position I take,
and that is that we must, of absolute neces-
sity, examine all sides of this problem before
we place ourselves in the straitjacket of a
statutory enactment.
I would point out to the hon. members that
this amendment may create a completely
impossible administrative situation because it
does not prohibit the type of discrimination
which should be prohibited, which is in fact
the denial of employment to a person on the
basis that he is too old. I think tliat is the
objective of the hon. mover, let us say that is
the philosophy behind his amendment.
But this is not what the amendment would
achieve, because it might and could be inter-
preted that a young man of 17 years of age
who felt he had qualifications but not suffi-
cient experience for a job would be justified,
with this amendment, in claiming that he had
been denied a job Ijccause he was too young.
Now, I do not know whether this is what the
hon. mover of the amendment intended, but I
think that there is a definite possibility that
this interpretation could be put on it.
We are really thinking in tenns of the
worker in the over 40 and 45 age group and
this amendment is too broad; it would affect
many people other than the group which I
think the hon. member is attempting to assist.
In addition to that, it is so broad that it
would prevent any employer placing a limit
upon any particular type of job because of
age. Let us take the situation of a pilot of
a commercial air line. It would be impossible
—if we are going to have to discriminate
because of age in terms as broad as this and
in terms as broad as this amendment— it
would be impossible to say we will not hire
an air pilot-
Mr. Bryden: Nonsense!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It is not nonsense at all.
I would point out to the hon. member that
I do not know how much research he has
done before making this amendment. I am
not quarreling with what he is attempting
to achieve. I simply state that the amend-
ment that he has produced is administratively
unworkable and I think that anybody who is
thinking about the matter at all will agree
with me.
The hon. member will find other jurisdic-
tions which have attempted to deal with this
problem, protecting the right of the older
workers to obtain employment, have had to
draw many exemptions to the broad principle
in order to be practical and in order to have
a statute and an Act which is administratively
possible to administer.
Therefore, I would say that we would be
very unwise to accept this amendment as it
stands because it is defective and it is in-
effective. We should not nish into it and
deal with a subject as great as this subject
is with an amendment such as this amend-
ment is.
I would point out also that age is not
directly related to the particular human rights
that are being dealt with in this bill. My
point is simply that this bill is not the place
for a provision by which we would attempt
to protect the right to work of the older
worker. Tliis is not the proper place. This
bill is not dealing with matters of that kind.
My own personal opinion is that this matter
of age will have to be dealt with separately,
it will have eventually to be the subject of a
separate statute, it will have to be given a
great deal of research before a proper
approach to the problem can be brought in
here and translated into statute.
Mr. Chairman, in speaking against this
amendment I point out that, as I said before,
I do not think any of us are too far apart
on our sympathy for the basic problem.
But this amendment will not achieve what
the hon. mover thinks it will.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, I support the amendment as sug-
gested in subsection 1 of section 4, and feel
that it is justified in that section, I feel it is
also justified in subsection 3 of section 4.
Certainly if someone applies for a job and
the employer does not want him for one of
MARCH 1, 1962
705
several reasons he can find a reason. Why
I suggest it will serve a practical purpose in
subsection 3 of section 4 is that we find many
newspaper advertisements for employment
stating that one may only apply if he is be-
tween the ages of, say, 25 and 35. Right away
the person looking for employment is deterred
from making application or presenting himself
by this deterrent in the newspaper advertise-
ment. I am sure if there was a bar to this
type of advertisement many a person over the
age of 35 who could have the opportunity of
presenting himself to a prospective employer,
could convince him that he could do the job.
But with this deterrent in tliere, many people
do not bother to apply for a job.
As I said before, if we had the word "age"
in subsection 3 of section 4, and the person
who applied was of an age that the employer
felt was too old for his employment and if
it was because of pension programmes or
such, he could find other reasons and will
find other reasons not to give him the job.
I am sure that the only qualification for
employment at any time of any kind will be
the educational and physical requirements.
As it is now, with advertisements invariably
carrying an age limit, people who are
physically fit, and have all of the qualifications
necessary, just do not apply for those jobs,
and they suffer the effect of losing their
dignity and the fact that they are taken off
the labour market. I support the amendment.
Mr. R. C. Edwards ( Wentworth ) : Mr.
Chairman, I should like to speak in support
of tiie amendment.
I was very interested in listening to the
remarks of the hon. Prime Minister ( Mr.
Robarts) with respect to diis problem. While
I am willing to admit that some of the points
that he made might have some little validity,
I think the reasons for voting against this
amendment, as stated by him, are not suffi-
cient to influence the hon. members of this
Legislature to vote against the principle. The
matter of philosophy was mentioned and it
seems to me that this—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We have already voted
for the principle, we are in committee now.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, tliis is my
opinion, Mr. Chairman. The bill in itself is
philosophical in content and I think this is
a case where we can show our intent and
take some positive steps to actually do some-
thing about this matter of discrimination be-
cause of age. The matter of the portable pen-
sions was brought forward and I agree with
the hon. Prime Minister that perhaps the pen-
sion plans, more than any other single factor.
are having a serious effect on the employment
of people in the older age brackets. I think
this is particularly significant in instances
where because of the method of funding or
financing in a pension plan it is necessary for
employers to contribute substantially more
to pension funds in the case of older workers
than they would do in the instance where the
worker was much younger.
I was somewhat disappointed in what I
believe was the suggestion by the hon. Prime
Minister that this bill might not be discussed
in this present sitting. I think that if it is
not to be brought forward, that this more than
anything else—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I did not say that.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I did not suggest that
the hon. Prime Minister did, I suggested that
I took from his comment that he did make
at least some inference that it might not be
brought forward at this time.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not know what I
said, but what I meant to say, in any event,
was that I hoped there would be a further
report from the committee that is studying
portable pensions, and when it comes it will
be brought into this House and we will pro-
vide a vehicle for debate on it, the question
of portable pensions.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I sub-
mit that this committee did report once
already and they were asked by the former
hon. Prime Minister of this province (Mr.
Frost) to bring forward a draft plan which has
been submitted and which I think should be
given to this Legislature for debate. I think
the absence of this particular bill is only
delaying the lime when we can say to the
people of this province that it shall not be
that they will be denied these opportunities
because of age. I think that until such time
as this pension bill does become law in the
province of Ontario we can look forward to
this discrimination no matter how we phi-
losophize in the type of Act that we are con-
sidering today.
1 cannot see that any harm would be done
by supporting this amendment which would
make it unlawful to discriminate because of
age. I think some of the instances which the
hon. Prime Minister has given could take
place, but I believe that the Act is broad
enough that where it was a matter of health,
or endangering the lives of others— as would
be in the case of the airline pilot not being
given a job as pilot after he reached a certain
age— I think in cases like that, the Act is broad
enough to indicate that this would not be a
706
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
case of discrimination because of age. I
think to pick these isolated cases out and
use them as a reason for not accepting this
principle is really distorting the whole issue.
I do not think that the arguments which
ha\'e been put forward, with all respect to the
hon. Prime Minister, are sufficient for the
hon. members to consider not supporting the
amendment as proposed by my hon. col-
league, and I certainly would support it.
I do not think it can do any harm; I think
it would indicate to everybody that we really
are trying to declare war on this matter of
discrimination. We must remember that dis-
crimination really is the result of prejudice
and it has been said in this Legislature many
times that we cannot legislate against these
things; yet we are endeavouring to legislate
against discrimination by this Act and I think,
since we are going to endeavour to legislate
against these prejudices, that it is desirable
to put in the matter of age along with the
other things we are trying to correct.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chair-
man, it never ceases to strike me, sir, that
great and serious and terrible are the burdens
imposed upon the hon. Prime Minister of
this province (Mr. Robarts) when he is called
upon in his function as chief of the party
to stand in this Legislature and give explana-
tion and make apology for serious deficiency
in government policy and responsibility in
the carrying out of their duties.
Before Christmas, sir— if I may go a bit
afield and point to the fact that he had to
reply to my leader's reference to the sales tax
—he had at that time to make an explanation
which was later presented to the voters of
the province when they had the opportunity
to weigh sides to judge the merits in the little
general election, and his position at that time
was rejected.
Today, sir, he has to resort to the spurious,
and the specious, and I do not think the
"fatuous" is too unkind a word to use, when
he says that in accepting the amendment of
the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter)
we would discriminate against all sorts of
people by the inclusion of this word "age";
and we would, in fact, mitigate against the
very purpose which he sought to achieve.
I point out to him, sir, that by the
inclusion of the word "age" it does not mean
that the words "experience", "qualification",
"aptitude" or "competence" are thereby
excluded from the normal economic operation
of the selection of persons suitable to carry
out any given line of employment. If you
discriminated against a person at the age of
17 in that he could not be an airline pilot, if
it was said that he was being discriminated
against on account of his age or due to his
age, the reply is perfectly natural that of
course he is not being discriminated against
because he has not the experience, and he has
not the qualifications, he has not the aptitude,
and any number of human prerequisites that
are necessary.
And I merely set those out to show the
spurious and specious nature of the observa-
tions which he made in asking the House
not to accept the amendment offered by the
hon. member for Parkdale.
But let me go back a little bit further. The
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Warrender),
who is responsible for this bill, the other day
made his contribution to this debate and this
proffered amendment. And he said, sir— the
type of speciousness, and the type of spurious-
ness that he asked us to accept was that this
bill is directed toward the discrimination of
the type of nationality and creed and ancestry,
and that type of indicia and characteristic
that one so frequently encounters and does
not encompass within its four corners, dis-
crimination on economic balance, or for
economic reasons, or within the purview of
the economic operation of the country. And
yet the very preamble, sir, the very preamble
—if he would like to look at it— refers to the
universal declaration of human rights as pro-
claimed b>' the United Nations; and if my
memory is correct, one of the fundamental
rights that is contained in that universal de-
claration is freedom from economic want-
freedom from economic want.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mention age?
Mr. Sopha: The security that a person has
from the regaining of a living and providing
for those for whom he is responsible in the
provision of worldly goods. He overlooked
that. He just stands upon that type of
speciousness in order to throw sand in their
eyes, and deter us from our purpose.
I say to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts), and I say it in all seriousness, that
we probably do not believe that this is the
best way to do it. We probably do not be-
lieve that, but we do believe that this is the
best opportvmity, and the best method of
bringing before this House at this time— and
probably the only time that we will get— what
is a very grave problem, a very grave prob-
lem.
My hon. friend from St. Andrew (Mr.
Grossman) referred to the fact that my office
MARCH 1, 1962
707
is next to one of his stores in Sudbury— well,
it is on the ground level, it is on the same
level. Maybe, some day, when things become
uncertain around here I will spend my time in
boring a hole through, to forget the misery
of Tory times by some of his products. But,
being on the ground level, all sorts of people
come into it— come into it on government
business— and one of the most frequent visitors
I get, one of the most common types that
come in there, is the man of 40 or 45 or 50
who says to me: "Sopha, I cannot get a job,
I am turned down because I am too old.
What am I going to do? I have three or four
kids at home, I have a child at university,
and employers will not take me because they
say I am too old." Now, what are we going
to do for that person?
How do we then carry out our responsi-
bilities unless we at this time, and through
this method: my lion, friend from Parkdale
(Mr. Trotter) oflFering this amendment, call-
ing to the attention of the government and
the hon. Prime Minister and that genius
who sits on his right— he lounges on his
right— my hon. friend from Fort William
(Mr. Chappie) says. Not among the physi-
cally fit is he, because he is developing cur-
vature of the spine.
In any event, sir, to return to the serious-
ness of the matter, that is the purpose of
the inclusion of that word here.
Now, sir, could we become any more
effective than to cite that two years ago
the hon. Minister from St. Andrew (Mr.
Grossman), a man who is probably 45 years
of age himself, before he got his promotion,
before he obtained what he thinks is secur-
ity of employment at 45, offered a bill
which in its essence was the very same that
my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Trotter)
now oflFers to the House— the very same pur-
pose and object. At that time, sir, I observed
—let me keep the record absolutely accurate,
because I like accviracy— that one of the bills
that will be repealed under part 6 of this
statute is The Fair EniDloyment Practi'^es
Act, and the bill that he ofiFered to the
House and which reached second reading
in the month of April— April 7, 1960, to be
exact — was an amendment to The Fair
Employment Practices Act which was de-
signed to prevent discrimination on the
grounds of age— the grounds of age.
Is it unreasonable, is it at all perverse, is
it at all obstinate on our part to expect that
in two years after a government member—
who albeit did not reach the high Olympic
heights, at that time, that he has now; a
lowly member still scratching for votes, so
to speak— offered a bill, we would have
some indication of government policy in this
regard? We seek not to impose on em-
ployers any restriction in hiring their em-
ployees, but we seek to ensure through the
means of legislative action concerted with a
programme of education to secure a state
of affairs in the province of Ontario where
it cannot be within the law the policy of a
firm— and I say to the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) through you, sir, that there
are firms in this province that have a policy
that they will not hire people over the age
of 40 or over the age of 45, as the case may
be.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Some over
35.
Mr. Sopha: Some over 35, my hon.
friend from Oshawa (Mr. Thomas) says.
And that is fixed as their policy. Now, sir,
anyone knows, and it is trite for me to
say it and I do not have to produce evi-
dence to prove it, that a man 35, 40, 45, 50
often, most often can do a better day's work
than a much younger man can. Surely in
this Legislature there is no discrimination
on age. We go from the hon. member for
Kenora (Mr. Gibson) at 29 to the hon.
Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) who I
think is the oldest here, is he not— I do not
know whether he is the dean of the House
or not, he just seems to me to be. Well,
there is no necessity for me to burden the
House, but I wanted to underline that; and
if hon. members quarrel with that, I say
finally and in summation that we want you
to take away from employers the right to
discriminate, the privilege they have of dis-
criminating as I charge that they do dis-
criminate in this province.
Secondly, if the government, sir, does not
agree with us that this is the best method
to do it, then let us have some of their own
legislation. They have had time enough to
prepare or to decide upon their policy and
let it crystallize into some form of legislation.
Let them put it before the House and, once
and for all, put this thing at rest. We think
those are reasonable observations to make,
and, until we see something definite forth-
coming from the government benches then
I can assure the hon. Prime Minister and
those who sit with him and support him, that
we are going to support this amendment.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this
debate I would like to say a few words. It
is only because I had originally brought up
708
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this problem during this sitting of the Legis-
lature. The hon. Prime Minister has men-
tioned the fact of a pension plan. Well, that
may be all right, but the individual that is
being discriminated against here because of
age is not necessarily interested in the pension
plan. He can purchase his own pension plan
if he wishes. But he certainly does not feel
any too well when, in applying for employ-
ment and particularly with a department of
the government here, he is told that at 45
he is too old. Now, put yourself in his posi-
tion, being told that at 4.5 years of age you
are no longer wanted. Why, if such a rule of
thumb were applied in this Legislature there
v.'onld not bo many of us here.
Another point to show that age is of vital
importance is The Apprenticeship Act. It
has the limitation of 21 years of age and we
have just recently foimd the hardship tliat it
lias rrnderod to tlie large masses of unem-
ployed who are interested in retraining right
here in the city of Toronto.
Mr. Chairman, it certainly is or should be
the policy of this government to see that
application forms from tiieir own departments
contain no reference to age, because here I
have one from a man stating that he was
told that his ser\iccs would not be required
solely because lie hapj-ens to Ix? of an age
that, in their eyes, was a little too old to l)c
iiblc to participate in a pension plan. No
consideration was given to the fellow as to
whether he was qualified for the job or not,
as to whether he was physically capable of
doing the job but solely that he was over 45.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chair-
man, 1 think that this amendment is a very
reasonable one. I am rather sur|">rised at the
attitude of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts). I think the argument this afternoon
just shows up the demanding restrictive prac-
tices of industry today. Not only in the matter
of age, for some of the major industries
in Ontario today demand that a man be a
certain height, not less than 5 foot 7, and
that he weigh not less than 150 pounds.
Some two years ago, this was brought to
the attention of the federal Minister of
Labour (Mr. Starr) who is the member for
my constituency in the riding of Ontario, and
he promised to do something about it. Now
I presume he brought it to the attention of
the federal government but, in the way of
legislation, nothing came out of it. But he
did send a letter to the different manufac-
turers in Canada, asking them if they would
consider, and that is about as far as he got.
I do not doubt for one moment, Mr. Chair-
man, that a number of those letters were
thrown into the wastepaper basket for tlie
simple reason that the practice is going on
today.
If a man is refused employment because
of his age, he then has to apply for unem-
ployment insurance. The Unemployment
Insurance Fund is contributed one-third by
the government, one-third by the worker and
one-third by the employer. Therefore, the
go\ernment of Canada and the worker ctm-
tribule roughly about two-thirds of the Un-
employment Insurance Fund and becau.se this
man cannot find a job, he applied for unem-
ployment insurance benefit and therefore is
a drain on that fund.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if the federal
government has not got the intestinal fortitude
and courage to intrcxluce legislation to restrict
these practices of discrimination on the part
of age, then I think it is up to tliis govern-
ment to show some leadership and I hope
\()u will support the amendment.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, and I con-
cede to you that this topic has been coveretl
rather thoroughly, but I must say that the
statement of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Hobarts) this afternoon was so astounding
that I think it requires a bit more considera-
ticm. It was astounding not only in terms of
its contents but even more important in terms
of its indication of what the government's in-
tentions, strategy, or lack thereof, happen to
lie.
His statement fell into two parts.
First, the hon. Prime Minitser gave us
still another exposition as to the nature of
this problem. Well, Mr. Chairman, I submit
to you we have had this problem .spelled out
to the House both within this Legislature
and across this province and this land for too
long already without governments coming to
grips with it. And particularly when the hon.
Prime Minister this time resorts to .such feeble
excuses as the referenc^e to the air line pilot
as a reason why we should not move towards
some statutory enactment.
Clearly he is not ju.st expounding on the
problem but he is confusing it and making
excuses.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Oh, non.sense. It is
administratively impossible to do what the
hon. member is asking.
Mr. MacDonald: It is not administrati\'ely
impossible. That may be all the hon. Prime
Minister can .say but this does not end the
problem, nor come to grips with it.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, now
that we have gotten to the stage where tlie
MARCH 1, 1962
709
likelihood of portable pensions in the fore-
seeable future, and retraining, and things of
this nature, relieves at least some of the bur-
den of unemployed at those age levels, it
seems to me it is even more a practical
proposition that we can put a law in, that
we can catch those who are discriminat-
ing strictly on the basis of age. In other
words, we have reduced the proportion of
our problem.
If the government were arguing that this
was too big a problem, and the law would
be in effect a law that could not be put into
effect— and all law comes into disrepute if
we put it on the books and cannot really
enforce it— then there might be some meas-
ure of validity in their stand. But they are
not arguing that, and I do not think they
argue that because I think we have reached
the stage now where it is time, as we did
with other kinds of anti-discrimination legis-
lation, to put it on the books and say, this
is going to come to an end.
However, Mr. Chairman, I come to the
second aspect of the hon. Prime Minister's
argument. Having spelled out the problem,
he then proceeds to pick holes in the par-
ticular amendment that has been put before
the House.
Mr. Chairman, for purposes of argument
let us concede for a moment that some of
his case was valid, that this was not the
best kind of an amendment. If the govern-
ment were going to do something about it
then we would harken for one moment to
this kind of argument; but obviously the
government is not going to do anything
about it, notwithstanding the fact that two
or three years ago when we had that black
Friday out at A. V. Roe the men who were
turned out, and were seeking work immedi-
ately, found that they were being discrimin-
ated against because of age. It got into the
newspapers and was reported in the House
here, and the hon. member for Victoria
(Mr. Frost), as the Prime Minister of the
day, was most indignant at employers who
did this. So at that particular time I said:
"Well, if you are indignant, if you think it
is wrong, why do you not put it in the Act?"
"Oh, well, we have too much law already,"
said he.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this duplicity of
approach to a problem— spelling it out on
the one hand and refusing to act— I think is
the kind of thing we have had far too much
of. As for the hon. Minister from St. Andrew
(Mr. Grossman) who introduced the matter
in the House a couple of years ago and pre-
sumably was absent from the Cabinet when
the matter was raised, or alternatively got
voted down in the Cabinet, it will be inter-
esting to see what he says or how he votes
when he has an opportunity on this thing.
But, finally, the thing that impressed me
was that having made all this line-up of
excuses, the hon. Prime Minister ends up
by painting a horrific picture. If you move
to come to grips with this— what was his
term— through a "straitjacket of statutory
enactment." We are supposed to tremble
with fear at the thought that we were going
to be restricted further— another strait-
jacket. It almost sounded like a line out of
the Chamber of Commerce's Operation Free-
dom, at the moment. Another straitjacket
placed on the nation.
This is nonsense. There is at the present
time in effect, and it has been for some
years, in New York State, legislation coming
to grips with this problem essentially along
the lines of the amendment before the House.
It is part of their human rights legislation.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Quite wrong.
Mr. MacDonald: It is part of their human
rights legislation.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Spell it out.
Mr. MacDonald: It is part of their legisla-
tion, and if the hon. Prime Minister does not
like the specific detail of this particular
amendment I, for one, would say fine if he
was going to be bringing in something more;
but all the excuses that he has made indicate
that he is not going to bring in anything
more. I, for one, have more confidence than
he that the draughtsmen of this government
sitting under the wings over there could pro-
duce the kind of bill that would provide us
with the legislation we wanted. We are just
back to excuses.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Let us be patient.
Mr. MacDonald: I think, Mr. Chairman, the
government should come in with their own
Act; and since it is clear that they will not,
certainly I think that the House should
express its view on the amendment which is
before it now.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): Mr.
Chairman, I assure you I intend to be very
brief on this but I want to say why I intend
opposing the amendment.
First of all I do not think anyone in this
House, or outside this House, would condone
710
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the non-employment of people or persons
solely or simply because somebody happens
to be a few years older than another person.
I think this government and the province
of Ontario has led the way as far as dis-
crimination legislation is concerned. Obviously
the subjects mentioned in this bill and which
have been on the statute books are valid
subjects for anti-discrimination legislation.
Obviously a person in employment should not
be discriminated against solely because of
race, or his creed, or his colour or his religion
or his nationality or his ancestry or his place
of origin. These things are obvious, and these
things are good, and these things are presently
on our statute books; but the problem in re-
gard to age, Mr. Chairman, obviously must
be this: that age relates, whether we like it
or not, in a great many cases, to ability. It
does and there it no getting around it, any
more than education relates to ability.
Now how in the world can we bring in
legislation saying, for instance, that one should
not discriminate solely and simply because of
one's education. The reason is obvious: one's
education relates to one's ability to do a job.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that age is in the
same category. Age relates to ability. Educa-
tion relates to ability. In my mind, it is non-
sense to attempt in this fashion, in this type
of legislation— there may be other means and
perhaps in due course we will be able to find
those other means and perhaps the govern-
ment will be able to present them to the
people and to this House— but in this type of
legislation to attempt to bring in so-called
discriminatory legislation because of a man's
age is nonsense; and I would submit that the
appeal that is being made by the hon.
members on the other side of the House in
relation to this, has got more to do with play-
ing politics and political appeal than anything
else.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have already
expressed my views on this particular amend-
mend, but I would like to make one further
comment. I have listened with great interest
to the weaseling of government spokesmen.
I think it is time we faced the fact, Mr.
Chairman, and that the government face the
fact, that it is impossible for any human
being to be on two sides of a question at
the same time. They are trying to pretend
they are for the principle of the amendment
when they are against it. I think the plain
conclusion to be drawn, Mr. Chairman, from
the debate today, and I have no doubt from
the vote when it is held, is that the Tory
party of this province is at least willing to
tolerate discrimination on account of age if
it is not positively in favour of it.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): I
would like to ask the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) and the previous government
speaker, if they will favour an amendment to
The Pension Act so that a person who is 45
years of age can apply for a pension? Will
they favour an amendment to that effect?
Mr. Lawrence: Could I ask the hon. mem-
ber (Mr. Belanger) if he would perhaps con-
sider good legislation removing compulsory
retirement at 65 in relation to some industries
—it is the same problem.
Mr. Belanger: No, no.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Chairmaji, I
want to state my views on this particular
amendment. I support it, although I am not
concerned about age personally, because I
am sure I will not have to worry about my
present job as long as I want to hold it.
That is not arrogance as the hon. member,
who interrupted, said— that is just common
sense.
I understand, though— I heard there was
an unwritten law in the Liquor Control
Board that there was a certain age limit. It
is not spelled out. I understand there is an
unwritten law in that department. But I
notice there is no problem for certain people
as long as they have a letter from a certain
member of a certain constituency. I know
one came up to my riding and he carried a
letter; and, regardless of age, he got the job.
But it says in this—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Troy: The declaration of human rights,
this very, very fine document; inscribed on it
is the symbol of the United Nations— I had
better be careful in talking of flags, it is kind
of a nasty word in this House— but it says in
article 3: "everyone has the right to life,
liberty and the security of person." I fail to
see where he is going to achieve that security
to life and liberty if he is denied the right
of a job; how is he going to get sustenance,
how is he going to live? What security of
person has he unless there is something in
the statute books that is against discrimination
because of age? We are supposed to be legis-
lating now for the people of Ontario— well, I
will not continue.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Mr.
Chairman, I would simply like to add to
this some of the words that were used in a
MARCH 1, 1962
711
previous debate when we were talking about
this aspect of age, the hon. sponsor said,
that it will not solve this problem com-
pletely, but it is a good beginning. It
is a step in the right direction. And if
nothing else, it will have great moral in-
fluence on our society. Therefore, I would
urge the hon. members and the govern-
ment to give their earnest consideration to
the support of this bill.
I wish I had had the eloquence, sir, to
speak in those words. Because of the sincer-
ity that I know that the hon. gentleman
opposite had to say those few words, I know
he will vote with us on this bill.
Hon. A. Grossman ( Minister without Port-
folio ) : Mr. Chairman, some time last year
when this question was being discussed and
I happened to be out of the House, there
was some suggestion by some hon. member
opposite that I deliberately ducked the vote.
When someone came out into the hall to tell
me that this was being said in the House,
I ran in but just missed the vote. But I
wanted to make sure today that I did not miss
the vote, and I would like to tell the hon.
members opposite that I never ducked a vote
in my life.
When I was in the city council before I
got to this august Chamber, I was known
to be the only member in city council that
never missed a vote in four years. And I
was threatened many times. Many a time
I was threatened that by taking a stand on
an issue, and voting, it would destroy me
politically. Now I succeeded in avoiding
that defeat for ten years and whether I will
again or not I do not know, but I will still
not duck a vote when I can avoid doing so.
Let me tell the hon. members, Mr. Chair-
man, that I wholeheartedly am still in favour
of the principle expounded by this amend-
ment, wholeheartedly in favour of it. But
mind you, the next time any of the hon.
members opposite want to present their case,
they should come to see me first; I could
present a better case than they. They pre-
sented a very poor case for it. And this is
what I am afraid of in the way this is being
presented.
They are just muddying the waters, Mr.
Chairman. They are just muddying the
waters, and not helping the situation at all.
There is no doubt—
An hon. member: What specious talk.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Everything said on
this side is specious, of course, and every-
thing said on that side is intelligent and
we know it; we know it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
agree that there are some employers who act
outrageously and are heartless in respect of
employing people of certain ages. On the
other hand, and this was brought out quite
forcibly in the discussion on my bill and
the bill of the hon. member for Hamilton
East (Mr. Davison) I think it was; or perhaps
it was the hon. member for Wentworth East
(Mr. Gisborn) who brought in a bill at the
same time, two years ago. It was brought out
quite forcibly then that there were many
employers who could not be blamed for
taking this action because they were doing
it in self-defence in competition with other
employers— in respect to the fact that they
had to consider pension plans, and the efiEect
that age had on their pension plans, and so
on.
I have no doubt that something must be
done about this and I will continue to apply
myself to that problem as long as I am able
to speak for it. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Chairman, the Liberals have changed their
views somewhat in this because now they are
in a position of having tried to steal some-
thing from a Progressive-Conservative mem-
ber and from a member of the N.D.P.
both of whom brought in bills for this
originally. And I am sure their interest at
this time stems from the fact that they saw
that there was some interest in this problem
on the part of the public after it was raised
by the hon. member from the small group
over there and by myself.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) himself has just pointed out how
difficult a problem this is because he just
made a statement which in effect was dis-
criminatory in respect of age. He said that
he is in favour of compulsory retirement at
65. Now, that is discrimination if there ever
was. There are many people at 65 who are
more active and able than many people much
younger, and as a matter of fact, at the time
I presented my bill I pointed out that many
people, due to early retirement, forced early
retirement, had actually been killed by this
retirement long before they might normally
have passed away; because they were very
active and mentally alert at 65 and would
have been better carrying on.
Now, it was obvious at the time I presented
my bill, Mr. Chairman, that the House was
not ready for this particular bill—
712
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bryden: That was three years ago.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was two years
ago— it was two years ago, and at that time I
stated that my bill was being presented at
least to bring the problem to the fore. At
that time I had a voluminous file on this
subject and it was quite apparent-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would suggest to
the hon. leader of the Opposition he had
better not laugh because I am going to quote
him in a minute. It was quite obvious at that
time that the big problem was to bring it to
tlie attention of all concerned that a problem
existed and something should be done about
it.
At that time, Mr. Chairman, at page 2521
from the same copy of Hansard, the hon.
Prime Minister at that time stated:
Mr. Speaker, I am going to call the 21st
order which stands in the name of the hon.
member for St. Andrew (Mr. Grossman).
Now that bill is almost identical— as a
matter of fact the principle is the same— as
order No. 22, standing in the name of the
lion, member for Hamilton East (Mr.
Davison).
1 am going to call the first order, but
both the hon. members might speak to the
principle of the matter, after which I pro-
pose to call resolution No. 1 of the public
notices of motion which, I think, is really
inseparable from that problem. So, sir, I
will call order No. 21.
Order No. 21 was the resolution presented
by the hon. leader of the Opposition at that
time having to do with portable pensions.
The resolution was:
That the government make available
facilities for the development of a province-
wide scheme of portable pensions for all
workers.
And the hon. leader of the Opposition, in
rising to speak to that, stated:
Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this
particular discussion I must say, at the
outset, that I agree with the observations of
tlie hon. Prime Minister.
That is the observation that these were in-
separable from the problems of pensions at
that time.
Further on, Mr. Chairman, the hon. leader
of the Opposition stated:
Now, herein comes the problem that the
lion, member for St. Andrew has outlined.
a real social problem. One of the diflBculties
today is that an employer hesitates to
employ a man over 40 because of the sub-
stantial contribution that he is going to have
to make to that man's pension plan, a con-
tribution that will cost him more dollars
than it would to employ a younger man for
whom he woidd pay a lesser sum of money.
That is one problem I would outline to hon.
members.
Further, Mr. Chairman, the hon. leader of
the Opposition, at page 2530, stated as
follows:
I think the hon. member for St. Andrew
is right.
Now I am not going to mi.slead the House;
tliis was on the other matter of pensions, we
were discussing pensions at the time, but he
went on to say:
Not only do I think he is right, but I
mu.st say that, from the very beginning, I
have felt that the question of vesting is the
big (juestion.
That is when we discussed the vesting of
pensions. But his next paragraph, Mr. Chair-
man, his next paragraph is somewhat illustrat-
ing. He said:
Now, of course, the hon. members to the
left will say: "Well, now, why not pass our
bill?"
And he went on to explain why the hon.
leader of the Opposition was not in favour of
the bill presented by the hon. member for
Hamilton East (Mr. Davi.son). He said:
We recognize vesting to be the prob-
lem.
And he went on to point out how this was
the great problem involved. But the fact re-
mains, Mr. Chairman, that he was pointing out
that there was a good rea.son why he was not
in favour of the bill that was presented at that
tim<'.
I'^urther on the hon. member for Dover-
court (Mr. Tliomp.son) stated:
What I am sa>ing, sir, is that with this
bill— and 1 agree wholeheartedly and com-
mend the government and the hon. mem-
ber for St. Andrew for having brought this
bill No. 34 before us— we should not just
feel that, because we legislate that industry
must employ an older ijerson, and that
they should not discriminate on the basis
of age, that is sufficient. Tiiere is a much
deeper area, and mucli deeper thought, in
connection with the whole economy, and
I do not think that we should lo.se sight
of that.
MARCH 1, 1962
713
I
Now, Mr. Chairman, lest anyone should
feel that I am now saying that I am not in
favour of such a principle, let me repeat
again, I am. The principle is much more
complex than appears on the surface, and
there is not the slightest doubt, Mr. Chair-
man, tliat it became apparent even that first
night when we were discussing it here and
then discussed portable pensions, that this is
tied in completely with the matter of pen-
sions. And, Mr. Chairman, I think that it will
only muddy the waters at this time to confuse
this issue while there is a study being made
and which we hope will be productive of
something we are all looking forward to— a
solution to this problem.
Again I say I am wholeheartedly in favour
of the principle, but as I say, it is completely
tied in with the matter of pensions.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister is re-
peating himself.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I have heard
the hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald) repeat himself a thousand times and
it did not sound any better the last time than
it did the first.
Mr. Chairman, if, as and when we decide
that the portable pensions programme is not
adequate to meet this problem then I will be
just as strongly in favour of taking the kind
of action we are talking about today.
Mr. Chairman: The amendment is before
the hon. members. Will those opposed please
say "nay". In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
I declare the amendment lost.
On section 5:
Mr. Bryden: Section 5 is a re-enactment of
the operative section of The Female Employ-
ees Fair Remuneration Act, which will be
replaced as soon as this consolidated statute
comes into force.
Unfortunately section 5 is in identically the
same terms, as far as I was able to determine
from comparing the two, as the comparable
section of The Female Employees Fair Re-
muneration Act. I would submit to you and
to the hon. Minister, Mr. Chairman, that in
its terms it is far too restrictive. The section
reads as follows:
No employer or person acting on behalf
of an employer shall discriminate between
his male and female employees by paying
the female employee a rate of pay less than
the rate of pay paid to a male employee
employed by him for the same work done
in the same establishment.
Now that phrase, "the same work," Mr.
Chairman, made The Female Employees Fair
Remuneration Act a dead letter or close to
it. Carrying the same clause into the new
legislation will make this particular section
of the legislation a dead letter too. It is
the easiest thing in the world to evade the
purpose of the section simply by making a
slight difference in the nature of the work
performed, so that the section is then in-
operative.
As it now stands the principle of equal pay
for equal work is applicable only in the
cases of jobs that are absolutely identical.
I doubt very much if there was ever a case
where the old Female Employees Fair Re-
muneration Act ever operated because, prin-
cipally, of this narrow terminology. I would
have hoped that the hon. Minister in re-enact-
ing this legislation would have used language
that would have meant something and would
have made the principle of equal pay for
equal work— with which I think most people
now agree— would have made it operative.
I am therefore going to move an amend-
ment, Mr. Chairman, which I think will
broaden the language of the section in a
way which will make it effective and cre-
ate an opportunity for the principle to be-
come applied in practice.
Mr. Bryden moves, seconded by Mr.
Gisbom: that sub-section 1 of section 5
be amended by striking out the words
"the same work" in the last line and sub-
stituting the words "work of substantially
the same nature."
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the words I
have proposed will give meaning to this sec-
tion. It will not then be possible to differ-
entiate and discriminate to any significant
degree on the basis of very minor differ-
ences in the work performed. As long as
the work is substantially the same then the
principle of equal pay for equal work should
apply. I know it has been suggested that
the phrase "substantially the same" is not
absolutely precise, which is true, but there
are many phrases in the statutes of the prov-
ince and other provinces which are not
absolutely precise. These acquire precise
meaning as they are interpreted and applied
over the years.
It will be the function of the human
rights commission to indicate the ranges in
which it thinks the equal pay principle is
clearly applicable, and for the courts, where
necessary, to review the decisions the com-
mission makes. But to give some flexibility
of interpretation and some flexibility in ad-
ministration, as my proposed wording would
714
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
do, would give an opportunity at least to
make the principle eflFective.
As it now stands, thfs section is nothing
but a pious hope. It will not have any eflFect
whatever in establishing the principle of
equal pay any more than the Act which it
replaces has done over the past 10 years.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour—
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in
opposition to the proposed amendment which
I think is just sheer nonsense.
First of all, if we had this amendment
in as proposed we would have nothing but
chaos in industry among the workers the
length and breadth of this province.
Mr. Bryden: That is nonsense. It is the
same wording as in other legislation.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: What does the word
"substantially" mean? You would have a
run on the human rights commission, who
would be spending every hour of the day
trying to decide the definition of "substan-
tially" within the meaning of this section.
I think it is so ridiculous it calls for no more
comment.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, does this not
merely demonstrate the hon. Minister's pro-
found ignorance. Language of that kind is
used in legislation in effect, and successfully
operating, in other jurisdictions. The only
difference that my proposed amendment
would make would be that the section would
become operative whereas now it has no
force, effect or significance whatsoever—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: That is what you
think.
Mr. Bryden: —and apparently that is the
way tlie hon. Minister wants it. I defy him
to show a case where the equal-pay principle
was ever established under the legislation as
it now stands. It is nothing but a dead letter
or a piece of window dressing.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Thank you very
much for your contribution.
Mr. Chairman: Will all those in favour
of the amendment please say "aye".
Those opposed, please say "nay."
I declare the "nays" have it.
Section 5 agreed to.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, there was a
request from more than five members for a
standing vote.
Mr. Chairman: They were too late.
Mr. Bryden: We may have been too early
but we certainly were not too late.
Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.
I declare the amendment lost.
Sections 6 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 54 reported.
CERTAIN LANDS IN THE
TOWN OF GANANOQUE
House in committee on Bill No. 55, An
Act respecting certain lands in the town of
Gananoque.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 55 reported.
THE CROWN TIMBER ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 56, An
Act to amend The Crown Timber Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 56 reported.
THE LAKEHEAD COLLEGE ACT, 1956
House in committee on Bill No. 58, An
Act to amend The Lakehead College of Arts,
Science and Technology Act, 1956.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 58 reported.
THE NOTARIES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 59, An
Act to amend The Notaries Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 59 reported.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 60, An
Act to amend The Judicature Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 60 reported.
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 71, An
Act to amend The Training Schools Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 71 reported.
MARCH 1, 1962
715
GREATER OSHAWA COMMUNITY
CHEST
House in committee on Bill No. Prl, An
Act respecting Greater Oshawa Community
Chest.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. Prl reported.
CITY OF BELLEVILLE
House in committee on Bill No. Pr3, An
Act respecting the city of Belleville.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. Pr3 reported.
QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL
House in committee on Bill No. Pr4, An
Act respecting the Queen Elizabeth Hospital
for Incurables, Toronto.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. Pr4 reported.
VILLAGE OF MARKHAM
House in committee on Bill No. Pr8, An
Act respecting the village of Markham.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. PrS reported.
TOWNSHIP OF NEPEAN
House in committee on Bill No. Prl 3, An
Act respecting the Township of Nepean.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Bill No. Prl3 reported.
NEPEAN AND OTTAWA BOARDS
House in committee on Bill No. Prl5, An
Act respecting the high school board of the
township of Nepean and the collegiate
institute board of the city of Ottawa.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. Prl5 reported.
Y.M.C.A. AND Y.W.C.A. OF CORNWALL
House in committee on Bill No. Pr23, An
Act respecting the Young Men's Christian
Association and the Young Women's Christian
Association of Cornwall.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. Pr23 reported.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the com-
mittee of the whole House rise and report
certain bills without amendment and ask for
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report certain
bills without amendment and asks leave to
sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow when we meet at 10.30
we will go on with the estimates of The
Department of the Provincial Secretary and
the Minister of Citizenship.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.55 o'clock, p.m.
Page
627
628
Column
2
ERRATA
(February 26, 1962)
Line Correction
30 Change to read:
revisions in the liquor laws and of course
Change to read:
8 tion? Little has been done. As I look
14 changes and get away from just a hypocritical
15 approach. We are cynical about this. Why
No. 27
ONTARIO
Hegisslature of Ontario
ISetiates
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Friday, March 2, 1962
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
; .:. .t>'
CONTENTS
Friday, March 2, 1962
Retail Sales Tax Act, 1960-1961, bill to repeal, Mr. Bryden, first reading 719
Mental Hospitals Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 719
Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation Act, 1949, bill to amend,
Mr. Dymond, first reading 719
Private Sanatoria Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 719
Health insurance, bill to provide for, Mr. Thomas, first reading 719
Retail Sales Tax Act, 1960-1961, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, first reading 719
Hospitals Tax Act, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, first reading 719
Apprenticeship Act, bill to amend, Mr. Thompson, first reading 719
Statement re extension of winter works programme, Mr. Cass 719
Estimates, Department of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Citizenship,
Mr. Yaremko 721
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to , 744
i.i
719
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we wel-
come as guests in the west gallery students
from the Oakville-Trafalgar High School,
Oakville.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the select committee appointed on
March 27, 1961, to inquire into and review
The Municipal Act and related Acts be re-
appointed and continue with the same mem-
bership and all the same powers and duties
as heretofore.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE RETAIL SALES TAX ACT, 1960-1961
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act to Repeal
The Retail Sales Tax Act, 1960-1961.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE MENTAL HOSPITALS ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Mental Hospitals Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of die bill.
THE ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG
ADDICTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION
ACT, 1949
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to amend The Alcohol-
ism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation
Act, 1949.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
FrnDAY, March 2, 1962
THE PRIVATE SANATORIA ACT
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to amend The Private
Sanatoria Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
HEALTH INSURANCE
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act to Provide
for Health Insurance.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE RETAIL SALES TAX ACT, 1960-1961
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Retail Sales Tax Act, 1960-
1961.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE HOSPITALS TAX ACT
Hon. Mr. Allan moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Hospitals
Tax Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE APPRENTICESHIP ACT
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt) moves
first reading of bill intituled. An Act to
amend The Apprenticeship Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day I would like to bring to the attention
of the House the extension of the winter
works programme. Our hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) has received a communication
from the Honourable Michael Starr, Minister
of Labour at Ottawa, advising that the
government of Canada has authorized the
extension of the winter works incentive pro-
gramme from April 30 to May 31 this year.
720
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am pleased to say that this government, as
a partner in the federal-provincial-municipal
winter works incentive programme, has also
authorized an extension of the time from
April 30 to May 3L
This will permit municipalities to complete
projects which were commenced under the
programme and which have been delayed in
many cases by the severe winter conditions
we have lately experienced.
The current winter works incentive pro-
gramme commenced October 15, 1961, and
I may say that again this year, as has been
the case for several years, there has been
increased participation in the programme by
our municipalities. Our records indicate that
there is better than 12 per cent increase over
last year in the number of jobs provided un-
employed persons. Applications for winter
works projects from our municipalities are
being received daily showing a continued
interest and with the extension of the pro-
gramme for an additional month I have no
doubt that the continued interest will be
maintained.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Minister would
permit a question in regard to that statement?
In the budget which was introduced yester-
day, it was rather interesting to note the
amount set aside for winter works for next
year was less than the amount for the current
year. In view of the hon. Minister's state-
ment, about the importance of winter works,
would he care to explain this?
Hon. Mr. Cass: Mr. Speaker, I think that
when the estimates of this department are
considered before the House, this will prob-
ably be explained to the satisfaction of the
hon. member. I may say that we have found
in the past that we have been very enthusiastic
at the beginning of the season and have pro-
vided much more money than was actually
used.
Each year the amount being used has in-
creased, and each year we have tried to make
the estimates more realistic. I think the hon.
member will find that is the situation in this
case.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day I would
like to direct a question to the hon. Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart), notice of which
he has received. Actually there are three
questions: Who are the members of the hon.
Minister's committee on vertical integration
of fruits and vegetables; what organizations
do they represent; what are their terms of
reference?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to
thank the hon. member for sending me
advance notice of this question.
With your permission, sir, I would just like
to say that vertical integration is a matter of
great concern, I am sure, to every hon. mem-
ber of the House who has anything to do with
agriculture in his individual riding. It is a
problem for which there is no easy solution
and no simple answer.
While we have suggested that as far as
our government is concerned we feel we
now have legislation, but if our legislation is
not sufficiently strong now we propose to
introduce amendments that will cause all
growers to come under marketing plans that
are already in existence regardless of the size
of that grower's operation— when it comes to
a matter of vertical integration this is some-
thing we feel we must have the very best
advice on. We must take a look at it to
assess all of the facts that are possible and
to come up with what would appear to be
an answer that would be suitable to all con-
cerned. It is not primarily a matter for the
growers' concern, although they are the ones
who are vitally affected— and detrimentally
affected, but it is also one of concern to the
entire industry and to the agricultural
economy.
So, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon.
member's question. Our answer to the first
part of his question: "Who are the mem-
bers of the Minister's committee?"; is to
point out that this is a Minister's com-
mittee appointed to explore the facts in
relation to this matter. The chairman of the
committee is Dr. H. L. Patterson, farm eco-
nomics and statistics branch of The Ontario
Department of Agriculture at the parliament
buildings, Toronto. . The secretary is G. F.
Perkin, commissioner of marketing, Ontario
Department of Agriculture, parliament build-
ings, Toronto. The members of the committee
are Mr. Earl Mighton, senior purchasing agent
of Campbell Soup Company Limited, New
Toronto; Mr. Ben Ormseth, vice-president and
general manager of Green Giant of Canada
Limited, Tecumseh; Mr. J. L. H. Puddicombe,
Maple Grove Fruit Orchards, Winona; Mr.
Frank Parry, a vegetable grower from Chat-
ham district and a member of the Ontario
Vegetable Growers Marketing Board; Mr.
Lawrence Kerr, of Kerr Farms, Chatham,
Ontario; Mr. A. Dees, president of Hardee
Farms International Limited, Toronto; Dr.
MARCH 2, 1962
721
John Brown, secretary-treasurer, the Ontario
Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association,
Ontario food terminal; Mr. A. G. Shantz,
president of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers
Association of Ontario at Richvale; Mr. Mel
Tebbut, Ontario Farmers' Union, Guelph,
and Mr. William Tilden, Ontario Federation
of Agriculture president.
In answer to the hon. member's third
question: "what are their terms of reference?"
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these are
not hard and fast terms of reference, they
are terms of reference that are set down as
an outline of what might be attempted or
examined in the initial stages. If there are
further channels that should be explored we
shall be prepared to broaden their terms of
reference, as this is a Minister's committee.
But our first suggested terms of reference
would be this: this committee is designed
primarily as a fact-finding committee.
Second, because of the present personnel,
the investigations and studies will be con-
fined to fruits and vegetables. If it is felt
necessary to include other commodities, rep-
resentatives with knowledge of these com-
modities will be added to the committee.
Third, it is suggested that the committee
proceed by: (a) inviting written submissions
on first, the extent of the problem in given
areas; second, the reasons favouring vertical
integration; third, the reasons not favouring
vertical integration; and fourth, suggestions
for improvements of the whole industry;
(b) outlining and interpreting available in-
formation, to be assembled by research
staffs, to aid in appraisal of the situation.
Fourth, appraisal of the problem by the
committee with recommendations for im-
provement of the whole industry.
Mr. Belanger: Thanks very much.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): May I also
ask the hon. Minister when he expects this
committee to report? Will it be a continu-
ing committee over a number of years, or
is he going to try to get them to come to
grips with the problem immediately and
report to him?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I antici-
pated that question. I must confess that I
preferred to wait for someone to ask it.
The committee has already met. Their
fir^t meeting was held on February 20. They
propose to continue meeting and we have
asked for an interim report; I believe it is
due in the middle of April. We have asked
them to do everything they can to be as
far as they can on their deliberations and
if possible to report to the department by
mid-summer or early June.
Mr. Oliver: If the hon. Minister will ex-
cuse me; I was wondering why he has lim-
ited the examination of this problem to fruit
and vegetables. Surely one logical further
step would have been the broiler industry
in any event, if he did not want to go any
farther.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: As I said, Mr. Speaker,
it is in the terms of reference that the other
commodities would be examined if necessary
as time went on. But we feel as far as the
urgency of the matter at the moment is con-
cerned, certainly vegetables is the commod-
ity that is the major concern and this is
where we propose to start.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask another supplementary
question?
This is something we discussed many times
before with regard to Ministers' com-
mittees. What opportunity is there going to
be for hon. members of the House to bene-
fit from the studies and conclusions of this
committee? Will their report be made avail-
able to hon. members of the House or will
we have an opportunity to meet with them
—for example, before the standing commit-
tee on agriculture— or is this going to be
a private report to the hon. Minister upon
which we will have no detailed information?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I pointed out, Mr.
Speaker, this is a Minister's committee and
it will report to the Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
House in committee of supply; Mr. K.
Brown in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF THE
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1601:
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary and
Minister of Citizenship): Mr. Chairman, in
dealing with vote 1601, this is the vote in
which I have a particular interest. As the
other votes are dealt with, there will be
notice taken of some of the increases which
have become necessary; but it is the increase
in vote 1601 in which I have particular
regard, for it is within that vote that the
monies provided for the citizenship division
722
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the department are made available and
there are certain significant increases for this
year.
Hon. members will recall that a year ago
The Department of Citizenship was formed
by bringing over to join the very small sec-
tion which existed in the department, that
section of the commimity programmes branch
that also had had dealings with citizenship,
especially with the teaching of English or
French, as the case may be.
I am pleased to say that with the fusion
of those two small sections and witli no addi-
tional staff, except secretarial assistance, I
have a very strong belief that the work of the
division in the field of citizenship has ex-
panded far beyond what we might have
originally expected. However, we have
reached the stage where in carrying out our
commitments for the future we do need
further assistance. So in the vote for main
office, salaries and travelling expenses and
maintenance, there are certain increases
which are brought about by the expansion of
the work of the citizenship division.
An increase in salaries is being asked which
will provide the department with two liaison
officers and secretarial assistance. Their ap-
pointment will necessitate travelling through-
out parts of the province, and accordingly
there is an increase in travelling requirements.
There is an increase of some $30,000 in the
language and citizenship training section to
provide for an increase in classes for special
groups, such as persons in institutions, shift
workers, the unemployed, both in the Metro-
politan Toronto area and other parts of
Ontario.
We are asking for an increase in the main-
tenance portion of the main office. There is
a sum of approximately $45,000 in this regard
in the division of citizenship to provide for
additional expansion in several fields.
A year ago I announced to this House the
holding of certain seminars. They were held
and proved very successful indeed. Leaders
of ethnic groups and community agencies and
other interested persons were invited to hear
the senior personnel of various government
departments present the story of the work and
the services of their departments, with special
reference to the needs and interests of new-
comers. The seminars which were held were
on labour, education, health, welfare and
the workmen's compensation board.
From our own observations and from the
reports from various departments, and pri-
marily from those who attended, we believe
that the seminars have served a most useful
and unique service within the community.
The interest which was shown was heartening
indeed. The seminars started at 6.30 in the
evening with a light supper provided at the
cost of the department, through the facilities
of the international institute. Then there
were discussions by the departmental experts
and then the people broke up into several
panels.
It was \'ery interesting to note the atten-
tion that was paid. Individuals sat from
6 o'clock until almost midnight interested
in the discussions that took place.
It is our hope this year to do two things:
to have additional seminars dealing with other
departments of government and other services,
and then perhaps arrange that these seminars
will be held in other centres of the province
of Ontario where a need for such seminars
is being felt, in such areas as Hamilton,
Niagara Peninsula, London— I also notice
interest from the city of Ottawa in this regard.
Monies are being provided for this.
The seminars provided the department with
a useful compilation of information in that
we were able to bring out those points which
were of particular interest to those present.
We are proceeding now with plans to have
the basis of the discussion at these seminars
published in brochures in 13 difPerent lan-
guages. They have been selected as repre-
sentative of perhaps the largest number of
our newcomer groups and are related to need.
It will be a programme which will cost,
with respect to these seminars, in the neigh-
bourhood of just under $60,000. We are
hopeful that it will serve a very useful
purpose at this stage of the growth of our
province, where so many have come to this
province and there is a necessity for their
integration into all aspects of our life.
We are providing in the maintenance a
sum of $10,000 to carry on research. In
respect of the needs, the desires, the aspira-
tions and the procedures to be followed in the
integration of the newcomers, there are a lot
of ideas which have been put forward. Ideas,
or expressions of opinion, are something we
do not lack. We are hopeful that by applying
the tested methods of research we will be
able to find out in which directions the needs
arc the greatest and in which direction the
return for dollars expended will pay the
greatest benefits.
There is additional provision for the holding
of exhibitions which we have found to be
most useful and for translations, the demand
for which is growing continuously.
There are a couple of matters which I
should like to refer to directly in which the
department has taken active participation.
MARCH 2, 1962
723
I
I remind the House again, Mr. Chairman,
of the participation of this department in
the teaching of English by television in co-
operation with other interested groups in the
city. Those hon. members who may have
had the opportunity of seeing the programme
on Saturday and Sunday at noon will have
seen the unique methods which have been
developed in this field.
This is the first time anywhere in the
world where there has been an attempt to
teach a language by this media to i)ersons
who do not understand any words of the
language which is being taught. The cost
to the department of this programme will be
some $7,000. It will have consisted of 78
half-hour programmes over CELT.
It is in this area that we are also doing
research work to determine the effectiveness
of this media. The cost of $7,000 to the
department, we feel, is a very negligible one
indeed. I would imagine that the estimated
cost of this programme on television, the
whole cost, would be well over $100,000,
perhaps into several hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
I say this on behalf of those in the depart-
ment who played a great role in bringing
about this co-operation. Had it not been for
the spark of the individuals within the depart-
ment working very closely with the organiza-
tion META, this programme would not
have come off. I think it will be one of the
outstanding achievements of this department,
provided our research proves its effectiveness.
But certainly it was an indication of how
groups could get together to co-operate in
this and I remind the House, Mr. Chairman,
that the supporting agencies, in addition to
our own division, were the Canadian Scene,
of which I have spoken at some length on
previous occasions in the House; the citizen-
ship branch of the federal Department of
Citizenship and Immigration; and of course
META and the station.
Another example of co-operative action
involving a community welfare agency, chari-
table foundations and two levels of govern-
ment, is a special project of The International
Institute— an institute, Mr. Chaimian, which
is doing outstanding work in the field of
citizenship and in the field of making people
welcome to our city and to our province. I
will not go into the detail of the work at this
time except I should like to make mention
of Mrs. Nell West and Wing-Commander
Harry Forbell as the persons most vitally
concerned in the institute work and who are
doing an outstanding job.
The field of co-operation that I referred
to and the people participating are as follows:
the Laidlaw Foundation is providing $12,000;
the Macnamara Foundation, $1,500; the fed-
eral citizenship branch, $2,500; and our own
branch, $2,500; each for two years, to operate
a special branch of the International Institute
in the area of Toronto settled primarily by
newcomers. Its job will be to study the
welfare needs of these newcomers, to acquaint
them with the services of all community
agencies, especially those financed by the
United Appeal and, if necessary, to recom-
mend such changes in the pattern of services
as may seem necesary in order to draw these
newcomers more fully into the total life of
Metropolitan Toronto.
And again, Mr. Chairman, I say, with due
respect to all participants, that it was the
active interest and the spark of men and
women within the citizenship division which
encouraged the International Institute to ap-
proach all these agencies to bring about this
co-operative effort.
In respect to the research project which
I have mentioned, I should like also to make
reference in detail to the work of one agency
which grew out of our seminar on education.
I refer to the Centro Organizzativo Scvole
Tecniche Italiane, known as COSTI.
One of the participants in the seminars
was Father Carraro of St. Helen's Church, on
Dundas Street West, which has a very large
Italian membership. The problems raised by
Father Carraro at the seminar led to the
formation of a three-man committee, con-
sisting of Father Carraro, Mr. Graham Gore,
assistant superintendent of secondary educa-
tion in Toronto, the director of citizenship in
our department, and later other members-
Mr. Arthur Pigott of the Canadian Associa-
tion of Adult Education, and Mrs. West, of
whom I have made reference, from the Inter-
national Institute; Miss Charity Grant of the
federal citizenship branch— were added to this
committee.
The role of this committee was to devise
a scheme for educational upgrading, and
vocational training for Italian immigrants
whom Father Carraro undertook to assemble
and register. As a result, some 300 Italian
young men were tested, registered and sent
to special courses in two Toronto secondary
schools. This again was the result of excel-
lent co-operation between an ethnic group,
the officials of the Toronto Board of Educa-
tion, and our citizenship division.
I shall not go into the details, Mr. Chair-
man, at this time, of our teaching of language,
apart from the reference I have made to the
work of META on television, except to say
724
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that I had the pleasure tliis summer of speak-
ing to a group of students who were graduat-
ing from one of our summer classes. Summer
classes achieve two purposes; they provide
classes for students to attend in the summer
time, and they also provide a method by
which we can train and teach teachers to
teach English to newcomers.
I was very much interested that one of the
students who participated in the graduating
proceedings, Mr. Edgar Reich, quoted a
poem. It may not rank with the poetry that
has come down through the centuries
throughout the world, or in our own home-
land, but I was very much interested to see
what a student of basic English could com-
pose, and I quote as follows:
We all came to Canada,
Biggest of all free lands.
To share in all its promises
And the freedom for which it stands.
Though sometimes suffering heartache,
For those we left behind.
We'll always do our very best
In any job we find.
Canada gives us freedom.
Our old customs to retain;
May we always use them wisely
And new Canadian customs gain.
We're learning to speak Canadian
As our Canadian neighbours do.
So we can take our rightful place.
Being Canadians strong and true.
May Canada in the future
Turn to us with rightful pride.
And say she's very happy
She welcomed us inside.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Mr.
Chairman, I have always admired the poetry
in the soul of the hon. Minister of Citizen-
ship (Mr. Yaremko), but really what the
newcomers to this country are concerned
about is not poetry but action. And I would
say, at the start of these remarks, the depart-
ment that he is heading always impresses me
with a certain irony, because the work that
he— and I think he is trying to achieve with
great sincerity— really should have been
started a long time ago. It is something like
having a small boat which is brought down
to the seashore with great fanfare to be
launched, only to find that the tide has ebbed,
and there is not much water around to make
use of the boat.
The tide, in connection with people in this
country, unfortunately is ebbing. I think we
are all deeply concerned that the ratio of
immigration to emigration in Canada is to
the advantage of emigration. And, of course,
this is of great concern.
I remember a number of years ago that a
certain gentleman perceived the necessity for
immigration; and he said: "If I get into
office I can assure you that we are going
to populate or perish." That gentleman is
known for making a number of such state-
ments which he has not kept. As we all
know, I refer to the Rt. hon. Prime Minister
of Canada, John Diefenbaker, when he was
speaking to a group of ethnic editors and had
been asked a question on immigration.
"Populate or perish," he said. Well, he cer-
tainly is a man of gloom if he looks at the
figures of immigration today. They are the
lowest they have been for many years.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, per-
haps you may not see fit to make a ruling
on this, but I bring to your attention that
there is nothing in the estimates of The
Department of Provincial Secretary on im-
migration. This is a department that deals
with citizenship.
Mr. Thompson: I was talking on citizen-
ship.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am just bringing up
a point of order.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, surely
when one talks about citizenship, one can-
not ignore the stuff that makes citizenship
—which is the immigrants to Canada.
I agree with the hon. Minister (Mr.
Yaremko) that it may be hard to find a num-
ber of them now, and therefore he does not
want to talk too much about it. This is the
very purpose of his department; and if he
is not going to talk about immigrants and
immigration, why on earth is he even stand-
ing up as the hon. Minister of Citizenship?
Now what is the citizenship branch doing?
Last year the hon. Minister of Citizenship
told us that there was a Department of
Citizenship Act and it described the pur-
poses of the citizenship department. He
said that the Act specifies that the Minister,
and I am quoting now from Hansard:
The Minister shall initiate action not
only on his own but in co-operation with
other Ministers in the government of
Ontario, within the public service of Can-
ada, at the municipal level and with other
organizations. The department will de-
velop as a channel through which com-
munication can be established, and action
taken, and information provided to all,
so as to make their citizenship more mean-
ingful.
MARCH 2, 1962
725
Further on, he said:
The branch will also study the prob-
lems of newcomers requiring information
in reference to other departments, and
the staff will be able to handle requests
in 12 languages.
And then, in referring to these depart-
ments further on, he describes them:
I would think that the following
branches would have a contribution to
make: apprenticeship branch—
I would like to repeat that: "apprentice-
ship branch" was one which would have a
contribution to make,
—operating engineers, fair employment
practices: minimum wages—
I would like to repeat that: "minimum
wages."
—anti-discrimination, workmen's com-
pensation, and I think it would be advis-
able to have a representative of the
national employment services.
He is referring to the seminars, about
which I congratulate him, mentioning the
kind of problems that could be discussed.
Well, sir, I would like to come to these
problems, a little later.
But first let me say that he talked about
the classes in English or French. I appreci-
ate he recognized the two national languages
of our country. One question, sir, which I
would appreciate if the hon. Minister would
answer at a later time, is: how many lan-
guage classes has he in Ontario, for new-
comers, in which French is taught?
Another question, what is the fall-out of
the students who attend the classes? I
suspect there is great deal of garnishing with
respect to stating the number of people at-
tending classes. But the real emphasis should
be placed on how many go through the
classes; who attend them right to the end.
And I would appreciate if the hon. Minister,
through his department, would let us know
the number of people who have fully
attended the course on learning English.
Another question in connection with lan-
guage classes: I would be interested in know-
ing if he has a particular course on citizenship,
if he is still continuing that, and how many
people attend that course. And secondly, if
he has been able to make an arrangement with
the courts, the citizenship courts, that they
will acknowledge graduates who take the
citizenship class.
I would be interested in knowing about the
kitchen groups about which he talked. They
were experimenting last year in having classes
in kitchens for mothers, and I wonder how
successful they have been. I am taking
advantage as I am talking now, sir, and I hope
the hon. Minister will not mind; I am looking
anxiously at him— I realize there are a number
of questions and I am wondering whether
he is noting these down. I would suggest he
do so if he has not made a note of them.
The other thing that interested me was that
he talked about the TV programmes teaching
English. I must say that we on this side have
urged that such experimentation should take
place; we have been asking for two years that
this experiment should be tried. But I would
say that I had hoped, when they were going
to try the experiment of teaching English to
newcomers through TV, that they would use
some horse sense and common sense in the
method by which they went about it. And
I would think that the hon. Minister knows,
I am sure he knows as well as I, that many
of the newcomers who would want to take
advantage of a TV course are also God-fearing
people and attend the churches of their
choice. And, as I understand it, his TV
course is at noon on Sunday.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On Saturdays and on
Wednesdays.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I am particularly re-
ferring to the Sunday time. I would say that
the noon period may be a reason why he is
not getting as many people to watch the pro-
gramme. On the other hand, I would be
interested in knowing whether the hon. Minis-
ter could tell me if there is any way of know-
ing what the numbers are who are watching.
I would suspect that on a Sunday there would
not be as many watching, and I question
whether that was an advisable time to have
it; but I am sure the hon. Minister has
checked, and will have the information for us.
I notice where the hon. Minister wants
increased estimates in order to have two
liaison officers. I am not sure specifically what
these people are going to do. There is a
federal citizenship branch. I would appre-
ciate it if the hon. Minister would be good
enough to spell out in concrete terms just
what they are going to do. I would suggest
that when this citizenship branch was
launched the purposes that were suggested
did not appear to be particularly concrete.
I do not blame the hon. Minister for the
launching; he took it over after it was sink-
ing; but it was launched on a sea of tea, Mr.
Chairman. There were going to be tea parties,
and the gallant man who was going to launch
this told us he knew there were tea parties
726
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
around but he could not exactly tell us where
they were. The hon. Minister has brought the
thing down to more concrete terms; I must be
fair to him in that.
But I still suggest that it is not concrete
enough. I had read that he was going to
try to explain tlie apprenticeship branch to
newcomers. How can he explain this to many
newcomers across this fair land of ours when
he must be embarrassed by the barriers im-
posed through The Apprenticeship Act? It
is not permitting newcomers to take advan-
tage of apprenticeship training. He knows
this very well; for he referred to Father
Carraro.
As I understand it, and I may be wrong,
it was the hon. Minister's department which
was keen in pushing this training, and he
was quite uncomfortable and embarrassed
when he found that there was this diflBculty
in the part of The Apprenticeship Act. I
suspect that the hon. Minister himself is very
keen that there will be opportunities for re-
training of newcomers under Schedule 5, and
I urge him, because I feel he is keen on this,
I urge him to do everything he can to see
that the Act is changed.
I have just put in a bill in connection with
the age limit; also there must be recognition
given to the background of the immigrant be-
fore he comes to Canada. I gave the figures
of the group, to the hon. Prime Minister— I
think they are in the hon. Minister's own
riding— who were hoping to take retraining.
And then they find, after their hopes have
certainly been raised by the action of The
Department of Education, they find that un-
fortunately they can only take English but
not the practical training.
I know the hon. Minister himself personally
is disappointed, as we were, and as those
men were, when this took place. And I am
sure that the hon. Minister will do everything
to make citizenship concrete, to make the pro-
gramme concrete. Because, sir, as well as
talking of the glories of Canadian citizenship
—it is certainly a wonderful thing to have—
the means to feel the satisfaction of being a
Canadian surely rest on a number of aspects.
One of the most important is the opportunity
to work.
And I know the hon. Minister must be as
concerned as many of us at the number of
newcomers, and indeed the number of Cana-
dians, who are out of work. He stated last
year that he had a counselling service in his
department. I would suggest that the greatest
counselling that could be given to many
immigrants who are keen to get a job is
counselling as to where they could get a job
—whether it is with the extended winter
works programme, whether it is building
hospitals, or whatever it is. It would cure
much of the unhappincss and much of the
difficulty of integrating into Canada, if there
was work for people.
I have every day, in a little office on Bloor
Street, men coming to me saying they would
do anything to get work; they want to work in
the public works programme. And some of
them with bitterness, sir, say: "You know we
came to this country because we heard it was
a land of opportunity. We want to be citizens,
we want to live here, but how can we when
we can't even provide for our children?"
So I would suggest that tied in, in fact one
of the cornerstones of citizenship work that the
hon. Minister could be doing, is to encourage
his hon. colleagues to start more public
works programmes, to really seriously look
at the unemployment picture, particularly as
to how it aflPects many of our new arrivals. I
suspect there is still a certain cynicism on the
part of some of the hon. members when you
tell them that there are men unemployed
through the winter; that they have the feeling
it is because they are shiftless. The hon.
Minister knows as well as I do the great
number of people who came here, who came
with hope in their heart for a better future;
they want work.
Next, I notice that the hon. Minister has
talked about safety as one of the areas which
he might explain to the newcomer. I am talk-
ing about the previous speech of the hon.
Minister—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I was talking about the
seminars that we were going to hold.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, in talking about the
seminars; I had asked the hon. Minister a
question during last year's estimates witli
respect to safety, and the hon. Minister said
this was an area that he himself was deeply
concerned about.
Well, as the McAndrew report mentions,
covering the aspect of interpreting safety
legislation to the newcomer, it was badly
needed to have safety regulations and the
rights of the newcomer printed in three
languages. I know the hon. Minister of
Labour (Mr. Warrender) has read this
report thoroughly and is probably considering
this. I think there were three languages
suggested in the McAndrew report.
I notice that one of the points of emphasis
that the hon. Minister makes is that he is
going to interpret not only the regulations
and the laws of this province, he is going to
see it gets known by the new people across
our land. Well, I wovild suggest that the
MARCH 2, 1962
727
greatest help for him would be to read the
McAndrew report and to follow its sug-
gestions.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have read it.
Mr. Thompson: And is the hon. Minister
going to follow the suggestions? That is, by
translating safety regulations and the rights of
the workers into the three languages
suggested? What is the hon. Minister going
to do about it; that is the question I raise,
because I feel there is a terrible susceptibility
on the part of the hon. Ministers on the other
side to read but not take action. We have
been waiting a long time for this action. I
know that the hon. Minister is concerned; I
know he is concerned; but we want to see
more than concern; we want to see action.
I shall move to another point the hon.
Minister was going to explain in his seminars.
I congratulate him on his seminars and I
congratulate him on the contents that he was
going to discuss. One point was minimum
wages. What a tragedy to discuss minimum
wages to men for whom there is no
minimum wage Act. What one earth was
discussed?
When the next seminars are held I will
supply some of the people gladly with infor-
mation on the inequality of wages for many
men in this country, examples of the exploita-
tion of immigrants. I will supply that for
the seminar. From these seminars we hope to
get action. And I would hope that the hon.
Minister, realizing that citizenship can be
emphasized through concrete action, will be
urging a minimum wage Act in order that
there will not be exploitation of immigrants.
Let me come to another point— welfare. I
must say I do feel personally very strongly
about this, because this is one area about
which I get a large number of people com-
ing to me in my little office. They are appre-
hensive, first of all, about applying to the
welfare offices. They do not really want wel-
fare; they want a chance of a job. And when
they do not get a job, in desperation, because
of their families, they have to apply for
welfare.
There are people, and I am thinking again
of newcomers, who because of language
barriers, because of a tradition of fear to-
wards bureaucracy, are concerned and appre-
hensive about going for welfare to which they
should be entitled. They are, in fact, con-
cerned about going to any government office.
Does the government office ease the lot of
these people? Has the hon. Minister, with
his concern of interpreting services, has he
thought that he might get this right down
to the point that when a man applies to a
civil service office, and cannot speak the
language, he should have adequate inter-
preters there?
The hon. Minister, as I have, has been with
newcomers; I am thinking of a particular
group of newcomers, almost 200,000 of them,
and they are paying taxes. They have worked
and built many parts of this city and this
province; and then, because of hard circum-
stances, economic circumstances beyond their
control, they turn to this government— which,
I am sure, as much as the federal government,
has invited them, encouraged them and wel-
comed them here— and they go to an office
provided, supposedly by the government, to
assist people in need.
I have gone with some of those people,
and I have watched the difficulty they have
had; I have watched the lengthy time they
have had to wait.
I had a man in my office yesterday. His
face is scarred from an accident on his job.
He has got new tissue placed around his face.
His hands are burned. This man, for the last
nine months, has been trying to get some
work. He gets something like $29 a month
from the workmen's compensation. He has
got a family of two young children.
He came to me yesterday. He had been
going around trying to get work; he picks
up an odd job here and there, he will do
anything. Believe me, this is the point that
irritates me.
I have listened sometimes to men, comfort-
able, complacent, saying that really the jobless
are a shiftless lot. I would like them just to
go out to meet some of the people who are
jobless and realize the tremendous need and
desire they have for work.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member has
never heard any man in this House say a
thing of that kind.
Mr. Thompson: Sir, I will tell you this. It
crossed my mind, when the hon. Minister
was talking about the need for people to get
work, that the hon. Minister of Public Works
(Mr. Connell) suggested that really there is
not that much need because he put an ad-
vertisement in the paper applying for some
kind of a cow herder or goat herder, for
whatever kind of animals he keeps on his
farm there, and he said no one had answered
the ad. I have listened— I do not know if this
is familiar to you or to the hon. Minister,
Mr. Chairman, but there has been a reference
to people who want to talk about reality;
728
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that they are prophets of gloom and doom.
In other words, there is the suggestion in
some quarters that everything is rosy and
happy. I notice the hon. Minister smiles; it
rings a little bell with him.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I look at the hon.
member's rosy cheeks and see that that may
be completely wrong.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I feel uncomfortable
that I have put on so much weight.
But, sir, I would like to say that I do
feel very strongly about this. The services
are not being properly staffed in order that
people who do not speak the language can
get the compassionate attention that they
need. This man who came to my oflRce
yesterday told me he hated going down to
the welfare office; first of all, because he had
dignity; he wanted to get a job, but secondly
he hated going down there because no one
understood him.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Which welfare office
is that?
Mr. Thompson: This is the welfare office
in my riding.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Operated by whom?
Mr. Thompson: Operated by the city, but
the hon. Minister's department gives grants
for it, and I think that if they give grants
they should have certain standards. I admire
very much the work that the people are doing
down there, but I still think—. The hon.
Minister was at a banquet with me the other
night at which this was emphasized again;
that where we have a large group paying
taxes, helping to work and to build up this
city and this province, surely when they see
the needs that they have, rightful rights that
should be given to them, the hon. Minister
through his department, with his experts on
interpreting these rights, should see that the
government agencies are properly staffed in
order that when a man comes in he gets
adequate attention to provide his rights.
I am suggesting, sir, that these government
agencies are not being staffed properly and
efficiently, particularly where you have a
large segment of the population that speak
one particular language and are struggfing to
learn English. You need to get more repre-
sentatives of those people in government
services.
I would like to suggest this, sir, because
this is all part of citizenship, the struggle of
the newcomer to integrate. If he has not got a
job, if he does not understand his rights, if
he is concerned about an adequate wage,
and if there is no protection for him to get an
adequate wage, and if he is exploited when
he is in dire need, if he cannot interpret his
need to people, surely citizenship to him
and talk of citizenship is very empty. That
is why I am sure that the hon. Minister
himself, who says that he is going to work
with other government departments, will not
only work with them but will g6t them to
push forward for some action in order that
there really will be equal opportunity.
I want to just emphasize again; the hon.
Minister has talked about his teaching Eng-
lish, and I would hope, sir, that as well as
teaching English he will emphasize vocational
training. Now, I know the hon. Minister
does not want me to talk about immigration
but I somehow cannot disassociate his de-
partment with immigrants even though he
might see that there is a disassociation. It
seems to me that his department should have
some connection with immigration. I do not
know that he agrees with me, but to me it is
rather apparent that the purpose of his de-
partment is in connection with the integration
of immigrants.
I would like to say, sir, that the hon.
federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigra-
tion (Mrs. Fairclough) has said that the
skilled will be allowed to come to Canada
and this is how their selective process will be.
So we know that the skilled from countries
which, probably during the past 4 or 5 years,
enjoyed better management than ours are now
enjoying prosperity. I am speaking of the
industrial countries, and in particular the
European Common Market group.
We, unfortunately, have not had, in some
cases, the enlightened dynamic leadership in
our country in connection with our economic
affairs that they have, and therefore there
will not be the same attraction for skilled
immigrants from those countries to come to
Canada. So if the government wants skilled
immigrants, it is going to have to go to rural
areas and overpopulated areas. If it is going
to attract these people who have skills to
come we have got to make some provision
for adapting them into our economy; I would
suggest, sir, that in connection with the
citizenship branch it would be well to look
at the experience in West Germany, for they
are bringing immigrants in, from Italy, for
example, and as they are adapting them into
the economy and into industry they are
training them.
I suggest, sir, that some people may say:
Why should we train newcomers? But as the
MARCH 2, 1962
729
economy starts to develop again and is de-
veloping again, I would think we need more
people. I think the hon. Minister believes
this very strongly.
If we are going to invite more people,
we are going to have to provide some kind
of a retraining programme for them. That is
why I think it is so important a decision
that the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
has to make now if he is going to provide
retraining— should it be more than just Eng-
lish language training— retraining in connec-
tion with vocational skills.
His ruling is going to affect the way the
province is going to cope with the influx of
people. I suggest that the hon. Minister
of Citizenship (Mr. Yaremko), because of his
departmental responsibilities and his own
personal sentiments, is close to the prob-
lems of many of these people. I suggest he
urge the hon. Prime Minister and Minister
of Education (Mr. Robarts) to think very
carefully before he holds fast to that decision
in connection with retraining.
I have just two other questions on which
I would like to hear from the hon. Minister.
I notice that he says that he gets, I think
it is, 25 ethnic papers on his desk. Am I cor-
rect in that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, I read 12 every
week. We get about 40, I think, in the
department.
Mr. Thompson: I see. The question I am
interested in is why does the hon. Minister
get 40 of these papers? Are these translated
and to whom do the translations go and for
what purposes?
On my other question: I enjoyed it very
much when the hon. Prime Minister came
near my riding and spoke to an ethnic group
a little while ago. It was an inspiring speech
he gave and it showed his detailed knowl-
edge of the group. He either has a fantas-
tic memory— sure he is fantastic in many
ways, but in his memory particularly, I
thought, because he pointed out by name
people who live both in the riding of the
hon. Minister and myself.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I thought it was a
good speech too.
Mr. Thompson: It was a good speech. I
would be interested in knowing who wrote
it, that is really the question to which I am
coming. I have a strong suspicion that the
citizenship branch could be used for politi-
cal purposes-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Who wrote Pickersgill's speeches
when he was Minister?
An hon. member: Mr. Pickersgill did not
need anyone to write his speeches.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: How many have been
written for Mr. Pearson?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Pearson is very apt
at writing his own speeches. I would like
to point out— I do not think the hon. Prime
Minister sees this— I am not a civil servant
so that if I had to write a speech for Mr.
Pearson— which, of course, is completely un-
necessary—but if I had to, I would be doing
it quite legitimately since I am not a civil
servant. That is why I ask the question
regarding this very informed, good talk on
the part of the hon. Prime Minister, with
the knowledge he showed of the names,
with his fluency in Lithuanian as well— for
which I should congratulate him— interspersed
with greetings in Lithuanian. I understand
he will be doing the same thing in other
languages.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He is a very accom-
plished man.
Mr. Thompson: Indeed he is. The citizen-
ship branch, I hope, will never become a
little extra department of the hon. Prime
Minister's political office- the political office of
the hon. Minister.
Now the hon. Minister may say, as the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond) said: "Andy,
that does not become you". The only reason I
had just a small seed of suspicion was that I
remember at the previous election, the last
election we had, when I thought I would go
down to the C.N.E. and try to make myself
known that an affair that was taking place—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: A non-political affair.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, a non-political affair!
But here I saw what the taxpayers of this
province were providing, a great, big sign
with— I must say he is a very good-looking
man— witli a picture of the hon. Minister of
Citizenship—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The sign was big but
the picture was smaller than the hon. member
is showing.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I have also noticed
that there are many pictures in advertisements
in the ethnic papers— perhaps they have eased
off now— but for a period there was a flurry
of these pictures through all the language
730
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
papers. They would be talking about the
problems of the newcomers and then they
would look at a picture of the hon. Minister.
How is the picture of the hon. Minister
associated with interpreting their problems? I
would be interested in knowing if the citizen-
ship branch is a branch that wants to give
concrete action in helping newcomers to-
wards citizenship. I feel the hon. Minister
is a man with a lyrical tongue, a man with a
deep sense of poetry— he has a place in our
society, believe me, as a poet. My question
is, has he a place in our government as the
Minister of Citizenship?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member poses so many questions, I cannot
even begin to remember all of them, and all
because I brought to his attention we had a
staff of nine people and we were going to ask
for funds for an additional two, which will
bring our staflF to 11. Including the deputy
Minister of Citizenship and myself, that makes
13.
If we were to tackle one hundredth of the
the problems involving all levels of govern-
ment which the hon. member has posed to
me, we would be very busy indeed within
this one field for the next year. I can tell
hon. members that we have more than our
hands full operating the plans of our depart-
ment without telling the local governments or
other governments what they should do.
I was very much interested in some of the
remarks of the hon. member. In reference
to the political purposes that the department
may be put to, I can assure him that The
Department of Citizenship is devoted utterly,
completely and solely to the integration of
newcomers and citizenship generally in this
province. I might have thought that perhaps
the hon. member was speaking from personal
experience. He is one of the few men in this
province who is in politics that was himself,
I believe, a liaison officer with the federal
Department of Citizenship.
I remember so well, in those days, meeting
the hon. member as a civil servant at various
gatherings and wondering what the job of
that particular section was. I must confess
that I never could put my finger on one con-
crete thing in those days that the federal
Department of Citizenship was doing in
integration. I suggest to the hon. member
that the most forward steps have been taken
by this government in actual concrete pro-
grammes.
Mr. Thompson: We worked very closely, in
co-operation with the provincial government.
The citizenship branch had many language
classes and seminars at Couchiching and if
they were not concrete things—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I know the hon. mem-
ber's sincere interest in this problem, because
I knew him as a civil servant. I picked up
the paper and 1 saw that the hon. member
had resigned from the service, he was out of
it. I thought: at last, in protest to the fact
that that government was not doing what he
thinks it should, he had resigned.
But then there was a coincidence. It
happened that a change of government took
place and the hon. member went from The
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
to be liaison officer for the hon. leader of the
Opposition. That was the closest and the
quickest transformation I have ever witnessed.
Mr. Thompson: On a point of privilege,
first of all the hon. Minister suggests my
motive, which I do not think—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I never suggested a
motive at all. I was telling about the mis-
apprehension I had been under.
Mr. Thompson: I see.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would never suggest
any motive to the hon. member.
Mr. Thompson: The basis, sir, of my trans-
fer, or my leaving the department, was
because— I did not realize this at the time,
but I do now. I left a department which was
active, with many immigrants coming in.
Today, unfortunately, there are not quite as
many immigrants, it is not quite as active as
it was in the boom days of practical immigra-
tion policy under the Liberal government.
I did not go directly from the citizenship
branch to work for the leader of the—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: To CBC!
Mr. Thompson: I went to the CBC.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Oh, yes, why did the
hon. member work there?
Mr. Thompson: I appreciate the hon.
Minister knows as much about this—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I was very interested
in the hon. member's interest in immigration,
as I have definitely— and have been all my
life, as the hon. member knows— been
interested in immigration, although that does
not come within the jurisdiction of The
Department of Citizenship. I was interested
MARCH 2, 1962
731
in seeing the hon. member's tremendous
interest in the present department and the
work he would like to see it undertake. I
was in this House less than two years ago and
the hon. member stood there and scoffed at
the idea of The Department of Citizenship in
Ontario. The hon. member said on February
22, 1960, on page 593 of Hansard:
It was not until a little later that I
started to think—
I am under the impression that the hon.
member really thinks all the time—
An hon. member: That is a lot better than
the hon. Minister does!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This was a method
of expression.
—that I started to think: "Surely citizen-
ship is a federal matter. It is a federal
concern, and the Ontario government
should not move in to establish Ontario
citizens."
But we certainly have enough work to do,
now we have.
An hon. member: He is broadminded.
Mr. Thompson: I stand on a point of
privilege. This has been quoted out of con-
text. I was talking of the actual granting of
citizenship—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Oh, the hon. member
is not against The Department of Citizenship
for the province of Ontario.
Mr. Thompson: I suggested to the hon.
Minister, Mr. Chairman, that he should get
busy— he quoted me as saying that: It is a
great and wonderful thing for idle hands to
get busy. I see many things they can do.
But when I spoke previously about the
confusion between the federal and provincial
area of citizenship, I was referring to the
actual granting of citizenship which I still
think should be—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am glad the hon.
member has clarified it for me, because for
two years I have been under the misapprehen-
sion he was opposed to the division, but now
I can—
An hon. member: The hon.
under many misapprehensions.
Minister is
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will just take a
moment on immigration, just a moment. I
have three clippings, one is of December 19,
1960:
More Immigrants Our Need, Frost
I will just read the heading of that clipping.
I will read some other clippings:
Immigrants Robbing Us of Jobs
Ottawa: H. W. Herridge, CCF Kootenay
West, complained in the Commons yester-
day that immigrants were taking Canadians'
jobs.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That
is out of context, if anything ever was.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is one. Now from
the Toronto Daily Star of May 25, 1960:
Liberal Charge Favour Immigrants
Over Jobless
A Liberal MP charged yesterday that
the government is luring immigrants to
Canada with jobs that could be filled by
our own unemployed.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): What was
his name?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Now those are— that
was Mr. Alex Carron, of Hull.
I am just giving hon. members the attitudes
of three people: the province of Ontario,
through the then hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost); a CCF member, and a Liberal
member.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition ) : What is the hon. Minister's
view? Why are there not more immigrants
right now?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I believe in more
immigrants. I am delighted to see that the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) has finally at this stage of his life-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of privilege. I recall very vividly making
a speech in this Legislature approximately a
year ago.
An hon. member: Absolutely!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It took the hon. leader
of the Opposition many years to get around
to it, a great many years.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh, go on! The hon.
Minister is the one who can do something
about it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am glad I can give
credit to the hon. member for Dovercourt
(Mr. Thompson) for one thing— I will give
him credit for that— he was able to persuade
732
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a little change of heart in the people that
sit beside him to call for action, action with
regard to immigrants.
Mr. K. Bryden ( Woodbine ) : Why does
the hon. Minister not take action now to
provide more jobs?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There was a Liberal
government. Action? Action on immigrants?
There was a Liberal government in power
for 22 years and I stood in this House year
in and year out and I badgered the Minister
of Welfare— of course, I should not use the
word "badgered" because he had the most
sympathetic ear that I ever could get at—
Mr. MacDonald: But he had a tough Cab-
inet, like the hon. Minister has.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —to get Ottawa to
change the residence rule for qualification
for old age pensions, for example. For 20
years, and delegation after delegation, and
members stood up in this House and said
to Ottawa: give us some action, let us treat
these immigrants fairly and squarely. Can
hon. members imagine a man coming here at
the age of 60 and waiting 20 years, to the
age of 80, to get the pension-
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Can the hon.
Minister imagine anybody coming here?
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Would
the hon. Minister permit a question? Did he
not say earlier in the debate that he thought
this matter of immigration should not be
discussed?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am answering a ques-
tion. He wanted action and I am just telling
him about the action.
Mr. Thompson: If I could ask a question,
Mr. Chairman. If the hon. Minister wants
to talk about immigration, the action that
hon. members judge is in the terms of the
number of people who come in. Hon. mem-
bers know as well as I do that immigration
under the Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker and
the Conservatives has been the smallest that
we have had—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Under charges by mem-
bers of the hon. member's party that inmii-
grants were taking away jobs-
Mr. Thompson: I could refer to many
quotes—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I want to answer ques-
tions! Regard for the welfare of the new-
comer—that is what we are talking about.
The hon. member, I believe, has an honest
and sincere desire for the welfare of the
immigrant. But there was a change in gov-
ernment in Ottawa and I was very much
interested in reading in the ethnic papers, Mr.
Chairman-
Mr. Whicher: In what language?,
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In a dozen— in Italian,
in Polish, in Ukrainian and in Slovak. I was
reading ads— ads placed by Liberal candidates
on the eve of the 1957 election. And after
having heard the Minister of Welfare
talk and myself talk and others talk against
the residence requirements of 20 years, I was
delighted to see in some of the ads by some
of the Liberal candidates -mind you, in small
print, the print was not very big— you had to
look closely, that at that stage they advocated
a residence reduction.
Mr. Thompson: I do not think the hon.
Minister is quite clear as to what my question
is. I never suggested to him that I wanted
to know if he spends his time reading the ads
in the ethnic papers. I did not want to em-
barrass him by letting him tell he was doing
this.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I read everything.
Mr. Thompson: What I want to know is
the reason for the hon. Minister's reading.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, finally
there was a change in government and the
residence rule was reduced by half, from 20
to 10 years. One of the greatest welfare
steps taken in respect of newcomers was that
reduction of residence brought in by that
government.
The hon. member talked about welfare.
Another great step, and it is too bad that he
is not in this House, was taken by the hon.
Minister of Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile) on
behalf of the province of Ontario-
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, what about
the estimates?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member
brought this up.
Mr. Thompson: My question, sir, was how
the hon. Minister-
Mr. Chairman: Order! The hon. Minister
has the floor.
Mr. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman. If the hon. Minister has the floor.
MARCH 2, 1962
733
I suggest that he should stay in order. He is
roaming all over the lot under the guise of
answering questions that were never asked.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Roaming all over the
lot! The hon. member had me involved in
the affairs of all levels of government, all
boards, all agencies— and I am answering the
question.
Mr. MacDonald: No, the hon. Minister is
not answering the question.
Mr. Thompson: On a point of information—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am just about to
give the hon. member the information.
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry, I have been
waiting a long time to hear it and I think
I clarified my point again. My questions
were— I do not want to go through all of
them— but in connection with welfare in the
provincial government, I want to know what
the hon. Minister is doing with respect to
interpreting the services, not only through
the foreign-language papers but through the
seminars and also personnel in welfare offices.
I am not talking ten years back, sir, or
about the things that are done in Ottawa.
He said he did not want to talk about immi-
gration, so I appreciated he would not want
to, and I left that out.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member
went to great lengths to talk about immigra-
tion. We will talk about this government and
the province of Ontario and welfare. Early in
1959 the hon. Minister of Public Welfare ( Mr.
Cecile) came out-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, this is
becoming ludicrous. A specific question has
been asked and I suggest that all we request
is a specific answer.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. Minister of
Public Welfare brought forth a programme
that newcomer indigents would be treated
exactly the same as anybody else in Ontario.
The hon. member for Dovercourt (Mr.
Thompson ) was the only one in this city who
scoffed at the programme at that time.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of information, and on a point of order as
well-
Mr. Bryden: The hon. member will get no
information from him.
Mr. Thompson: I do not know if the hon.
Minister, in reading the many languages, has
misunderstood English now. I think I have
asked, as it will show, a number of questions.
Now, sir, if the hon. Minister decides to—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If the hon. member
will stop interrupting me, I will get around
to it.
Mr. Thompson: If he finds it so embarrass-
ing he cannot answer them, please tell us
and I will not ask any more, but if he can
answer them, then let him try it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, it is
not the questions that are embarrassing me,
it is my answers that are embarrassing the
hon. member.
Mr. Chairman, as to teaching French in
classes, we have-
Interjections by hon, members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am treating the hon.
member's question seriously; please treat my
answer the same way.
There is one class, I believe, in Timmins,
and we have had a request recently from
Moose Factory. Our position is this: if any
group of newcomers is within a community
and indicates a desire for the learning of
French, then we will provide the classes the
same as we provide any. We will also pro-
vide the resource material and everything
else; the facilities are available for the teach-
ing of French the same as they are in
English. If the interest and demand within
the community is there we will supply them.
As a measure of the appreciation that The
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
has for our activities, the courts may, and do,
accept our certificate as proof of sufficiency
in English and citizenship; and I am de-
lighted to say that our relationships with
the court of citizenship here are excellent.
Mr. Thompson: May I ask, sir— and I
appreciate the hon. Minister answering these
questions— how many people got their citizen-
ship graduating certificate from his classes
last year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have not that figure
here, but I will be delighted to get that for
the hon. member.
I would say this in respect to the students
who take our classes: we are interested in
everybody who shows up in our classes, we
will do everything possible to maintain his
interest, but if for some other reason he feels
that he should drop out we do not wield the
big stick to force him to stay.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Does tlie hon. Minister
encourage them to stay?
734
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do everything
possible to get them to classes; we do every-
thing possible to create classes for their
needs; and we do everything possible to
encourage them to stay. If circumstances-
Mr. Thompson: I want to know, sir, apart
from your programme, what is the fall-out
in these classes? I never suggested the hon.
Minister used a big stick to force people.
What is the fall-out in these classes?
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): There
are those here, other than the hon. member
opposite, who are interested in hearing the
reply of the hon. Minister and I wonder if
he would have the common courtesy and
grace to let the hon. Minister finish a ques-
tion.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The numbers getting
certificates are, I believe, well over 2,000.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, if I
am to answer all the questions of the hon.
member, I must proceed.
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry, but I am
simply trying to make—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not categorize
how many stay one day, or 10 days, or two
weeks, or six weeks, or eight weeks. We
have not got that kind of computation.
Mr. Thompson: Would the hon. Minister
mind me making—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: And we are doing
our—
Mr. Chairman, I must proceed with the
estimates.
Mr. Thompson: My point, sir, is that it
would be useful to know—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is why we have
taken the forward step of having research
monies available, in order to be able to re-
study all these needs. In respect of kitchen
classes, we had about 100 participants in the
kitchen classes last year. They were very
expensive to operate because of the fact that
there were only four or five individuals in-
volved. It was done in conjunction with
the social planning council, in an effort to
get as much value for every educational
dollar that we have spent. We have no
classes this year.
Mr. Thompson: Is the hon. Minister going
to continue with these classes?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are going to go
wherever we feel there is a need and will
get a good return for our dollar. If a dollar
can be spent somewhere else more bene-
ficially, in an attempt at teaching, this is
where the dollar will be spent.
Mr. Thompson: There are not many of
those classes?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are no classes
at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, to indicate how far the
hon. member roved, he attempted to— per-
haps I am using too strong language— heap
scorn or something upon this department,
to put them in a derogatory light, in the
fact that the TV classes were held at 12
noon, Sunday. I could tell him the times
that I would choose, the premium times that
could be available, but the time is desig-
nated by the Canadian Broadcasting Cor-
poration which, I must admit, in this
instance, and I indicated at the time, is
already contributing well over $200,000.
They have been very generous indeed in
this light.
Mr. Thompson: But the hon. Minister is
not completely satisfied with the time; is
that what he is inferring?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Minister would
prefer another time if he could get it? He
is not satisfied with this time?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Everybody knows about
premium time.
Mr. Chairman, I think that I have com-
pletely answered the hon. member's questions.
Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Minister does
not mind, I do not think he has. I have asked
him, for example, about the safety regulations
in the McAndrew report. I think it does
affect the hon. Minister; he is looking after
the interpreting services. He has held a
seminar on minimum wages. I asked what
came out of that seminar and what suggestions
were made. Is he going to promote the cause
of minimum wages? When he had the
seminar did people urge it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, our job
is to co-operate with other departments. We
do not run the affairs of other departments
or other levels of government.
MARCH 2, 1962
735
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, could I ask
the hon. Minister what is the point of having
the seminar on the problem of another depart-
ment? Why does he call it if he is not going
to do something about this, the result of his
seminar?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The point of having
seminars, and I quote from a letter of one of
the reverend ministers who attended, and I
quote as follows:
Your department is to be congratulated
on initiating these seminars which have
provided excellent guidance and vital in-
formation to the representatives of the
various ethnic groups in our city.
That is the purpose of the seminar.
Mr. Thompson: I leave it at that, sir. I had
hoped that from these seminars, as the hon.
Minister said in his speech last year and as
he said in his speech this year in his intro-
ductory remarks, he got a great number of
suggestions to which he was giving considera-
tion; and I had hoped the minimum wage was
the one he would give great consideration to.
The other point is that, under retraining,
I have asked the hon. Minister what the
situation was under Schedule 5 for the re-
training of people with vocational skills from
another land. I think the hon. Minister knows
to what I am referring— the effect of these
classes and the fact that the decision has been
that it will only be academic material that
will be taught, that vocational skills will not
be taught. Is the hon. Minister going to stay
with that decision or is he hoping to change
it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chainiian, the
estimates of The Department of the Provincial
Secretary are up before this committee; I
cannot and do not run other departments.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I would like to say
that the hon. Minister is running classes for
newcomers. He has spent some time telling
us about how useful these classes are. My
question is: does the hon. Minister think it
would be more useful, in the contents of these
classes, to include some vocational material,
vocational skills material, and if so, what is
he going to do about it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, that
comes within other jurisdiction— our job is to
provide classes for the teaching of English
and citizenship, and I am very proud of the
job we are doing in that regard.
Mr. Thompson: So then, Mr. Chairman, as
1 see it, the hon. Minister feels that he does
not have a responsibility for any further
content of these classes? That they are simply
for the teaching of English and French? I
would hope that he would feel a larger
responsibility than that.
And the other question I asked was in
connection with professional training of
immigrants. I was thinking of immigrants
with a professional background. He said last
year he was deeply concerned about this and
was going to do something about it. But
I ask him what he has done about it, to
integrate immigrants who have had a pro-
fessional training in Europe and are now
here? I repeat, Mr. Chairman, through you,
and I ask the question: the hon. Minister last
year said he was deeply concerned about this,
about the immigrants who had special train-
ing and were now in Canada, and he was
going to do something in connection witli
getting them integrated with a recognition
of their previous training. What has the hon.
Minister done?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not recall the
reference the hon. member is making, Mr.
Chairman. I have always taken a personal
interest in the situation in which these men
find themselves. They are confronted with
the same handicaps as everybody else with
language; when they overcome that, having
passed the requisite examinations set by other
authorities, they are accepted. I am delighted
to say, within the government services there
are many men who fall within this category.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I was looking for the
Hansard record, and if I could make this
suggestion to the hon. Minister— I think it
would be a very useful thing for his depart-
ment to meet with the professional associa-
tions and, perhaps at some of the seminars,
to have representatives of some of the pro-
fessional associations meet with the repre-
sentatives of ethnic organizations to discuss
the barriers that are raised, perhaps of neces-
sity, to hold high standards within the associa-
tions. But there are these barriers, which
therefore means that immigrants with profes-
sional training get excluded.
May I thank the hon. Minister for his
attention.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there are
a few general remarks I would like to make
before we get into the details of the
estimates.
The first one, Mr. Chairman, is that one
would get the impression, from the hon. Min-
ister's (Mr. Yaremko's) remarks, that the
department which he now heads does nothing
736
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
but citizenship work. He has made no refer-
ence to anything else that is going on in the
department, and yet in discussing tlie main
office he quoted figures for increase in salary,
increase in travelling expenses; all these
apparently are going to be with reference to
the citizenship work.
I would think, just as a matter of present-
ing these estimates to the House so that we
would know where this citizenship activity is
in terms of the rest of the department, that
next year there might be some breakdown.
I assume this department did something
l>efore the hon. Minister arrived with his
ideas of citizenship, and I assume those
former activities are still going on, but they
are completely lost if one interprets the 100
per cent attention to citizenship. I just draw
attention, Mr. Chairman, that there is no
specific reference to citizenship work in any
of the estimates, including the main office
estimate.
I think we, as hon. members of the House,
are entitled to some sort of a breakdown so
that we get some idea of what of that main
office expenditure is going into the citizenship
branch and its work, and what is there for
the continuing work of the department before
the hon. Minister arrived— and after he leaves.
The other comments I want to make are
going to be of a general nature too, Mr.
Chainiian, because the hon. member for
Dovercourt (Mr. Thompson) has covered
pretty thoroughly a number of issues that
I think quite appropriately should be raised.
I want to attempt to draw what I think are
some general principles with regard to the
work of this department, and they perhaps
are clearer in light of the detail the hon.
member for Dovercourt has presented to the
House.
I think there are two functions that the
citizenship branch has to perform. The first
one is that it is engaged in an educational
activity to get information out to new Cana-
dians, with regard to what their rights and
their privileges are— with regard to what pro-
tection they can get from certain legislation.
In other words, it is a glorified public relations
function with specific references to the needs
of new Canadians, because of their language
difficulties; their unfamiliarity with our tradi-
tions; our laws; and our practices.
It is only dealing in a special way with
the new Canadians what I would suspect The
Department of Public Welfare, The Depart-
ment of Labour and many other departments
are doing with regard to communicating to
the citizens of Ontario what the government 'is
doing, and what rights and privileges they
have in light of the legislation that is on tlie
books.
Since this is an educational activity, Mr.
Chairman, I want to get to a point that the
lion, member for Dovercourt finally concluded
his remarks on; that is that it is very difficult
to put your finger on it, but there is a subtle
borderline beyond which this educational
activity becomes, beyond any shadow of
doubt, very closely integrated with the
activity of the Tory party.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mm-hmm.
Mr. MacDonald: And as a matter of fact,
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer) may "Mm-hmm" in approval;
I do not know how that will be put down in
Hansard, that "Mm-hmm". However—
Hon. R. W. Macaulay ( Minister of Energy
Resources ) : They have done it before, and
they approve of it.
Mr. MacDonald: He may comment an
approval on this, but I am interested in this
pot-calling-the-kettle-black procedure that
developed here between the hon. member for
Dovercourt and the hon. Minister of Citizen-
ship (Mr. Yaremko). If there are two people
who have developed into professionals in
cultivating the new Canadians, and inte-
grating them into their own political organiza-
tions, whatever be the position they held at
the time, it is these two people.
The hon. member for Dovercourt— I \\ould
concede him this— the hon. member for
Dovercourt is better equipped than anybody
else in this House to be able to sense that
subtle borderline between the legitimate
activity of a government and its integration
with a political machine, because he was
engaged in it for a long time up at Ottawa.
And he started out, you see— perhaps I can
do a bit of interpretation— he started out being
critical of the citizenship branch two or
three years ago because he saw that the hon.
Minister was smartening up, he was going to
do what the Liberals had done, he was
going to use the machinery of government to
integrate the new Canadians within the Tory
machine.
So at first he started out being critical of
the citizenship branch. In one aspect, the
work merits criticism, because I do not think
it is a very noble proposition to use the
machinery of government for political exploi-
tation—that is what the Liberals did for years
and that is what this hon. Minister is now
doing at the present time.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Vote to reduce the
estimate.
MARCH 2, 1962
737
Mr. MacDonald: Now, having said that,
Mr. Chaimian, I am willing to add that I
think there is a job to be done in terms of
providing the education and the services of
these new Canadians, and I think that it
should be done even if it gets subtly mixed
up with political exploitation which both the
Liberals and the Tories have been engaged
in in the past. I am not heaping derogation
on the work of the department, because I
think it should be done with regard to these
new Canadians.
Now, the second aspect of this branch's
work, Mr. Chairman, is to act— if I may
describe it in this way— as a catalyst with
other departments of the government—
Hon. G. C. Wardrope ( Minister of Mines ) :
Is that a capitalist?
Mr. MacDonald: Catalyst?
An hon. member: What is that?
Mr. MacDonald: —to act as a catalyst with
the rest of the government in terms of what
the rest of the government should be doing
to meet the particular problems that the
citizenship branch finds in its activities.
The hon. member for Dovercourt has
spelled out many of these problems, and he
is on very solid ground in spelling them out.
It is little short of fatuous, that this govern-
ment should be holding classes on labour and,
as the hon. Minister said, talking about
minimum wages, when this government is
drifting along without a minimum wage Act.
This is not only fatuous, it is ludicrous, you
can heap all the strongest terms you want to
describe it.
Mr. V. M. Singer ( York Centre ) : The hon.
Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Grossman)
would approve in principle but vote against
it.
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly.
However, Mr. Chairman, I want to illustrate
the kind of thing that makes me, on occasion,
just a bit exasperated with the activity of this
department which deals with the "frosting"
on the cake without getting down to the real
problem and solving it. If they solved it then
perhaps they would not need so much activity
on the part of this particular branch.
Let me illustrate this with one instance. I
remember two or three years ago I was sitting
on a select committee of this Legislature
looking into The Labour Relations Act. We
had before this committee some pretty seri-
ous charges with regard to the activity of
unions. The result was, quite rightly so—
and with my approval, certainly with my
endorsation of it — the committee ruled to
establish a Royal commission to look into
the activity of these unions.
Mr. Justice Roach was established and he
looked into the operation of the teamsters
in Connie Smythe's gravel pits north of here.
A few months went by and as a result of
continued misrepresentation of what trade
unions were doing, the Ontario Federation
of Labour came back with a supplementary
brief; they submitted a supplementary brief
to the committee. In this brief they pointed
out this kind of thing, I have quoted this in
the House before, but I think it bears re-
peating because there have been some sub-
sequent developments that make it significant.
In the brief they said this:
Bruno Zannini, who founded a union
for new Canadian workers, conducted a
survey of bricklayers soon after his local
35 was chartered. The survey revealed
that 85 per cent of the new Canadian
bricklayers he organized never received
holiday pay, compulsory under Ontario
law. They had never seen a holiday pay
book or stamp. Fifty per cent had never
heard of unemployment insurance and
their employers had never deducted the
workers' share or paid their own.
Most of these cases revealed outright
"chiselling" by employers. Three out of
four workers worked 12 hours a day, in-
cluding Sundays, a practice banned by
law. Workmen's compensation, especially
needed in the construction field, was a
joke. Employers who were not deducting
income tax payments could not be both-
ered with making payments to the com-
pensation board.
Although wages were pitifully low,
when the worker could collect them, the
men were cheated on hours worked. If
they worked 72 hours a week they were
paid for 50 and if they rebelled a threat
of deportation hung over their heads. At
least 20 per cent of the firms employing
new Canadian bricklayers made income
tax deductions for tlie total hours a man
worked although they deprived him of at
least one-tenth of his rightful earnings.
According to their books they paid a man
for his work but on the job the worker
took what he could get.
Well, Mr. Chairman, it still seems to me
—that was in May of 1958—
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): Who
wrote it?
- Mr. MacDonald: Never mind who wrote
it— it was presented by the OFL. It still
738
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
seems to me, Mr. Chariman, that this is an
absokitely unbehevable thing; that a respon-
sible organization hke the Ontario Federa-
tion of Labour could come into a select
committee of this Legislature and spell out
the most shocking list of criminal and civil
violations of the laws of this province and
of this land— and what happened, Mr. Chair-
man?
Now we are talking about the problems
of the new Canadians. What happened? I
. suggested to this committee, in view of the
fact that we had representations just shortly
with the illegal activities of unions— and this
committee saw fit to establish a Royal com-
mission to do something about it— we had
absolutely no alternative but to submit this
to The Department of the Attorney-General,
to establish a Royal commission and find out
whether the law was being violated as
charged here.
I submit to you that my case was beyond
any questioning; that with that listing of
illegal acts, we were shirking our responsi-
bilities and our duties in not seeing why this
illegality was permitted to continue. Well,
do you know what happened, Mr. Chairman?
I could not even get a Liberal member of
the committee to second my motion. And
what was the result? The result was that
this kind of condition went on like a fester-
ing sore until last summer we had an ex-
plosion in this city. Now, three years later,
this government got around to establishing a
Royal commission under Mr. Goldenberg to
solve this problem.
This is just another instance of how, when
you have the real guts of the problem— and
I use the blunt term, Mr. Chairman— the real
guts of the problem in terms of exploitation,
the Liberals and the Tories on occasion will
not come to grips with it. This is the reason
I get just a little bit cynical about the hon.
Minister of Citizenship who gets up with the
"frosting" and all of the propaganda to try
to integrate these people into his machine
while giving them some education.
I repeat, I am not objecting to the educa-
tion, but I get a little bit tired of them when
they will not act decisively to help these people
who are in the position of being victims of
those who want to exploit them. This gov-
ernment is an accomplice in the exploitation,
because of its inaction; the Liberal Party now
gets up with bleeding heart when at least
two of its hon. members were accomplices
because I could not get a seconder to my
motion.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They believe in the
principle but they will not vote for it.
An hon. member: We do not believe in the
motion.
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly. The hon. mem-
ber was not there. His heart is bleeding but
it was the rest of the callous reactionaries on
the benches who would not do anything at
the time. That was the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I started out by saying I
thought there was an education and propa-
ganda job which this government should be
doing with the new Canadians to help them
to know what their rights are, and I wish
they would do it without spending so much
of their time integrating the new Canadians
into their machine. They would be doing a
public service then and not a political job.
But there is the other job and I recognize
the limitations that the hon. Minister has.
It is his task, also, to get the other depart-
ments in the government to do something
about some of the basic problems. And this
is where the hon. member for Dovercourt is
correct, there is no excuse for the hon. Min-
ister to sit in the Cabinet and to share the
responsibility for the kind of conditions in
the McAndrew report and yet have a govern-
ment which is going slow, at best, with the
solution of those problems.
He cannot slough it off. Like Nathan
Phillips, who is the mayor of all the people
the hon. Minister is the Minister of Citizen-
ship for all the people and therefore he must
assume the responsibility, particularly when
this government will not come to grips with
it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I speak
perhaps in a little different vein than has been
done heretofore.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Is the hon. member
going to be complimentary?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: No, I do not intend to
be complimentary. For the sake of the hon.
Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) I should
like to be complimentary, but the matter I
wish to discuss is not such that I can be
complimentary about it.
I was interested to hear the answer of the
hon. Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Yaremko)
when he was asked why he had not translated
some of these matters which came under the
scrutiny of this House as a result of the
McAndrew report. I refer to the only publica-
tion which I have yet been able to find which
in any way designates the various duties of
the departments of this government, and I
will read in the Ontario Economic and Social
Aspects Survey which was printed in the year
MARCH 2, 1962
739
1961, the section which refers to the citizen-
ship branch.
That section states that in 1959 a citizen-
ship branch was added to the hon. Provincial
Secretary's department "to co-ordinate activi-
ties of the various government departments in
respect to new Canadians and act as a coun-
selling and information centre".
Now surely if they are going to act in this
capacity one of those responsibilities would be
to print some of the instructions from these
other departments in various languages, if
they are really going to co-ordinate the
various departments as they apply to the
ethnic people. I do not think he is being
consistent when he says this does not come
within his jurisdiction.
I would like to speak about the matter of
the overall estimates of the department. This
is the first time in this session that we have
been able to consider any of the estimates in
the light of the overall budget, and I am
tempted to think that there really is a lack
of leadership with respect to the job that is
to be done. I think that from year to year
the departments of the various hon. Ministers
opposite increase by a proportionate amount,
without any respect to the additional services
to be supplied, or in any way related to the
interest of the taxpayers. I am tempted to
think insofar as these estimates are concerned,
that they bear a direct relationship to a law
which has been commonly known as Parkin-
son's law, which he called the law of the
Rising Pyramids, and for the benefit of the
hon. Minister's oflBce I should like to read
just one sliort paragraph from that publica-
tion, because I think it points out the situa-
tion which exists in this government.
Last year we raised taxes in this province
by 20 per cent and over the past tNvo years
the 20 per cent has almost entirely been taken
up in additional budgets by the government
which really have not provided very much
additional in the way of additional services.
If I may be accused of being pro-taxpayer
for a moment I would like to suggest that
perhaps the time has come for the government
to take a sharp look at these expenditures be-
fore they bring them to this House and find
out whether they can be pared down a little
bit.
I had several questions which I would like
to ask the hon. Minister. I note that there is
one item under statutory expenses, where we
are asked to approve four Ministers without
Portfolio. I believe the salary to those people
is $2,500, per year. Now, they are nice
people, I like the Ministers without Portfolio
but I do not think they are doing very much.
I do not think they need portfolios and I
think if we are going to increase taxes in this
province by 20 per cent we had better find
out whether or not these expenses are doing
for us what we intended they should do. If I
might revert back to Parkinson's law, he said:
Politicians have assumed that a rising
total in the number of civil servants must
reflect a growing volume of work to be
done.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Is not that true? Does
the hon. member not believe it?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Yes, I am afraid the
hon. Minister believes it. I quote further:
Cynics in questioning this belief have
imagined that the multiplication of officials
must have left some of them idle or all
of them able to work for shorter hours but
this is a matter in which faith and doubt
seem equally misplaced.
I suggest that these estimates rise in direct
proportion to the overall budget each year;
I suggest that each department comes for-
ward, building their empires. As a matter
of fact we have four Ministers without Port-
folio in training so that they can build their
own empires and spend more of the tax-
payers' money. The Ontario Municipal Board,
before they approve the expenditures— any
expenditure of a municipality which is the
creature of this Legislature— look very care-
fully into the need for those expenditures.
I suggest that no thought has been given
in these estimates as to whether they could
have been pared.
I note, for instance, that last year we
appropriated some $30,000 under the estimate
to provide what we call the government
hospitality fund. I note on checking the
public accounts for the year ending March 31,
1961, we expended some $43,000. Now, these
are all good things, we want to encourage
these people to hold meetings in our province;
but surely when it is necessary to burden the
taxpayer with an additional 20 per cent in
his overall taxes we should give some thought
to paring these estimates where they can be
pared.
I see no place in these estimates where
any concentrated effort has been made to cut
expenditures in any direction. It has been a
matter of milking the public of these funds
so we can build these empires and build our
own ego in so doing.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Is the province grow-
ing any?
740
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An hon. member: The Cabinet's growing;
it is growing in age.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I do not know that the
province is growing in proportion to the
Cabinet, I would answer the hon. Minister of
Mines.
I would like to question three or four items
in the last public accounts which have been
given to us. I should like to know why we
gave a grant of $500, for instance, to the
Canadian Automobile Association or $931 to
the Hotel Association of Canada, or $1,800
to the Congress of Anaesthesiologists. We
could go on and on. There are several here
and I should like to know why these grants
were given and what was done with the
money. Perhaps the hon. Minister would
answer that question.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am sorry, I did not
hear that last question.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
will ask the question again, sir, and I would
would refer to the statement that the hon.
Minister of Mines just made.
I would remind him that it is the duty of
the Opposition to ask questions in this House
so that they can be made public. To suggest
that we could get this information privately
is only an attempt to cover up the govern-
ment's sins. I would tell the hon. Minister
further that as long as I sit as a member of
this House representing the people of Went-
worth, I am going to ask the questions
publicly. I have no intention of asking them
privately.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I will be glad if you
will go to my department and get information
there that is factual, rather than always
bringing these matters up in the Legislature.
An hon. member: The hon. Minister does
not want to answer them publicly.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: That is not the point.
The hon. member does not want it that way.
He wants to make politics out of it, that is
all. He does not want the proper information;
he can get it at any time from my department,
or any other, if he cares to ask.
Mr. Wintermeyer: May I hear the question,
please?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I hear the ques-
tion, please?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, the
question was simply this. Since there was an
increase of some $13,000 in the actual ex-
penditures over the estimates with respect to
the matter of government hospitality fund,
would the hon. Minister tell me why these
grants were given— to the Canadian Auto-
mobile Association $500, $4,500 to the Inter-
national Union of Applied Physics, $931 to
the Hotel Association of Canada? Why to
these three in particular?
Why do we not try to keep these grants
within reasonable bounds? Is there any sense,
rhyme or reason in the way these grants are
handed out, and why did not other associa-
tions get the same amount? I would like to
know the policy we follow with respect to
these expenditures. I have another question
before I yield the floor, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
say in all honesty, as a taxpayer of this prov-
ince, that every dollar should be watched and
watched carefully; and it is watched carefully.
I cannot conceive that the people of the
province of Ontario would regard a hospitality
fund in the amount of $40,000 as being exces-
sive for a jurisdiction the size of the province
of Ontario.
Mr. Whicher: That is just for your depart-
ment,
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is done on behalf
of all departments, and under a— generally-
basic rule, for those things which are of a
national import.
I want to bring this to the attention of the
hon. member very briefly. This year one of
the most successful gatherings that we had in
this city of Toronto was the convention of the
Kiwanians; the Kiwanis International held
their meeting here in the city of Toronto. I
think the whole aspect of the government
hospitality fund is reflected in certain words
which were used by the Toronto Telegram
in reference to the Kiwanis International con-
vention, when they said: "Small Outlay, Big
Reward."
A return of $3 million for an investment
of $12,000 is spectacular business. It cost the
Metropolitan Toronto Convention and Visitor
Association $12,000 to bring the Kiwanians
to Toronto and it is estimated that the
Kiwanians, in the course of their conference,
left behind in this province $3 million. I
think that is a pretty good reward. The
province's contribution was $2,000.
I cannot think of a better use for the
hospitality fund than extending $2,000 worth
of hospitality in conjunction with someone
else in arranging for the vice-regal party
which was held on the campus of the Uni-
versity of Toronto for a group that brings
MARCH 2, 1962
741
in $3 million. Now, that is one of the criteria,
to encourage groups from outside to—
Mr. Bryden: Is the hon. Minister suggest-
ing they would not have come here without
the $2,000?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I can suggest this: that
in view of the participation of this govern-
ment in the idea that was conceived of having
a vice-regal party on the campus, that is one
of the factors why the Kiwanians are con-
sidering returning to the city in 1967 for
another $3 million. That is one point.
There are other items. There is an ex-
change visit from the University of Southern
Carolina; some 25 students came up here on
an exchange visit to Toronto. I cannot think
of dollars that are better spent than in the
promotion of that type of visit.
We had a visit here from one of the most
recent independent republics of the Common-
wealth, Western Nigeria. Hospitality was
extended to them out of the hospitality
fund, and I quote from the External Aid
Office of Ottawa, with whom we co-operated:
The Nigerians were unstinted in their
praise of the programme and hospitality
which had been arranged for them during
their Toronto visit, and I assure you that
the friendly generosity of Canadians like
yourself and your colleagues makes a
favourable impression on these official
visitors and will greatly assist in improving
Canada's relations with the countries and
governments they represent.
That is another criterion. I could go on—
Mr. R. W. Gibson (Kenora): Mr. Chair-
man, would the hon. Minister permit a
question? I am a new member and I would
like to know of what this hospitality consists.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, with
respect to the hon. Minister, he is not
answering my question.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have a very interest-
ing letter here which I will proceed to read.
It is from II Sottosegretario di Stato per gli
Affaria Esteri, Roma, and states:
Caro Ministro,
Rientrato a Roma, desidero esprimer le
nuovamente il mio grato apprezzamento
per quanto Ella, a nome del Governo dell'-
Ontario, ha voluto fare in occasione della
mia visita a Toronto.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, sir—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I could go on. Mr.
Chairman, I could go on for the benefit of
those in the Opposition who do not under-
stand—
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, sir.
I asked the hon. Minister a specific ques-
tion; I referred to three particular organiza-
tions. I did not refer to tlie organization the
hon. Minister is talking about at all. I asked
him on what basis this money was advanced
and he went all around the subject instead
of answering the question. I have all the
time the hon. Minister has, but I suggest to
you, sir, that he is evading the question.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, it would
be impossible for me to have all the files
relative to this correspondence. I am giving
him some of the criteria by which the govern-
ment hospitality fund is spent and I have
some of the examples before me. The letter
I was reading, for the benefit of those who
do not understand Italian, was from the
Under-Secretary of State for External AfiEairs.
He states as follows:
Dear Minister:
I have now returned to Rome and again
I wish to express my grateful appreciation
for what you, in the name of the Ontario
government, did on the occasion of my
visit to Toronto.
I have all kinds of correspondence along
that line.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to pursue this matter if I may. I am
sure it would be quite easy to get up and
read letters from anybody to whom we give
hand-outs. If he would give me one, I would
be pleased to send him a letter too.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, now, that is not
a hand-out.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Singer: Why do you not tap your
gavel there, or do you only tap it at this
side?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, witli
respect to the hon. Ministers who seem to
insist on interjecting, this is my opinion, and
certainly I am entitled to that. I wonder if
the hon. Minister could advise me on what
basis grants were given to the Canadian
Automobile Association, the International
Union of Applied Physics and to the Hotel
Association of Canada. Does he have any
742
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
information here with respect to these ex-
penditures which appear in the public
accounts?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I indicated at the out-
set of my answer to the hon. member that
tliese are gatherings which are national in
character; the province of Ontario was the
host province in this instance, and it was felt
proper that hospitality should be extended
in this regard.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Then might I ask
the hon. Minister if this hospitality is ex-
tended to every association of national
character which holds a meeting in the
province of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: All I know is that I
ha\'e not, I believe, refused any reasonable
request in the last couple of years.
Mr. Br>'dcn: What does he consider a
reasonable request?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I thank the hon.
Minister for his answer and I—
Hon. B. L. Cathcart (Minister of Travel
and Publicity ) : Mr. Chairman, for the benefit
of the hon. Minister, he may recall— I recall
one anyway that I brought to his attention a
year ago and the hon. member for Stormont
( Mr. Manley ) will support me. There was
hospitality extended on your behalf down in
the city of Cornwall.
Mr. Singer: For what association?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I cannot recall.
Mr. Singer: Well, if the hon. Minister is
going to speak about these things he should
recall it.
An hon. member: Why do you not stand
up and support the hon. Minister?
Mr. P. Manley ( Stormont ) : Why should I
be answering the hon. Minister's question?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Mr. Chairman, I just
wanted to point out that hospitality is ex-
tended beyond this particular area.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chainnan, I
wonder if I might pursue this again. I was
not quite satisfied when the hon. Minister
answered the previous question that I asked
him. Do I understand that this hospitality
fund will make grants to any organization,
national in character, which holds its annual
convention or meetings in the province of
Ontario? Now, in answering my question.
he said that he had not turned down any
reasonable request. With due respect to the
hon. Minister I am sure that in his opinion
he did not turn down any request which in
his opinion was reasonable; but his opinion
and mine might possibly vary.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: But he is the
Minister; that is the difference.
Mr. Singer: Oh, the big wind from the
north again.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: The reason I ask
the question, Mr. Chairman, is that I am
endeavouring to find out the policy under
which these grants are paid. If they are
not paid to all organizations national in
character, as was suggested a few moments
ago, then the next question I would ask is:
on what basis is it decided who shall receive
a grant and who shall not receive a grant?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have spent about
5 minutes explaining the various criteria by
which the consideration of these grants are
made, by giving examples of the recipients.
Some of them are national, there are some
that are international, there are some that
have to do with government bodies, there are
some that have to do witli student bodies,
there are various criteria. The Minister makes
the decision.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chaimian,
then may I ask the hon. Minister this ques-
tion? We have before us the estimate of
some $40,000 for this fund in the current
year. Is this a guess in the dark or is tliis
a predetermined figure which is based on
requests which we already have?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, as a matter of fact,
last year in the estimates there was $30,000
and our expenditures will exceed that; and
there is the necessity for a treasury board
order. We anticipate, on the basis of past
experience, and in view of the fact that the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
conference will be held in the province of
Ontario, that there will be additional sums
required for that purpose.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, as a
result of the answers which I have received
from the hon. Minister I reiterate the state-
ment that I made earlier— that these estimates
seem to me to be vague, not on an actual
budget estimate on what we—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chaimian, I do
not know and cannot tell who is going to
approach me for a grant or assistance of
MARCH 2, 1962
743
hospitality 9 months from now, or 10
months from now, or 11 months from now.
We do not hne everybody up and say:
well, we are going to be considering the
following year. This is an estimate, as are
all figures; they are the estimates based on
past experience, the advice of our accountant,
and the anticipation of what type of gather-
ings will be held within the province within
the next year.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I thank the hon. Minister for his statement
and I think it amplifies the statement that I
am making— that this is based principally on
a guess; that they are not sure to whom they
are going to pay it. I am a little bit con-
cerned about the comment which has been
made with respect to what is reasonable and
what is not, because I feel that this should
be based on some kind of a predetermined
line of reasoning.
I was quite interested to hear the hon.
Minister state, two or three times, about
organizations which we brought to our city.
Now I happen to come from a city which is
a little bit removed from here and I am
wondering, and I think it is a fair question
to ask the hon. Minister, on what basis are
these grants paid? Solely at the discretion
of the hon. Minister without any policy con-
sideration? On what basis does he decide
what is reasonable and what is not reason-
able?
For instance, if an organization were going
to meet in some city removed from Toronto,
would it be solely at the discretion of the
hon. Minister as to whether or not these
people would receive any assistance? I think
it is a reasonable question.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: One of the responsi-
bilities assigned by this Legislature to the
Provincial Secretary is the operation of the
hospitality fund. There is an item in the
estimates, as there is for every other item of
responsibility, in this case $40,000. The ex-
penditures are published in the accounts
every year— the hon. member has it before
him— these are not confined to one locality.
The hon. Minister of Travel and Publicity
(Mr. Cathcart) reminds me of that in the
riding of the hon. member for Stormont ( Mr.
Manley), up at the Lakehead, and various
parts of the province; there is no restriction
on area or anything. If it is a reasonable
request in the light of what the province of
Ontario should do in hospitality, the Minister
so acts.
Vote 1601 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee
rise and report progress, and asks for leave
to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in tlie
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that when this House adjourns the present
sitting thereof it do stand adjourned until
2 p.m. on Monday next and that Rule No. 2
be suspended so far as it applies to this
motion.
Mr. Speaker: Before putting the motion I
would like to mention that in the House this
morning, and since the House opened, we
now have some new visitors in the west
gallery, from Maiden Public School; and I
would point out that the Maiden Public
School is situated in Essex South.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
whether the 2 o'clock commencement will
be the order of the day from here on. I
can understand that on specific occasions
there is need to do exactly that, but my
personal experience— and other people may
want to voice their opinion— was that last
year the session from two to six did become
very onerous and I wonder in my own mind
the worthwhileness of regularly sitting for
four hours at one time.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Well,
Mr. Speaker, it is simply a question of do-
ing the business of the House in the most
efiicient manner possible, and I could not
undertake that we will not meet at two
o'clock on occasion. As a matter of fact, I
was considering sitting at two o'clock every
afternoon but that may not be necessary
until a few weeks have passed and the work
load builds up. But we have a good deal
of legislation ahead of us and it may be
necessary for us to sit at two o'clock, but I
will bear in mind the remarks the hon. leader
of the Opposition has made.
On Monday we will go on with the esti-
mates of The Department of Agriculture,
and there will be a night session on Mon-
day, a night session on Tuesday, and probably
a night session on Thursday.
744
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I think
this is an appropriate occasion to ask of the
hon. Prime Minister that he outhne for us
the schedule for next week. Now, I under-
stand, and it is understandable, that on one
or two occasions, particularly shortly after
the budget, there is certainly a degree of
hurry with the presentation of particular
estimates. But you will understand that the
opportunity now to prepare for Agriculture
is very limited. I certainly would ask the
hon. Prime Minister to detail for us the
various estimates that will be called during
the ensuing week.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, I would be very
happy to do that. I do not want to be held
too tightly because of circumstances involv-
ing the business of the House— it requires a
certain amount of flexibility. So, in detail-
ing what I have in mind, I do not want to
put myself in the position where I cannot
alter it if necessary. And on that basis,
next week it is my intention to proceed
with the estimates of The Department of
Agriculture on Monday; on Tuesday the
Opposition's financial critic will speak, and
the hon. member from the NDP party will
speak in the budget debate. So Tuesday
will be pretty well given over to the budget
debate and the ordinary business of the
House, that is the introduction of legislation
and matters on the order paper.
On Wednesday we will have a committee
day and the House will not sit; and on
Thursday, if my present plans materialize,
we will have the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Transport. Then, of course, we have
next Friday with nothing scheduled as yet.
The completion of the estimates of the hon.
Provincial Secretary might be called at any
time, to fit into the time that is available,
because naturally I do not know how long
these various matters I have mentioned are
going to take.^
I will then undertake to detail for the
House, some time next week, what estimates
we will consider in the following week, and
then the hon. leader of the Opposition will
have an opportunity to prepare for them.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Well, Mr.
Speaker, earlier in the session the hon. Prime
Minister stated that he would try to have
night sessions on Tuesday and Thursday
evenings. Surely three nights next week is
rather a heavy load for all hon. members.
Why the sudden change?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not know how we
have come to debate this but, in fact, this
will be the first Monday night we have sat.
It will be the first night session other than
a Tuesday or a Thursday and it will be the
first night session since we have resumed after
the Christmas recess, so I personally do not
feel that the burden of work has been just
too staggeringly heavy so far in 1962. I will
attempt not to call more than two night
sessions a week but, if circumstances dictate,
in order to complete the business of the prov-
ince of Ontario I will have to do so.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1:10 of the clocks
p.m.
No. 28
ONTARIO
%m^Mmt of d^ntarto
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty'Sixth Legislature
Monday, March 5, 1962
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C*
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
■■■a
CONTENTS
^?\
Monday, March 5, 1962
Third report, standing committee on standing orders, Mr. Noden 747
United Church of Canada, bill respecting, Mr. Simonett, first reading 747
Township of Nepean, bill respecting, Mr. W. E. Johnston, first reading 747
Laurentian University of Sudbury, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, first reading 747
Christ Church, Amherstburg, bill respecting, Mr. Parry, first reading 747
Baudette and Rainy River municipal bridge, bill respecting, Mr. Noden, first reading .... 748
Biverview Health Association, bill respecting, Mr. Wintermeyer, first reading 748
Windsor Board of Education and the Windsor Suburban District High School Board,
bill respecting, Mr. Wintermeyer, first reading 748
City of Hamilton, bill respecting, Mr. R. C. Edwards, first reading 748
Presenting reports, Mr. Yaremko 748
Estimates, Department of Agriculture, Mr. Stewart 748
Recess, 6 o'clock 787
747
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we wel-
come as guests students from the following
schools: in the east gallery, St. Vincent de
Paul Separate School, Toronto, and Charles
E. Webster Public School, Toronto; and in
the west gallery, Dewson Street Public
School, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. W. G. Noden (Rainy River) from the
standing committee on standing orders pres-
ented the committee's third report, which
was read as follows and adopted:
Your committee has carefully examined the
following petitions and finds the notices, as
published in each case, sufficient:
Of the Township of Nepean praying that
an Act may pass relating to imposition of sew-
age and water rates.
Of Christ Church, Anglican Church of
Canada, Amherstburg, praying that an Act
may pass varying the terms of a trust created
by the will of the late Loftus Cuddy.
Of the United Church of Canada praying
that an Act may pass authorizing the cor-
poration and emanations thereof to invest in
such securities as are authorized for Canadian
insurance companies.
Of the Town of Rainy River praying that
an Act may pass exempting the Baudette and
Rainy River municipal bridge from all muni-
cipal taxation.
Of Laurentian University of Sudbury pray-
ing that an Act may pass enlarging the senate
thereof; and for related purposes.
Of the City of Hamilton praying that an
Act may pass vesting in tlie corporation all
assets, etc., of the board of park management
of the said city; and for related purposes.
Monday, March 5, 1962
Of Riverview Health Association praying
that an Act may pass providing for the dis^
tribution of its assets in the event of dis-
solution; and for related purposes.
Of the board of education for the City of
Windsor and the Windsor Suburban District
High School Board validating an agreement
whereby the suburban district board will erect
and pay for additions to a secondary school
in the City of Windsor and be guaranteed
certain accommodation in such school.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA
Mr. J. R. Simonett (Frontenac-Addington)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
respecting The United Church of Canada.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWNSHIP OF NEPEAN
Mr. W. E. Johnston (Carleton) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act respecting
The Township of Nepean.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY OF
SUDBURY
Mr. A, H. Cowling (High Park), in the
absence of Mr. R. Belisle, moves first reading
of bill intituled. An Act respecting Laurentian
University of Sudbury.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CHRIST CHURCH, AMHERSTBURG
Mr. G. W. Parry (Kent West) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act respecting
Christ Church, Amherstburg.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
748
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
BAUDETTE-RAINY RIVER MUNICIPAL
BRIDGE
Mr. W. G Nodcn (Rainy River) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting
The Baudette and Rainy River Municipal
Bridge.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
RIVERVIEW HEALTH ASSOCIATION
Mr. J. J. Winteniieyer (Leader of the
Opposition), in tlie absence of Mr. A. J.
Reaume, moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act respecting River view Health Associa-
tion.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
WINDSOR BOARDS
Mr. Wintermeyer, in the absence of Mr.
Reaume, moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act respecting The Windsor Board of
Education and the Windsor Suburban District
High School Board.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF HAMILTON
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting
The City of Hamilton.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. R. W. Gibson (Kenora): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I have two
questions to direct to the hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. Goodfellow), due notice of
which has been given to him. The questions
are:
When will the contract for the proposed
Werner-Gordon Lake access road be let and
when will work begin?
Secondly, what is the completion date of
this project?
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the ques-
tions sent to me by the hon. member for
Kenora (Mr. Gibson) and I might say that the
Werner Lake access road is receiving every
consideration.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): Mr.
Speaker, I beg leave to present to the House
the following:
The University of Toronto president's re-
port for the year ending June 30, 1961; the
rei>ort of the board of governors of the Uni-
versity of Toronto for the year ending June
30, 1961; the annual report of the Ontario
College of Art for the fiscal year ended May
31, 1961; the report of the board of governors
of the Lakehead College of Arts, Science and
Technology for the period June 1, 1960 to
May 31, 1961; the annual report of the
Teachers' Superannuation Commission for the
year ending October 31, 1961.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
House moves into committee of supply;
Mr. K. Brown in the Chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Chairman: On vote 101:
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Chairman, I want to say first of
all that this is a very unique, and I must
confess an unnerving, experience ' to present
one's first estimates in this House.
Before I get into anything that might be
described as a report of The Department of
Agriculture for 1961 and activities at the
moment, I would like to pay tribute to those
who have preceded me in office. I had the
privilege of being a farmer in the province
of Ontario under the guidance of men like
Colonel T. L. Kennedy and the late F. S.
Thomas, both of whom were outstanding
Ministers of Agriculture in this province. As
a farmer, I enjoyed the benefit of their leader-
ship in The Department of Agriculture and,
like so many other farmers in this province,
I profited by the policies of this government
as enunciated by those very able Ministers.
Then as a farmer and also as a private
member of the House, I had the opportunity
of knowing, in a very personal way, my im-
mediate predecessor in office, the hon. Min-
ister of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow). In my
humble opinion, Mr. Chairman, these three
men— and certainly by no means the least of
them was my immediate predecessor in office
—were men who devoted their lives and
dedicated themselves to the service of farmers
and to agriculture in the province of Ontario.
I feel very definitely that their contribution
has been one that is indeed very hard for
one to follow in office and hope to match. I
sincerely trust that, as time goes on, I may
be permitted to make some contribution, even
though it may not measure up to theirs.
I would like to say a word about the
agricultural picture in the province of Ontario
for the year 1961 and point out that it was
a year that began, as far as farming was
1
MARCH 5, 1962
749
concerned, with a very late seeding, and we
were fearful that we might have a crop
failure, but ideal weather conditions brought
on one of the best crops ever grown in the
province of Ontario.
Indeed, I believe that had it not been for
the disastrous rains we had right in harvest
time and the hot humid weather that came
along just at the time of harvest, we might
have had the greatest crop yield ever grown
in this country.
A good deal of the crop was harvested
before bad weather struck; but a sizeable
portion was badly damaged, before it could
be harvested. Although it may not have
been as good quality and the colour may
have deteriorated, it is still mighty valuable
and good for feeding.
Those who were counting on winter wheat
crops for a cash crop were disappointed in
some respects. Many had their wheat
damaged by sprouting, due to the weather,
and some were unable to sell their wheat for
milHng purposes.
Most of the farmers who could not sell
their wheat for milling purposes found some
way of drying it and storing it and are using
it now for feed— putting it through livestock,
which is today paying ojff very well indeed.
I would say that perliaps those farmers are
making more out of it today as feed tlian
they might have made had they sold it on
the miller's market at that time.
This, I beheve, pointed out more than
anything else the necessity that we have in
Ontario today for on-the-farm storage of
grain. So often, our farm people come to
harvest time and, not having a place to store
their grain, have to sell it to the nearest
elevator at a price that is not as good as
is might have been had they been able to
hold it. I believe this is one of the things
that has pointed up the necessity for farmers
to provide on-the-farm storage for their grain
in an ever-increasing quantity.
We had a record corn crop in the province
of Ontario this year with ideal growing con-
ditions right through the entire summer and
ideal harvesting conditions last fall after the
wet weather subsided. I believe most of the
corn in this province was harvested. It is
either in silos or in cribs or in bins, after
being dried. We have never had such a crop
of com as we had this last year.
Also, we had ideal pasture conditions. I
believe our dairy farmers have never experi-
enced a year when the luxurious pasture
lasted for as long as it did during the summer
and fdll of 1961. Ideal weather conditions.
lots of rain and warm weather, kept the
pasture growing and kept it green.
We had good hay crops. There is prob-
ably an abundance of hay in most of Ontario
this year. Some of it got weathered a bit,
but generally speaking there is an abundance
of hay.
Our crops could be described, for 1961, as
outstanding.
We in this province are fortunate to have
enjoyed the kind of weather and other con-
ditions that gave us this crop. In western
Canada, conditions were not so bright. They
sufiFered a severe drought out there. In fact,
in the mid-summer it looked as though it
might reach disastrous proportions and the
governments of the day, in co-operation with
the hon. federal Minister of Agriculture, held
meetings and decided what was the best
course of action their farmers might take
and then encouraged them to follow specific
courses of action that seemed to work to the
benefit of the whole agricultural industry.
There was, we admit, a serious shortage
of feed grain because of the drought in
western Canada, and this was of real concern
to farmers in Ontario with respect to secur-
ing grain for the 1961-1962 feeding season;
because in Ontario, we have in the past been
bringing from western Canada— importing
into this province— between 22 and 28 per
cent of our normal feed grain requirements.
Out west, they just did not have this grain
and so it was impossible to bring it in.
Recognizing this was the problem, the
federal government allowed importation of
oats from the United States, as well as con-
siderable quantities of corn to stabilize the
feed-grain market in the province of Ontario.
This was a great departure from anything
that has happened in previous years as far as
our province is concerned.
Nevertheless, it did stabili2% the feed-grain
situation in Ontario, and while feed-grain has
increased in price, we must also recognize
it has been a benefit to those farmers who
are growing grain for sale in the province
of Ontario,
The wheat surplus of western Canada is
virtually a thing of the past. Hon. members
may say to me this is not a matter of con-
cern to The Department of Agriculture in
the province of Ontario. I must agree that
is true to a degree but we have always
recognized, as farmers in Ontario, that the
wheat supplies or the wheat surplus that
existed in western Canada was a backlog
for feed-grain supplies, if needed in eastern
Canada.
750
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Tliis wheat surplus is virtually a thing of
the past. We have sold tremendous quan-
tities of wheat to the Orient— China— and
much more is to move out. Indeed, our
farmers of western Canada are now being
oiKournged by the hon. federal Minister of
Aj^rituhure to increase the production of
wheat in order to meet the demand that
apparently exists for this product. It is a
great step forward, I should say, in marketing
of export farm products in this country.
We in Ontario are concerned with live-
stock and livestock products. We are told
by our economists and our statisticians that
over 70 per cent of the income of Ontario
farms is derived from livestock or livestock
products. This brings me to a point which
I think is of real concern to us as farmers
in Ontario and as people interested in agri-
culture. We recognize that there is indeed
a changing pattern, a changing picture in
the livestock situation as far as Canada is
concerned.
For years we farmers in Ontario have
depended on feeder cattle supplies from the
western provinces to stock our feed lots and
our farms in Ontario. But with the tremen-
dous growth in population of the western
United States, and indeed of western Can-
ada—and because there has been a consid-
erable amount of feed grain and wheat in
western Canada available to farmers out
there— there has been an encouragement to
those who were interested in feeding beef
cattle in western Canada, to establish feed
lot operations. There, with their dry weather
conditions, they do not have to build the
expensive buildings that we have to have
down here in Ontario to provide shelter from
the weather. And they have, in many in-
stances, built rough shelters, some of them
out of bales of straw that have been piled
up to enclose a feed lot; there have been
rough board fences built, but generally
speaking they have not gone in for the
expensive buildings that we have to have
in eastern Canada.
They have had access to the cattle at the
ranches; their costs of transportation in
moving these feeder cattle from the ranch
to the feed lot has been next to negligible;
and they have access to all kinds of feed
grain, at a reasonable cost, right at their
door. And in some cases there has been a
co-operative eflFort by producers of feeder
cattle on the one hand, and growers of grain
on the other, to establish a feed lot. One
fellow puts in the cattle, another fellow
supplies the grain, and they have marketed
their grain and their beef in a co-operative
way. This has certainly had an eflFect on
the source of feeder cattle for the province
of Ontario.
Along with that, there has been a tremen-
dous increase in the demand for feeder
cattle ill western Canada, from our Ameri-
can neighbours. Literally thousands and
thousands of cattle move out of the western
plains to feed lots in the United States;
and the quality of our Canadian cattle is so
appreciated that they have commanded a
very high price. This puts us in the spot of
competing first of all with the feed-lot opera*
tors in western Canada, and with the Ameri-
can feed-lot operators from the United States,
in getting our sources and supplies of feeder
cattle moved into Ontario.
I would say that this is one of the things
that I feel we in The Department of Agri-
culture, and indeed all farm organizations
and people in this province, must recognize
if we are going to provide a source of feeder
cattle for the farmers of this province in
years to come. It may well be that we
should, in a very practical way, follow some
of the examples that have been set in the
demonstration farms established by The
Department of Agriculture at Sault Ste.
Marie and New Liskeard, where substantial
beef cow herds have been established. There,
the use of good bulls has proven beyond a
shadow of a doubt that we can provide
good feeder cattle ir^ our north country for
the— I might say, almost inexhaustible— de-
mand of our southern Ontario and central
Ontario feeders for these cattle.
It seems to me that we must take a good
look at this and do everything we can to
provide this source of cattle, or to encourage
the establishment of cow-calf operations in
marginal areas of the province, in land
where they do not enjoy the quality of soil
that we have in some other parts of the prov-
ince where more expensive cash crops may
be grown. This is something at which we
should take a good look.
Then I would like to point out that an
innovation has taken place in the province
of Ontario as far as the sale of cattle is con-
cerned. I point to the innovation of auction
selling at the Ontario stockyards.
On a trial basis, auction selling was inau-
gurated for the last three days of the week-
Wednesday, Thursday and Friday— and it was
tried for a period of some three or four
months and worked successfully. It allowed
those people who, in the initial stages, had
some doubts and reservations about the
method of auction selling— as to whedier it
was the thing that was really needed in
MARCH 5, 1962
751
selling our cattle— to use the first two days
by private treaty method, the same as we had
always had in this province.
But it was found that the demand in-
creased, and there were increasing representa-
tions made to the stockyards manager, Mr.
Fred Campbell, and to his board of directors
of the Ontario stockyards, to extend auction
selhng. And so we got into a 5-day auction
selling at the Ontario stockyards.
I think it is interesting to note that, be-
cause of the great demand for western feeder
cattle across the line, and the feed-lot opera-
tions of the west, there has been a great reduc-
tion in the number of feeder cattle coming to
Ontario through the stockyards; and certainly
because Canada is now declared a TB-free
area, as far as cattle are concerned, we do
not have to have cattle tested in western
Canada and read at the Ontario stockyards
before being delivered to the farms, or have
them held at the Ontario stockyards while
that test is made. This has reduced the num-
ber of cattle that have come to the Ontario
stockyards through this sort of channel by
over 33,000 head.
And yet the Ontario farmer, because of
auction selling at the Ontario stockyards, has
increased the number of cattle sent there by
a very substantial number. As a matter of
fact, in the first five weeks of 1962, the
annual weekly increase over 1961 sales
amounted to something like a thousand head
per week. This has had the effect of deter-
mining price at terminal market levels. I
think it was only a natural evolution by the
farmers of this province themselves, who
were using the services that had been pro-
vided by the various community sales across
the province— some 60 or more in number-
where farmers were selling their livestock,
where the packing houses were sending out
their buyers to buy livestock for their trade.
The auction-selling innovation at the stock-
yards, here in Toronto, has had the result
that, in many instances, more cattle are com-
ing here than ordinarily would have gone to
those sales or been sold direct to packing
plants. And it has had the effect of estab-
lishing a market here, where buyers of various
plants can bid on these cattle competi-
tively and can establish a going price for the
cattle of that particular grade and quality.
And it is working out, generally, to the satis-
faction of farmers across the province.
I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to
go out there, completely unannounced, to the
stockyards just to take a look for myself. I
spent one Monday afternoon there, just to
see what happens, and I was impressed with
the activities of tlie auction. I was impressed
with the number of catde that were moving
through those auction rings, and there were
four rings operating the afternoon when I
was there.
A number of buyers were there, represent-
ing various packing plants and individuals. It
was a vast difference from the Ontario stock-
yards, as I recalled them, many years ago
when under private treaty. I have been on
those yards many times on a Monday, with
cattle of our own, or buying cattle for our-
selves, and found that there were literally
thousands of cattle on that yard and buyers,
to my mind, had the field all to themselves.
They could bid on the cattle; and if you did
not want to take it, they would leave them
there and they would wait for you to take it
later on in the day or later on in the week;
and in cases I recall very well, the cattle had
been there for as much as a week before they
were sold.
The auction selling has had the eflFect of
bringing cattle to the yards on Monday, Tues-
day, Wednesday, Thursday, in just about
equal numbers, and we do not have this
large carry-over. We have a number of
cattle coming there more in consistence with
the buyers' demand. Generally speaking, this
has been a policy that I think has worked
out very well. There are great improvements
in livestock marketing in this province.
While I am on the subject of livestock, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to say a word about
one of the problems that has plagued dairy-
men for as long as there has been a dairy
industry. We have been successful in clean-
ing up tuberculosis in cattle. We have been
largely successful in cleaning up Bang's
disease. I think we should now direct our
attention, as definitely as we possibly can, to
perhaps one of the worst scourges that the
dairy and the livestock industry know: that is,
to this problem of mastitis in dairy cattle.
It has been recognized that tliis is a disease
which annually costs the farmers of this prov-
ince, and in fact the whole country, millions
of dollars. It is our intention to initiate
a programme in Ontario designed to control
and, if possible, to eradicate mastitis from
dairy herds. Now, this is a very large order
and it is one that cannot possibly come about
overnight. But the policy that will be devel-
oped is on the basis of a pilot project which
will centre around the regional veterinary
laboratory at Ridgetown. This will be a
voluntary plan. It is the intention to enrol at
least 150 herds of dairy cattle.
All lactating cows in the herds of the par-
ticipants will be subjected to tests at 6-week
752
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
intervals in the 9 months following enrol-
ment, and at 3-month intervals thereafter.
Each voluntary participant will be required to
sign an agreement obligating himself to have
infected cows treated under the direction of a
veterinarian and to eliminate from his herd
all animals that fail to respond to treatment.
The Ridgetown experience is to be considered
as a pilot project, initiated for the purpose of
ascertaining whether or not it is possible to
establish and maintain herds that are free
from mastitis; and, if possible, to formulate
a province- wide, comprehensive, mastitis
policy.
It should be pointed out that considerable
testing work for mastitis was conducted last
year in the regional veterinary laboratories,
and a total of 150,000 tests for farmers were
carried out. It is also proposed to carry on
a more accurate and intensive educational
programme, with reference to mastitis as a
first step. Courses will be staged for extension
workers to come in direct contact with dairy-
men, such as the dairy branch field men, the
Dairy Herd Improvement Association field-
men, and other extension workers— in order
that they may be informed on this particular
subject, and thereby pass along the informa-
tion to the dairy farmers.
One of the programmes tliat was initiated by
my hon. predecessor in office (Mr. Goodfellow),
and one which met with very great approval
and interest in the province of Ontario, was
the programme of farm safety. This was
initiated tvt'o years ago, and a farm accident
survey was conducted across the province of
Ontario. I would like to point out that we
in The Department of Agriculture appreciate,
more than anyone can ever know, the volun-
tary co-operation of the women's institutes
across the province, the junior farmers*
organizations, and indeed all farm organiza-
tions who co-operated with The Department
of Agriculture in making this farm accident
survey possible.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to quote just a
few of the figures that were revealed. I dare-
say that many of the hon. members know all
tiiese figures but, in case they do not, I would
like to bring them to the records of the House.
Between March 1, 1959, and February 29,
1960, this survey applies. The figures from
this survey should not be filed away and
forgotten, however. This, I think, is most
important because they are of real significance
in dollars and cents. I would like to recall
them to the House.
During this period there were 293 fatal
accidents— three times the traffic fatality rate
in Metro Toronto. I think it is difficult to
put a price on life. There were 336 permanent
injuries sustained, and I suggest, Mr. Chair-
man, that money is no compensation for
permanent disability. There were 5,688
temporary injuries. Now what was the result
of these, in dollars and cents? $700,000 was
paid out in medical bills and $5,254,000 was
suffered in property damage through accidents
on farms.
Now these are very startling figures; and,
aside from the very personal situation of fatal
accidents, these are figures which represent
dollars and cents in our farm economy today
—dollars and cents which farmers cannot
afford to lose. I was privileged to attend
the Ontario farm safety conference at Guelph
a few weeks ago, where representatives from
every county and district in the province of
Ontario came together to discuss the reports
of this survey and to find out ways and means
whereby we could bring home to farm people
the importance of safety on our farms. I
would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that The
Ontario Department of Agriculture has plans
well under way to provide a number of educa-
tional farm safety standards where, according
to the farm accident survey, the greatest
number of all accidents occurred.
I think it is interesting to note that the
preponderance of accidents occurred in this
order: through tractor operation, machinery
operation; home area; bam area and highway
travelling. These are the areas in which the
accidents were really most pronounced.
It is intended to carry out this campaign
through the use of posters, on paper durable
enough to last a number of years. It is
felt that posters can be tacked to walls of
buildings around the farm in places where
they constantly remind one of this matter of
farm safety. We brought into the House
today a few samples of these posters. Here
is one on home safety. It depicts a lady
on the stair-steps carrying her washing, I
believe it is, in a basket downstairs; on the
stair-steps are a number of bottles and cans
and pails, even over-shoes and boots. This
is one of the things that we hope to remind
people that they should not do.
Home Safety
Stairs are for people, not temporary
storage space.
We hope to have something to do with
correcting this situation.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): What kind
of bottles? Is that liquor advertising?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, if my hon. friend
was interested in farm safety, he would listen
MARCH 5, 1962
753
to this instead of trying to make some wise-
cracks.
Here is another one on tractor operations,
showing a man falling off the back of a
tractor. He has been riding— as one might
say— tandem on the back of this tractor. This
points, in a very feasible way, to some of
the things that we should not do.
Here is another one on machinery opera-
tions—a man with his coat caught in the
power-shaft of a tractor operating a machine.
These are some of the things that I think
it would not do any of us, as farmers, any
harm to have tacked up around our implement
sheds, so that it would be indeed a constant
reminder to us to be more careful.
These are some of the things that we would
like to mention and, along with that, we are
promoting and continually encouraging all
farm organizations to promote farm safety;
because, after all, we are dealing with people,
and if we can save the life of one farmer
or one farmer's wife, or one farmer's child,
then it will more than repay us everything
that this bit of advertising and suggested
literature will cost us.
Mr. Sopha: Are those from McKim Adver-
tising?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, they are not; they
are prepared by our own people. Any further
question on that?
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say
a word or two about agricultural education.
We are taking a look, in The Department of
Agriculture, at the overall agricultural educa-
tional picture in the province of Ontario. We
are told that our estimated attendance at
three Guelph colleges will jump from 1,563
on the roll this year, to 2,500 in 1965, and
possibly go up to 4,000 by 1970. These are
figures that we must be concerned with.
We must determine the best way possible
for providing the physical accommodation for
these students who will likely come to our
Guelph colleges for admittance and for train-
ing in scientific agriculture. Then we must
also make the best possible use of the facilities
that we already have, not only at Guelph but
at Ridgetown and at Kemptville. We have
set up a small committee, among ourselves in
The Department of Agriculture, of the people
involved, to take a good look at this and see
if there is something we can do to prepare
ourselves and the department for what I am
sure will be an increased demand for agri-
cultural education as time goes on.
Hon. members had the opportunity last
week, as members of the committee on
agriculture, to deal with the federated colleges
bill and the agricultural research institute
bill at Guelph. We will deal with that again
in committee and in the House.
But I believe that we could safely say that
this was one of the greatest steps forward in
the agricultural-educational programme in
this province that has been taken in some
time; and I am sure you will agree that the
agricultural research institute bill is one of
the most important pieces of legislation that
has ever been brought in.
I would like to remind the House that the
College Royal which is on at Guelph this
week— the students' College Royal— has as its
motto: "Today's research, tomorrow's
methods," and surely that is true. We must
pursue research if we are to keep pace with
the ever-changing picture of Ontario agricul-
ture.
The students at Ridgetown last week cele-
brated their students' Royal and their motto
was "Research advances agriculture". These,
I think, give some credence to the thought,
which is going through the minds of young
people in this province today, of the impor-
tance of research and its place in agriculture
today.
Then I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, a
word about some of the activities of our
market development branch. Some 18 months
ago, the government of Ontario appointed an
agricultural market study group to make a
study, during September 1960, in the interests
of Ontario farmers, of the United Kingdom
markets for farm products. The chief objective
of the study group was to inquire into the
possibility of increasing export trade in
Ontario agricultural products, as the result
of the removal during 1959-1960 of most of
the United Kingdom restrictions on the
import of foods from the dollar countries.
In the past, Ontario food products enjoyed
a general acceptance by the British con-
sumer. Now, after being highly restricted
for 19 years, this market had to be reopened.
As a result, it was necessary to bring to the
attention of a new generation of British con-
sumers, the attractiveness, the taste, the
quality, and the value of Ontario farm food
products. It has been our purpose to pursue
this study that was made there and we have
had some effective results.
We appointed Mr. E. F. Merritt to the
market development branch in July of 1961;
and Mr. Merritt, who is an OAC graduate,
has had considerable experience in the busi-
ness and sales field. He was given the
particular task of co-operating with industry
and the marketing boards here in Ontario, in
754
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
an attempt to locate additional markets for
Ontario produce in the United Kingdom. His
appointment was a recognition of the fact that
the United Kingdom has been closed to
practically all agricultural products for 19
years. This is something that I think we must
recognize— that it has just been reopened.
In the face of increasing competition from
otlicr countries, if Ontario was going to again
regain any of the markets disrupted by the
restrictions on dollar imports, then a very
personal contact would have to be built up be-
tween agricultural operations in Ontario and
the potential importers in the United King-
dom. Mr. Merritt spent September, October,
November and part of December visiting
importers and wholesalers, in the United
Kingdom, who might be interested in imports
of Ontario products.
He has made a complete assessment of that
United Kingdom market. He has also built
a very close contact with the agricultural
industry and the producer marketing boards
concerned in Ontario.
While there may be increasing problems
created because of the United Kingdom
interest in the common market— and this is
something we cannot ignore— at the same
time a positive approach must be taken in
order to keep our foot in the door. It is be-
lieved that the Ontario government can play
a role in market development in co-operation
with industry. It might also be of interest to
say that Mr. Merritt has this weekend re-
turned to England, where he will be complet-
ing arrangements for a very large display of
Ontario farm products and a further follow-up
of contacts with the United Kingdom food
trade.
I would hke to say a word, too, Mr. Chair-
man, concerning our farm management pro-
gramme in the province of Ontario, which
started back in 1948 with a very small be-
ginning. Interest developed as time went on,
to the place where, in 1961, priority was
given to the establishment of farm manage-
ment courses in every county of the province.
In 1956, the county of Bruce set up what
might be described as a pilot project in farm
management under the guidance of the
agricultural representative, Mr. George Gear.
Along with him was appointed a supervisor,
Mr. Larry Rosavear and, after 5 years of
concentrated effort on the part of these
young farm people— and some of them not
so young— who are members of that course, I
had the opportunity last fall of meeting with
them in what was their first get-together as a
group.
Some 125 of those farmers, with their
wives, came out to a banquet on a very cold,
wintry, snowy night. They got together and
congratulated themselves, and I say this very
justifiably, for the excellent job which they
had done in establishing a farm management
course on the basis of practical operation of
their farms on a business-Uke basis.
And I would like to suggest, Mr. Chair-
man, that it is to the advantage of all farm
people to operate their farms as a business
as well as using it as a way of life; because,
certainly, too often we have been told that
as farmers we do nothing more than enjoy
the value of country living and describe our-
selves as living in a way of life tliat is
beyond reproach from anytliing else. In
today's economy it is necessary that we look
beyond that to the place where we must con-
sider ourselves as operating a business. And
too often we, as farm people, perhaps— and
I know this certainly appHes to me as a
farmer— have been so fraught with tiredness
at the end of a day that we perhaps have
not been giving sufficient attention to the
actual acts of business management and op-
eration of our farms. And I think if we can
instil in the minds of farm people the neces-
sity for business management on sound
principle, then I believe we will have gone
a long way in bringing a keener appreciation
for the application of business to the science
of agriculture in the province of Ontario.
We have felt that across this province there
has been a tremendous interest in this proj-
ect. In our own county we have a very active
group. The hon. member for Middlesex
South (Mr. Allen) will know the group in
Middlesex; I was told the other night it num-
bers well over 90 farmers participating in the
club at the present time. This is true right
across the province of Ontario.
I would Hke to say that tliese groups are
being supervised in the various regions of the
province— with a supervisor in Ridgetown,
one stationed at Kemptville and, of course,
the central office of all this programme is
located in the agricultural economics branch
of our department, working through the eco-
nomics department of the OAC. It is
initiated by our agricultural representatives
at county and district levels,
I would certainly like to point out, Mr.
Chairman, that our bankers' school has been
developed across the province by Professor
A. C. Robertson of Guelph, where he has
brought together the bankers of the province,
those who are providing credit for farm
people, from various financial lending institu-
tions, from tlie Canadian Farm Credit Cor-
MARCH 5, 1962
755
poration, from all types of sources of credit
for farm people, brought them together and
tried to develop among those people a keener
appreciation for the need and for the use of
farm credit in the operation of our farming
enterprises across the province.
I say, without any hesitation, Mr. Chair-
man, that the activities of Professor Robert-
son have brought literally millions of dollars
to the use of Ontario farmers in the last few
years. Confidence has been created in the
minds of our bankers and our lending institu-
tion executives, in the farming industry, when
they have been shown that where farming
is carried on in a businesslike way it is a
profitable enterprise. And credit is, to my
mind, just another implement that farmers
can use as a useful tool in today's economy.
I would like to say, in concluding these
remarks, Mr. Chairman, that the policy of
this government since it came into office, and
not only the policy of this Department of
Agriculture, has been to improve the standard
of living of the people of this great province
who are fortunate enough to be a part of our
rural way of life.
I pay humble tribute to the farm organiza-
tions, to the farm women's institute groups,
whose motto is: "For home and country";
and can we think of a better motto for people
to have than that of our women's institutes
who have dedicated their lives and their
service in their organization to their home
and their country?
I would like to pay tribute to the junior
farmers' organizations and to point out to the
hon. members of this House, through you,
Mr. Chairman, that in Ontario we have 37
junior farmer county associations forming 171
individual clubs with 7,099 members; that
we have in Ontario today 733 4-H agricul-
tural clubs with 12,820 members; that we
have in Ontario today 1,687 girls' home-
making clubs operated under our 4-H organ-
ization, and we have a total membership
there of just under 16,000. And I recall very
well, Mr. Chairman, the late member for
the riding of Brant last year pointing out, in
his own inimitable way, the great contribution
that these young people are making to the
province of Ontario— where we have these
young junior farmers so often marrying girls
in the junior farmers' organizations and
settling down on the home farm, to carry it
on and make a success of it as they have so
well in the past.
This is what Ontario rural life really is,
and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it will be
the policy of The Department of Agriculture
—as long as I am permitted to have anything
to do with it— to determine to carry on this
way of life through rural Ontario.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Chairman,
joining in the debate on the estimates of
The Department of Agriculture, I first would
like to congratulate the new hon. Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) in his promo-
tion and would hope that his contribution to
agriculture will be more than what his
speech indicated this afternoon. I had hoped
that he would have touched on some of the
real problems of agriculture, some of the
ones that are the concern of all the farmers
in the province, instead of touching on the
ones that have not been a concern— although
mainly because of the farmers taking the
initiative themselves and promoting them to
some degree.
I feel that the farm safety he has men-
tioned, the great work that has been done in
that organization, has been spirited primar-
ily by the individuals themselves; but I will
hope that in tlie future, when he gets up
to give his estimates, he will touch on some
of the controversial subjects such as market-
ing, such as an over-all milk marketing plan,
such as workmen's compensation— and I
could name many more of them.
Mr. Chairman, my remarks are going to
be brief this afternoon and I will join in on
the various estimates as they come up. The
last few years have seen a great decline in
the farmers throughout Ontario. As you
know, the farm income in the last 15 or 20
years has doubled; unfortunately, the farm
expenses of those individual farms has
tripled, and this is not a good situation. I
notice that this government has seen all
these rises in expenses taking place and
has done little or nothing to cope witli the
situation.
We on this side of the House believe in a
fair return to the farmer for the crops and
the products that he produces. We believe
that parity prices for all farm products should
be an objective of any government whether it
be on that side of the House or a Liberal one.
I can tell you that this party believes in
adequate farm prices, and that they will be
necessary if we are going to serve the farm
economy and save that economy from the
present condition it is currently in.
We are much concerned, frankly, that
the marketing plans are not getting tlie full
support of the farmers at the present time.
On whose shoulders does this blame fall?
We are concerned because the recent votes
in the corn and the tobacco, as of last week-
end, have indicated that the marketing plans
756
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tliroughout this province are in jeopardy;
and with the defeat of those two votes,
namely corn and tobacco, how could one
think any other way? It indicates that this
government is not competent to carry out
the best interests of the farmers. It is a sin-
cere threat to all marketing plans in the
province.
We believe that a concerted effort must
be made to incorporate a national market-
ing plan for all Canada. This seems to be
one of the features that has not been pro-
moted by the Tory govermiient on the other
side of the House and we feel that it has
got to come if we are going to get the real
benefit of any individual marketing plan;
and I think the time has come when the
government must look to that end. Ontario
is the leading agricultural province in Can-
ada. Ontario farmers produce a greater vari-
ety of food, worth more money, than farmers
in any other part of Canada.
Agriculture is still one of the biggest
industries in the province of Ontario; despite
the fact that many people are leaving the
farm, the revenue continues to rise. The
problems of farmers and the problems of
agriculture, therefore, are of vital concern
to all the people of Ontario.
We hear a lot today about the farm prob-
lems. What is the farm problem? Well, one
of the main problems of farmers today is
that they have surplus products, or that they
are over-producing, and the revenue that they
are receiving is very, very low. Ontario
farmers today have become the victims of
a price squeeze in which the farmer con-
tinues to get low prices for the food he
produces and at the same time has to pay
higher and higher prices for the things he
buys. An hour's work in manufacturing to-
day buys 40 per cent more food than it did
10 years ago.
The farm problem in Ontario is also an
economic problem, with the family farm, a
relatively small economic unit, having to
compete more and more frequently with the
large corporations. It is also the problem of
thousands of individual farmers competing
with each other and selling their products
to a large corporate buyer.
But the farm problem in Ontario is more
than just an economic problem. It is a
social problem, as farmers leave the land
and the community life of rural areas disin-
tegrates under the loss of people, with the
decline of local industry and attraction of
the cities.
In the 15 years from 1941 to 1956, 38,000
Ontario farms went out of production. Ex-
perts tell us that if the present trend con-
tinues another 25,000 farms will fail in the
next 20 years.
The farm problem is also a problem of
automation. Machines cut down the num-
ber of farm jobs while increasing production
and adding to surpluses that, in turn, drive
prices down still further. Of 140,000 farms
in Ontario, 26,000 earn less than $100 a
month.
In the last 10 years the cost of operating
a farm has tripled. Net farming income in
Ontario in the year just past was the lowest
since The Department of Agriculture began
to keep records. This, hon. members, is some-
thing we should be very careful about.
Mr. Chairman, the tax burden on Ontario
farms continued to mount, with the cost of
education alone accounting for well over half
of all the land taxes levied in the province.
Actually, the one vital question for farmers
is not whether vertical integration is good or
bad, but who should control vertical integra-
tion. Farmers do not want to become hewers
of wood and drawers of water, as my hon.
friend from Grey South (Mr. Oliver) inti-
mates. Farmers want to be self-employed,
self-sufficient, independent businessmen and
want to control their own industry.
I believe that farmers should control the
agricultural industry. I believe they can and
should control the process of vertical integra-
tion through co-operatives which are organ-
ized by the farmers, to work for the farmers.
I believe that the role of government is to
help the farmers accomplish this.
I read a recent editorial from a farm co-
operative movement in Nova Scotia. It is
interesting, and I am going to quote from it:
There is considerable interest in this area
in co-operatives and it is always a good
thing to take a look at the other areas when
trying to determine the value and the prob-
lems which might be met in our own area.
A few years ago, the farmers of Nova
Scotia decided that they needed a farmer-
controlled meat packing plant in Nova
Scotia. At that time, most livestock were
marketed through a few privately owned
plants or shipped to Montreal for process-
ing. It was felt that the price of the fin-
ished meat products was unduly high
compared with the price received by Nova
Scotia farmers for their livestock.
In co-operation with the government of
Nova Scotia a co-operative abattoir was
financed and established to provide two
things. First, a farmer-controlled outlet
for livestock; and, second, some measure of
competition for the established trade.
MARCH 5, 1962
757
Concurrent witli the new plant was a
push to greatly increase meat production
in the province. The aim was to increase
production so that Nova Scotia could pro-
vide all its own needs for meat. In the past,
Nova Scotia had imported from other parts
of Canada a large proportion of meat as
needed.
The co-operative abattoir was established
and opened about a year ago. Recently
the Minister of Agriculture for Nova Scotia
had this to say about the plant: "The
establishment of a co-operative abattoir in
Halifax has been a great boon to the beef
raisers in Nova Scotia."
The hon. Minister was speaking this after-
noon about beef-raising.
He noted that since the plant was
opened there had been a tremendous im-
provement in the price Nova Scotia farmers
received for their beef cattle. In fact, since
the opening of the plant, Nova Scotia beef
prices had risen to be about equal with
the price at Montreal. This indicates how
a modern, well-managed co-operative has
helped the livestock producers of one of
Canada's problem areas, the Maritimes.
The farmers of Ontario, operating their
family farms, have achieved great efficiency.
The farmers of Ontario have not failed the
consumer or the economy. The economy,
none the less, has failed them.
In an expanding economy, it is only fair
and just that farmers share in the growth
of prosperit>'. It is not fair to farmers that,
while the rest of the work force grows richer,
they grow poorer. It is not only unfair, it is
also unhealthy. The government can help
farmers to help themselves to a just share of
prosperity by encouraging the growth of co-
operatives.
If hon. members will notice in the esti-
mates, when we get down to them, we have
an appropriation of about $450,000, and each
year only about $300,000 of that is used up.
In other words, about a quarter of the price
of what it will cost to build an over-pass for
one of our super highways, that is tlie con-
tribution, the meagre contribution, that this
government is loaning to co-operatives. It
seems rather unfortunate that the Tory
government, which seems to be the champion
of all the people, would give this meagre
appropriation to this great co-operative move-
ment, which could do so much throughout
the province—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Would my hon. friend
permit a question?
Mr. Innes: —by making available the capi-
tal farmers need to keep pace with automa-
tion, to expand their buildings, to re-equip
their farms and to establish the processing
and marketing facilities that will bring
farmers a greater share in the over-all profits
of the food industry.
I might ask the hon. Minister if he is in
favour of aiding the co-operative, FAME?
We in the Liberal party recognize the
problems confronting the farmers in Ontario.
We are concerned to find the best means with
which government can assist farmers to solve
their present dilemmas. To me, the premises
that I have outlined constitute a reasonable
base upon which a sound farm policy can be
constructed in the best interests of all the
farmers and the people of Ontario.
Now, there are a few other items that I
would like to touch on. I feel that, possibly,
when the estimates come up, we can reach
into them a little bit more, but I would want
to say that the hon. Minister did speak a little
bit about research. That is a good step for-
ward and one that should have been taken
many years ago. It has been a problem where
one institution has been overlapping research
on another. This has been a wasteful extrava-
gant feature, in keeping with some of the
other departments of this government. I
think a programme here was long overdue
and we hope for great success in the research
department.
Mention was made of the tremendous
growth in the education and of the students
attending our various agricultural institutions
and the education that will be forthcoming
in the years ahead, and also the almost
doubling of the student body at some of the
schools and colleges. My only comment is
that I would like to stress very strongly the
importance of the Ontario Agricultural Col-
lege. It is the largest in the British Common-
wealth, a college that is known throughout
the world for being the first in many achieve-
ments, but I would mention to the hon.
Minister that it is not going to attain the
success that he intends unless he will go along
with the thinking of the hon. members of this
side of the House and incorporate it to a
doctor's degree granting college. It will then
receive recognition of students from all over
the world who will come to the agricultural
college and obtain their doctorate degree in
both veterinary and agriculture. I say this
in all sincerity. The late member for Brant
and I, Mr. Chairman, both being graduates
of that institution, felt that it should have
this recognition. When other lesser colleges
throughout Canada have those facilities, it
758
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
seems rather unfair to tliink that an institution
—the largest in the British Commonwealth-
does not have that opportunity. I think it is
only fair to students who are attending that
they have the opportunity to get that further
education. It will instill in the minds of
people all over tlie world the importance of
agriculture to Ontario.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, at the outset I would like to con-
gratulate the hon. Minister (Mr. Stewart) on
two accounts.
First, on his elevation to the position of
Minister of Agriculture. I know it is a
task to which he will turn his time and
energies with interest and satisfaction because
of his own position as a farmer in this prov-
ince. The second thing I want to congratu-
late him on is that I did not think it was
possible for an hon. Minister to get up and
introduce his estimates and so skilfully avoid
all of the major issues that are now plaguing
the agricultural industry.
I am not ignoring the few that he raised;
but when hon. members think of vertical
integration, when they think of marketing,
when they think of all the real issues pre-
occupying the farmers of this province today,
he did not touch on them except in passing.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, his speech
was exactly— he tackled it to a degree, I
grant, in the category of the hon. Minister
of Citizenship (Mr. Yaremko) the other day—
I will not say the Provincial Secretary, be-
cause he has forgotten he is the Provincial
Secretary, he is just the Minister of Citizen-
ship—when he discussed education and all
of these other features, which are important
enough in themselves, but never got down to
the real issue which is creating many of the
problems for the new Canadians.
Now let me take just one point to illustrate.
The hon. Minister referred, with commenda-
tion, to the mottoes of the students at Ridge-
town and OAC with emphasis on research. I
have been impressed myself, Mr. Chairman,
on reading agricultural journals, and those
who are writing on agriculture for non-
agricultural journals, by the fact that our
real problem today is not research on pro-
duction. The problem of production is not
the problem on the farm front. In most places
the problems are created because of surplus
production. Our desperate need is for re-
search in marketing, in pricing and in dijffi-
culties that arise after the farmer has actually
produced.
We heard very, very little of that.
I think it is rather significant, Mr. Chair-
man, that a short time ago the hon. Minister
of Agriculture appointed a fact-finding com-
mittee. This appointment is a belated
acknowledgment of what has now become
a rather desperate position on the agricultural
front— the threat of vertical integration.
The family farm, which is the basis of
agriculture as we have known it in the past, is
faced with the real possibility of extinction.
During the last 10 years we have had a
relentless cost-price squeeze.
I was interested, for example, in the hon.
Minister making a plea to farmers tliat they
must be not just farmers in the sense that
they regarded themselves in the past, but
they must be businessmen. Mr. Chairman, if
most farmers were really to take his plea
seriously and examine the normal way in
which business operates, they would be
leaving the farm even more quickly than they
are at the present time. Because if farmers
were to operate on the basis of most business-
men, namely, that he should get a fair return
on the capital which he has invested, that he
should get a fair return for his own labour
and the labour of the rest of the family, then
farmers as businessmen would be getting out
of the business overnight.
So I think maybe he should push that plea
just a little bit more quietly.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, would
the hon. member permit a question?
Mr. MacDonald: Surely. I can hear the
hon. Minister. The hon. member for Oxford
(Mr. Innes) could not hear him.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thanks very much. Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member for
York South realizes that in the group
that I referred to— and this is only in one
particular county— that after an actual analysis
of their books for some years, the top farmers
of that group had a net income of well over
$5,000, after all the expenses that the hon.
member referred to had been taken OJ0F.
These are the things that I think we should
recognize. We should not always plead the
case of down in the mouth. I resent, being a
farmer myself, being told continually that I
am a member of a group of people that the
hon. member would describe as being always
in desperate, dire financial circumstances.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, it is all
very well for a few of the aristocrats in the
agricultural industry, for whom the hon.
Minister is apparently quite willing to be the
MARCH 5, 1962
759
voice; but I invite him to re-read the intro-
ductory portion of the submissions of both
the federation of agriculture and the farm
imion. If he thinks I am misrepresenting the
voice of organized agriculture at the present
time, then I think he had better go back and
re-read it, because I am not exaggerating the
situation they have presented.
It is all very well for the hon. Minister
to come in here and present this rosy picture;
but what are the facts? The facts are that in
the past ten years agricultural costs have gone
up 23 per cent, while receipts have gone
down 12 per cent. This is the basic position
of agriculture today.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I cannot agree with the
hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: These figures are accurate
figures that are available from agricultural
economists; and this squeeze has gone on
relentlessly for the past ten years. The hon.
Minister need only take a look at the past
year. I have here, for example, the figures
available from the federal bureau of statistics
on February 20, 1962, in which they point out
that the net income— and this is the important
figure to look at, not the gross income-
Hen. Mr. Stewart: It was the net income I
was talking about.
Mr. MacDonald: The net income of agri-
culture in the last year is now down to $1
billion. Now I will read the next paragraph,
which throws it all into the appropriate con-
text of the moment:
The drop of $307 miUion brought net
farm income in 1961 to the lowest point
since 1957 and underlines the extent of
the loss suffered by western farmers for low
grain yield and the drought-afflicted
prairies.
Mr. S. L. Hall (Halton): We are in
Ontario now.
Mr. MacDonald: We may be in Ontario,
but-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I did not
know which of the backbenchers made that
comment, but I remember a year or so ago
one of the agricultural organizations invited
those of the standing committee on agriculture
to come down and have a meal, and in the
course of his remarks we had rather illumi-
nating comment from the hon. member who
has just spoken. It was to the effect that
he hears an awful lot about farmers who are
poor and down in the mouth, but he cannot
figure this out because he has been selling
cars to them and he has been getting his
money and therefore farmers really are rich
and it was about time they cut out this kind
of talk.
Mr. J. R. Simonett (Frontenac-Addington):
What is wrong with selling a few cars to
them?
Mr. MacDonald: It is striking home a little,
anyway, Mr. Chairman.
However, Mr. Chairman, the net impact
of all this trend, this process tliat is now
going on, is revealed rather interestingly and
dramatically in a statement of this govern-
ment itself. As far back now as seven years
ago, when this government made its repre-
sentation to the Gordon commission which
was looking at Canada's economic prospects
for the next 20 or 25 years,' they pointed
out the significant fact that half of the farmers
in the province of Ontario today were new-
comers who had come onto the farms since
1945. Now what that simply means, Mr.
Chairman, is that half of the people in
agriculture had been driven out of agriculture
since 1945.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Do not be silly.
Mr. MacDonald: They have not been able
to survive, and the industry that we used to
know in the olden days— an industry with a
degree of stability— has in fact become an
industry of transients. Even those who are
today on the farm, and trying to make a go
of the farm, are not able to survive from
the income of the farm alone. The result is
that there is a very significant proportion,
and a growing one every year, of farmers
who are working in industry, who are forced
to seek an income from some supplementary
source to be able to survive on the farm, or
to have a standard of living that is in keep-
ing with the standard of living of the rest
of the people in the province of Ontario. So
there is no need for the hon. Minister to get
up and quote a few isolated figures with
regard to a few famiers and ignore the
generality of the problem the fanners are
facing today.
Now, Mr. Chairman, some people view
these agricultural problems today witli
equanimity; in fact they almost gloat over
them. I do not know whether the hon.
Minister is in that category; I do not think
I should be unfair and suggest he is, but
some of his political pals in the newspaper
world certainly are. I am referring to the
editorial writers of the Toronto Globe and
760
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mail. Their views on agriculture are of con-
stant fascination.
For example, earlier this month, February
10— last month now— the Toronto Globe and
Mail had an editorial, the first paragraph of
which read this way:
Warning the meat packers council of
Canada against further vertical integration
of the agricultural industry, Mr. Everett
M. Biggs, Ontario Deputy Minister of
Agriculture, said that if food processors
are permitted to raise a substantial pro-
portion of their own raw product require-
ment, the existing system of marketing farm
produce will break down. There could
hardly be a better reason for encouraging
vertical integration.
Now there is one of the voices of Toryism
in the province of Ontario^
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. member in
favour of it?
Mr. MacDonald: Of course I am not in
favour of it. And if the hon. Minister has
misjudged any of my comments so badly
up until now, I ask him to listen a little more
carefully.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I thought the hon. mem-
ber was opposed to that.
Mr. MacDonald: Here is one voice of
Toryism in this province, in effect, saying
that if farm marketing, which of course en-
croaches on the free enterprise which those
people who have been exploiting agriculture
traditionally down through the years are
happy with, is creating this kind of a prob-
lem and is going to be hurt by vertical
integration, then let vertical integration come
all the more quickly.
However, they had a few more comments
with regard to the hon. Minister when he
set up his vertical integration committee. In
an editorial entitled:
Expendable Farmers
—a view incidentally which is fairly widely
held in Tory ranks— the editorial writer had
this to say in the final paragraph from an
editorial on February 23:
Mr. Stewart said last month that vertical
integration is "not in the interests of agri-
culture or our family farm" and should be
treated accordingly.
He might better have echoed the re-
marks of one of his predecessors as
Agriculture Minister, the late Mr. Tom
Kennedy, who was himself a farmer. After
observing that "the day of the family farm
is fast coming to an end," Mr. Kennedy
said: "What we need today is an educa-
tional campaign to bring home to the
farmer that he is expendable unless he can
change his mode of operation."
We hope the committee will consider
the advantages of vertical integration as a
realistic change in the farmers' mode of
operation.
Now there is the one wing of the Tory
party, and incidentally a pretty dominant
wing of the Tory party, the big business
wing of the Tory party that provides most of
its slush funds—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, now, who does
the hon. member think he is kidding?
Mr. MacDonald: Is it not wonderful how
they are cut to the quick; and we get the
squeals from the other side of the House—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, tlie
hon. member for York South has done the
present Minister of Agriculture the greatest
favour any man has ever done him in com-
mending him on the stand he has taken on
vertical integration.
Mr. MacDonald: Agreed. But I trust the
hon. Minister did not ignore the opening
comment of mine that this was a belated
action on the part of the government in rec-
ognizing a desperate problem. What he
should have been doing— he and his predeces-
sors should have been getting at this some
5 or 10 years ago, and he would not have
had so many of the farmers leaving to let
somebody else try their hand for a time to
see whether they can survive on the farm.
An hon. member: Where were you?
Mr. MacDonald: This is the kind of ambi-
valence and contradiction in the Tory ap-
proach. And, incidentally, Mr. Chairman,
while I am always interested in the views of
the Liberal Party to my right, I am very
curious to find the same kind of ambivalence
in their ranks.
For example, during the by-election the
new hon. member for Brant—
An hon. member: Oh, do not talk about
tliat.
Another hon. member: He made such a
poor show, he would have been glad to stay
home.
Mr. MacDonald: We doubled our vote and
we will do it once or twice more and hon.
members will see the difference.
MARCH 5, 1962
761
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. I am quoting from the Brantford
Expositor of December 21, in which they
have a direct quotation from Mr. Nixon, the
new member for Brant, quoting him as
saying this:
The family farm is now being tlireat-
ened by the big food processing companies
vyhich are buying up farms and invading
the field of production which rightly
belongs to the farmer. Mr. Nixon em-
phasized that this invasion of the big
processing companies was threatening all
types of farming, dairy farming and
tobacco farming as well as the growers who
concentrate mainly on fruits and vegetables.
So far, a very eloquent, able statement,
but just to show, Mr. Chairman, how deep
is the conflict right in the heart of the
Liberal Party, at the same meeting-
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): The hon.
member should not worry about our heart; he
should worry about his own.
Mr. MacDonald: —at the same meeting
they had another speaker and what did he
say? The news story continues:
The meeting was also addressed by
Senator William Taylor, who strongly
criticized the New Democratic Party can-
didate for his attacks on big business.
Senator Taylor pointed out that the share-
holders of most of our big corporations
include farmers, school teachers and house-
wives and people in all walks of life.
So here we have one voice of the Liberal
Party deploring the threat to the family farm—
An hon. member: Who won that by-
election?
Mr. MacDonald: —deploring the threat to
the family fami by corporations; and here we
had the same voice— another voice of the
Liberal Party at the same meeting— being
critical of the New Democratic Party candi-
date because of the fact that he was pointing
to the threat of corporations to the family
farm.
An hon. member: A different thing
altogether.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, maybe it will take a
little time before the people see the con-
tradiction in the Liberal Party but I submit
that they will.
An hon. member: Is the hon. member trying
to say that the people are not intelligent?
Mr. MacDonald: No, I did not say that.
The people did not get all the facts, but one
day they will get all the facts and in their
intelligence they will vote accordingly.
The answer, Mr. Chairman, as to why
you have this kind of contradiction in both
the Liberal and Conservative parties'
approach, is of course, if I may borrow that
current phrase at the moment, that both of
the old parties are the victim of sinister
influences within their ranks—
An hon. member: From where?
Mr. MacDonald: From the big business
interests who dominate them. And that is the
reason why, of course, on one hand they
promise to protect the family farm and on
the other hand they speak on behalf of
those forces that are destroying the family
farm.
Now lest there be any doubt as to where
the New Democratic Party stands as far as
the family farm-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Oliver: The only farmer the hon.
member's party had has gone.
Mr. MacDonald: Are you with me, Mr.
Chairman, or with all this babble?
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: Thanks. I want to read
one quotation from the interim statement of
of the New Democratic Party provincially, as
was adopted at the founding convention last
fall-
An hon. member: This one may be changed,
eh?
Mr. MacDonald: No, there are a lot of
farmers participating in the full statement of
it. And you know, interestingly enough, Mr.
Chairman, since I have now had some refer-
ence to a late and unlamented gentleman—
An hon. member: Who is that?
Mr. MacDonald: —who has joined the
Liberal party. When this happens, you know,
it reminds me of the time when somebody
in the House of Commons who was a big
burly fellow said to Tommy Douglas, when
he was a member of the federal House of
Commons years ago, that he was such a small
762
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
little fellow that he could eat him with one
gulp. Whereupon Tommy Douglas said: "If
you did you would have more brains in your
stomach than you have in your head."
An hen. member: That is an old one.
Mr. MacDonald: I would suggest, Mr.
Chainnan, before the cheering takes place
among the gentlemen to the right, they had
better wait until they find out what they have
got. However, Mr. Chairman, the point I
wanted to refer to, since there was some
derision poured on our programme and how
it is being shaped, is that in that famous
press conference that was held when the
none too cordial and intimate relationships
were established between Mr. Pearson and
Mr. Argue, and which was accurately referred
to in the news story of the Ottawa Citizen in
this way:
—that Mr. Argue looked calm and confi-
dent but Mr. Pearson looked ill at ease.
An hon. member: And with good reason.
Mr. MacDonald: Anyway, in the course of
it, somebody said: "Well, what is going to be
the Liberal party programme on agriculture,
and will Mr. Argue support it?"
Mr. Pearson said: "We have not got the
agricultural programme drafted yet, but when
it is it will be given to Mr. Argue.
That is how farmers have to operate within
the party, where other than farmers shape
their programme.
However, do not let me digress any further,
Mr. Chairman. I was enjoying myself on the
digression, however.
The New Democratic Party believes that
the family farm, enlarged to meet modern
needs and conditions, is a basically sound
unit for agricultural production and a desir-
able social institution. It provides a unit of
production in which families may exercise
ownership and management; it fosters per-
sonal responsibility and human dignity, all of
Avhich contribute to a great stability for our
rural communities. I just want to say, in
contrast to some of the forces in the Tory
party such as those who speak from the car
agencies or from the Toronto Globe and Mail
editorial writers, that there are others who
disagree with them.
As the hon. member for Oxford (Mr.
Innes ) made a few points on which I agreed
with him, I want to acknowledge one. He
stated during the course of his remarks that,
to a degree, vertical integration is inevitable;
to the extent that \'ertical integration is going
to improve the eflSciency of production and
marketing, it is inevitable. The real question
that faces the farmers is: who is going to
control this vertical integration?
Is it going to be vertical integration from
the top down, so that the farmer is reduced
to the position of a twentieth-century serf who
has no sense of ownership or no sense of
management— he gets $1 per pig per month
for the production on the farm and he is
just a hired man for the packing company
or the feed company? Or is the farmer going
to have the sense of dignity with vertical
integration controlled from the bottom up,
where he is going to have control of his
product beyond the actual production, into
the processing and into the marketing? That
is, of course, the kind of desirable vertical
integration; but that is not the kipd of vertical
integration that the Toronto Globe and Mail
editorial writers are in favour of because that,
of course, would wrest the control from the
packing and the feed companies, the machine
companies and all the others.
Now, the question, Mr. Chairman, that I
think we should address our attention to for
a moment, is: what is going to be done about
this? This is the real basic problem upon
which the hon. Minister, in the year 1962,
has set up a fact-finding committee to give
him some idea of what this government
should do. The farmers have been living with
the problem for a long time. I think the rest
of us in the House should direct our attention
to this while the government drifts a little
bit further.
One of the things that I think we have to
do is to give far greater attention to the
development of co-operatives. I know that
the government has moved, after great pres-
sure for years— this is the only condition under
which they do move, the result of pressure
for years— in establishing, not a department of
co-operatives tliat might do a real over-all
co-ordinated job, but a co-operative branch
within The Department of Agriculture. This
is a step in the right direction.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should take
note of the fact that while ever>'body pays lip
service to co-operative enterprise as being the
finest kind of economic activity that is pos-
sible, within the last 10 years— and I think
this would be true even if one went further
back— the co-operatives have no more than
held their own as a proportion of the economy
in the province of Ontario. In other words,
this highly desirable kind of economic activity
is not becoming a growing and a larger pro-
portion of our economy; it is no more than
holding its own.
I was interested just this past week, for
MARCH 5, 1962
763
example, to read in the February 24 issue of
the Financial Post an article on co-operatives;
and I quite acknowledge that maybe these
figures should be analyzed to find out just
what is the classification in the various prov-
inces. But, on the surface, it struck me as
rather significant that of the 2,883 co-opera-
tives in Canada— marketing, purchasing, serv-
ice and fishermen's co-operatives, doing a
business of $1.5 billion approximately— if you
contrasted the situation in the province of
Quebec witli the situation in the province of
Ontario, you have 364 co-operatives in the
province of Ontario and 732 in the province
of Quebec. In other words, the number of
co-operatives is well over double in the prov-
ince of Quebec as compared with the province
of Ontario.
Another rather disturbing feature, Mr.
Chairman, is that the co-operative movement,
at least in its agricultural wing in the prov-
ince of Ontario, is based on the family farm.
This is the very sector of the economy in
agriculture which is being destroyed. If you
go out into the rural part of Ontario it is
the little family farm that is in the co-opera-
tives. "Agribusiness"— that rather unlovely
term that has developed— a combination of
business and agriculture, the corporation
farms and so on, are the people who are less
interested in co-operatives. They are not
interested in co-operating as fully with the
rest of their fellow farmers.
In other words, the whole vertical integra-
tion process is a threat to the present co-
operative movement— in addition to the failure
to expand in the manner we would like to see.
Why have we got this? Well, Mr. Chair-
man, I want to suggest that there is no mys-
tery to it. Despite a certain amount of
political footwork to suggest that the gov-
ernment is intensely interested in co-opera-
tives, when farmers have moved to that next
step— for the control of vertical integration,
not just for production but moving into the
processing of it— we have had some rather
dramatic revelations of the basic hostility
of this government. The best one, of course,
of the attitude of the government, was ex-
pressed by the former hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost) to the proposal for building meat
packing plants, in the province of Ontario,
known as FAME.
Hon. members will recall the hon. Prime
Minister's very succinct and eloquent comment
was that he had "never heard of anything
so silly in his life." That, Mr. Chairman,
was with regard to the principle, the ideal,
not to all the subsequent diJGBculties that
emerged because of personality clashes and
difficulties over finances. This was just
simply to the principle, the idea that Ontario
farmers should seek to get control of the
processing of their meat products in the
fashion that Quebec farmers have, so that
they control 35 or 40 per cent, or Danish
farmers, where they will control some 80 to
90 per cent.
Contrast the situation and attitude that
we have in the province of Ontario with
the one that the hon. member for Oxford
(Mr. Innes) referred to down in the province
of Nova Scotia, where at exactly the same
time— and interestingly they were concerned
with another Tory government— the farmers
down there wanted to go and extend their
control of the product, the control of verti-
cal integration, through building meat pack-
ing plants throughout the province. They
were told in advance by the government
that for every one dollar they raised the
government would make another dollar
available. Very quickly, the farmers raised
the necessary amount and they have their
plants in operation.
Now, I am not suggesting that this gov-
ernment should provide financial assistance
to FAME in the province of Ontario because
the tragedy, Mr. Chairman, is that many of
the farmers in this province are suspicious
of the kind of domination and influence exer-
cised by governments in farm organization.
They are not asking for the money because
they are fearful that if they get money from
the government then their organization is
likely to come under the control of the gov-
ernment and producer control would be
destroyed altogether.
Furthermore, you have such things as the
relentless campaign against co-operatives for
an alteration in the tax structure, emanating
from the chamber of commerce, the manu-
facturers' association— once again those very
bodies that are normally in political work-
ing partnership with the Conservative gov-
ernment.
I was interested, in the MacFarlane report
that was made on trying to reconcile the
marketing boards and co-operatives, to find
that one of the recommendations urged that
greater credit should be established for co-
operatives — not just credit on the limited
basis that is available now— such as the hon.
Minister was trying to draw attention to a
few minutes ago. In fact, it struck me as
rather significant that out of the whole of
the MacFarlane report the one item that
was picked by the rural co-op, one of the
voices of agriculture in the province of On-
tario, was this particular recommendation.
^64
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The first two paragraphs of their report
read as follows:
That the establishment of large-scale,
government-backed credit facilities for
aiding the rapid co-operative development
was advocated by (David MacFarlane,
Professor of Economics, of the Faculty
of Agriculture, McGill University in
Toronto last week. Presenting the long
awaited agricultural marketing report at
the co-operative union of Ontario's annual
meeting Dr. MacFarlane said that he had
in mind a credit organization patterned
after the U.S. bank for co-operatives.
In otlier words, an attitude on the part of
the government— a willingness to make avail-
able to co-operatives, the credit that is re-
quired so that the co-operative sector of the
economy can expand, instead of merely hold-
ing its own as a proportion of the economy.
These are some of the things that we should
give our attention to.
The second answer, I think, to meeting the
problem of the farmers at the present time is
to be found in the marketing field. I am not
going to rehash a great deal of old straw in
this connection, but I think basic to our
consideration of it is the action of this
government a year or so ago, Mr. Chairman,
with regard to Bill No. 86. We had in the
province of Ontario one of the better, if
not the best, farm marketing Act in this
Dominion.
There were weaknesses in it, weaknesses
which I think we should have paid some
attention to and corrected. But because of
the government's reaction to certain battles
that took place on the farm front in the
province of Ontario, they brought in amend-
ments through Bill No. 86 that are now part
and parcel of The Farm Products Marketing
Act. These amendments have, in effect,
destroyed the basic principle upon which
marketing had been built, namely, producer
control.
One of the other problems that we must
take cognizance of, as has been illustrated in
the recent com vote, is that because of the
influence in the control of corporations, and
those who are willing to go along with cor-
porations in contracts and things of this
nature, it is becoming increasingly difficult
to get marketing schemes established today.
I suppose each person is entitled to his
own judgment as to why the com vote was
lost, but certainly I was interested to dis-
cover that this was the considered view of
the executive of the Ontario Federation of
Agriculture when they came and presented
their annual representation to our caucus the
other day.
What we need to establish, Mr. Chairman,
is orderly marketing. This has been one of
the goals of agriculture for the last genera-
tion at least, orderly marketing, which starts
at the provincial level. But if we are going
to get orderly marketing, as we discovered
with cheese, and to a degree with hogs, and
many other products, we must face up to the
fact, Mr. Chairman, that we must go beyond
the province and recognize the need for
national marketing boards.
Related to national marketing boards— and
here is where I wish the government would
spend some of its research money— we need
some research on trying to get a price for
the farmers so that agriculture's income
would be closer to parity, not just as an ob-
jective but as a reality in this province and
in this nation.
The basic figures here, Mr. Chairman, are
simply these: With 12 per cent of the people
today in Canada on farms, they are receiving
6 per cent of the national income, so that
there is need for whatever effort can be made
to get a greater parity in terms of income—
not the kind of situation that we have seen
in the cost-price squeeze over the last ten
years.
Without going into the detail of it; this is
complete justification for guaranteed prices or
deficiency prices or whatever other kind of
approach this government or any succeeding
government feels must be taken to make
certain that agriculture gets a fair share of
the economy. And they must proceed in
working this out in a fairer fashion despite
the criticism from the sidelines and from
those powerful voices within the government
itself.
It is all right to subsidize the gold miners
but it is not all right to subsidize the milk
industry or some other sector of the agri-
cultural industry that is producing such a
vital product as food. In fact, it is rather
interesting in this search of organized agri-
culture from the marketing board to find
what happened just a short time ago in the
federal House of Commons, Mr. Chairman.
A member of the House of Commons,
Arnold Peters, the New Democratic member
for Timiskaming, moved an amendment to
the Throne Speech reaffirming the principle
of national marketing boards. Now, for these
voices on behalf of agriculture that have
come from my right in the Liberal ranks,
the very intriguing thing was that when the
vote came, the Liberals joined with the Con-
servatives in opposition to the concept of
MARCH 5, 1962
765
national marketing boards. It is very inter-
esting when one thinks of—
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): On a point of order. In order not
to take the time of this House, unnecessarily,
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we in
the Liberal Party believe in a national
marketing scheme.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, here we have just
another instance, Mr. Chairman, of the con-
flict, the schizophrenia and the ambivalence
within the Liberal ranks. The record, if they
just want to go back and take a look at the
federal Hansard for Tuesday, February 20,
reveals that the Liberals joined with the
Tories in the House of Commons in voting
against national marketing boards.
Mr. Oliver: We are not opposed to national
marketing. This is a figment of imagination.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. I shall not comment on the fact that
if a party believes in sometliing and votes
against it, it creates another mystery that we
ordinary folk will have to cope with in trying
to divine the mysteries of the Liberal Party.
However, I was rather interested— to get
back to the Conservatives over here— when
Arnold Peters sat down after moving his
amendment, which read as follows:
That this House regrets that Your
Excellency's advisors have failed to give
agricultural producers proper and counter-
vailing powers in the market place through
among other things taking steps to provide
for national marketing boards.
The next man to get up was J. N. Mac-
donnell, a very respected gentleman who
gave the most pained exposition of how
frightening were the suggestions involved in
the operation of national marketing boards.
He could not conceive of anything that
frightened him more than the pricing arrange-
ments and the operations of everything in-
volved in a national marketing board.
He summed it up all very beautifully, Mr.
Chairman, by this:
Insofar as I am concerned it is incon-
sistent with the aims of the party to which
I belong.
So you have the Tory party voting against
it, and one of their respected members saying
that national marketing boards were incon-
sistent with the aims of the party to which he
belonged. Where the Liberal Party belonged,
I do not know, except that they too voted
against it.
If I may revert very briefly again to the
issue that is one of such very great delight in
the Liberal ranks at the moment— there was
an article a week ago Saturday in the Toronto
Globe and Mail datelined Saskatoon which
read:
Will the Prairie Farmers Seek a
New Voice.^
I will quote one or two paragraphs here.
They said [these are the people in the
Saskatchewan Farmers Union] that they
had a great deal of sympathy for Mr.
Argue when he first took his step. How-
ever, Mr. Argue will receive "no sympathy"
for joining the Liberals from the majority
of the farmers in the prairies who belong
to the provincial farm unions. The reason
for this quick reaction to Mr. Argue's orbit-
ing is in the fact that the Liberal Opposi-
tion at Ottawa voted against national
marketing boards. Where would Mr. Argue
have stood on this question as a Liberal?
This is the poser that SFU officials would
like him to answer.
That is from the Toronto Globe and Mail,
February 23, by Patrick O'Dwyer, a good
Irishman.
Now, Mr. Chainnan, I want to turn to one
other aspect of farming and I want to raise
this in terms of principle, dissociated from
personahties, because I think this is something
that is a matter of growing concern, perhaps
for the moment among a minority of farmers,
but nonetheless a matter of growing concern.
On page 7 of the OFA's brief this year,
I was interested in their comment to this
effect :
The agent of government policy, the
Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board,
has been especially helpful in the practical
interpretation and implementation of
government and farm organization market-
ing aims.
Now here was a rather frank and blunt
assertion that the farm products marketing
board was an agent of government policy. If
that be true, I think it is time for us to take
a look at the setup of the Ontario Farm
Marketing Board and to ask ourselves whether
this setup does not involve two or three
functions which are basically in conflict, if
the government expects the same group to
fulfill them.
For example, here is a quotation from the
766
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
terms of tlie Ontario Farm Products Market-
ing Board, the Act. It reads as follows:
The board may, subject to the regula-
tions, investigate, adjust or otherwise settle
any dispute relating to the marketing of
regulated products between producers and
persons engaged in marketing or processing
their regulated product.
Another subsection in the same clause
reads as follows:
Upon any investigation under this section
the board shall have all of the power that
may be conferred upon a commissioner
under The Public Inquiries Act.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, the first
point that I want to make is that one of
the functions of the Ontario Farm Products
Board is a judicial function-
Mr. Sopha: Quasi- judicial!
Mr. MacDonald: Agreed, a quasi- judicial
function! Then there is another clause in
the Act, which reads as follows:
The board may require any local boards
to carry out any purpose of the plan that
the board deems necessary or advisable,
to vary any purpose of the plan if the board
deems advisable, and to cease or desist in
the carrying out of any purpose or proposed
purpose of the plan tlie board deems un-
necessary or inadvisable.
In other words, that, now supported by
the further powers of Bill No. 86 which are
part and parcel of The Farm Products
Marketing Act, underlines the fact that the
Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board in
addition to being a quasi-judicial body, is
also an administrative body which is em-
powered under the Act to intervene daily,
if it so desires, in tlie operations of local
marketing boards.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Has that ever happened?
Mr. MacDonald: Sure, it has. It happened
in the instance of the hog board.
Then there is a third function of the
Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board and
that is: increasingly, officials of the Ontario
Farm Products Marketing Board and members
of it are moving across the province engaging
in what could be described as, "propaganda
or educational work" in terms of implement-
ing government policy. So that this quasi-
judicial body is engaged through its personnel
in going around the province to try to get
acceptance of govenmient policy.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman,
that it is impossible to have these functions
performed fairly and impartially by the same
group of people. I am not just going to sub-
mit my own conclusions on this, I offer the
comments of an eminent jurist in the province
of Ontario. In another context, but with
reference to the same kind of a problem, some
years ago, back in 1947, Mr. Justice Wells
was the author of a report looking into the
milk industry. In his report Mr. Justice Wells
had two or diree comments to make which
I would like to read to the House. The
first one went as follows:
The milk control board, by virtue of the
terms of the Act, has been called on to
' perform two conflicting functions. The one
administrative, and the other judicial in
respect to licensing. In my opinion the
judicial function has not been performed
judicially but is being governed by the
overall administrative policy of the board.
Administrati\ e objectives seemed to have
been the governing factor and to have
coloured the board's interpretation of the
ternis of the Act and its application to the
individual applicant. A more effective
division of these functions would seem
desirable.
In other words, what Mr. Justice Wells
was saying— and his comment has perfect
application to the situation at the moment-
was that if the Ontario Farm Products
Marketing Board is an agency of the govern-
ment for the implementation of government
policy and if it has administrative capacities,
it is impossible for it to act judicially in
fulfilling its quasi-judicial function. In fact
he goes one step further. He said this:
In my view, it is quite impossible to
fairly combine the powers of bureaucratic
administration with those of a judicial
nature in the same person with any hope
of dealing impartially with the subject's
rights.
He finally makes a proposal as to what
should be done about this, which I throw
out for consideration of the House and maybe
some years hence for consideration by the
government for action. What he said was
this, in his recommendations in that report:
That the administrative and judicial
functions of the board as to licensing be
separated by setting up an advisory board
somewhat similar to the insurance advisory
board, in order that the judicial functions
of the milk control board be exercised as
provided by the statute free from any
administrative bias.
In raising this problem, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to make this final comment. I
MARCH 5, 1962
767
think one of the disturbing things which is
emerging in having a board with all of these
conflicting functions is the fact that the
government has gone one step further, and
this government has a fantastically well-
developed capacity for captivating, or half-
captivating, agricultural organizations by
getting key personnel in. Recently, what the
government has done, is appointed to fill the
positions on the Ontario Farm Products
Marketing Board three persons for whom I
have the highest regard— one of them is a
past top official of the farm union, anotlier is
a past top official of the federation of agricul-
ture, the third one is a past top official of
the UCO.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Good men!
Mr. MacDonald: Right! Now each of these
people is going to be placed in the position
where, by the comment of the federation of
agriculture itself, their function now is to
administer government policy and to promote
government policy. In other words, the grass
roots farmers, particularly those who took a
trimming in the hog battle and some other
battles that have gone on in the province,
asked themselves this question: is it possible
for a man to accept a position on a govern-
ment board, set up in this fashion, and not in
effect become a servant of the government
and thereby qualify his own impartial judg-
ment?
I want to submit to the hon. Minister of
Agriculture that there is no other conclusion
to come to in light of the nature of the board
and the warnings of a man like Mr. Justice
Wells, who knows whereof he speaks, on the
conflict involved in this kind of thing. There-
fore, the hon. Minister should give some con-
sideration to altering the setup of the Ontario
Farm Products Marketing Board, because I do
not think it is fair to men, who have acquired
a respected position in fann organizations,
and who accept such positions, feeling that
they are going to continue to serve the agri-
cultural community, only to be placed in the
position where, wittingly or unwittingly, they
must then become a faithful servant of
government policy. That is the situation at
the present time.
Now I leave that, Mr. Chairman, and turn
to one final topic I want to speak about; and
that is the government's handling of this
farm machinery Act. The farm machinery
situation is a very good illustration of the
other side of the problem the farmers face,
namely, costs. His income is tending to come
down, while his costs are going up.
Agriculture expends approximately $60
million a year on farm machinery in Canada;
approximately 17 to 18 per cent of their
capital requirements are invested in imple-
ments. As hon. members of the House who
are familiar with the agriculture scene in
rural Ontario know, there has been a growing
and longstanding feeling of dissatisfaction
with regard to the handling or, more par-
ticularly, the servicing and the provision of
parts in the agricultural industry. In fact
the surprising thing, Mr. Chairman, is not
that we had a request from agriculture for a
farm machinery Act, but that it did not come
many years ago. A farm machinery Act has
been in effect in the province of Saskatchewan
—for they recognized the problems of .the
farmer and met them rather quickly, instead
of belatedly— since away back in 1949.
There is no need for pioneering in this kind
of Act. As was pointed out by some of the
top officials of both tlie federation of agricul-
ture and the farmers' union when they met
with us on December 7, in the standing com-
mittee on agriculture, there are similar Acts
in some 21 countries in the western world.
We are not asking this government to pioneer,
all we are asking this government to do is
to quickly adapt legislation for which there is
a great body of experience, elsewhere in
Canada, and get the legislation into effect in
the province of Ontario.
The request put to the government was in
terms of urgency. This is an urgent problem.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what those farm leaders
did not realize is that the government had
already tipped its hand that they were not
going to act with any degree of urgency on
this. In the last week of November, in this
House, when the hon. Minister announced
that he was calling the standing committee
for December 7 to hear these representations
from farm leaders, both federation and
farmers' union, the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) rose in his seat and said that he
thought this was a very good procedure. He
added that after we had heard the representa-
tions of the farm leaders, then we might set
up a select committee to look into it more
fully.
In other words, it was clear in the minds
of the government, at least in the mind of the
hon. Prime Minister, that he had a slow-paced
approach to this problem and he was going
to set up another select committee. On
some occasions select committees are useful;
on other occasions select committees are
designed to postpone action on problems.
I submit this was going to be one of them.
However, when they came to the standing
768
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
committee on December 7 and made their
representation — joint representations from
farm leaders of the province, in the federa-
tion and the farmers' union — there were
scenes that really should have been recorded
for posterity. Because they no sooner had
made their plea, and made it eloquently, than
one of the key men in the stratagem of the
Conservative Party, the hon. member for
Lambton East (Mr. Janes), immediately
sprang to his feet and moved that this issue
should be sent to the hon. Minister for study.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I moved an amend-
ment. I said that I was not objecting to
study. There would be a minor degree of
study required to adapt existing legislation
elsewhere in Canada to the different condi-
tions that we might have in the province
of Ontario, or the legislation in other coun-
tries to the conditions here. But this is the
kind of thing that clearly could have been
done in six or eight weeks. So my amend-
ment was the simple amendment that this
committee should report by February so that
the government would be in a position to
respond to th? plea of urgency from farm
leaders and bring a farm machinery Act at
the current session.
What happened, Mr. Chairman? I could
not even get a seconder for my motion. In
fact, the course of the discussion in the
committee went something like this. After
the hon. member for Lambton East had
moved his motion, then that self-appointed
hatchet boy for the hon. Prime Minister,
the hon. member for London South (Mr.
White) immediately got up and delivered a
blistering attack on the whole proposition
of a farm machinery Act. Here is where I
would liked to have had the TV camerasl
Here we had Gordon Greer, the man who
was chairman of the policy-making commit-
tee—if they made any policy, which they
did not at their recent leadership conven-
tion—the man who was chairman of the
farm section of the policy-making commit-
tee, getting up and making an eloquent plea
and listening to a fellow Conservative shoot-
ing down his proposals in flames. So much
so that he indignantly got up at one point
and handed Mr. White a sheet of paper
upon which presumably he had the five
principles of the Act written down, and he
said: "Here. You are a little off."
Tliat was the understatement for the day:
he was a little off!
However, this really did not surprise me,
coming from the Conservative ranks. What
really puzzled me was what happened from
the Liberal ranks. In the first place we had
the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Innes)
who is a spokesman from an agricultviral
area, getting up and parroting in precise
terms the comment of the hon. member for
Lambton East to the effect that we must
go slow on this. In the second place, we
had that arch-reactionary of the Liberal
ranks, the hon. member for Fort William
( Mr. Chappie ) , getting into a real tangle with
Gordon Greer. Then finally, we had the
hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), an-
other agricultural area, seconding the Tory
motion. So that the Liberal Party climbed
right into bed with the Tories, just as
it did in Weyburn— deliberately playing the
game of the Tories in postponing any action
on the urgent plea of the farmers. So once
again, Mr. Chairman, we have this conflict
within the Liberal Party, that talks about
family farms and then has other voices on
behalf of the business wing of the party,
which is out killing family farms.
The suggestion, Mr. Chairman, the an-
swer in general terms to the problems of
agriculture today, is a planned economy. A
planned economy in which agriculture will
get, through the efforts of themselves
through their self-help programme and the
co-operation of governments, a fair share
for the fruits of their labours. If the powers
within the economy today are such that
agriculture, with lower and lower bargain-
ing strength, is not getting its fair share of
the national income, then it becomes the
responsibility of government— I admit pri-
marily at the federal level— to make deficiency
payments so that they will get a fair share.
This we can only get through planned eco-
nomic development. This, Mr. Chairman,
brings me back to a point which I know
will be sharply political and I do not know
whether it can be said without great roars
of protests from the other side— and that side
too— that sooner or later they will have to
make their choice as they see what happens
to the family farm and what happens with
the farm machinery Act and things of this
nature. They will have to make their choice
as to whether they are going to seek politi-
cal partnership with the great mass of
workers in this country to be found in the
trade union movement, or whether they are
going to find their political partners among
the big business interests who have tradi-
tionally exploited them.
1 submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that in tlie
fullness of time, they will see that it will
be in tlieir self-interest to have that kind
of a partnership with tlie industrial worker.
Mr. Chairman, I give you as living proof
1
MARCH 5, 1962
769
that this can happen, two contrasting in-
stances in recent history. When the CCF
government was elected in Saskatchewan
in 1944, a predominantly farm government,
one of the first pieces of legislation they
passed was what is still acknowledged as
one of the finest labour relations Acts in
the North American continent. They did it
for a group of people who did not really
represent a great force as votes.
There were, perhaps, at that time, no
more than 15,000 labour voters in the whole
of the province of Saskatchewan, because
trade unionists were not great in number.
But they gave it to these people because it
is a fundamental right that any man in a
free society should have the right to freedom
of association, in the twentieth century, on the
economic front— a principle that was first
laid down in the Magna Carta away back in
1215 on the political front.
In other words, a predominantly farm gov-
ernment gave this kind of legislation to a
small labour minority. In contrast to this,
Mr. Chairman, and about the same period,
in 1945, in Great Britain, a predominantly
labour government was elected. They gave,
through the planning of the economy of
Great Britain, to a minority group, British
farmers, a security such as British agriculture
had never had in history. They gave it to
them—
An hon. member: They are not in power
now.
Mr. MacDonald: They will be again, never
fret. This is the essence of a democracy.
They gave it to them because they were
entitled to it as people who are entitled to
a fair share of the fruits of their labour and
not because of the fact that they represented
a great number of votes. In other words,
there is common ground and a working
partnership possible among these two groups
of workers on farms, in the factories, in the
bush, in the mines. We can build policies
that will meet their own needs and elect a
government that will do it free from the
sinister forces of the big interests which in-
fluence the Liberal and the Conservative
parties.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, if I cannot
thank them, as I sit down.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to proceed with the estimates, but I
cannot let go unanswered the charges that
have been made here this afternoon by my
hon. friend from York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald). If anyone in this honourable House,
Mr. Chairman, has any reason to wonder why
his party lost the only rural member they
had in either Ontario or Ottawa, I think we
realize after listening this afternoon why that
happened.
I can suggest this, Mr. Chairman, that if
the hon. member's comments this afternoon
are proven to be as directly and deliberately
misleading next year as were the comments
that he made last year when he talked about
hog marketing in the province of Ontario,
then I think we will prove beyond a shadow
of a doubt that we have listened to a lot of
hot air and nothing else this afternoon.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Wentworth East): What
is the hon. Minister's answer?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will give the hon.
member an answer if he will grant me the
privilege of speaking just for a moment or
two. I take exception to some of the asper-
sions that were made this afternoon and the
inferences that are so typical of my hon.
friend's way of doing things, when he referred
to the fact that the Ontario Farm Products
Marketing Board was, in effect, carrying out
government policy at the instruction of the
Minister.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not say at the
instruction of the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I want,
as respectfully as I possibly can, to suggest
to you this afternoon, and the hon. members
of this House, that I do not know how we
could have tried in the province of Ontario
and succeeded in obtaining five men to suc-
ceed the members of the farm products
marketing board who are as completely inde-
pendent in their thinking and in their beliefs
as are the five members of that board today.
Mr. MacDonald: What is the hon. Min-
ister's comment on Mr. Justice Wells' re-
marks? Why does the hon. Minister not deal
with the issues?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friend says deal with the issues. I feel that
we are dealing with the issues and dealing
with them in a very practical and down-to-
earth way. We have appointed a board to
deal with farm problems which is comprised
of farm people themselves. Now, who under-
stands farm policy any better tlian do the
farmers themselves; and who understands
conditions in agriculture any better than do
the farm people themselves?
My hon. friend suggests that we did things
that were out of order in taking men who
770
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
had gotten to the very top of this agricultural
organization in this province. What men in
this province had a better right to be mem-
bers of the farm products marketing board
than those same men?
Mr. MacDonald: Give them a job that does
not have a conflict of functions, that is what
I am after.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, my hon. friend
always likes— as the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost) a year ago described him— to be throw-
ing stones on the roof and shouting down
the chimney of farm organizations across this
province and deriding the farmers' opinions.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that has never
elected a rural representative and he never
will have one as long as he leads his party.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I do not like to hear
people stand up in this House, as my hon.
friend has done this afternoon, and as he did
at such great length last year when he went
on for hours. It is interesting reading, if one
does not believe what they have heard this
afternoon, to read the things that he said,
about the farm products marketing board
and the top civil servants of our government,
last year. Let me refer to just one instance
here, among many, many instances that he
referred to. He says here, on page 1136 of
last year's Hansard:
The farm products marketing board, in
its actions and in its role now, is ofiE
the rails, and the top civil servants are
off the rails. This is a pretty bad wreck-
ing of the situation.
He goes on to describe here on page 1135:
They have destroyed what was poten-
tially one of the finest marketing schemes
in this province.
Mr. MacDonald: That is right. Producer
control of marketing has gone.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have the finest pro-
ducer-controlled marketing plans working for
hog producers that ever was developed within
the confines of this province right today; and
I would like to point out to my hon. friend,
Mr. Chairman, that he has gone on record last
year in this House in deliberately misleading
the people of this House in so many ways,
in trying to show that we were doing things
that were in contravention to the interests of
farm people. He declared that we were
siding with the packers; that we were the
packers' chums as he described us.
Let me point out to him that the plan of
sale that has evolved out of the marketing
controversies that raged for nearly three years
in this province has now evolved itself into
the finest marketing plan for hogs now in
existence in the Dominion of Canada. I
want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the success
of this auction-selling method today is a
tribute, that I can find no words to describe
in sufficient eloquence, to my hon. predecessor
in office.
Mr. MacDonald: Why does the hon. Minis-
ter not deal with the issue I raised?
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): He has only
dealt with personalities up to now.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am dealing with the
issue the hon. member raised this afternoon,
and I am pointing out the fallacy of his argu-
ment last year and the fallacy of his argument
this year, because they are as comparable as
can be.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a
question of privilege. At least three times
the hon. Minister has risen and said that I
deliberately misled this House and the people.
He is imputing motives, and it is in violation
of the rules of this House. Now, if he will
deal with the issues I raised, instead of getting
up and dealing with personalities and smear-
ing, I will listen to him; otherwise I am going
to interrupt him unless you are going to stop
him violating the rules of the House.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, if I have
said that the hon. member has deliberately
misled the House, then I am sorry that I
have given that impression.
Mr. MacDonald: He did not give the im-
pression—he said it.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: All the hon. member has
to do, Mr. Chairman, is look through the
records of Hansard; it is all printed here. If
anyone doubts my word here it is; it is right
there, and all I suggest is that the hon.
member look at it and recognize it in the
light of what he said last year and in the
light of what he has said today; because
certainly there is a great comparison in the
way things have been said.
Last year he dealt for nearly two hours
with hog marketing in the province of
Ontario. This year it was hardly mentioned
—hardly mentioned. I would like to say, Mr.
Chairman, that hogs today in the province
of Ontario are selling higher than they are
on any market across this country for the
MARCH 5, 1962
771
very fact, Mr. Chairman, that those men who
were accused of being misled by my hon.
friend last year are now going out across
this country— they have gone as far as Alberta
—telling the people of the western provinces
of the success of our plan.
These are the people whom he held up
last year, according to the records of Hansard,
as being in opposition to any change in the
marketing plan. This plan is successful, and
we hope by what these people have told me
who have gone across the country, and I have
talked to these men and they say that there is
tremendous interest in hog marketing, on the
same basis that we have it in the province of
Ontario today, right across Canada in every
province.
Mr. MacDonald: Sure; and the hon. Minis-
ter is voting against a national farm board for
hogs.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: My hon. friend has
suggested that we are talking against a
national plan. Might I point out that my pre-
decessor in office, the hon, Mr. Goodfellow,
established history in the Dominion of Canada
by co-operating with The Department of
Agriculture in Quebec in establishing an
understanding of farm marketing that never
existed before in this country.
Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend must surely
forget that last fall, or I should say last
winter, on January 4, the Deputy Minister of
Agriculture for the province of Quebec and
the parliamentary assistant to the Minister
of Agriculture for the province of Quebec
spent a day in my office and attended the
annual meeting of the milk producers and
cheese producers as head table guests. It
was the first time tliat anything like this had
happened in the history of this province.
When the hon. member suggests that this
Tory party is opposed to interprovincial
marketing, I think he should look at the
records and the facts; he should be set
straight before he misleads the House. I have
no objection to national marketing plans what-
ever, absolutely none. The hon. member
suggests this is the case at Ottawa— I do not
know where he is quoting from because I
never heard an inference of it at any time,
never heard an inference.
Mr. MacDonald: I am quoting from
Hansard; that is the official record.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I suggest that inter-
provincial marketing plans are being contem-
plated, and also many phases of commodity
marketing in this country which are applicable
to the indi\adual provinces. And certainly,
Mr. Chairman, when one listens to the kind
of a diatribe that we have had this afternoon,
one must recognize the circumstances under
which they are stated and recognize the fact
that this government has always stood for
encouraging marketing, for the development
of co-operatives, and for the fair treatment
of Ontario's farmers; and it always will.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, it would
appear that the discussion of broad policies
which opened this debate has now concluded,
in view of the fact that the hon. Minister
has seen fit to drag a discussion of policy
matters down to a discussion of personalities
and a straight personal diatribe. And under
tliese circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I should
like to proceed to one of the individual items
that arises under the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
The matter that I would like to raise relates
to this department, although it is of concern
primarily, I would think, to consumers rather
than to agricultural producers. That is the
issue of meat inspection, which was brought
very forcibly to the attention of the people
of the province only a few weeks ago when
it was disclosed through the efforts of the
Canadian Association of Consumers, the Food
and Drug Directorate of the federal govern-
ment, and the RCMP, that substantial
quantities of tainted meat had been placed
and apparently were regularly being placed
on tlie market in Toronto, and no doubt in
other centres throughout the province. The
reaction of this government to that very
startling and disturbing disclosure, in the
first instance, was a typical reaction of evasion
and complacence.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, we are on vote 101.
Mr. Chairman: The hon, member can raise
this matter under vote 110.
Mr. Bryden: Which vote did you say, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Vote 110,
Mr. Bryden: Well, I am quite prepared to
raise the matter at whatever opportunity you
consider approjoriate.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Chairman,
now that the philosophical guns have boomed
on a discussion of the estimates of The
Department of Agriculture, I have four ques-
tions I would like to direct to the hon.
Minister. But before I do I feel I would be
772
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in order in making a comment about the
statement of the hon. leader of the New
Democratic Party (Mr. MacDonald) with
respect to a gentleman in Brant county who
is respected by everyone there, that is Senator
William Taylor, a well-known farmer; a well-
known Member of Parliament; and for many
years a Senator.
The report that the hon. leader of the New
Democratic Party refers to, stated very clearly
the Liberal position and the fact that the
agricultural industry must be protected from
the erosion of the large processing firms in
their vertical integration programme. This
principle was first clearly enunciated by my
good friend, the hon. member for Grey
South (Mr. Oliver), and has since then been
picked up by the leaders of all other parties
in this Legislature; and it was certainly
brought fully to the attention of the people
in Brant.
In this particular case, the newspaper report
may not have been clear. Senator Taylor was
replying to a rather insidious, spurious attack
on the International Nickel Company, that
had been brought before the public by the
candidate for the New Democratic Party.
Now we in the Liberal party are not socialists,
and we are proud of this, and we feel the
particular company under attack by the New
Democratic Party was unfairly attacked; and
while we feel that agriculture must be pro-
tected from the vertical integration of the
food processing industry, that is no reason
why we should condemn industry as such— as
our crypto-socialists to the left seem to do.
Senator Taylor was being very consistent
in his comments and I certainly agree with
him wholeheartedly; I would like to say that
I appreciated the support that he gave me at
that time.
Now, Mr. Chairman, speaking through you
to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Stewart), I would like to ask him, under item
No. 7, why it is that the Ontario Beef Pasture
Improvement Committee required a $6,000
grant from the department? I am not just
sure of the procedure, sir, whether— that
would be just a brief answer, I am sure, and
I would like to go on following that.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
can only say that this matter of beef pasture
improvement— and I may not answer this
correctly— but my assumption of it is that
across the province of Ontario there were, I
believe, five beef pasture farms that had been
rented from the owners, in areas where beef
cattle had been pastured and were being
pastured in sizeable numbers.
Thought was given a good many years
ago to the improvement of these pasture
areas. Farms were rented, there were scales
set up on them, and the idea was to use them
as demonstration farms as to how pasture
could be improved. They would get a group
of cattle and weigh them; they would divide
the farm into areas of one, two or three sec-
tions; one of the sections would be left as a
test plot with no treatment on it, another
area would be fertilized, another area might
be plowed up and re-seeded.
The cattle were weighed when they came
on the first of May, or the beginning of the
pasture season; their weights were recorded;
they were recorded during the summer time
and, of course, recorded again in the autuma
when they were taken off grass. This would
give some idea of the relative value of the
improvement in the pasture, taking into con-
sideration not only the improvement in the
pasture but the costs of renovating it and
the costs of fertilization.
This was carried on as a demonstration
programme for the beef cattle industry in the
province of Ontario, and has been under
operation for some years.
Mr. Nixon: Was that controlled by the soil
and crop improvement committee?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: It was operated, as I
understand it, under the livestock branch—
they really looked after it as far as the
demonstration is concerned, but it is included
in the main office vote. I think that is the
indication.
Mr. Nixon: The second question, in a sense,,
may not be in perfect order, but it has to
do with item No. 8, workmen's compensation,
which I know refers to payments made from
the department, I suppose, for compensation.
But the hon. Minister did bring to our atten-
tion the tragedy of farm accidents that we
read about frequently, and I am going to end
in a moment or two by asking him if he has
any practical plan whereby the benefits of
workmen's compensation might be extended
to the farm working population.
Now, this, at present, is economically
almost beyond the ability of the ordinary
farmer. The premium required for one hired
man at a normal rate of payment is about
$162, and many farmers feel this is too ex-
pensive for them. It ends up, I feel, that in
agriculture only the large farms, perhaps em-
ployed in some special type of farming or
controlled by some large organization, can
afford the premiums of this group within The
Workmen's Compensation Act. This means
that most private farmers are not covered,
and I get the definite impression, in talking
MARCH 5, 1962
773
to Workmen's Compensation Board inspec-
tors, that they are not particularly interested
in increasing the farm coverage.
Since the premiums seem to be almost pro-
hibitively high and the Workmen's Compen-
sation Board is not particularly interested in
enrolling farmers, and since there is such a
tragedy associated with farm accidents, I
would ask the hon. Minister if there are any
plans in his department or perhaps in The
Department of Labour, for helping the farmers
in this connection?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon) has
raised an important question and I appre-
ciate his interest in this, because I think all
farm people are very much interested in this
matter of workmen's compensation coverage
for their farm help and for themselves.
I agree that the cost is very high today
but perhaps the reason for it can be recog-
nized in the fact that when this programme
was first inaugurated in the province of
Ontario the rate was 75 cents a hundred for
workmen's compensation. It was brought in
at the request of the Minister of Agriculture
through the petition of the farm organizations
in the province. I think the federation of
agriculture had a lot to do with it.
The scheme was implemented and the
losses were so high that the rates had to be
raised as they went along. I think it goes
to prove that the vocation in which you and
I may be engaged as farm people is a very
hazardous one, and for this reason the rates
had to be set accordingly.
We have recognized that this is a high
rate as far as farm people are concerned. The
rate today is $4.50 a hundred, and it all de-
pends on the wages a man is paid, and in-
cludes his board, provision of house, and
what have you. This is all included as the
basis on which the assessment to the Work-
men's Compensation Board is made. We have
asked the farm organizations, the Federation
of Agriculture, the Farmers' Union, to take a
good look at this problem and to see if they
have any ideas as to how this could be dealt
with.
Frankly, we do not know how to approach
this thing unless it is by giving a direct sub-
sidy to the agricultural industry. Now, if
this is the way, I suppose this is the way we
should approach the problem, but it is diffi-
cult and I think we have to recognize this
from a practical standpoint. If we say that
we are going to do this for the agricultural
industry, then we have literally scores of
industries across the province who might say
to us: "Well, if you are going to do this for
one segment of our economy, do it for all."
It is not an easy question, I must confess,
sir, and I appreciate the hon. member bring-
ing it to our attention.
Mr. Nixon: Under item No. 12, The Farm
Labour Service is spending $25,000. I wonder
if the hon. Minister would tell us what this
oflBce does that the National Employment
Service does not do? In connection with that
we find in Brant County when farm help is
required, the National Employment Service
in Brantford has a special officer to deal with
this and they deal with it very well.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, in answer
to the hon. member's question, the Ontario-
Federal Provincial Farm Labour Committee
co-operates with the National Employment
Service in the active general farm labour pro-
gramme. The committee's primary concern
is in supplying labour in cash crop areas on
a seasonable basis, where the number of
workers in a local area does not meet the
demand.
The placement of workers— if the hon.
member might be interested in this— the Mari-
time workers brought to Ontario in 1961
was 274; in 1960, 310. Quebec workers
brought to Ontario in 1961 was nil, and in
1960 it was 130. There are also many who
come in from the United States to help here;
I believe that in 1961 the provincial labour
committee brought 3,133 workers into Ontario
on a seasonal basis. I do not know how much
further this service could be extended.
I wonder sometimes, thinking just as a
farmer and not as a Minister, I wonder if, as
farm people, we might be interested in asking
our fann labour committee to explore the
possibilities of bringing help from other
provinces to the province of Ontario to act as
year-round farm labour. I think there is a
real need for such service in the province of
Ontario.
I do not believe we in the province of
Ontario have ever seen a year when farm
help had been as hard to get as it has this
year. I was talking to members of the national
employment service in western Ontario and
they told me there has never in their history
of office been such a shortage of farm help as
there is this year. I personally know several
farmers who have married accommodation
available ready for men to move into, but
they cannot get experienced, reliable, help to
fill those jobs today.
Mr. Nixon: Now, one last question, Mr.
Chairman, and this is not covered by any
774
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
specific item in vote 101 but the hon. Minister
liimself raised the point in this connection;
it has to do with the agricultural college at
Guelph. In our discussions up there it be-
came quite apparent that the staflE of the
agricultural college, as well as that of the
veterinarian college and the MacDonald
Institute, feel themselves somewhat hampered
in that their degree-granting privileges stem
from, and are fully directed by, the University
of Toronto.
In this connection the university will not
permit the Ontario Agricultural College to
grant degrees above the level of master and
because of this, the students up in Guelph,
who wish to continue their education, partic-
ularly in researcli fields, must leave the
country.
Also in this connection, since we do not
offer doctor degrees at Guelph, we do not
have the advantage of having agricultural
scientists from other countries come to
Guelph to complete or further their work, so
that it works against us in two ways. Even
in the MacDonald Institute the graduate work
in household science, apparently, is hampered
in this connection and they have their re-
search workers, or the people who are doing
advanced work in whatever they do there,
canning and so on, they have them come
under a part of the budget that is not exactly
connected with the research section of the
MacDonald Institute.
Now, the hon. Minister has already told
us that by 1970, there will be 4,000, perhaps,
at Guelph and in connection with this also
there will be many more students at the
other-
Mr. Chairman: I would like to point out
to the hon. member this comes under vote
117. It has already been raised.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): On
vote 101, under item No. 4. Last Friday
morning I asked the hon. Minister of Agricul-
ture to name the members of the committee
on vertical integration, and also the terms of
the investigation. What were going to be the
terms of the committee making the investiga-
tion? I would like to know from the hon.
Minister whether these members are going
to be paid, if they plan trips throughout the
province, whether they are going to make a
report which will be forthcoming to the hon.
members, and whether this comes under this
expense listed in connection with agricultural
work?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: In answer to the hon.
member's question, these men are paid out-
of-pocket expenses and whetlier they travel
around the province or not will be entirely
at their discretion. I am not sure what they
intend to do.
Mr. Innes: Well, Mr. Chairman, will they
be submitting a report before the House
rises?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: My apologies, Mr.
Chairman, I cannot hear the hon. member.
Mr. Innes: Will this board be bringing in
a report before the House adjourns this pres-
ent sitting?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: As I pointed out last
week when this came before the orders of the
day, I suggested that the committee had
been asked to report before the middle of
April and present an interim report if tliey
were not ready to submit a final report. Now
whether they will be ready to report then
or not I do not know.
Mr. Innes: Has the hon. Minister impressed
upon them that he would like to have a
report sooner— let us put it that way. Vertical
integration has been mentioned as a real
threat and if the hon. Minister is going to
move towards correcting it I think that he
should move now and not leave it for an-
other year.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: 1 appreciate the thoughts
of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Innes).
I pointed out to the House last week that this
was a Minister's committee and it has been
asked to report by the middle of April in
writing and that still stands. Now, I do not
know what more one can do than that.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, before you carry
vote 101, I want to say just a few words. The
first is a word to the hon. Minister in present-
ing his first estimates in the House; I think
he has done very well so far. It is unfortu-
nate, of course, that in the language of the
hon. Minister, borrowing one of the phrases
that he used this afternoon, he said: "the
tiredness of the evening hour." I was quite
impressed with the impact of that phrase,
because it is a bit unfortunate that this
breath of fresh air comes to the government
in agricultural matters in the tiredness of the
evening hour. It is a bit unfortunate that
we did not have that breath of fresh air
before we got to the place where we say:
"the tiredness of the evening hour."
The hon. Minister, of course, is a new man
in the department in an old government; and
no matter what he does to try to rectify
the sins of the past or to improve the
MARCH 5, 1962
775
pattern of his predecessors, no matter what
he does, he will not get any credit for it;
because people have the habit, and I think
it is a very good habit, of saying: "You have
had the chance now for 20 years, and any-
thing you do now will be viewed as death-
bed repentance and coming too little and too
late." In that unfortunate position, I am
sure the hon. Minister will do well in carrying
the ball.
I just wanted to say this to the hon. Min-
ister, in respect to this vertical integration
that has been talked so much about. I had
no idea, when I spoke on this last fall, that
I would arouse by that speech such wide
public interest. That the speech was fol-
lowed by interest was manifest by the hon.
Minister of Agriculture.
I remember, in the by-election in Brant,
he became quite concerned about the prob-
lem that was set up by integration, vertical
integration, and he promised to do something
about it. Now, I am not so surprised at the
hon. Minister recognizing that this was a
problem; but when I heard the hon, member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) this after-
noon also getting on the band wagon and
saying that it is a problem, it is, I think,
the unanimous opinion of all that here is
a real problem.
Then, I think I should point out to the hon.
member for York South, I do not know how
eloquent he could become if he rose to speak
on a subject of which he had some knowl-
edge. This afternoon, you would almost be
sure that the callouses on his hands were put
there by hanging too tightly to the plow
handle, and you would swear that he had
thorough knowledge of all the intricate prob-
lems of agriculture.
I would say to the hon. member in refer-
ence to what he said— my hon. friend says:
"Deal with the issues"— I am on this item
here which says investigations into agricul-
tural conditions. My hon. friend says: "Deal
with the issues". He did not deal with the
issues this afternoon. In the first place he
has mixed up the attitude of the Liberal
Party with respect to vertical integration, and
that is the subject of one of these investiga-
tions. When he called into question the
statement of Senator Taylor, I think, Mr.
Chairman, my hon. friend was really digging
pretty deep.
Mr. MacDonald: I was just quoting from
the Brantford newspaper.
Mr. Oliver: No; what my hon. friend was
doing was this: he was talking about the hon.
member for Brant's (Mr. Nixon's) excellent
statement of Liberal Party policy in respect
to this matter. He wanted that to stand not
alone; he wanted it to be assailed by the
statement of some other Liberal if he could
find one, and so he looked around and found
the name of Senator Taylor. The only un-
fortunate part of my hon. friend's remarks
was that he knew when he spoke this after-
noon that Senator Taylor was not talking
about vertical integration at all; that that
was on a completely different subject and
bore no relationship whatever-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on
a question of privilege.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has said
that I knew what Senator Taylor was speak-
ing about. I was not at the meeting; I have
not a clue as to what Senator Taylor was—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: I was quoting what the
Brantford Expositor quoted Senator Taylor
as saying and that is the only basis upon
which I could make my observation.
Mr. Oliver: Now, Mr. Chairman, let me
say this: if that was his authority for saying
that Senator Taylor was talking about Inter-
national Nickel, then I defy my hon. friend
to tell me how International Nickel had
anything to do with vertical integration.
Interjections by hon, members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr, Chairman, I rise on
a question of privilege. The hon, member has
stated that the Brantford Expositor declaimed
that Senator Taylor was talking about Inter-
national Nickel. He is in error.
Mr. Oliver: He was talking about Inter-
national Nickel.
Mr. MacDonald: The Brantford Expositor
makes no mention of Senator Taylor talking
about International Nickel. Now, let us deal
with the facts of the situation.
Mr. Oliver: Yes. Well, the facts are he
was talking about International Nickel.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with
the investigations into agricultural conditions,
and this has to do with my hon. friend's
committee to investigate vertical integration.
I said in the House the other day, speaking
before the orders of the day, that my hon.
friend is just waving a small banner in respect
to his desire to cope with the problem of
vertical integration. In the first place he
776
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
appoints the committee and he says to that
committee: "You are my committee. You are
a ministerial committee. You report to me,
you will not report to the House."
Mr. MacDonald: I said that yesterday.
Mr. Oliver: Well, the hon. member said
a lot of things today that I said six months
ago.
"You are not to report to the House, you
are to report to me." Now, I suggest to the
hon. Minister that is not a frontal attack on
the problem of vertical integration. That is a
miniature, a hesitant, approach to this great
problem of vertical integration.
Then he also says to the committee: "Do
not bother about examining the whole field,
just take fruits and vegetables". Well now,
Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: To start with!
Mr. Oliver: To start with! But those are
the ones he says, fruits and vegetables, to
start with.
There is a lot more involved in this prob-
lem, as the hon. Minister knows, than fruits
and vegetables. That indicates to me that
the hon. Minister is just playing with this
problem, just as the Tories have done for
decades. They appoint committees to get
themselves over holes in the road. That is
just what he is doing in this case.
I have not any faith in the hon. Minister's
committee nor what will emanate from it. I
have not any faith in the Tory party, actually,
to do a job in respect to this problem, so I
guess it is natural that I would not have any
faith in the committee.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: There are some pretty
good men on that committee.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is cast-
ing aspersions on men of integrity.
Mr. Oliver: I do not know whether he is
defending or condemning. That is beyond
me.
Mr. MacDonald: There is a lot that the
hon. member does not know.
Mr. Oliver: Well, there is nothing that the
hon. member thinks he does not know.
I want to point out that there is one more
thing, and I think it falls under the head
of investigations into agricultural organiza-
tions. That has to do with the vertical
integration as we see it practised in this
province.
Now, it not only afiFects fruits and
vegetables, it affects livestock, as my hon.
friend ciuite well knows. With cattle, for
instance, Canada Packers and the other big
packaging concerns will put out thousands of
cattle into the country. They bring those
cattle back after tliey have been fattened*—
on their own land or on leased land— they
bring these cattle to the Toronto stockyards
in competition with cattle raised by individual
fanners. Now that, to my mind, is vertical
integration.
As I said before, and I say tliis again, we
still have time to save the farm for the
farmer. But unless we move with dispatch,
as surely as we sit in tliis House this after-
noon, if we allow the ordinary processes that
are presently in operation to reach the ulti-
mate goal, we will have the farmers in this
province not as individual self-reliant farmers,
but as peasants and as slaves.
Nobody wants that condition! Yet we are
racing towards it, as fast as ever we can. We
are racing towards it, and I am sure in my
own mind that this can be controlled. I think
the basic essential in the whole thing is this:
to recognize that processors are processors.
They are not growers of the product, they
are processors of the product. Let them stay
in their own field, and in so far as they have
gone out of their field, bring them back. That
is tlie problem that the Liberal Party will
undertake to solve and to correct in this
province.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, it is
always a joy to me to listen to the oratorical
eloquence of my hon. friend, the member for
Grey South (Mr. Oliver). I have appreciated
this as long as I have sat in this House, and
even before. I would like to point out to my
hon. friend, and to those he represents on his
side of the House, that we believe that when
we have designated vegetables as the project
that must receive the most immediate and
closest attention of this committee that we
have appointed, that from their deliberations
we might conclude that what they would find
would be a solution applicable to other
sources of vertical integration. The principle
of vertical integration is really the same, as
my hon. friend has so well pointed out,
regardless of whether it applies to vegetables
or to fruit, or whetlier it apphes to other
sources of agricultural commodities.
I suggest, Mr. Chaimian, that it hurts me
no little to have the hon. member for Grey
South suggest that he has no faith in the
men, whom we feel are outstanding men in
their field in the province of Ontario, that
have been appointed to this committee.
MARCH 5, 1962
777
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Might
1 ask the hon. Minister a question relative
to this matter? Would he advise the House
of the estimated cost to this government as
a result of the setting up of this vertical
integration commitee. How much does he
anticipate it will cost?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I think
we are all, as farm people— and those of us
who may not be farm people but are
interested in matters pertaining to agriculture
iDCcause we know it affects the entire economy
of the province— we can hardly say what the
cost would be or even give an estimate. We
feel that if we are as genuinely interested
in this problem of vertical integration as this
government has indicated that it is in appoint-
ing this committee, that we will spend money
to find out the answer. I am sure that our
hon. friends opposite would not criticize us
for doing it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate that answer very much on the part
of the hon. Minister, because I think we feel
the same way about it on this side of the
House. The reason I raised the question was
on a matter of principle. We are dealing
today with estimates, and this is the expendi-
ture of the taxpayers' money. I am not an
agricultural man, but I am concerned with
the principle when an hon. Minister comes
to the House and advises us that this money
will be spent, the taxpayers' funds, to provide
the hon. Minister alone with information.
I suggest to the hon. Minister that this
might be made available to all hon. members
of the House so that all hon. members would
be in a position to determine whether or not
the subsequent policies of the government are
in the best interests of the fanners of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, this is becoming a habit on
that side of the House. If the hon. Minister
is as interested as he claims to be in protecting
the farmers of Ontario, one would think he
would make this information available to the
elected hon. members of this assembly to
determine whether or not such is the case.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chair-
man, I might say that I appreciate what the
hon. Minister said in his remarks this after-
noon in regard to the study group that went
to England and on the results. I also appre-
ciate hearing of the setting up of a committee
to study vertical integration. For today in
the province of Ontario, I think there is one
very important point that we should not over-
look and that is losing our markets right
here at home— our domestic markets.
Now as an illustration, I would like to
bring to the attention of the hon. Minister
that our breweries in this province are using
rice. A number of years ago, we were able
to sell barley, rye, com, in large quantities.
But today, our breweries are using rice as a
substitute to some of these grains. That is
some of the market that we are losing, and
I think the hon. Minister of Agriculture should
give that careful study too, along with vertical
integration. I think we can develop a lot of
good information if more study was made on
these domestic markets that we have right
at home being lost.
Vote 101 agreed to.
On vote 102:
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I may say that in my
capacity, I cannot really say whether or not
rice would be a satisfactory product in the
brewing industry. This is a question that
I recognize the hon. member is serious about
and that it does not concern him. I can
assure him that we are concerned about any
product coming into this country that sup-
plants any product that is grown in Ontario.
Mr. Nixon: On vote 102, I would like to
ask the hon. Minister about The Community
Centres Act, for which $315,000 has been set
aside. Does this mean that the aid is given
to communities which wish to build halls and
also introduce, let us say, sports programmes;
or is it just for the building?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the grant
is based on the capital cost of the building.
Up to 25 per cent of the capital cost, with a
maximum of $5,000.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I quote from
the famous Brantford Expositor of February
10, 1962:
In a letter to Oliver Smith, principal
of No. 8 School on the Six Nations Indian
Reserve, G. R. Begg, assistant director of
the branch, said "Grants are only available
to organized municipalities or school
boards."
Now, in this connection, the Indians were
applying for some help in the building of a
community hall at Sour Springs, I guess it
was a renovation. The stated reason the
grant was not given was that it was because
this is in the Six Nations Indian Reserve.
Perhaps that is all right as far as vote 102,
item No. 10 is concerned.
I notice over tlie page on vote 104, item
No. 5, that $200,000 is set aside for unorgan-
ized districts which, I suppose, applies to the
northern parts of the province. But the fact
778
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
remains that no government money was found
to aid the Sour Springs community hall.
This is an attempt by tlie Indians in that
area to improve their community facilities.
They are well-known athletes, in this connec-
tion as well, and they were given no thought
tliat any government money would be found
to aid them in their community efiForts. I feel
the whole policy of the government is out-
dated as far as aid to the Indians is con-
cerned. If tlie hon. Minister is going to go
all the way and say: "They do not pay taxes,
therefore, they do not get anything back,"
he should state that policy, or if he is going to
give them the aid that any Canadian citizen
or citizen of Ontario might expect from the
government, this should be forthcoming,
because I believe they do get a grant for the
Indian Fair. I certainly know that The De-
partment of Highways is building them a
road. I will be asking the department later
whether or not they intend to help with the
upkeep of this road.
But they do not get money from this
particular vote. They do not get money for
the restocking of the area with fish and
game. The bookmobile, which I mentioned
earlier in the session, from The Department
of Education is not availible. But in this
particular connection, I want to know why
they did not get a grant for the Sour Springs
community hall.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, may I
thank the hon. member for bringing this
matter to our attention. As a matter of fact,
I did not know they had not been given a
grant or if they had ever made application.
But this is something in which I expect the
assistant director of the branch is simply
going by the terms of tlie Act as it was set
out. I do not think we can be critical of his
interpretation of it. This is a matter, as far
as Indian reserves are concerned, which
would, I believe, be dealt with federally
under Indian Aifairs.
However, this is a matter which I feel we
should take under consideration and give
some thought. I think the hon. member has
raised a very good point and we shall give it
some consideration.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask
the hon. Minister, since we are on this
subject of committees, I believe there was
a committee set up in 1959, the Ontario
agricultural inquiry committee, and they
brought in their report June last. I might say
I would like to ask the hon. Minister what
was the cost of that report.
I do not know whether he is going to use
any of the information that was brought down
in that report. It is somewhat confusing to
some of us in agriculture. I might say that
it certainly paints not a very bright picture
for agriculture in certain places in the direc-
tion that we are going.
I would like to hear a few words from
the hon. Minister on his views of that report.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the
answer to the first part of the question is
that the report cost, I believe, $112,000. As
yet there has been no decision reached on the
printing of it, but it will be given con-
sideration.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor-Walkerville ) :
Mr. Chairman, referring to item No. 10,.
grants under The Community Centres Act,
we all know that the ethnic people through-
out the province of Ontario have been very
active so far as community centres are con-
cerned, and primarily their own type of
community centres. Would these people be
entitled to a grant under this Act?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, my
understanding of the Act— and I hope you
appreciate the fact that I am not acquainted
with all of the Acts— but my interpretation
would be this: that The Community Centres
Act would apply to any group of people who
establish a community centre providing that
community centre was really in the ownership
of the municipality or district in which it
was located. That is the basis upon which
the grants are made.
So that, in effect, if a group of people, with
the best of intentions today, decided to build
or establish a community centre and they
passed out of the picture, for one reason
or another, as the years passed by, there
would be really no ownership or basis of
management to carry it on. But when it is
established under The Community Centres
Act, it becomes part and parcel of the
municipality in which it is located.
Mr. MacDonald: If I may return to the
second last question of the hon. member
v/ith regard to the agriculture committee of
inquiry. One member of that committee of
inquiry was reported as stating there had
been a commitment from the hon. Minister's
predecessor for the publishing of the report
and that copies were not now available in
quantity because of the great interest in tlie
report. Can the hon. Minister state whether
it is his view that there was a commitment
made, because I was rather intrigued by his
comment that he has not yet made up his
mind whether he is going to print it?
MARCH 5, 1962
779
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, as far
as I am concerned I have no knowledge that
any commitment was made by anyone for
anything. The report has been published, it
has been mimeographed, it has been put
together and compiled and it certainly is
public knowledge. It is widespread across
the country. I do not know to what the
hon. member is referring.
Mr. MacDonald: I just do not have the
clipping here, but I tliink the hon. Minister
knows that one member of the committee
made this statement publicly. I am sure the
Deputy does if he—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am sorry, I have no
knowledge of it.
Mr. L. Quilty (Renfrew South): Under
vote 102, section No. 10, I would like to
ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture if
there is a definite date for the payment of
grants under The Community Centres Act,
and, if not, are these grants always paid in
the period January 1 to January 18 as they
were in Renfrew South during the by-election
campaign?
I would also hke to add that these grants
are very necessary in Renfrew South and we
appreciate them very much.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Chairman,
first of all I would like to ask the hon.
member for Renfrew South— on whose elec-
tion I congratulate him— if he is against the
fact of receiving grants for Renfrew South?
That having been determined, let me say
this: the grants are paid at any date of the
year as far as I know, whenever they quahfy
for the date.
Mr. MacDonald: Particularly before an
election.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, I cannot think of
a better time to pay a grant if it is necessary
to pay it but, notwithstanding that, may I
suggest this: that we have paid grants across
this province in areas, and by signed cheques
that went out the same day in the same mail,
to areas of the province of Ontario— besides
to Renfrew South— where there was no
election whatever.
Vote 102 agreed to.
On vote 103:
Mr. Quilty: In answer to the question from
the hon. Minister I would like to say that my
closing remarks were that we very much
appreciate these grants in Renfrew South and
they were very necessary. If he had followed
my remarks, he would not have had to ask the
question.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Under vote 103
I would like to ask the hon. Minister: how
many dairy instructors have we in the prov-
ince of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, our dairy instruc-
tion staff here apparently is 44 all told. Is
this what tiie hon. member is asking for—
dairy instruction?
Mr. Manley: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not sure whether
that includes the inspectors as well as the
instructors. I am advised that includes the
instructors as well as the inspectors working
under the dairy instructors, the dairy branch,
a total of 44 all told.
Mr. Manley: Well, Mr. Chairman, when
can we get a distinction between the work
of the inspectors and the instructors?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, as far as I can
determine, there has been no distinction
made; they are all field men and they operate
under our office in that regard. I do not
think there is any distinction made. They are
all called field men.
Mr. Manley: Well, why in the estimates
of the hon. Minister here, are there instructors
and inspectors?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, I think we could
best describe that as saying that that is word-
ing that should be brought up to date because
they are one and the same person. And I
see no difference. I appreciate the concern
of the hon. member about it and I can see
his point. As far as I understand, it is all
one and the same person.
Mr. Manley: Might the hon. Minister permit
another question? Does he think that 44, Mr.
Chairman, is sufficient staff to look after the
inspection work and the field work that is
being done by the inspectors in the province
at the present time? For the good of the
industry?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, I would say
matters of opinion such as that are relative
to the individual's opinion on the subject
under consideration. The hon. member might
feel it was not enough, we might feel that it
was, and on the other hand he might feel
there were far too many and we might feel
there were insufficient. I think it is a matter
of relative considerations.
780
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Manley: I do not think it answers my
question, Mr. Chairman. I was asking the
hon. Minister what he felt; if he felt that
there were sufficient inspectors? It was not
my opinion; I will give my opinion after I
get the answer.
An hon. member: He is still waiting.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, is the hon.
Minister going to answer me?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I did answer the hon.
member.
Mr. Manley: No. I asked the question:
does tlie hon. Minister think there are sufiB-
cient inspectors to look after the work in
the province?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: And I answered the hon.
member's question, Mr. Chairman. As I say
it is a matter of relative importance. I have
always felt in this House that, regardless of
what decision the government made, they
would decide that some other decision was
the one that should have been made.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh, no.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: And if we were to say
there were enough inspectors, obviously he
would say there were not enough temporarily.
I would be interested in knowing what the
hon. member has to say; this is what we are
doing.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, a year ago I
believe, the hon. Minister in this House, and
we were dealing with the estimates of the
hon. Minister at that time, did say that the
department was going all out to try to im-
prove the quality of milk across this province,
and I think that the department has done
quite a lot along those lines.
I remember, and I want to refer to the
cheese industry particularly in this province,
that we had some difficulty in regard to
grade of the cheese. I think the cheese
producers themselves have made it quite
clear to the department and to this govern-
ment that they were ready for farm inspec-
tion and for a general betterment of
conditions as far as producing milk was con-
cerned in this province. The cheese industry
just got under way last spring, when the
instructors were taken out of the cheese
factories and were sent into other plants in
this province and thereby neglected the
cheese industry.
I say, if there are enough inspectors, then
there should be inspectors who could cope
with the other branches as well as with the
cheese industry. I might say that we are
proud, in Ontario, of the type of cheese we
are producing, but we have to be on the
alert at all times and produce as good a
quality as we possibly can if we are going
to hold the market which we are endeavour-
ing to gain and maintain at the present time.
I wanted to say to the hon. Minister that
this, I think, was something that certainly
was due to the neglect of the department—
when they had to take the instructors from
the cheese factories and put them into the
condensaries and other branches of the in-
dustry. I would like the hon. Minister to
comment on that particular aspect of his de-
partment, since I was of the opinion that
that particular move on the part of the de-
partment was not correct in that instance.
I want to say, as I said earlier, that we
are very proud of our cheese industry; I want
to say that the county which I come from
produces about 8 per cent of the cheese
that is manufactured in the province of
Ontario and we are very proud of the quality
of cheese that is produced in Stormont.
It is known that the makers in that partic-
ular county have won many prizes locally;
they have won prizes abroad. And we
thought the department was doing them a
disservice whenever the instructors were
pulled out of the cheese plants in that part
of the province and put into other fields last
spring.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Chairman,
my comment would be that we in The De-
partment of Agriculture appreciate the quality
of the programme as far as the dairy industry
is concerned, and its necessity, as much as
anyone. The department reorganized the
inspection districts to try to make it as easily
handled by the instructors and inspectors that
were available as could possibly be done.
And I would like also to point out to the
hon. member that at the session last fall and
the beginning of this session now, amend-
ments were passed to Bill No. 48, amendments
to The Milk Industry Act, which now enable
the making of regulations providing for the
collecting of fees payable for the weighing,
grading, sampling and testing of milk and
cream on an industry basis.
This may make it— if the industry feels that
is what we need— possible to have more in-
spectors, more instructors, then I would feel
that we could go along with this method. This
is already a method which is operating in the
vegetable marketing picture— we have tomato
inspection going on and paid for on that
type of industry basis, with the producer and
MARCH 5, 1962
781
processor each contributing an equal amount
towards the inspection service. This makes
it appHcable in the dairy industry.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister has just brought up a very important
point here. I did not know that I would
have the opportunity to discuss it under this
particular vote but he did mention about
testing of milk.
Now that is one of the biggest bones of
contention, I think, in the milk industry
today; and we see it in all different phases
of the industry and particularly in the cheese-
making industry in this province. We know
that there is great competition among plant
owners and, I think, the biggest complaint
among the producers today in the province—
and this goes right across the board, I think—
is the testing of milk. The herd improvement,
the ROP testing— and records are kept of both
of those— never compare favourably with the
test at the plants.
I think that why we get so many farmers
switching from plant to plant in the province
at the present time is the fact that they are
not satisfied with the tests they are getting
at their particular plant. Farmers do have a
tendency to move around when their test gets
low and, in 9 cases out of 10, when they
go to another plant, their milk goes up in
test 3 or 4 points. I am not accusing any
operator of not giving a fair test; maybe the
test would have gone up anyhow but still it
is the complaint that I hear all over my part
of the province— that something should be
done about the testing of milk.
Possibly it is something that the depart-
ment should look at, rather than have the
owner of a plant or the man engaged in the
company to do the testing of the milk coming
into that particular plant. I think that the
farmers, possibly, would go so far as to pay
something towards the testing of milk if we
could get someone, some department, to do
tlie testing in the various plants. It would
take away the suspicion that is in the minds
of the producer; it will make for better re-
lationship bet\^een plants, and I think that
it would be making a worthy contribution to
the producers of this province to know that
an independent person, or a representative
of the department, would be doing the test-
ing in those plants across the province.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to thank the hon. member for his com-
ments on this. I think he has struck on a
point which has been a problem as long as
milk has been sold. Every farmer has heard
the things that he has said many times
over; we have all been concerned about it.
I am particularly interested to notice that the
hon. member suggests a participating plan for
the independent testing of milk; perhaps this
is the real answer and this amendment to The
Milk Industry Act will probably be the
nearest solution to it that we have ever had.
Mr. Innes: Mr. Chairman, as you know,
in the amendment to The Milk Industry Act
the milk board had the opportunity to change
the differential in the province and make it
province-wide. Would the hon. Minister like
to comment as to whether the board has
recommended a change in the fat differential
throughout the province? And if they have,
what is that differential?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I have seen or heard
no public announcement by the milk industry
board relative to the problem the hon. mem-
ber raised. •
Mr. Innes: Could the hon. Minister give
me the names of the people on the milk
industry board at the moment, the names of
the personnel?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes. It is composed of
His Honour, Judge Currey, Mr. Gordon Greer
and Mr. George McKague.
Mr. Innes: Could the hon. Minister tell
me if that Mr. Gordon Greer is the same
gentleman who was chairman of the Con-
servative policy committee on agriculture at
the convention?
Mr. MacDonald: Also on the Ontario Farm
Products Marketing Board.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. member is interested in the personal
history of Mr. Greer, I suggest he get in
touch with him.
Mr. Innes: I just wanted to know if he is
the same man, and if he could tell me if he
is on any other government board.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: He is a former president
of the federation of agriculture in the prov-
ince of Ontario, he has been an outstanding
dairyman in the province of Ontario and I
believe he was president of his own local
milk producers organization and he is a mem-
ber of the farm products marketing board.
Mr. MacDonald: And a defeated Tory
candidate in Carleton!
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, he was not; he
never ran.
782
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Innes: Mr. Chairman, there is some-
thing else I should hke to ask the hon.
Minister and tliat is what steps have currently
been made by his research department in
determining the method of measuring sohds,
not fat, in milk. As he knows, great strides
have been made in several of the States of
the union and they are currently selling a
solids, not fat, milk which goes by the
common name of 2-10 formula. I would
like to know if definite strides and if some
real conclusions have been made by their
department. I had thought the former hon.
Minister two years ago and again last year
said they were still working on it. I just
wonder if they are still working on it.
Hon. Mr, Stewart: Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the hon. member's question, the
interim report on the investigation or study
or survey, whatever he wants to call it, has
just reached my desk and as a matter of fact
I have not had a chance to look at it yet.
Mr. Belanger: Under vote 103, item No. 4,
I see that The Oleomargarine Act comes
under that. I was just wondering whether
the hon. Minister contemplates any changes
to the Act during tliis session.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I fail to see how tliis
has anything to do with the estimates, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Innes: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask the hon. Minister at what stage of
negotiation his department and the 4 different
milk groups are at on an overall milk market-
ing plan for the province of Ontario. What
stage they are currently at, and I would
like some comment by him on it, if he could.
This is most important to the whole dairy
industry of the province of Ontario and not
one word has been mentioned about it today.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, this is
a subject that we could discuss at very great
length.
Mr. Innes: Let us have a word about it.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: This is an important
problem, there is no question or doubt about
this. We have asked the four dairy groups,
as the hon. member suggested, to come
together and discuss the matter of a milk
marketing plan for the province of Ontario.
This has been done. They have met with
the farm products marketing board, and the
farm products marketing board, after meeting
with them and helping them to appreciate the
regulations under which they could establish
the marketing plan and the terms of the
marketing Act, withdrew from their delibera-
tions. They have set up, as I understand it,
a provisional committee to carry on and try
to work out a marketing plan that could be
presented for a vote.
As I had hoped to point out to the hon.
member, we have no knowledge what status
it is at today. This is something that the
milk groups are working out among them-
selves. We initiated tlie initial meeting,
bringing them together, but we feel this is
something that they must work out among
themselves.
Mr. Innes: Did the hon. Minister not
intimate in one of his early speeches in the
Royal York to the milk groups that the vote
would be held this year?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I did not. I do not
want the hon. member to leave that im-
pression.
Mr. Innes: That is why I asked the lion.
Minister. I did not say he did, I asked if
he did.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member was there and he heard what was
said; we asked the groups to come together
and try to work out some sort of a plan
that they could present to the dairy groups
of the province of Ontario and we suggested
that it would be well to have it in 1962
because certainly I know there is no one in
this assembly who is more aware of the dairy
situation than is my hon. friend. I feel that
it is something we should deal with as soon as
possible.
Mr. Belanger: Mr. Chairman, I asked a
question a little while ago and the hon.
Minister said it did not come under these
estimates. It comes under his department
and I would just like to know when I should
ask that question.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, might
I point out that the hon. member will be
guided in what action we take by the bills
that are introduced into the Legislature for
discussion.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, I see an item
in public accounts here: automobile insurance,
accounts transferred to The Department of
Highways, $18,471. Is that insurance on cars
owned by the department, or what is tliat?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Whereabouts is the hon.
member getting that? What vote is that in?
MARCH 5, 1962
783
Mr. Manley: In the public accounts. The
Department of Agriculture public accounts.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am told by the hon.
Pro\dnciaI Treasurer (Mr. Allan), that this
is paid by The Department of Highways, on
insurance on The Department of Agriculture's
cars and vehicles.
Mr. Manley: It is on cars owned by the
department?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.
Mr. Manley: Could the hon. Minister tell
us who insures those cars, or how many
companies? Or the agents' names?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I have no idea who has
the insurance. It is done through The Depart-
ment of Highways, but I cannot tell the hon.
member who has the insurance.
Mr. Manley: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is in
the public accounts here: $18,471 has been
paid by Tlie Department of Agriculture, and
surely we should know how many cars are
involved and what companies are getting the
insurance or what the names of the agents
are. I think that we should be able to obtain
that information through the public accounts.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I will be
very, very glad to. I can tell the hon. member
this: the total number of motor vehicles in
The Department of Agriculture are 241, with
25 trailers making, 266 total vehicles. We
can find out who carries the insurance. It is
carried, as I say through The Department of
Highways. We simply pay the account that is
submitted by The Department of Highways to
us. They carry all the insurance, as I under-
stand it, on all of the vehicles owned by all
the various departments of the government.
That is something that can be determined.
My friend, the chief accountant of the depart-
ment, feels that it is Dominion General Insur-
ance.
Mr. Manley: Can we have some assurance
here that we can get this when The Depart-
ment of Highways estimates are up?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: If it belongs in the
estimates of The Department of Highways-
Mr. Manley: Well, it is an item that has
appeared in the estimates and that is why I
raised it here. But can we get tlie informa-
tion then when The Department of Highways
estimates are up?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: One question I should
like to ask. What limits of insurance do we
carry on these vehicles?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, there is not mudi point in
going from one vote to another if we are
going to go back to all of these votes, hfow
this basically is covered under the ordinarj^
expenditures, main office, vote 101. As the
hon. member now realizes, this is a question
he could have asked under that and we have
passed to vote 103. However, the matter is
available to him under the estimates of The
Department of Highways. Perhaps if he
would wait until that time, he would have
his answer.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask the hon. Minister a question in regard to
the milk industry board. How many hear-
ings were there last year and how many con-
victions, if there were any?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: If the hon. member
would table that question, we will be happy
to provide the answer for him.
Vote 103 agreed to.
On vote 104:
Mr. W. E. Johnston (Carleton): Mr. Chair-
man, for some time I have felt that the
department does not get nearly enough credit
for the work that is done. Because that is
true, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put on
record here some of the work that is done in
my own riding.
I would like to first of all start off with that
of the junior department. An extensive and
well planned programme of 4-H work for
both boys and girls has been carried on for
many years. In 1961 there were 22 4-H
agriculture clubs with 275 individual mem-
bers, operated under the direction of tlie
assistant agricultural representative, Mr. Roger
A. Thompson; and 20 4-H homemaking
clubs with 207 girls under the direction of
a Miss Ruth Shaver, county home economist.
Many of the leading farmers in the county
are former junior club members. Carleton
has taken a lead in the organizing of voluntary
help through local leaders and was the first
in Canada to come up with a county club
leaders* association.
Work with junior farmers is also carried
on. Good co-operation and assistance is given
junior work by agricultural societies, other
agricultural organizations and by the Kiwanis
club.
Now in the senior field, the county is well
served by agricultural societies. We have
three Class B fairs as well as one Class A,
the Central Canada Exhibition Association
784
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and the Ottawa Winter Fair. The county is
also well served by livestock clubs for breed
groups and by the Eastern Ontario Cattle
Breeding Association for artificial breeding
units» by the county soil and crop improve-
ment association and by the Ottawa Valley
Seed Growers Association.
There are 28 women's institutes in the
county, four rural horticultural societies. The
county federation of agriculture is active and
the Ottawa Milk Producers Association serves
the whole of the milk shippers, of whom we
have 400. Other agricultural commodity
groups also exist. Extensive work is carried
on to a greater or lesser extent through all
of these groups.
If a special project is being undertaken
co-operation can always be counted on by
the organization closest to the picture.
In soil and crop improvement work, the
local association is active and the Ottawa
Valley Seed Growers Association has been an
important factor, for many years encouraging
farmers to be up to date in varieties and in
methods.
I come now to one that I feel is of great
importance, and perhaps one that is not
carried on too extensively throughout other
parts of the province. Some hon. members
here may remember that in 1945 or 1946 the
late Thomas Kennedy, then the Minister of
Agriculture, organized what is known as
county agricultural committees. Many of
these committees, I believe, functioned for
a while and many ceased to function. Ours,
by the way, con:inued to function. It later
became involved in drainage and land im-
provement work.
This programme has carried on for some
12 years and may I say, Mr. Chairman, to the
hon. members, that we were only able to
carry on this programme because of the
assistance given by this Department of Agri-
culture. We went to our county agricultural
committee of county council and received a
grant of $2,000 from tliem for this work.
This grant was matched by the province.
Now I want hon. members to note what
we have been able to do. In 1960 the total
work accomplished on 119 farms was as
follows, all with only $4,000: 22 miles of
open ditching, the average of 60 rods per
farm; 8 miles of fence row removed; average
of 20 rods per farm; 175 acres of land cleared,
squaring off fields and bringing new land
under cultivation; 17 water holes dug; 100,-
000 tile installed at 27 farms; and 500 rods
of laneways improved.
A similar programme, fully as extensive, is
planned for next year and is now under way;
11 demonstrations are planned.
Some years ago— and this again under the
same programme— rural home and farm im-
provement was a project of importance in the
county. There is evidence in nearly every
concession in the county of its results. Inter-
est created in improved appearance of farm
homes and buildings and approaches and
grounds cannot fail to influence, for the good,
the morale of the family farm.
This, by the way, was undertaken in the
year 1952 when the international plowing
match was held in our county. We believe
that in the next five years junior work may
take a slight change, some minor changes,
but on the whole it is well received and
organized. 4-H club work has a wide,
popular appeal. The accomplishment of
greater growth and results will depend largely
on development of more and better local
leaders.
More work with the older age group is
more difficult to organize and carry through.
The field and challenge is there, however,
and continued thought and experiment is
indicated.
Present agriculture organizations are in
the main doing good work. Three Class B
fairs in the county are vying with each other
and always appear open for suggestions for
improvement and are ready to co-operate.
The Central Canada Exhibition and the
Ottawa Winter Fair are both making worth-
while contributions to agriculture, and to
junior agriculture in particular. It is doubt-
ful if any fair organization in Canada is
doing more for agriculture than is the
Ottawa Winter Fair. We must continue to
work closely with them.
Livestock breeding organizations are active
and doing good work.
The extension worker can always find
active support for worthwhile special activi-
ties. Service clubs, Kiwanis especially, are
generous and co-operative in helping along
projects designed to help young people im-
prove urban-rural relations.
While drainage and land conservation has
been a major project in this county for many
years and to some, for that reason, might
appear to have nm its course and be not
greatly needed any more, this does not seem
the case. There is a continued keen interest
and, after all, it is basic to more economical
production on most farms.
We are of the opinion that a province-wide
farm improvement project would be an excel-
lent agricultural extension activity. It could
MARCH 5, 1962
785
be designed to include many kinds of farm
improvement including crops, drainage, fence
row removal, farm layout, buildings and
home improvements, landscaping and general
beautification. It would have its economic
value as well as its aesthetic side. It is time
agricultural Ontario brushed up a little.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I offer this to you to
prove what can be done when the people
themselves take interest enough to work
closely with The Department of Agriculture
in this work expansion. We are most pleased
that we ha\'e accomplished so much in the
past few years, simply because we have had
full co-operation from this department.
I would just like to say that in the organiz-
ation of this land-use policy, we have these
different groups represented on our executive.
We have the Ottawa Valley Milk Producers
Association; Carleton Cheese Producers
Association; Carleton Vegetable Growers;
Carleton Hog, Beef and Sheep Producers;
the Dairy Groups, namely, Holstein, Ayrshire
and Jersey Breeders; Crop Improvement;
Seed Growers; Farmers' Association; Agricul-
tural Society; Women's Institute; Beekeepers'
Association; Junior Farmers and 4-H leaders;
and also two representatives from the county
council.
Now, of course, we could not be successful
in this work if it were not for the money that
was poured in here by the department and I
note here tluit in grants and prize money last
year our county received from The Depart-
ment of Agriculture the sum of $2,474. In
addition to that, the department paid to our
three Class B fairs the sum of $1,500 each.
To the Central Canada Exhibition the sum
of $2,500, and to the Ottawa Winter Fair,
the sum of $15,000.
In addition to that, some few years ago,
a building was built at the Central Canada
Exhibition, as a tribute to the late Herb
Mcllroy. The building was built at a cost
of $300,000. A grant of $100,000 was paid
by this government, and I might add that
the last payment of $29,427 was paid on
November 26, 1957.
I just want to point out to you what this
government is doing, and what this depart-
ment in particular is doing.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will have more to
say on agriculture at a later date. I would
first like to add that if our present hon. Min-
ister continues to follow on the heels of his
able predecessor, and give Ontario the leader-
ship that he has shown so far since taking
office, I have no fear for the future of agri-
culture in Ontario.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could
revert to 103, since there has been a rambling
all around here. I notice in the pubUc
accounts there is an item paid to Levell and
Christmas-and that is in 103-for $11,539.
Now I wonder if the hon. Minister could
explain what that was for.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: What vote does the
hon. member-
Mr. Manley: On 103. I tried to get your
eye, Mr. Chairman, but you—
Mr. Chairman: That has been passed.
Mr. MacDonald: Be as liberal as you were
with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr.
W. E. Johnston).
Mr. Manley: Lovell and Christmas.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I understand, Mr. Chair-
man, in answer to the hon. member's ques-
tion, this was part of an amount of money
that was paid on behalf of the Cheese
Producers Association to cover loss of cheese
that was sent to Great Britain and spoiled,
I understand, over there. To keep the market
in a healthy state, we provided reimbursement
for the loss that was sustained on the cheese
that went wrong after it went overseas.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, was this the
property of Lovell and Christmas, their pur-
chasing firm, with head office in Montreal,
outside of the province? And did this cheese
belong to them? Had they purchased it from
the cheese producers?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes. This cheese was
purchased from the Cheese Producers
Organization, by that importing firm, and
it went wrong over there. And simply to
make good the loss that they sustained, we
reimbursed them. And I think hon. members
will agree that that was the proper thing
to do, to maintain the market.
Mr. Manley: Well, Mr. Chairman, I cannot
agree with the hon. Minister. After all, this
is a big company. They have been in the
importing business, and have been buyers of
cheese, for a long time. Longer than I can
remember. I dealt with them myself when-
ever I was dealing with the cheese factory,
and I do not know how one can justify a
payment of this kind to take care of the loss
of a company that has been in business for
all this time, dealing in cheese. The same
thing could apply with farm machinery and
everything else. How far can one go with
this?
786
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Honf. Mr. Stewart: Well, I would ask the
Hon. membef, and I know he is a good
businessman hiipself, if he had bought any
product, and it' went wrong, would he go
back and buy the product again, when he
had bought it in good faith, if the same
person was offering it for sale? We recognize
in The Department of Agriculture, and I am
sure the government and I know that the
hon. member would agree, that when one
sells a product in good faith, you expect
that product to live up to the reputation
under which it is sold.
We learned that the product had gone
wrong, even though we had taken every
precaution thaf we felt was necessary at the
time in inspection and provision of quality,
and all the rest of it— I understand that some
of tlie cheese came from the eastern Ontario
area of the hon. member. When this cheese
went wrong, we felt that it was only good
business to reimburse the people who had
suffered a financial loss, so that they would
come back and buy from our producers'
organization again.
I point out to him the fact that today
our cheese market in Great Britain enjoys
preference over any cheese in the world. It
is the liighest selling cheese on the British
market today, and I think this is something
that we in Canada should be proud of, that
we in Ontario should try to maintain, and
that we should stand behind the product
that we sell.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, I am quite in
agreement with a lot of the remarks of the
hon. Minister. But it comes back .to the
question that I brought up when I got on
my feet first tliis afternoon, in asking the
hon. Minister if he thought, in his opinion,
that we had enough inspectors, or field men,
working in the industry in the province today.
Now I think there is a duty, not only on the
inspectors, but on the operators of the cold
storages, and the buyers of the cheese tliem-
selves, to see to it that cheese that does not
meet the requirements does not go out of the
country.
Therefore, I say that we have been
neglecting the cheese industry in this prov-
ince. We have not paid enough attention to
the grade of cheese that was going outside of
the province and outside of the country. It
just brings back' what I said a moment ago.
If we want to command that market, and
we want to hold it, then we have to, and
I agree with the hon. Minister, we have to
give them the product. It is one of the best
products that can be produced anywhere in
the world.
I will go a little further and say, Mr.
Chairman, that the cheese industry today is
the best place in which to take care of surplus
milk. It is a place where the quality, if it is
properly looked after and if we have the
proper storage facilities, of the product will
improve with age, where it cannot with butter
and with some of the other types of dairy
products and therefore I say that we should
by all means protect the cheese industry of
this province. I do not think the likes of
this should have been permitted to take place,
because cheese that goes out of the country
should be as it is properly represented to be;
and therefore I say that I do not think that
we should be in a position where we have to
go and compensate companies that have been
in the business all this time.
Wc' do not know whether this cheese was
stored in Lovel and Christmas-owned storages,
warehouses, and brought up to maturit);^
point when they were allowed to export them
to Great Britain. I think there is definitely a
responsibility here as far as The Department
of Agriculture is concerned.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. We agree that there is responsibility as
far as The Department of Agriculture is con-
cerned and that is to maintain the good name
of Ontario cheese. And I suggest, Mr. Cliair-
man, that it is very difficult to know what the
policy of the Opposition really is in regard
to inspectors. There have been times when
we have been accused of putting on too many
inspectors, we have been accused of saying
that the inspectors are inspecting the in-
spectors, and now today we have a complete
about-face and hear that we should have
more inspectors.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if they want
inspection to the limit that the hon. member
suggests, then we would have to put an in-
spector in every factory every day of the
week. That is the only way we can do it, if
this is the way it must be done. One must
use reasonable common sense in inspection,
and I am sure he would agree that when we
provide inspection and instruction to our
cheese makers as to how a product is to be
handled, then we expect that is the way it
will be handled. I think my hon. friend knows
very well the circumstances that went into
this disqualification of this cheese, perhaps
better tlian any other member of this House,
because it came from his own district in large
quantities.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that to infer that
it is something that we should have done
MARCH 5, 1962
787
better in The Department of Agriculture, that
we accept the blame for this incident, is not
presenting the true facts of the case. I suggest
we did what we felt was in the best interests
of the cheese producers of this province; and,
first and last, the cheese producers and the
farmers of this province will be our considera-
tion.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, in answer to
the hon. Minister, I do not want to labour
this point any further—
An hon. member: Sit down!
Mr. Manley: Well, I will sit down when-
ever I get ready. But I just wanted to say,
what I pointed up a while ago, that the cheese
industry is very important and we must keep
the quality of the cheese up there if we want
to continue to hold this market. But where
the policy of the department fell down was
when they took the instructors out of the
cheese factories in eastern Ontario. If it was
so important to keep the grade up and look
after the furtherance of the cheese industry,
why did they take the instructors out of the
cheese plant and put them into other plants
in Ontario?
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort William): Mr. Chair-
man, does this full $31,000 in this estimate
comprise the amount that was paid for this
cheese? There are several other companies
in this particular estimate on the public
accounts— like Rowan and Company, Wilson,
Armstrong and Company— $8,000, and so on;
it comes to a total of $31,000. Do they all
apply to cheese, or do they apply to other
things? Of course, I do not want to give the
hon. Minister an opportunity of making an-
other policy speech on this item; that would
be politically unsound.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Does the hon. member
want the information or not?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: All I can say, Mr. Chair-
man, is that the vote that is referred to by
the hon. member under public accounts is
dealt with under Education, Extension,
Marketing and Research Work in any branch
of the dairy industr>% to provide for grants,
expenses and services and such other pay-
ments for the encouragement of the dairy
industry as directed by the Lieutenant-
Governor in Council; and this is part of that
$31,000 award, here, as far as I know.
Mr. Chappie: This is all "miscellaneous".
Hon. Mr. Stewart: This is the first time I
have seen this, I have to confess. If the hon.
member wants to use the public account
system, why, he can certainly confuse the
Minister— if he wants to use it. If he wants
to belabour the point I will get the informa-
tion to the hon. member— if he wishes to have
it. If he is just trying to embarrass the
Minister, this is a diflFerent thing; if he wants
the information we will get it for him.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Surely one
does not embarrass the hon. Minister by
asking him to explain something in the public
accounts.
Mr. Chappie: Mr. Chairman, surely it is
important to the House to know how the
money is spent? If he wants to give it away,
fine!
It being 6 of the clock, the House took
recess.
No. 29
ONTARIO
%m^Mmt of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty^Sixth Legislature
Monday, March 5, 1962
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q»C«
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, March 5, 1962
Estimates, Department of Agriculture, Mr. Stewart, continued 791
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Macaulay, agreed to 828
791
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8.00 o'clock, p.m.
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort William): I would like
to ask the hon. Minister just one question
concerning the salaries on the home economics
service: $338,000 seems to be a lot for
salaries, and I was wondering how the salaries
were disbursed or used, in what areas, types
of services and so on.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): They are used for the staff of the
home economics branch. This is what the
salaries in the home economics service are
used for. There is a special branch under
The Department of Agriculture dealing with
the home economics service and that is what
the salaries are for.
Mr. Chappie: Are these in all the different
colleges, the home economics departments in
all the different colleges?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, no! As I under-
stand it, this is the home economics branch
of The Ontario Department of Agriculture.
It is located at 20 Spadina Road, the head-
quarters of the particular branch of our
department. They provide something the
same as the agricultural representative service.
They provide home economists in the counties
and in the other districts of the province on
the same basis as the agricultural representa-
tives, only they do not have as many of them.
It is under their organization and adminis-
tration that the 4-H homemaking clubs that
I talked about this afternoon, having nearly
15,000 girls in rural Ontario, are organized.
These are under the direction of the home
economics branch of The Ontario Department
of Agriculture.
Mr. Chappie: Yes, but this is $338,000.
The hon. Minister must have a pretty large
staff.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, there are 57 on
the staff, all told.
Mr. Chappie: Well, it might be cut a little,
maybe!
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, on vote 104. Looking over the
Monday, March 5, 1962
public accounts for 1960-1961, I notice an
item under promotion of junior farm work
to the T. Eaton Company of $33,000. Would
the hon. Minister please explain the purpose
of the $33,000?
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. The public accounts and the estimates
of a department should not be confused. We
are here this evening and this afternoon to
vote the estimates of The Department of
Agriculture in relation to its future opera-
tions. The proper place to relate the expendi-
ture shown in the public accounts for 1960
and 1961 is before the public accounts com-
mittee. The proper place to relate the
estimates of the hon. Minister which are now
before the House is here.
Now, where an hon. member would like to
make reference to this year's estimates and
point out that last year there was a smaller
amount and wonder why there is a difference,
I think this is quite legitimate. But as far as
relating to the public accounts and asking
questions in connection with an item which
was in the public accounts on a previous
occasion and not in the estimates this year,
then the point that the hon. member is
making, Mr. Chairman, is out of order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Surely he can-
not say that the only place we can ask ques-
tions in regard to The Department of Agricul-
ture is in the public accounts committee. I
want to point out to the hon. Minister that
he is going a long way in saying that we
cannot ask questions as to what has appeared
in the public accounts in regard to The
Department of Agriculture. I think the hon.
Minister is wrong and I would object very
strenuously to an answer of that kind.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, it is not
a question of a restrictive attitude in relation
to this. This is something that has prevailed
from at least 1926, that I know about. While
my father was the financial critic of the
Opposition in the House, this was a rule
which prevailed all during Mr. Hepburn's
792
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
time. Now, there is a procedure in this House
for questioning the pubHc accounts and that
is before the pubHc accounts committee.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): There is no
such procedure. We have never been held
to that.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, the
pubhc accounts committee is there for this
purpose and it will be called for this purpose.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, is the hon.
Minister changing the procedure? I want to
say that the estimates are only estimates of
what is going to be spent and the public
accounts are accounts that have actually been
spent, dollars and cents that are involved in
this department. I think it is going a long
way if we cannot question the hon. Minister
on what has been spent last year, comparing
them with what the estimates are for this
year.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That is exactly the
point I am making.
Mr. Manley: After all, is the hon. Minister
going to bar hon. members from asking an
hon. Minister what those specific items are,
money that has been spent out of the public
treasury during the past year?
After all, he is going a long way if he
objects to hon. members on the agricultural
committee asking questions of the hon.
Minister of monies that have been expended
from a public fund and saying that we can-
not deal with those expenditures that took
place last year, we have to just deal with the
estimates figures that are in the estimates of
this year. After all, he is curtailing the de-
bates of this House.
I think the hon. Minister is taking from
hon. members the privilege of finding out
just how government is spending money. If
he takes that attitude, we are going to fight
it right to the very last ditch.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, if they are going to fight it, we
will be with them. Just to show how com-
pletely fallacious is the argument advanced
by our little obstructionist across the way,
who is seeking to impose his conception of
the rules in the House, if what he says is
correct, for years the public accounts com-
mittee was not called, because the then hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) said the purpose
of the public accounts committee was not to
do what he has just indicated, it was only
to be a scandal committee, so-called.
Now that we have some prospects of the
public accounts committee operating in the
normal fashion, it has not yet been called in
this session. We went for three or four weeks
in the fall, we are in our second or third
week now, so obviously it is not an operating
committee. The net efi^ect of the so-called
rule that the hon. Minister is now proposing
is that the Opposition will be denied the
right to raise questions on the public ac-
counts; and that is what he wants.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman,
if I may put in my two cents' worth; I was
not here in 1926— and somebody says neither
was the hon. Minister— but I would like to
come back, sir, to a little bit before 1926 and
back to the time of the Stuarts.
The historic right of Parliament, sir, one of
the historic and touchstone rights of Parlia-
ment, is that before this Legislature is re-
quired to vote one cent to the Crown that
the members hereof are bound in duty and
conscience, and armoured with privileges of
questioning and criticizing and suggesting
and cajohng and antagonizing and opposing
and doing everything else that they may do
within the rules of the House, sir, in bringing
to the attention on behalf of the people they
represent matters which pertain to the ex-
penditure of money by this department. I,
sir, will be one in the opposition to the hon.
Minister of Economics and Development (Mr.
Macaulay) and everything else, who will not
sit here silent and let him impose an ex-
tremely technical, and I might say perverse,
interpretation of the rules. I ask you, sir,
upon our behalf over here, do not let any
such narrow and constrictive interpretation
of the rules persist in order to in any way
inhibit us from bringing these matters to the
floor of the Legislature. Now that is the
attitude I take.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I will re-
phrase my question to the hon. Minister and
ask: in the estimates for 1962-1963, has the
hon. Minister an item or an amount set aside
for the T. Eaton Company Limited under
promotion of junior farm work; and if so,
how much is that estimate?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, I fancy there is.
It would come under item No. 12 of vote 104.
I think this is where it comes, and I can
tell the hon. member exactly what the ac-
count for $33,000-odd has to do with-I did
not hear the question in the first place— it
has to do with prizes that are bought from
the T. Eaton Company and are provided for
the 4-H homemaking club girls who are
MARCH 5, 1962
793
declared winners in their various clubs after
they have completed 4-H homemaking club
projects. They are presented with an award
purchased from the T. Eaton Company and
this is the amount of the purchase. It is
included, I believe, in vote 104, item No. 4,
promotion of junior farmer work. It is $137,-
000.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to thank the hon. Minister. Had the previous
Minister of Agriculture not interfered, we
would have had this answer long ago and
everything would have been to the satisfac-
tion of the House.
Now I would like to ask a question con-
cerning a rural youth centre. Would the
hon. Minister explain what is meant by that?
Is that also promotion of junior farm work?
Where is this youth centre and what is its
purpose?
Hon. M. Stewart: Where does the hon.
member see this?
Mr. Newman: Under the— this will be
found, actually, in the public accounts. It is
under promotion of junior farm work. There
is $137,000 involved in that, and on page
A-15 of the public accounts 1960-1961, right
at the bottom of the page, rural youth centre,
$8,607.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: This is in connection
with the rural youth centre at Cayuga,
Ontario. It is for the junior farmers, the
4-H clubs, the youths of Ontario, who cen-
tralize their activities there. It is sort of a
promotional programme for the whole youth
programme of The Department of Agricul-
ture.
Mr. Newman: In other words, everything
is centred at Cayuga, is that it? Concerning
the promotion of junior farm work?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would not say every-
thing, but special activities and projects are
sent out from there. We can get the hon.
member a full report on it if he wishes.
Mr. Newman: Are there funds then ex-
pended for the promotion of a rural youth
centre in other areas of the province?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, not to my knowl-
edge.
Mr. Newman: Then this is the sole place
where funds are expended.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I do not know what
the hon. member is driving at.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): It is
obvious what he is driving at.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
The hon. member for York Centre does not
know himself.
Mr. Singer: This gets a little ridiculous.
We get the big noise from the north here,
noise for no reason at all. Obviously what my
hon. colleague was driving at was this: there
is one item in the public accounts that
indicates exactly what my colleague said and
he asked the question of the hon. Minister,
which is a reasonable question and a fair
question. "In what other places in the prov-
ince of Ontario are monies expended?"
Surely the hon. Minister should answer.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The Minister did answer,
there are none. I answered the question and
the hon. member kept insisting on something
else.
Mr. Singer: Surely the hon. Minister
should answer other than giving us evasive-
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, that is the
only question I had and the hon. Minister
supplied the answer and I thank him for it.
Vote 104 agreed to.
Vote 105 agreed to.
On vote 106:
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, on this
weed control aspect of field crops, what obli-
gation is there for railways to look after the
weeds on their rights-of-way that run
through agricultural areas?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am told, Mr. Chair-
man, the railways are subject to the same
conditions as anyone else as far as weed
control is concerned.
Mr. MacDonald: What are the penalties in
the weed control—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I cannot tell the hon.
member offhand, but I can get that informa-
tion for him. I have not got the Act here.
Mr. MacDonald: Has there ever been a
prosecution of the railways for failure to
control weeds on their rights-of-way?
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of High-
ways): I would like to say, Mr. Chairman,
that down in my home county it is the
county weed inspector's greatest delight to
get after the railways because he considers
them a big interest. They really clean up
794
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in Northumberland county, whether the
farmers do or not.
Mr. MacDonald: I have a very distinct
recollection last summer of being in Lanark
county and happened to find a fanner back
in his fields. He was pulling out a rather
rare weed that was spreading in this area;
since it had rained, he could not get at his
crops. He said: "My whole problem is in
that right-of-way." He said: "They are grow-
ing like weeds there, and they are con-
tinually getting into my property."
So I asked a question about what should
be done, or what can be done, and his
statement was that nothing had been done
for years.
An hon. member: What railway was that?
Mr. MacDonald: I do not know which
one it was. It was near Carleton Place.
Vote 106 agreed to.
Vote 107 agreed to.
On vote 108:
Mr. Sopha: With reference to vote 108,
Mr. Chairman, you will note, reading the
whole thing in item No. 4:
Educational demonstration work in any
branch of livestock, judges, lecturers,
valuators and other assistants, expenses
and equipment, livestock exhibits and
transportation charges, travelHng expenses,
fieldmen; purchase, maintenance and dis-
tribution of livestock; to pay such grants
for the encouragement of livestock as
may be approved by the Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor in Council.
Now that phrase is unique in that through-
out the whole of the estimates it is, I be-
lieve, the first mention of approval being
required by the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council. I do remember that my esteemed
colleague from Grey South (Mr. Oliver)
was supported I think somewhat by the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald)
at the committee on the organization of gov-
ernment—we had discussion there, I believe
it was the last meeting but one— where cer-
tain consideration and study was given to
this matter of amounts voted in the esti-
mates to be spent in a discretionary fashion
by the hon. Minister. I do recall the hon.
member for Grey South — but perhaps he
is better able to speak for himself than I.
Paraphrasing what he said, referring to this
vote back in 104 in connection with clear-
ing land in northern Ontario, he identified
it as being a very handy vote that had been
used over the years— he has been here a
good many years— especially in relation to
by-elections in northern Ontario or general
elections.
I do not recall that during the Kenora
by-election, though there was quite a bit
of clearing along the roadways being done,
there was great activity, but I do recall in
the dead of winter and the depths of Janu-
ary when my hon. leader (Mr. Wintermeyer)
and myself and others were peregrinating
that riding east to west and west to east,
being followed in our footsteps by the hon.
Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope)— though I
must say that he on that occasion ought to
have stood in bed, to coin a phrase.
The hon. member for Kenora (Mr. Gib-
son) says it is the first time he has been up
there in years, first time he has been up
there since he used to freight cargo on Lac
Seul, that is about 30 years ago.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr, Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sopha: Well, sir, to return to the
ranch, my query was this: why in vote 108?
I suppose it is idle to complain. I com-
plained last year. I recall that I had the
temerity, with great fear and trepidation, to
complain the first year I was in the House,
also, about these vast sums of money and
these estimates that are left to be spent
at the discretion of the hon. Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Stewart). A study of the
estimates of all departments reveals, I think,
that he is unique in his position in that he is
given very large amounts of money to spend
in his discretion. That characteristic does
not obtain with respect to any other depart-
ment; but it does in almost every vote in
these estimates, almost in every one right
from 101 through to the end of them.
An hon. member: How many are there?
Mr. Sopha: There are 123. Since the hon-
member cannot read, I will be glad to read
them for him.
He is unique in that he is given these vast
amounts of money to be spent at his dis-
cretion. We of the Opposition would not
be accused of perverse suspicion, I do not
think, if we suggested that there might be
a temptation on his part, I am not saying
there is, but speaking hypothetically, there
might be a temptation, to spend some of these
in political context.
As the wise old judge said, "More important
than justice be done, is that justice seem to
be done." So in the expenditure of public
MARCH 5, 1962
795
revenue, it is equally important that the
suspicion is not there that he might use
some of these for the cultivation of political
objects. But complain as we might, these
estimates come out each year with these large
amounts of money. Now, I am not one of
those that is for a moment fooled by the
printing that is on this book that is published
and handed to us, because I took the trouble,
for example to calculate, by looking through
all of them.
I am referring here to item two, in vote
108. Hon. members will see there the
moderate sum of travelling expenses, $69,300.
Now— what is the word— sort of mixing the
seasoning in with the salads, sort of interlaced
throughout the rest of the estimates, hon.
members see references to travelling expenses.
I took the trouble to total up the whole
amount that we are being asked to vote in
the estimates in The Department of Agricul-
ture for travelling expenses and it comes to
about $300,000. But I can tell you, Mr.
Chairman, and you would believe me— where-
as there may be some here that would not
believe me, but you would believe me— that
this is the most itinerant, carpetbagging and
peregrinating department of the whole govern-
ment. When we are asked to vote—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: That is his Liberal
addition.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sopha: If the hon. Minister would just
wait a moment, I will get up to northern
Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, I just want to correct the
hon, member. I think if he added up the
travelling expenses in agriculture, instead of
$300,000, it might be $3 milhon. I think he
is being too modest.
Mr. Sopha: No! No, I was referring to the
amount that we are asked to vote. I cal-
culate that we are asked to vote, under the
heading of travelling expenses, about
$300,000. Now, of course there is much more
than that. The hon. Minister anticipates what
I was going to say. Of course there is more
than that. There is about four times that.
Something over a million dollars.
I say it is the most itinerant and
peregrinating department of the whole
government. It makes one wonder-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: I appreciate the former hon.
Minister of Agriculture's endeavour to assist
his colleague and I thank him for his assist-
ance to me.
Now really, I do not suppose I really care
whether the department spends $1.2 million
or $3 million, provided it is justifiable. What
I do object to, however— trying to assume
that I am of adult mind— what I do object to
is that instead of putting in the amount they
are asking for travelling expenses, they Hmit
it to a mere $300,000 and then go and spend
something over a million. Now if the hon.
Minister wants a million dollars for travel
expenses, I think that he would show us a
sense of responsibility and maturity by putting
it in the estimates and asking for a million
dollars if he wants that. But do not ask for
$300,000 and go and spend a million.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order!
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, you and I have
lots of time. What I was going to say was
that I do not believe in this hiding of amounts,
as apparently they are doing here.
Now to return to the point where I started,
Mr. Chairman, I ask why is item No. 4 unique
in that, in respect of the livestock branch,
before they may spend that tidy sum— more
money than I will ever have in this lifetime-
Si 95,000— why is it that they have to get the
approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council? In all the other estimates the sums
—and they are not insignificant— over in 104
there is $2,000; there is a mere $83,500 in
106-
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): One hun-
dred and fifty-six in 107.
Mr. Sopha: Yes. My hon, friend from Grey
South says $156,000 in 107. There is $50,000
in 101, all adding up to quite comfortable
amounts.
Now perhaps the hon. Minister will tell us,
in relation to 108— and this is a very simple
question, and I see the word is being filtered
down from the acting Prime Minister,
down the line there, so I may expect a really
comprehensive answer on this— my question,
Mr, Anthony, is fairly simple. Why does it
require the approval of the Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor in Council for this very important
vote? I would be very grateful to anticipate
a courteous answer.
An hon. member: That is the longest ques-
tion in the history of the Legislature.
Mr. Sopha: If my hon. friend would keep
quiet, we will get this through.
796
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, if my
hon. friend anticipates as long an answer as
his speech in preparing and delivering the
question, we will be here for some time. I
would point out to him, since reference has
been made to the public accounts, that if he
would look on page A-23, he will discover, I
believe—
An hon. member: Is this permissible?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Tliis is what the hon.
member has been doing.
Mr. Singer: Is the hon. Minister over-ruling
the hon. Minister of all the departments?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: It has been spelled out
as to what accounts really had to do with
this. I believe this is on A-23, I saw it here
a moment ago. But whatever it may be, I
can explain this to the hon. member as hav-
ing to do with education and demonstration
work. I say on page A-23. Two years ago
the figure was $184,180.15 and it sets out
therein how this money was spent.
Mr. Sopha: Is that accounts ending March
31, 1961? Page A-23? That figure?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: $184,180.15.
Mr. Sopha: Where does the hon. Minister
see that?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is about two-thirds
of the way down the page. The actual
amount spent was $139,120.97. This has to
do with the expenses in connection with the
livestock branch, with the dairy improve-
ment-association work, and we have some-
thing like 60 field men doing that— travelling
most of the time. We have livestock people
from our livestock branch here travelling all
over the province in connection with live-
stock work. It is spelled out in the various
services that are provided by the livestock
iDranch. These are simply travelUng expenses
that are in connection with their work as they
travel about the province. It is a very big
department and doing a very big job in the
province of Ontario.
Mr. Sopha: But my question was, and I
thought it was the ultimate in simplicity, why
does it require the approval of the Cabinet?
In the others the hon. Minister does not need
the approval of the Cabinet.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, as far as
I know this has been the way this has been
set up for the last 14 or 15 years at least. I
-do not know whether there is anything wrong
with this way of doing it or not. Does the
hon. member think this is the wrong way to
do it? Is there something objectionable about
the way this is worded or is he just taking
exception to the wording of it?
Mr. Sopha: Not only do I think it is wrong,
but I beheve all the members of the com-
mittee on the organization of government
thought it was wrong. They think it is wrong
for a Minister to have amounts to spend at his
discretion, because he ought to be under the
control— under some form of control— statutory
or otherwise, and not be able to spend money
at his discretion. The hon. Minister is ac-
countable to the Legislature certainly after he
has spent it but there ought to be some curbs
on him before he spends it and I am curious
about this.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Why?
Mr. Sopha: In order to ensure that it is not
spent for improper purposes and that is a
fundamental democratic control. It is nothing
more than that and surely you must agree
with me on that score.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Supposing an emerg-
ency occurs, do you call the Legislature?
Mr. Sopha: If the hon. Minister seriously
wants an answer to that, I will give it to him,
though I am not responsible for his educa-
tion. The answer is that the Legislature is rep-
resented by the Executive Council of which
the hon. Minister is a member and they can
meet very speedily and get a Lieutenant-
Governor's warrant or a Treasury Board order
and spend money and do not need to account
to anyone imtil after it is spent. Surely the
hon. Minister knows that. Now he will go
away tonight better informed than when he
came.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, now that
we have pursued the topic this far, what is
the difference between an expenditure which
is directed by the hon. Minister in most of
these particular votes and one which says
that it must have the approval of the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, I imagine it is
the way the Act reads, the way it is drawn
up. I do not think there is any real particular
difference, just the way the Act is drawn up.
Mr. MacDonald: There is no particular
Act in this instance. This is the livestock
branch, there is no Act being administered,
this is just a branch of the department. I
MARCH 5, 1962
797
think it is about time there was a little
housecleaning done.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on this vote I
am rather intrigued by the figure of $195,000
under item 108-4 and the comparison of that
with the public accounts on page A-23. The
thing that particularly catches my eye in this
matter is a grant to the Rainy River Cattle-
men's Association in the fiscal year ending
1962 in the amount of $4,564.41.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would be the last
one in this House to cast any aspersions on the
hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Noden).
He is a fine gentleman and represents his
riding ably, but there are 97 other hon.
members in this House, not one of whom is
represented in this peculiar set of grants. I
have had a quick query with some of
my colleagues here, the hon. member for
Oxford (Mr. Innes), the hon. member for
Kent East (Mr. Spence) and the hon. member
for Kenora (Mr. Gibson). They tell me— and
I accept their word because they too are
honourable gentlemen— that they do have
cattlemen in their riding. They have cattle-
men who meet together and have associa-
tions, and they are completely at a loss to
understand why in Kenora a cattlemen's
association receives no grant, why in Oxford
a cattlemen's association receives no grant
and why in Kent East the cattlemen's associa-
tion receives no grant.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we could go
on through many other ridings, perhaps the
other 97, perhaps eliminating my own because
there is not a cattlemen's association in York
Centre, not even in Riverdale. But Mr. Chair-
man, I think this is most important: I think
the government owes a duty to the people of
the province of Ontario to explain why
throughout the pattern of these public ac-
counts there are grants to ridings represented
only by Conservative members, only for Con-
servative associations, and why they ignore
completely ridings represented by other
people. I would ask the hon. Minister to
explain that.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the
Minister will explain that. And I have never
heard a member from an urban riding so
absolutely ignorant of the question as the
one he has mentioned.
Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the issue.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will deal with the issue.
The hon. member said we were dealing with
Tory ridings only and hon. members in Tory
ridings. Let me suggest to you that if the
hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) were
in his seat tonight he would be telling you
that the same thing was done for the Wiarton
Cattle Breeders' Association many years ago»
Mr. Singer: Well, show us in the public
accounts.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Sure, it was done years
ago. If you go back several years you will
find it. If the hon. member would just go
back a few years to the time when that
money was spent at Wiarton for the Bruce
Cattle Breeders' Association, he will find it.
And this money was spent on the same basis,
with the same percentage of grants as the
Rainy River area, to establish a livestock
auction there for the farmers of Rainy River
district. ... . . ,,
This is one of the greatest things that has
ever happened to the farm people of Rainy
River district, of the Manitoulin Island district,,
of the Wiarton district and the Thessalon;
district. These are the livestock auction sales
for feeder cattle that I was talking about this
afternoon. If the hon. member knew anything
about The Department of Agriculture and its
activities to promote the sale of feeder cattle
and the interests of the farmers of that area
he would not ask such a question.
Mr. Singer: If the hon. Minister is as
reasonable in the administration of his depart-
ment as he appears to be in this explanation,
surely the hon. Minister would find it only
politic to expend a portion of this $195,000
in ridings other than those represented by
members of his own party.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: There was only one
riding.
Mr. Singer: Yes, there is only one and that
is the whole point and the hon. Minister
knows it.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, in the acquittal
of our responsibilities as I see them, you will
forgive me if I am a bit persistent— I want to
insist upon an answer to the question I
addressed in relation to 108 as to why the
approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council is required in relation to that vote.
May I preface what I wish to say with
these remarks? There is a new game started
around here. And the new game is called
"Why is so-and-so not in his seat". The hon.
Minister of Agriculture just picked up the cue
from the hon. Minister of Economics and
Development, who started that game about
a week ago. In addition to the responsibili-
ties he has, which are manifold and multifold
798
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and onerous, he takes upon himself the
responsibility to ascertain why hon. members
are not here. He is a truant officer, my
friend from Grey South (Mr. Oliver) says. But
he got his come-uppance a week ago Wednes-
day, when we went to the energy commit-
tee meeting and there was one Conservative
member there.
That is all I am going to say about that.
This is prefatory. Now I want to say that
I counted the number of members of the
executive council who advise the Lieutenant-
Governor who were present. Of the active
ones, and not counting the junior people who
are coming along, there are eight in their
seats. And of the eight members of the
executive council that are here, I think I am
correct in saying that there are two members
of the Treasury Board, which was expanded
to six members when we got the new regime
around here.
Now one would think—
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of
order. I moved out of my seat to accom-
modate the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Now
the hon. member wants to make a big to-do
about it.
Mr. Sopha: AH right. There are three
members of the Treasury Board. Will you
note in your book that the hon. Minister of
Labour is here. I forgot for a moment that
he is a member of the Treasury Board, but
if I am correct in saying, there is the hon.
Minister of Economics and Development, the
hon. Minister of Highways and the hon. Min-
ister of Labour, and that is all from the
Treasury Board.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Mr. Sopha: The connotation in which I
speak, of course, is that these members of the
Treasury Board might come to the support of
the hon. Minister of Agriculture and explain
to this House once and for all why this ap-
proval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council
is required on vote 108 and no similar ap-
proval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council
is required in relation to any of the other
discretionary amounts that may be spent by
the hon. Minister of this department. But I
demand an answer.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, we can look this
matter up if it is a technicality determining
whether it is worth making a fuss over with
our hon. friend from Sudbury. I would sug-
gest that the only reason I can say that it is
diflFerent— and frankly I have never noticed
the wording before— is that it has to do with
the acceptance of this by Order-in-Council.
But we will make sure about it. We will
provide him with the answer to this.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the
hon. Minister will hold over this estimate
until an explanation is forthcoming. If he
will not do that then I will move that the
passing of this estimate be delayed until an
explanation is forthcoming. And I so move,
sir.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, if I might
speak to this motion that our hon. friend has
made, or proposes to make here. If he
wants to hold up the whole dairy-herd im-
provement programme for the province of
Ontario, we can call our field men off the
road and tell them that they are through and
what has happened.
Hon. members: Oh no.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, this is what the
hon. member is suggesting.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I will take com-
plete responsibility for the act that has been
asked by the hon. member for Sudbmy. I
think it is the democratic way to proceed.
And if the hon. Minister of Agriculture does
not understand the significance and purpose
of the Opposition then I suggest that he
realize now that this is the normally accepted
way to proceed in objecting to a particular
item. It may be that there is a perfectly
logical explanation, and if there be, remember
that we offered to get the explanation.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, if there is a
perfectly logical explanation, let us have it.
Mr. Singer: Adjourn the vote.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We will not adjourn
the vote.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order. You have
heard the amendment-
Mr. Sopha: I just wonder— this is a rather
ticklish thing with me, Mr. Chairman, I just
wonder, on a point of privilege .just what tiiat
insulting innuendo was.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): It was no innuendo. I am rather
amazed when I walked in here, to find that
the hon, member for York Centre (Mr.
Singer) has all of a sudden become an expert
on agriculture.
MARCH 5, 1962
799
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
personal privilege, the hon. Minister from St.
Andrew has exhibited his usual boorishness.
If he had listened to what I had said-
Mr. Chairman: Order, order.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am entitled
to rise on a point of personal privilege and
I am going to. The hon. Minister from St.
Andrew has exhibited his usual boorishness.
If he had listened to what I said, he would
have recognized, if he had the intelligence to
do so, that I made a legitimate point on a
legitimate thing which had nothing to do
with the intricacies of agriculture. It was
a query about the mechanics and the method
of reporting in these accounts and the
estimates.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr, Chairman, on the
point of privilege, I apologize. I am sorry.
If I said the meml^er was an expert on agri-
culture, I apologize. I know now he is not.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon.
Minister from St. Andrew should have the
courage to put on the record what he actually
did say. I say again, sir, that I am rather
sensitive about that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is on the record.
Do not worry about it.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order! You have
heard the question. All in favour say "aye".
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Are you calling
vote 108?
Mr. Chairman: No. The amendment to
vote 108. All those in favour of the amend-
ment say "aye".
All opposed say "nay".
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Vote 109?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, we are not
through with vote 108 yet. I asked particu-
larly if you were calling vote 108, because
there are a couple of points I would like
to ask about.
Question 1: The Dairy Herd Improvement
Association has been referred to twice in
the hon. Minister's answers since dinner, and
I would like to ask him what the cost of this
service is, because I realize that it must far
exceed the income from those benefiting from
it, which happens to be $46,295.25, accord-
ing to the book here. And I would like to
know what the cost of this service is in
excess of the amount that the farmers pay.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The Dairy Herd Im-
provement Association costs the province of
Ontario $86,591.
Mr. Nixon: Secondly, I would like to know
under No. 8 "expenses re brucellosis con-
trol". The hon. Minister referred to this by
another name. There is another one yet to
go, of course, but I was wondering if there
was any thought in The Department of Agri-
culture whether the disease we are reading
about in the papers in the last month or two,
leptospirosis, is becoming important enough
to warrant some organized Department of
Agriculture control, or perhaps reimburse-
ment for the farmers concerned.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, to answer the
hon. member's first question, Mr. Chairman,
the cost of the brucellosis control programme
in 1959-1960 was $548,300. In 1960-1961,
it was $461,200. As to the matter that he
raised in connection with the disease he
mentions— this uncommon disease that now
appears to be, in some areas, causing concern,
I would say that this is a matter for the
federal government to deal with completely,
and it is under their jurisdiction under the
federal Health of Animals Act.
Mr. Nixon: In that connection, sir, why
would that be federal, and brucellosis pro-
vincial?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, that expenditure
under the brucellosis control programme was
for the vaccination of heifer calves in the
province of Ontario. The actual blood testing
and compensation paid for reaction to the
blood test is paid under the federal govern-
ment. The Health of Animals Act.
Mr. Chappie: As far as this brucellosis
control programme is concerned, I believe
that it is getting under control very fast, and
I do not think that there should necessarily
be any reason why this programme should be
expanded as far as actual dollar expenditure
is concerned.
There is another one. The warble fly con-
trol programme is still $78,000, and I under-
stood that that was pretty well taken care of
as far as having this control is concerned. The
amount expended for that seems to be rather
high as well. And $20,000 for rabies in-
demnity payments; I wonder if the hon.
Minister figures we are going to have any
rabies this year.
On item No. 5 of vote 108— The Stallions
Act. Apparently there is still $9,800 under
this particular Act which is high, I think, as
far as horses are concerned, particularly farm
800
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
horses, which I imagine this was originally
set up for, unless, of course, we are going
into the breeding of race horses. I know
once you are in the business of farming it
is pretty hard to get out of that and into
something else. I think, quite probably, if
the hon. Minister of Agriculture were to see
that these particular estimates were gone into
a little more carefully, a reduction could be in
order.
These particular ones that I know of seem
to be quite high and I think in conjunction
with other estimates through the whole of
the department a very close look seems to be
in order.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I should like to ask
a question, as a matter of information, and
I think this is where I might ask it. Could
the hon. Minister tell me why grants are
being administered through this department
for matters such as have just been brought
up, and yet the matter of grants to the
Standard Bred Horse Society and the Can-
adian Thoroughbred Horse Society do not
come through his department? Does The
Department of Agriculture not have an inter-
est in these? Why is this not conducted
tlirough The Department of Agriculture?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, that is a question
that I must say is a bit hard to answer. First
of all, I would say that the policies of the
department are directed towards the matter
of providing grants for the— is the hon. mem-
ber referring to The Stallions Enrolment Act,
or what is he referring to?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I would tell the hon.
Minister that I am referring to an estimate
which will be voted on by this House, in the
sum of some $85,000.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Under where?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Under The Treasury
Department. And I am asking the hon.
Minister why a matter like this would not
be the concern of The Department of Agri-
culture. It would seem to me that these
types of horses are livestock. I am wondering
why The Department of Agriculture would
not be concerned with this, rather than The
Treasury Department.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, it is a simple
answer. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that
that grant is provided through The Treasury
Department because of the racehorse busi-
ness, and has nothing to do with the agri-
culture of the province as far as I am
concerned.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): There is
a difference in the horses, you know.
Mr. Newman: To carry that one further
then, Mr. Chairman, why is not the Ontario
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani-
mals under The Department of Agriculture?
It is imder Treasury.
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Under item
9 of 108— am I in order if I speak about the
inspection of meat? It is in 108, veterinary
services.
Mr. Manley: Well, Mr. Chairman, under
No. 9 of 108— veterinary services, commu-
nity sales— I want to put a question to the
hon. Minister. I know it is very important
that we have inspection of livestock in those
sales, but I think what the hon. member
for Brantford was getting at was the prob-
lem that has arisen just recently in the prov-
ince with regard to the sale of tainted meat.
I think it has a direct bearing here, Mr.
Chairman, and we know there are a num-
ber of cases before the courts at the pres-
ent time.
What I wanted to ask the hon. Minister
was: are all the animals which go into com-
munity sales inspected as to health in regard
to human consumption, or just how does the
veterinary service apply to the various ani-
mals that do come into community auctions?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Did the hon. member
ask two questions or is there only one?
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, I thought I
made myself plain. I was referring to the
community auctions. I asked if all the ani-
mals that came in for auction from the
various farms or dealers, whatever the case
might be, were fully inspected as to health;
and if there was any sort of a certificate
given to show that, if bought for human
consumption, they would be fit for human
consumption.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, the livestock that
come to a community sale can be inspected
by a veterinarian who is employed by the
sales themselves to do this inspection.
Mr. Manley: Did the hon. Minister say
they can be?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: They are inspected.
An inspector is there who will do the inspec-
tion work at the sale. I do not think any
certificates are issued, that I know of. I
think they are approved and that is all.
If an animal comes in and the veterinarian
MARCH 5, 1962
801
who is in charge of inspection on the day
of the sale feels that there is something
wrong with the animal, he can tell the
farmer to take it home or dispose of it in
some other way.
Mr. Manley: In other words, it is not
earmarked that it would not be fit for human
consumption, even if the veterinarian
thought that it was not? Is that what I took
from the hon. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Chairman, the
veterinaries who inspect all livestock at
auction or at the community sales are paid
by The Department of Agriculture; and we
in turn, in the department, are reimbursed
by the returns from licences which we issue
to the community sale operators across the
province. All livestock is inspected by the
veterinary who is employed by The Depart-
ment of Agriculture, in all the community
sales in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Manley: Well, that does not quite
answer the question, Mr. Chairman. If, in
the veterinarian's opinion— and I have seen
it myself, where possibly a dairyman would
bring a cow in, put it up for auction, and
then feel it was not going for a high enough
price, he would bring it back and then
put it in for beef. Is there any assurance
that that cow or that animal does pass the
inspection that says it is fit for human con-
sumption? That is what I am trying to get
at. The question that Tasked was: is there
any certificate issued, or is the general pub-
lic assured that any of those animals bought
by the beef purchaser are fit for human con-
sumption? In other words, are they permitted
to buy animals that are not fit for consump-
tion? Can they bring it to their plants, have
it killed, and let it find its way into the meat
markets of the province?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: The veterinary is
held responsible for his inspection of all
animals-
Mr. Manley: Would the hon. Minister speak
a little louder?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: The veterinary is
held responsible, from a disease or a health
standpoint, for all animals which come to
these community sales to be auctioned. If a
cow was not selling for a high enough price
as a milk cow, there would be no harm in it
being sold for beef because the hon. member
and I have slaughtered plenty of cows that
v/ere not what they should be for milk but
which were still edible.
Mr. Manley: I agree with the hon. Minister,
but he has not got the point yet. Is the
purchaser assured that that meat is fit for
human consumption? That is what I am try-
ing to get at.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Well, this inspection
should assure that it is fit for human con-
sumption; if it is passed by the veterinary.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, I think I would
like to say that if any animal inspected at
these sales, by our veterinarian, is in his
opinion not healthy, is filled with disease, or
appears to be diseased, then he just prohibits
that animal from being offered for auction—
for whatever purpose it might be described.
It is prohibited, and the farmer takes it away
and gets it out of there.
Mr. Manley: That is the information I
wanted, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Chairman,
just along that line, does the hon. Minister
mean to tell me that there is no way of
marking the animals that are rejected from
a particular sale, and that the owner could
take it to another sale and go through the
same procedure? Are they marked? That is
what I want to know.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, as far as
I am concerned— I have sold animals through
sales and never had one rejected— to my know-
ledge there is no mark put on those animals.
They are simply not allowed to be sold in
that sale. Then, as the hon. member suggests,
if the farmer takes it to another sale, it is
reasonable to suppose that the veterinarian
would turn it down at that sale.
Mr. Innes: Not to be critical in any way,
but I think there is merit in having them
marked in some fashion, whether or not it
be a tattoo, so that they would be recognized.
As you know, and as I know, there are dealers
who continue to go from one sale to the
other. They have their so-called route, and
they will go from one to the other until they
are accepted. This is a known fact, and I
think it has some bearing into which the hon.
Minister should look.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: The hon. member for
Oxford (Mr. Innes) has brought up a very
good point. I am sure that if a veterinary at a
sale condemned an animal as unfit to be
offered at public auction, then it would be
marked and the farmer would have to destroy
the animal.
802
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Innes: Well, I appreciate that; I hope
that would be the situation.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I do not think the
former livestock commissioner is here tonight
or he would have the answer for the hon.
member. I am sure that would be the case.
Mr. Innes: I would hope so.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: He would not allow
the animal to be offered for sale the second
time.
Mr. Innes: Yes. There is just one more
question in regard to the Dairy Herd Improve-
ment Plan. For some years there was quite
a list of herds waiting to get on the dairy
herd improvement list. Would the hon. Minis-
ter mind telling me if the department at the
moment is up to date, and if all applications
that are being received are accepted? Or is
there still a waiting list?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: There is still a waiting
list.
Mr. Innes: Would the hon. Minister mind
telling me how long they should anticipate
waiting before they could be accepted?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, it is such a popular
policy, and there are so many farmers want-
ing to get on the programme, that I do not
know how to determine how many there
actually are. There have been some waiting
a while. There are those who drop out be-
cause they have qualified for ROP service;
and then another farmer is taken on. We are
trying to extend it as fast as we can but there
are limitations to what we can afford.
Mr. Innes: Has the hon. Minister given any
consideration to possibly asking a small
remuneration fee from these owners, in order
to possibly put more people, more men, on
the staff? This actually is a wonderful way
of boosting efficiency in our farm operations.
This has been indicated by several people
and I think it is a real step forward. It seems
to me that, if a farmer apphes, he should
have reasonable assurance that he would be
accepted in, say, one year, two years; how
long would he have to wait right about now?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Frankly, I could not tell
the hon. member how long one would have to
wait right now.
Mr. Innes: Six months? A year?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: It could be.
Mr. Innes: What is the average?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think there is a lot of
merit in what the hon. member says as far
as the matter— he is talking about such as a
participating plan?
Mr. Innes: That is quite true.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: It would sound like a
reasonable idea, and it might very well be
that if the farmers who are interested in
getting their herds on the DHI programme
would signify their intentions for a parti-
pating plan, I think it would go a long way
in helping us extend the service. I think
that is a very good idea.
Mr. Innes: Thank you.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, on No. 10
of 108— rabies. We thought a year or so
ago that we had rabies pretty well under
control, but apparently there has been a new
outbreak, especially in the eastern part of the
province. I am just wondering, when I see
this vote of $20,000, if that is really going
to take care of it.
I do not know of course what the depart-
ment paid last year, but I understand that
now it is purely between the provincial and
the federal Departments of Agriculture. Mr.
Chairman, we know that the greatest carriers
of this disease are foxes and coons, and one
or two other of the animals that go about
different counties, and I was wondering if his
department and Tlie Department of Lands
and Forests thought a bit about giving an
extra bounty in order to destroy the animals
that spread this disease.
It can, I think, run into an awful lot of
money when it comes to payment for live-
stock today, especially if you get into the
purebred cattle and the increased prices of
dairy cattle in the province and I was
wondering— I see the hon. Minister of Trans-
port (Mr. Rowntree) laughing over there—
but it is a serious problem, a very serious
problem among the cattle breeders in this
province.
I am wondering if it would not possibly
save the two govermnents a considerable
amount of money if we considered paying a
pretty good bounty for foxes, coons, and other
animals that are carriers of this disease.
Possibly it would be better to go along with
a plan of this kind, because our hunters
today, at the price of pelts, are not too much
interested in going out and hunting down
those animals that are distributors of the
disease. Possibly, if we could pay a larger
bounty, we would give them the initiative to
go out and destroy those animals.
I would like to hear the comment of the
MARCH 5, 1962
803
hon. Minister with regard to this. I think
it would be money well spent on the one
hand, and save the money of the departments
on the other. That is an idea I have, and
perhaps the hon. Minister could elaborate
a bit on it.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Chairman,
the hon, member for Stormont (Mr. Manley)
has raised a question that is of great concern
to us. I think it is of concern to all people
associated with the livestock industry because
we know that this is a problem. As for the
amount of money set aside here in the
estimate— I notice it is $20,000— the hon.
member felt that would not be enough; is
that it?
Mr. Manley: No; I do not think so.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I do not think anyone
knows but I will say that as far as we are
concerned, if more is required we will go
back to the Treasury Board and ask for more.
We have obhgated ourselves to this agreement
on a 40-60 per cent basis with the federal
government— we paying 60, the federal
government paying 40. And this is the pro-
gramme that will be carried out. If this is
not enough, we will have to get more.
Regarding the matter of the animals, the
wildlife the hon. member suggests, this is
a point I have heard argued many times.
There are the people who belong to natur-
alists' clubs, those people who are interested
in wildlife and the preservation of wildlife
and that sort of thing— these people oppose
this very violently. They say it is the destroy-
ing of many harmless creatures that really
have nothing to do with this at all.
I have heard it argued that, by paying a
bounty— and this was suggested, I recall very
well, in western Ontario when the epidemic
came through before— that the bounties be
increased substantially, it lent itself to argu-
ments both ways in relation to whether it was
a very effective programme or not. I think
there may be merit in a practical way in
what the hon. member says, and it is some-
thing we can give consideration to. It cer-
tainly affects the hon. Minister of another
department of government, but I would not
attempt to speak for him.
Mr. Manley: In other words, Mr. Chair-
man, I asked if the hon. Minister had spoken
to the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
(Mr. Spooner), but apparently he has not
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. Min-
ister if it has been brought to his attention
that, in the settling of these rabies claims,
I believe the veterinary who looks after the
farmer's needs is brought in and then the
federal veterinarian is brought in and they
claim it is a rabies case. After they have
claimed that, it is sent on to Ottawa for
further examination and in some cases re-
fused. This farmer in question was put to
a lot of expense, burying the animal and
cleaning his barn up, and then finds out he
does not receive any payment. Are there
many of those cases brought to the attention
of the hon. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I appreciate the hon.
member raising that question, and I agree
that that is a bone of contention with some
farm people. I have one in my own particular
area to whom, I think, this very thing that
the hon. member suggests, happened. Frankly,
there was not anything we could do.
The animal in question gave every indica-
tion that it was suffering from rabies. It
was destroyed, and the farmer was required
to dispose of it in the proper manner, and
this very thing happened. I feel this is
something perhaps we should take a look
at.
Vote 108 agreed to.
On vote 109:
Hon. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Chairman, on vote 109, I would
like to make a few comments to the House
for a few minutes this evening— not speaking
as a member of the Cabinet particularly, as
much as speaking as one of the few fluid
milk producers in this House. In so doing,
I will be taking tlie position that the milk
producers of this province should give seri-
ous consideration to the milk marketing plan
as developed by milk producer leaders.
For some time now, many of the dairy
farmers have felt that there was a need for
a new approach to the marketing of dairy
products and milk. This the government has
also recognized, and I firmly believe that
our present hon. Minister (Mr. Stewart) and
the former hon. Minister of Agriculture have
offered every assistance in getting the four
milk groups together in order to bring an
overall marketing plan into being in this
province.
The government has realized for a num-
ber of years that the problem is no longer
a matter of production, but has switched to
the problem of finding suitable markets. I
believe that the farm people in Ontario are
fortunate that we now have, as Deputy Min-
ister of Agriculture, Mr. Everett Biggs, who
804
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is considered by most joeople as one of the
best authorities on farm marketing in this
province, particularly having to do with dairy
products.
Present conditions in the dairy industry,
having regard to the surpluses of dairy prod-
ucts and the decrease in per capita consump-
tion of some of the dairy products, warrant
immediate action. Butter surplus is at an
all-time high. As wheat is the balance wheel
of general farming, butter has always been
considered the balance wheel of the dairy
industry.
Forty-two per cent of the milk produced
in Canada is processed into butter. The fluid
or whole milk shipper is considered to be in
a very advantageous position as far as dairy
products are concerned, being paid a price
of something over $5 per cw.; whereas the
other tliree sections of the industry are re-
ceiving roughly $2.60 per cw. This, in itself,
looks like a very great differential in the two
prices. However, the difference is not as
great as it appears.
The fluid milk shipper must, of necessity,
ship considerably over his quota. Most fluid
milk shippers are paid about 80 per cent of
their quota at full price, and 15 to 20 per
cent at the surplus price which is usually
around $2.60 per cw. One must always ac-
cept about 15 or 20 per cent surplus. This
has the immediate reaction of bringing the
$5 per cw. milk down to about $4.25.
Tlie fluid milk producer must always keep
his quota up the year round. This, quite
often, costs the farmer considerable money
in replacement of fresh cows at a time of
the year when milk is in short supply. The
fluid milk shipper must also produce milk
with a very low bacteria count and, to do
this, one of the prime requirements is good
refrigeration equipment.
On the other hand, other sections of the
dairy industry are being subsidized to some
extent which helps decrease that difference
between fluid mflk and tlie other three
branches of the industry. There is, however,
a certain percentage of the producers who
are only receiving $2,60 per cw. for their
milk, and have the abiUty to produce Grade
''a" milk for the fluid market. Under the
present system they may never get the op-
portunity to ship to the whole mflk market.
If this milk marketing plan is to work, it
must be accepted wholeheartedly by the four
groups, and in order to assure the complete
success of any milk marketing plan, there
must be co-operation between the producers
—the distributors and the processors in this
province.
I would like to outline briefly, as follows,
some of the changes that could take place
under such a plan.
At the present time Ontario is unable to
supply the orders received from the United
Kingdom for Ontario raw cheddar cheese.
More milk would be channelled to this
segment of the industry and away from the
manufacture of butter and powder, which
is now in surplus supply. This is also most
important since, as in the manufacture of
cheese, the whole milk is used, including the
butterfat.
More effective advertising and promotion
could be undertaken, as each milk producer
in the province would contribute to a fund
for this purpose. We are, at the present time,
being out-promoted by competitive bever-
ages, and substitutes such as margarine.
Under a marketing plan, licence fees
would be collected to create a fund which
would he used to administer the plan and
also cover the cost of advertising and pro-
motion.
A stabilization fund, collected as a levy,
could help greatly to export our surplus
dairy products.
Quotas could be established to level off
production, so that it would be more in
line with the amount required for milk and
dairy products.
Eventually, an elected provincial board of
milk producers would be marketing the milk
of this province. This would replace the
existing four boards, and tend to give more
efficient service, eliminating duplication. In
initiating a plan, it is essential that there
should be as little change as possible in
existing conditions.
Considerable savings to the farmer could
be effected by less duplication in transporta-
tion.
It is hoped that a marketing plan coming
into effect in Ontario would encourage other
provinces to do the same, as the same surplus
problems exist outside of Ontario.
The price of milk to producers supplying
fluid milk must remain at present levels as
set out by formulae pricing. These producers
must ship top quality milk and maintain a
continuity of supply at all times.
The producers of some segments of the
industry are not enjoying a reasonable stand-
ard of hving. They are working long hours
and have a large investment; and under a
marketing plan there would be an opportunity
to strengthen the now lagging price structure
in the manufactured section through a unified
industry approach.
i
MARCH 5, 1962
805
More interest should be created in the
school milk programme. Children would con-
sume more milk if given the opportunity.
More research should be undertaken to
keep pace with competitive products, some
of which are being imported into Ontario and
Canada, such as powdered cream and also
grades of cheese not processed here, with a
view not to have them restricted but to be
manufactured here in Ontario.
I believe the Ontario government deserves
a great deal of credit for the passing of
legislation last fall, to have the butterfat
differential made uniform over the province.
This should help prevent differences of
opinion regarding the various breeds and
provide a uniform buying base with no price
advantage to anyone.
A strengthening of milk marketing is neces-
sary in Ontario. The government, through
The Department of Agriculture, has provided
ways for the dairy groups to get together.
The needed changes are recognized. I can
say this as a milk producer. It is apparent
that industry is closer to agreement than ever
before. The government can only co-operate
and help. The final decision will be up to
the dairy farmers of this province.
My knowledge of the proposed common
market of European countries is very limited;
however, if Britain is included in this com-
mon market it could have quite a detrimental
effect on many of our farm products, particu-
larly the dairy products. I believe if we had
a milk marketing plan as presented, we would
be in a much stronger position to continue
our exports as we have in the past. Great
Britain needs these products and anything
which we can do to improve our quality and
our marketing, would assure a continuance of
this market.
In conclusion, I am sure that I am speaking
for the people of my riding when I say they
are most pleased with the positive approach
that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Stewart) is making to this milk marketing
plan; and although a great majority of pro-
ducers in Wentworth country ship to fluid
milk markets of either Hamilton or Toronto,
I am sure they are going to endorse this new
milk marketing plan.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad
that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Connell) has brought this question up. I
know that we in my part of the province are
very anxious that there be a milk marketing
plan set up in the province of Ontario, be-
cause the majority of the people in my county
are in the production of milk for cheese.
, A number of things that the hon. Minister
has mentioned are certainly true. I have
before me a report of the dairy farmers of
Canada and it is quite interesting to note the
prices that are being paid at the present time
to fluid milk shippers and those that are
engaged in other parts of the milk producing
industr>'. I notice that back in 1951, and I
have the figures before me for 1951 to 1960,
that the fluid milk price was $4.27, where the
other milk was $2.94. In 1960 the fluid milk
price was $5.16— that is the average price I
believe across the province— where the other
milk was $2.61.
Now that is almost double for fluid milk
as compared to other milk. I suppose that this
price has been established on a 3 to 5 per
cent basis.
What I wanted to point out to the House—
and I think it is of importance— this was the
price in 1957, whenever John Diefenbaker
took over at Ottawa. He did say: "Follow me
and the farmers of this country will be looked
after"; but I might say that we in the cheese-
producing areas of the province were getting
at that time $2.80 as compared to $2.61 at
the present time.
Over the 10-year period, when the economy
of this province was going forward in leaps
and bounds, the producers of milk for cheese
and butter found that we have taken a de-
crease over the 10-year period of 33 cents a
hundred.
Now I just wonder where the justification
is when a segment of the industry takes a
decrease while others are taking an increase.
I think it has been pointed out that the net
income of the farmers today in the province
of Ontario is lower than it ever was since
records have been kept. I just wanted to
point up a few of those things.
The costs are mounting all the time and as
has been suggested by the hon. Minister of
Public Works (Mr. Connell) it is about time,
in my opinion, that we should have a milk
marketing plan to take care of the marketing
of milk in this province at this time.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask the hon. Minister
a question in regard to marketing boards.
Not too long ago we had a vote on the com
plan in the province and as the hon. Minister
knows, it was defeated. Of course, I would
like to say that there was a great deal of
resentment in regard to a different number
on each of the ballots that were sent out to
the growers. I would like to know, when
the last vote on a marketing plan was taken
by mail, who decided to put a number on
806
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
each ballot, which was resented by quite a
number of growers in southwestern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Frankly, I will have to
get that information for the hon. member,
but I shall find it and furnish it to him.
Mr. Gordon: May I ask the hon. Minister a
question, a very simple one? What is a six-
quart basket of peaches? It is a very simple
question, Mr. Chairman, what is a six-quart
basket of peaches?
Hon, Mr. Stewart: What is a six-quart
basket of peaches? Well, I would suppose it
would be a six-quart basket of peaches.
Mr. Gordon: I have in my hand here an
ad. tliat appeared in one of the metropolitan
newspapers, in fact most of the papers across
the province. It has a picture of trucks as
far as you can see down the road, and these
trucks are loaded with peaches. I will not
mention the supermarket they belong to. At
any rate, they say that this is part of the
cavalcade of trucks and trains that are carry-
ing four million baskets of peaches to all
parts of eastern Ontario.
"This order is the largest individual order
placed with growers. Peaches picked yester-
day will be on sale tomorrow" and so on.
Now, sir, those peaches I have here were
sold at 75 cents for a six-quart basket, 73
cents for a six-quart basket. At that price
for those peaches, they were just fooling the
people, they were deceiving the people. The
people were getting a very small basket of
peaches, although it is called a six-quart
basket of peaches. Those peaches have only
two layers and on top of the first layer is
a piece of cardboard and the top layer are
placed in nice httle cups. It is a very small
basket of peaches, but it is called a six-quart
basket of peaches.
Many of us in the business sold peaches, a
six-quart basket of peaches, one-third more
peaches, for 89 cents. Because it was a three-
layer basket of peaches with a collar around
the top. I think that the department should
define what a six-quart basket of peaches is
and not let the people be fooled by this;
because they certainly were.
Another question in connection with the
inspection branch of the hon. Minister's
department. In connection with the market-
ing of tomatoes from the Leamington area
in the early spring, the merchants are really
taken for a ride on that. You pay $4.50 to
$5 for a 15-pound basket of tomatoes, you
take the lid oflF and there is not one of them
that you can sell; they are half green, they
are miserable looking things. No. 1 they call
them and it takes two weeks to have them
ready to sell and by that time they are not
worth $2.50.
Now whoever inspects those tomatoes and
puts this stamp on them, they should be
changed to another job because they do not
know what they are doing when they put
a stamp on green tomatoes to be sold as ripe
tomatoes. They are just fooling the people
again, but the merchant takes the licking in
this case.
Those are two questions. I might say I
know of one inspector who— I do not know
how he came to be an inspector because he
never grew a tomato in his life— and maybe
that is what is wrong with the department.
Those are just some remarks in connection
with our inspection branch and with the
matter of fooling the people with small
baskets of peaches. Mr. Chairman, surely
we can have an answer on that now. What
is the hon. Minister going to do about it?
Is he going to allow them to get fooled again
next year? What is a six-quart basket of
peaches now?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: If the hon. member, Mr.
Chairman, is referring to the fact that there
is misleading advertising going on— is this it?
Is he saying that there is misleading advertis-
ing-
Mr. Gordon: I have just brought to the
hon. Minister's attention— and here is the
advertisement, here is the picture of the
peaches and there are only two layers in a
basket. On the other hand, other merchants
have 6-quart baskets of peaches. We ad-
vertise 6-quart baskets of peaches. When
the housewife sees 73 cents, she tliinks she is
going to get a bargain. When she sees 89
cents she thinks she is paying too much.
But in this case, when she pays 73 cents
or 75 cents, she is paying too much. She is
getting a real bargain and good value on the
89 cent basket. I think that what the hon.
Minister should do is define what is a 6-quart
basket of peaches—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Misleading advertising is
handled by The Food and Drug Act of the
federal government.
Mr. Gordon: —so they get good value for
their money?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to
come back briefly to the question of the—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I gave
him the answer.
MARCH 5, 1962
807
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I looked at
the hon. Minister and he said he had given
the answer, so I was accepting his word for
a moment. Now I am proceeding.
When I commented this afternoon on the
Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board, I
prefaced my comments by stating that I was
not going to deal in personalities either past
or present. I wanted to deal with some of
the basic principles involved in the board.
That is the reason I was a little surprised,
and suggested the hon. Minister was rather
imfair in his outburst, when he was presum-
ably replying to my observations.
The question I was raising was the conflict
involved in fixing the same board with judi-
cial and administrative responsibilities. It
would be just as unfair for the hon. Minister
to attack Mr. Justice Wells, for his observa-
tion with regard to the members of the milk
control board some 15 years ago, as impugn-
ing their integrity, as it was for the hon. Min-
ister to say what he did in his comments
this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, if I may just draw a brief
analogy, I want to come back to this question
with the hon. Minister. If he takes the labour
relations board, which is roughly a compar-
able body, fulfilling something of the same
functions on the labour side as compared to
the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board
—overseeing the collective bargaining rights
of labour as compared with farmers. If, for
example, in the dispute that has gone on now
for some months, between the steel workers
and mine mill in Sudbury, the Ontario Labour
Relations Board had been involved almost as
a participant in that dispute, on the scene,
intervening in the day-to-day administration
of the union, engaging in propaganda effort
and going out and trying to argue the case
with one side or the other, I think one could
have legitimately come to the conclusion that
that board then would have destroyed its
capacities for acting impartially in its judicial
function. So I come back to the point that
I asked the hon. Minister this afternoon, a
point that is underlined by the observation
by Mr. Justice Wells in a comparable board
some 15 years ago. I ask the hon. Minister,
does he not feel that a board which has been
given these conflicting functions— quasi-judi-
cial and administrative functions— is faced
with an impossible task of doing both jobs
well?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would say, Mr. Chair-
man, that the hon. member's point is very
well taken. It is one to which we will give
consideration.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I deeply
appreciate what the hon. Minister says to-
night. I wish he would go back and look at
the tirade, the diatribe, he poured at me this
afternoon when I said essentially the same
thing as I did now.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The hon. member said
a lot more things-
Mr. MacDonald: No, I did not say any-
thing more than this.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, yes he did.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not at all.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on looking over
the public accounts and examining some of
the names and not expounding on agriculture.
Just analysing some of the public accounts
for the benefit of my hon. friend from St.
Andrew (Mr. Grossman), there is a man
shown here by the name of G. F. Perkin
who was paid in the year 1960-1961,
$11,999.98, I presume as a salary. Then the
same gentleman, apparently, under the
markets branch, is given an allowance of
$2,788.80 for travelhng expenses and the
same gentleman further on is given a further
travelling allowance of $2,299.50. Now I
wonder if the hon. Minister could tell us
why Mr. Perkin, who seems to be the best
paid gentleman in the markets branch, draws
two travelling allowances and why they are
listed under two separate items.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Probably a district
Liberal organizer.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased that my hon. friend has raised the
name of the respected gentleman, Mr. Perkin.
I know no man in the province of Ontario
who has devoted more, as a civil servant, to
tlie interests of marketing than has my friend,
Mr. Perkin. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman,
that this man, whose salary is quoted here
and who is listed by my hon. friend as having
three travelling expense accounts here—
Mr. Singer: Two!
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Two, was it? If there
were two I suggest this, that Mr. Perkin
went overseas at least twice that I know of
in the last year. He has been responsible
for getting Ontario products into more markets
and exhibitions and shows than any other man
that I know. I would say that he is a man of
modest habits and— I can assure the hon.
members of this House, Mr. Chairman, that
if this is the expense account which he
808
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
rendered, it is exact to the cent as to how
much was spent in his travelling expenses.
Now, my hon. friend is suggesting— and I
wonder if this is what it is— that he is getting
too much in travelling expenses. Is this what
he is going after?
Mr. Singer: No! No! It just seems to me
more than passing strange, Mr. Chairman,
that Mr. Perkin— and I am advised by many
of my hon. colleagues here that he is an
excellent gentleman, as fine a man as the
hon. Minister described him— that his expenses
would not be listed in one account. It seems
to me that there must be something more
than meets the eye, when the account has
to be broken up into two parts.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think if my hon.
friend will note in the public accounts, the
marketing branch and the markets branch
are included in one item. Under the estimates
we have the farm products marketing board,
the farm products inspection service, the
marketing development branch and the co-
operators' branch. All of these, I believe,
are under the public accounts, if I am not
mistaken, as they are listed here. Now they
were broken up this year in order that we
could better assess objectives and purpose,
the activities of each of these specific projects.
I would think that the hon. member could
easily find why Mr. Perkin's expense accounts
are in more than one of them, because he
operates in more than one field. As his
expense account was a certain figure for a
certain project, it might very well be listed
as a certain amount for another project.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can
drive my point home a little more clearly
with this example: there is another gentleman
by the name of Mr. B. P. Teasdale, who gets
a salary of $9,499.92 and he is shown as
drawing a salary under the farm markets
board and co-operative loans board. Now,
under travelling expenses, Mr. Teasdale draws
$1,602.11, under that branch. If we go over
to page A-25 under the administration and
enforcement of plant diseases in The Farm
Products Grades and Sales Act, the same
gentleman, apparentiy, because it is the same
name and the same initials, draws the addi-
tional sum of $1,602.11, which by coincidence
is exactly the same sum. Now it would seem
to me, Mr. Chairman, that the coincidence
needs a wee bit of explanation. It would
seem to be that someone has taken a total
sum and divided it by two and put one in
each half.
Mr. Teasdale has a job, I would presume,
either in tlie one branch or in the other and I
would like to hear the explanation of the
hon. Minister for it.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think the reasonable
explanation that could be given here is that
the travelling expenses were split in two
figures and listed here because I want to say
that the gentleman under question was a
member of the farm products marketing
board, he is chairman of the co-operative
loans branch and also is an administrator of
The Grain Elevator Storage Act.
All of these things require a considerable
amount of travelling expense, all of them. I
do not think it is unreasonable to suppose
that the total travelling expenses of the
gentleman involved was so divided as listed
here in the public accounts, showing so much
for one. If they had all been put under one,
it would be wondered why he did not have
any expenses if there were none shown for
him. I do not think there is anything out of
order at all in the matter whatever.
Vote 109 agreed to.
On vote 110:
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, all things
come to those who wait. You will recall
that a number of hours ago, some time this
afternoon, I was on the verge of discussing
the question of meat inspection under vote
101, I believe it was. It was pointed out
to me I had the wrong vote and I should
wait until 110, which I have managed to do.
I was pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that
this whole issue was brought to the atten-
tion of the public very dramatically early
this year when it was disclosed that a sub-
stantial quantity of meat which was not fit
for human consumption had been put on
the market in Toronto; and that apparently
such a thing has been going on quite regu-
larly. Admittedly the quantity of meat in-
volved is only a small portion of the total
quantity of meat sold, but the fact that any
meat that is unfit for human consumption
should go on the market at all is, I think,
a matter of real concern to the citizens of
this province and particularly to the citi-
zens of the large urban areas where I be-
lieve the meat is most likely to be disposed
of.
The reaction of the government when this
disclosure was first made was quite typically
to pretend that the whole problem was not
there. For example, in the Toronto Daily
Star of January 6, 1962, the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) of the province was
quoted as follows, and I will read this short
item— I will read it all into the record. The
MARCH 5, 1962
809
headline incidentally is: "Meat Case a De-
tail—Robarts" and the text of the story is;
When Premier John Robarts was told
last night of New Democratic candidate
Stanley Bullock's charges that poor en-
forcement of The Dead Animals Disposal
Act was responsible for the bad meat
case he replied:
—and this is attributed to him as a direct
quote—
"An administrative detail. This has to
do with the mechanics of the enforcement
of the Act and I don't know anything
about it."
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would submit to
you that there is an example of complacency
enthroned. A serious situation is brought to
the attention of the public and the hon.
Prime Minister of the province says: this
is a matter of administrative detail. Of
course, the government could not very long
maintain that sort of a position. The public
outcry was so great that it was inevitable
that something better, if possible, should
come from the government.
So, the next contribution we have from
the government was the fatuous suggestion
that their Act, entitled The Dead Animals
Disposal Act, had assisted in bringing this
situation to light— I will deal with that in
a little more detail in a moment, Mr. Chair-
man. The plain fact of the matter was
that the situation was brought to light
through co-operative action by the Canadian
Association of Consumers, the Food and
Drug Directorate and the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police. I suspect it came to the
provincial authorities as big a surprise as
it did to everybody else.
I will indicate in a moment that I really
do not think that their Act helped the situa-
tion very much. I will make one concession
since the substitute Prime Minister seems
to be getting a little concerned aboiit my
assertion. It may have assisted when we
came to the actual point of prosecution but
it was of no use at all, and in fact possibly
even harmful, as far as the development
of the overall situation was concerned.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, would
the hon. member permit a question? When
did the Canadian Consumers Association
first raise this point, at what date?
Mr. Bryden: What point? What point is
the hon. Minister referring to?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: This matter that the
hon. member just referred to.
Mr. Bryden: Well, the whole question of
the dangers arising from the lack of ade-
quate inspection of meat has been a matter
of public concern oflF and on for a good
many years. Two or three years ago a depu-
tation from the Toronto city council for
example—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Is the hon. member
going to answer the question the hon. Min-
ister asked?
Mr. Bryden: Well, he asked when was this
matter raised? I am talking about when the
matter was raised; it has been raised oflE and
on for years.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: May I make myself, I
trust, more clearly understood by the hon.
member? He referred to the Canadian Con-
sumers Association raising the matter of
inspection under The Dead Animals Dis-
posal Act, and the matter of the tainted
meat issue, and said that it was as much of
a surprise to the provincial authorities as
it was to anyone else. Now I ask the hon.
member: what date was that?
Mr. Bryden: What date was what— when
the provincial authorities became surprised?
I have been under the impression that they
are in almost a perpetual state of surprise.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, no. I want the
answer to this one, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister can give
his own answers whenever he likes.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: In other words, the
hon. member does not know?
Mr. Bryden: I do not know what? I know,
Mr. Chairman, and I have already stated
that the matter came to light through the
activities of three agencies which I have
already mentioned; and I suggested that it
may very well have been as big a surprise
to the provincial authorities as it was to the
public at large.
If it was not, then the hon. Minister can
advise us that he was not surprised when it
came out, that he knew about it in advance.
But certainly the sort of reaction and state-
ments we got from representatives of the
government indicated a state of surprise even
to the point of total confusion—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I insist
on this question being answered. Now the
hon. member has made an insinuation that
we did not know anything about—
Interjections by hon. members.
810
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bryden: On what basis— I do not have
to concede the floor to—
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I want the answer, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): Mr.
Chairman, on a point of order, I think if an
hon. member of this House refers to some-
thing that has been written by someone else,
especially if it is referred to in a public
periodical, he is required by the rules of the
House when requested to give the authority
and date and the source from where it
comes. Has the hon. member got the date?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have heard
some fat-headed points of order in my day,
but I have referred to date, to one publica-
tion only and that was the Toronto Daily
Star; I read the entire extract into the record.
If I forgot to give the date, the date was
January 6, 1962, an item in the Toronto
Daily Star quoting the hon. Prime Minister
of the province (Mr. Robarts). Whether he
was correctly quoted or not I cannot say,
but that is what the Toronto Daily Star said.
Hon. Mr. Stewart; Mr. Chairman, I asked
a question and I would like an answer.
Mr. Bryden: I do not have to give an
answer any more than the hon. Minister does;
but as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman,
I answered any question I was asked.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: If the hon. member does
not know, then why is he making that state-
ment? What is he so sensitive about?
Mr. Bryden: It would take the wisdom of
Solomon to decide what the hon. Minister's
question was; but as far as I could under-
stand it I have answered it already, and if
I have not he can answer it himself. I
suspect it was, in any case, a rhetorical ques-
tion. He will have his opportunity to make
his speech as soon as I am through, and if
he would just leave the matter alone I will
be through all the more quickly.
Now, after the first reactions of the gov-
ernment to the matter, we suddenly found
the very energetic hon. Minister of Health
(Mr. Dymond) injecting himself into the
situation; and he made a substantial variety
of statements which I will not attempt to
quote in total, but they varied all the way
from saying that the situation is terrible,
there is no inspection at all, to saying that,
of course, nothing has been proved yet, and
then to saying that we must go ahead and
establish some sort of provincial inspection
system if the federal government will not
establish an inspection system.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, I think that in view of the
fact that the hon. gentleman has asserted
that the hon. Minister who is absent has
made certain statements, diat it would be
well befitting the hon. gentleman if he would
now make the statement that the hon. Min-
ister is said to have made and give his
source so that we, at least, have it on the
record.
Mr. Bryden: Well, I will be quite happy to
do that. I may say I do not take any re-
sponsibility for the absence of the hon. Min-
ister of Health. I have no doubt that he is
away on perfectly legitimate grounds, but
I will not refrain from making comments
about him merely because he is absent.
I had hoped I could abbreviate what I was
going to say by not bothering to quote these
things, but I will quote some of the hon.
Minister's statements.
Mr. Lawrence: Quote them all.
Mr. Bryden; Well, I am not sure that I
have them all because he made a great many.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, let us have the
four the hon. member referred to.
Mr. Bryden: Well, the one that I had in
mind, in particular, was in the Toronto
Daily Star of January 25, 1962.
Provincial Health Minister Dr. Matthew
Dymond said last night that if the federal
government's meat inspection system can-
not cover all meat in Toronto then we
will have to go ahead provincially. Dr.
Dymond told the Progressive Conservatives
at East York: "Our aim is to have all the
meat in the province intended for human
consumption inspected. If it cannot be
done federally we will have to go ahead
provincially." He said the recent bad meat
cases—
and let us remember notliing has been
proven yet, these cases are still before the
courts:
—the recent bad meat cases indicate noth-
ing wrong with the inspection system as far
as it goes. "These men were not supposed
to be producing meat for human consump-
tion," he said. "If they did they broke
the law and all the inspection in the world
would not have caught them. Policing
would, and if what we are told is true, it
did."
MARCH 5, 1962
811
And then he went on to discuss other
matters.
Then in the Toronto Daily Star of January
11— this is a httle earher, I had these out of
order.
Ontario is hoping the federal government
will assume responsibility for inspecting all
meat sold in the province, Health Minister
Matthew Dymond indicated today.
Mr. J. R. Simonett (Frontenac-Addington):
What date was that?
Mr. Bryden: January 11, 1962, it is a couple
of weeks earlier than the other one I read.
I had these mixed up as far as the order was
concerned, but the substance is the same.
At the conclusion of the Cabinet meet-
ing at which the sale of meat unfit for
human consumption was discussed. Dr.
Dymond announced he has accepted federal
Health Minister Waldo Monteith's invita-
tion to meet him and other Health Minis-
ters for a discussion. If Ottawa does not
agree to accept responsibility for inspecting
all meat sold in Canada, said Dr. Dymond,
then we will come back and discuss what
might be done at the provincial level. . . .
He said, however, that no date for a meet-
ing had been set.
This is very common, I have found, in
dealing with Conservative Cabinet Ministers.
They are always going to have a meeting to
discuss an urgent problem but the date of
the meeting hardly ever seems to get set.
Then on February 23, 1962, and the hon.
Minister in charge of the Liquor Commission
(Mr. Grossman) will be glad to know that this
one was in the Telegram.
Hon, Mr. Grossman: Much better source.
Mr. Bryden: I quote:
Health Minister Dymond, declaring meat
inspection has never been under provincial
authority, last night defended his conduct
in regard to the alleged sale in the province
of tainted meat for human consumption.
He told a reorganization meeting of the
Whitby Progressive Conservative Associa-
tion that responsibility for meat inspection
was exclusively with the federal govern-
ment. "As Health Minister I have no
power to inspect nor has the Health
Department any such authority/' he said.
He added that the Health Department does
not enforce The Public Health Act which
was laid down for the guidance of muni-
cipal authorities. Local medical officers of
health under the Act might close any
slaughterhouse not measuring up to health
standards.
So I have indicated that there seems to be
a certain amount of inconsistency and con-
fusion as far as the statements of the hon.
Minister of Health were concerned, but I
suspect that the inconsistency and confusion
basically went back to the Cabinet itself. It
was not really the responsibility of the hon.
Minister. It would appear that the impulse
of the hon. Minister was what I would con-
sider to be the correct one. It was to ensure
that all meat that is sold for human con-
sumption in this province is inspected to
make certain it is fit for human consumption.
This is the issue that the government has
persistently refused to face up to, certainly
for as long as I can remember.
I think it was at least two years ago and
possibly more that representatives of the city
council of the city of Toronto came to the
government expressing concern with regard
to the problem of tainted meat and the possi-
bility that it could get on to the market, and
asking that the provincial government should
take some responsibility for inspection of all
animals that are slaughtered and all meat that
is sold for human consumption. The answer
the government came up with was The Dead
Animals Disposal Act, which ostensibly pro-
vided for certain controls respecting the dis-
posal of animals that died or were fallen or in
other ways had to be disposed of and were
not fit for human consumption.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Trans-
port): Might not have been.
Mr. Bryden: Might not have been— I do not
quite get the significance of the distinction
but I will accept the hon. Minister's sugges-
tion.
The Act provides for a licensing system,
but as far as I have been able to determine
from any inquiries I have made there is no
machinery to ensure that the terms under
which the licences are granted are complied
with. There is a provision in the Act for the
appointment of inspectors, but certainly as of
six weeks ago no inspectors had in fact been
appointed under this Act. The formal re-
quirements of the Act have been met in that
the provincial veterinarian, I believe, and the
assistant veterinarian have been designated
as inspectors under the Act.
But surely, Mr. Chairman, that does not
meet the situation at all. I am certain that
those men already had at least full time
responsibilities before they were given this
very important additional responsibility. I
812
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
repeat my contention that in fact, whatever
the formality of the situation may be, there is
no inspection under the Act at all. There are
no steps taken on anything but the most
sporadic basis to ensure that licence holders
actually comply with the terms of their
licences, and that is the reason we are in the
mess we are in now.
The government has claimed that its Act
has been useful in controlling the situation.
Well, I conceded to the hon. Minister of
Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay), who is
acting as House Leader tonight, that it may
have been helpful in the actual prosecutions;
but as far as the control of the total problem
is concerned, I submit to you, Mr. Chairman,
that this Act has served as a shield behind
which unscrupulous operators can carry on
their nefarious activities. When a person gets
a licence, he is given an aura of respectability;
he now becomes a licensed dealer holding a
licence from the province of Ontario. To
almost any person, that would make it appear
that he is a reputable and reliable dealer.
But no steps are taken to ensure that he is,
in fact, carrying on business in accordance
with the requirements of his licence. As a
matter of fact, the people prosecuted with
respect to this tainted meat case, in most in-
stances, were licensed dealers under the Act.
This provision for licensing, as it has been
administered, has done more harm than good,
and it has been a factor in permitting
the sort of situation to develop that has
actually developed. My contention is, and I
believe that the hon Minister of Health was
right in the first instance, that somebody
should take responsibility for seeing that all
meat that is put on the market for human
consumption should be inspected. My own
point of view is that the best procedure
would be to enact whatever legislation is
necessary to make the federal government
inspection applicable throughout the province.
I am not at all familiar with the con-
stitutional niceties of the situation but, as I
understand it, the federal government can
require inspection only in plants whose meat
is going into interprovincial or international
trade. It can provide its inspection services on
a voluntary basis to other plants, but it cannot
require them to submit to inspection.
If I am wrong in that, I will no doubt be
corrected, but if it takes action by the federal
government to bring all the plants under
federal inspection, then I certainly think we
should press for that action. Certainly the
action should be taken. This is according to
any authorities whose opinions I have read.
This is a very serious matter of public
health.
I must say that I cannot entirely accept
the proposition tliat was put forward in this
House a few days ago by the hon. member
for Brant (Mr. Nixon) who stated, and I will
quote from his remarks as reported on pages
602 and 603 of Hansard for February 26,
1962:
I would like to draw to your attention
that, in order to come up to the levels
required by the federal meat inspection
policy, it is necessary for very expensive
and far-reaching improvements to be made
to the many small slaughter-houses in
operation in Brant county, as well as the
other counties throughout the province. I
believe that to come up to the standards
of the federal inspection, is financially out
of the question for these small abattoirs.
—and then a little further on he says—
I personally feel, and certainly I am
speaking for the people concerned in our
county, that the consumer must be pro-
tected, certainly, by a very careful meat-
inspection process, I would say, under the
auspices of the provincial government, with
levels of inspection which can be attained
by these smaller abattoirs.
Now, I have-
Mr. Nixon: The two ideas are not mutually
exclusive, are they?
Mr. Bryden: No, they are not mutually
exclusive, but—
Mr. Nixon: Then something in between this
can be achieved by this government.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have
all the sympathy in the world for a small
operator, in this as in any other field, but
I do think that when we are dealing with
public health, the protection of the public
must be paramount. As I understand it,
federal inspection services are provided free
of charge. However, the federal government
does insist, in providing its services, that
there be certain standards of plant operation.
It is my understanding that tlie federal
government imposes those requirements be-
cause it considers them to be essential in
carrying out the inspection function and in
protecting the public.
I am no authority on these matters, but
I would submit, sir, that the federal govern-
ment, perhaps, is an authority on it, or it
has people who are authorities. If these
standards are truly the standards required to
ensure complete public safety, and complete
public protection, then they ought to be
complied with. If they are unnecessarily
MARCH 5, 1962
813
restrictive, then I think that the federal
government should be asked to take another
look at them.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: Well, the hon. member for
Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) knows a lot more
about backing dead horses than I do, but I
submit, Mr. Chairman, that considerations of
the financial resources of a particular operator
should not be allowed to induce us to ask
for less stringent inspection than is required.
As I say, I am not prepared to state whether
it is absolutely essential to comply with the
federal standards.
My impression, as a layman, would cer-
tainly be that it is; or otherwise the federal
government would have not imposed those
standards. I feel that we have an excellent
inspection service at the federal level and we
should make that available within the prov-
ince of Ontario by passing such enabling
legislation as may be necessary to permit
federal inspectors, who are well qualified,
to inspect plants that are not now under the
federal jurisdiction.
It has been a matter of very great regret to
me, Mr. Chairman, that we have had no
policy statements from the government at
all on this matter. Yet it came to the atten-
tion of the public in a dramatic way— and I
■would judge, from what the hon. Minister is
saying, to the attention of the government
even sooner— several weeks ago, in fact, about
two months ago. It is surely a matter of
urgent public concern, so why has there been
no apparent action, no policy statements from
the government, in fact practically no state-
ments at all— except excuses on the one hand
and rather confusing statements from the hon.
Minister of Health?
This is a matter which I think the hon.
Minister ought to explain more fully, and
I would hope that he might be in a position
at this time, during his estimates, to make a
statement of government policy with regard
to this very important question of the pro-
tection of the public against the sale of
tainted meat, particularly in restaurants and
institutions where it is not easy for the public
to determine the nature of the meat they are
getHng.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now, Mr. Chairman,
our friend the hon. member for Woodbine
(Mr. Bryden) has made some rather sweep-
ing charges and sweeping statements in what
. he has said here. He led off with something
that really causes me concern, saying that
this is a very serious matter of public health.
I ask him if he can give me one single
example of illness that has been traced in any
way, shape or form to the sale or use of this
so-called tainted meat to which he has
referred?
Mr. MacDonald: That is like the hon.
Minister of Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay)
who said there were no accidents with gas,
and the next week five people were killed.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, nobody has
been killed in this.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that—
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister of Health
has stated that it was a serious problem
in the public health field. There is no
question of a doubt about this.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not arguing the
point of what the hon. member said. I am
saying that he is magnifying the problem,
I would suggest, far beyond reason. I would
like to point out a few things in answer to
the charges that have been made. My hon.
friend— and I did my best, Mr. Chairman,
but could not get the answer from him as
to when it was that the Canadian Consumers'
Association and the RCMP were supposed to
have reported this to the public as a great
matter of public concern, and not once did
the hon. member suggest when that date was.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, when then?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will tell him when.
As far as we were concerned, we knew
about it. And I want to go back to the
beginning of this Act, because this Act came
into force on July 1, 1960.
I would like to say it was first necessary
to contact in person all individuals engaged
or purported to be engaged in the businses
of collecting or processing dead and fallen
animals. Inspections revealed in the major-
ity of cases structural and sanitary improve-
ments were required before issuance of
licence could be recommended. It was felt
that the first requisite was to have plants
and collection vehicles meet the required
standards.
As the activities of these men had not
been regulated previously, it was decided
to allow a period of time to make the neces-
sary improvements and I think that is quite
understandable. In many instances this
meant the installation of sewage disposal
systems, and in some instances the construc-
tion of a new plant. In all cases collecting
vehicles had to be altered.
814
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This was brought about by the fact that
there had been complaints coming to the
department about some of these collecting
places for dead animals and fallen animals
around the country from an unsanitary
standpoint. It was felt that from that stand-
point and from the problem of the spread
of disease, these trucks that might go from
one farm to another could spread disease,
if proper precautions were not taken. And
this was the basis of bringing in this Act.
The majority of the licences that were
issued under this Act were issued between
the period of late October, 1960, and the end
of December. As a result of the problems en-
countered during some of the inspections,
it was decided that an inspector should not
be alone when performing his duties. In
the course of our inspection— and this is
written by the chief inspector. Dr. Harold
Worton— observations were made and infor-
mation received which led us to suspect
that the activities of certain licensees and
others were questionable. This information
was supplied to the livestock commissioner
with a request that the matter be referred
to the Ontario Provincial Police.
The hon. member would not give us an
answer when he referred to the fact that
it was die consumers association and others
in the province— and I am not sure whether
he included himself and his people or not
—that they knew about it before we did,
and our inspection service was not indeed
effective in carrying out the regulations of
the Act. The first contact with the Ontario
Provincial Police was made in February,
1961, a little more than a month after the
inspection service was instituted after the
issuance of the licences. That is how quickly
we got into action.
Mr. Bryden: Well, is the hon. Minister
suggesting then that all this unfit meat came
on the market after this? And if he was so
much on his toes, why did he not stop it
coming on the market?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Let us conclude that
in this country a man is not guilty until he
is proven guilty and one has to produce the
evidence.
Mr. Bryden: Under your kind of legisla-
tion, but inspection would stop it.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Inspection did stop it.
It would not matter if you had 100 per cent
inspection going on, you would have to put
an inspector on the job 24 hours a day with
every one of the licencees if you are going
to do the kind of thing the hon. member is
suggesting. That is what it would mean.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the hon. Min-
ister a question? He refers to inspectors
that were on the job. Now my information
up until now was that no inspector had ever
been appointed.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, yes. There were
two inspectors appointed under the Act.
Mr. MacDonald: The chief veterinarian
is the man formerly responsible, and his
assistant. Is the hon. Minister saying that
these were the men that were going around
inspecting? The chief veterinarian of the
province?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The chief veterinarian
and his associate were designated the inspec-
tors under the Act.
Mr. MacDonald: They were the people
who did the inspecting?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, these were the
people who did the inspecting.
Now then, as more information of this
nature was accumulated, arrangements were
made through the OPP to contact all dis-
trict inspectors in southern Ontario for the
purpose of enlisting their aid in enforcing the
Act. This was done, and as the result of the
co-operation of the OPP, three persons have
been charged with violations under The Dead
Animals Disposal Act.
In enforcing The Dead Animals Disposal
Act, we have co-operated with and received
co-operation from the food and drug division.
Department of National Health and Welfare;
the health units and health departments of
the Ontario Water Resources Commission;
and also provided the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police with any available informa-
tion they have requested. It is our under-
standing that the RCMP investigations were
initiated in June of 1961. However, no
charges were laid prior to January, 1962.
I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is
not easy to get the kind of evidence that
will oflFer proof in a case of this kind. I
suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in all Acts which
are brought in— it would not matter what the
Act was— it is the duty of the police when
they have been notified that there is some
discrepancy under the Act, to deal with it.
And this is what was done.
Evidence revealed in court cases to date
shows that charges were laid on the basis of
information obtained by RCMP officers work-
ing as undercover men posing as meat buyers.
MARCH 5, 1962
815
In one case the court evidence disclosed that
an informer accompanied the undercover man
in making his initial contact.
Now, I would think, Mr. Chairman, that if
you are going to suggest we have inspectors
to the degree that the hon. member suggests
we should have had, then I think we are going
to have to provide an inspector or a police
constable, if you will, for every motorist in
the province of Ontario. The same kind of
thing applies. It cannot be done any other
way.
One of the traffic directors of a police
department of a municipality in the province
of Ontario the other day made the comment
that he realized there were accidents and
there were violations of The Traffic Act within
his municipality. But he said "I wish the
public would realize that the municipality
cannot possibly put a police officer in the
back seat of every car on the road today."
And this is the only way, to my mind, one
can determine that people are going to
observe the letter of the law.
This is our interpretation of how the Act
should be administered and we feel that it
was administered in accordance with the
intent with which it was drawn up.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman— and I am
saying this in careful measured terms— the
hon. Minister of Agriculture has wittingly or
otherwise misled this House, and I challenge
this government to have an investigation
and bring the authorities from the federal
department down here and we will find out
what happened.
What the hon. Minister has said is, in effect,
that the passing of that Act, and action by
the provincial police, resulted in charges. He
said along the way— and I would have to
see the detail of his statement before I could
recall it— that the RCMP got into the picture
somewhere in June of 1961. Mr. Chairman,
this is utter and complete nonsense, and if
the hon. Minister does not know it he has been
asleep at the switch and the people who have
been advising him have been asleep at the
switch too. Because the RCMP through the
food and drug division have been investi-
gating this situation for years. And when the
people from the Toronto city council came
to the government two years ago they came
because they had been informed by in-
dividuals in the trade that tainted meat was
being sold. This government in its wisdom,
now proven to be lack of wisdom, refused to
negotiate with the federal government to get
extended inspection of meat. What they did
was to pass The Dead Animals Disposal Act.
And the interesting thing is this, Mr. Chair-
man: They passed it in the session of 1960.
It was proclaimed on April 14, 1960. The
hon. Minister now tells us that it came into
effect on July 1, 1960, and the inspectors
got on the job about January 1, 1961, because
he said the first charge— or the first details—
they found were in February. In other words,
this government took a full year to get into
operation and to get out and do any inspect-
ing under their own Act.
However, the crux of the issue, Mr. Chair-
man, is this—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of personal privilege, that is not the
case and that is not what I said.
Mr. MacDonald: What did the hon. Minis-
ter say then?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I said simply this, that
the Act did come into effect on July 1, 1960,
but that a period from then until the end of
the year was required to allow the people
concerned— those who would be making
application for licence— to get their premises
and their equipment in shape to come up to
the standards laid down under The Dead
Animals Disposal Act. Now that is what I
said right here in this letter-
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: —and when the licences
were issued, then inspection took place of
the licensees quarters and that took place
following the issuance of the licence.
Mr. MacDonald: They could not go out and
inspect the man before he was licenced?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. We referred our first charge to the
OPP on February 8, 1961 or thereabouts.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know whether we will ever get the details of
this because the details can be gotten only if
we have an investigation. But I will ask the
hon. Minister to do this: will he table in
the House the reports of the inspectors in
his department?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: That is a question I
will take under advisement. . . i,;- •
Mr. MacDonald: Okay, let him take it
under advisement and we will come back
to it.
An hon. member: What does he mean,
take it under advisement?
816
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Does the hon. mem-
ber think he can dictate the terms?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the fact
of the matter still is this, and let me repeat
it. That responsible officials of the Toronto
city council came here and told the hon.
Minister, or his predecessor, and the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond) that they
had information that tainted meat was being
sold for human consumption—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Where?
Mr. MacDonald: Here, in the city of
Toronto.
Mr. Bryden: Why did they not stop it?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, will you
please ask that noise up there to be quiet?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: On a point of priv-
ilege.
Mr. MacDonald: All right!
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: All the city of
Toronto has to do is pass a by-law that only
inspected meat can be sold and they can
correct the situation in the city of Toronto.
Mr. MacDonald: All right. This is the
interesting thing, Mr. Chairman, we have an
almost endless series of interjections and ex-
cuses to try to get the government off the
hook, but the fact of the matter is that the
government is on the hook— and this is the
point— they are squealing because they are
on the hook. - •.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, no!
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister had
this information given to him. Did he say
to the people of the city of Toronto, all you
have to do is go back and pass that Act?
He did not.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Chairman,
again on a point of privilege. No member of
the Toronto city council or no member of this
Legislature can say that any tainted meat has
been sold in the city of Toronto, nobody
knows that. I do not know; the hon. mem-
ber does not know-
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute now, there
is a quibble of the first order. Just let me
go back and review this, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: The courts will de-
cide.
Mr. MacDonald: No, I am not trying the
case. I am dealing with the responsibility
of this government and this is the serious
point.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: We fulfilled our re-
sponsibility.
Mr. MacDonald: Responsible o£Bcials of
the Toronto city council came, and on the
basis of information which they had reason
to believe was reliable from people in the
trade, they informed the hon. Minister of it.
They suggested the answer to the question
is what the hon. Minister of Health has
subsequently now said is the answer— full
inspection— although he has waflBed on it. I
do not know whether the Cabinet has rapped
his fingers or what.
An hon. member: No! No!
Mr. MacDonald: We passed the bill in
1960, it was proclaimed on April 14, it came
into effect on July 1, and now the hon.
Minister tells us it took six months—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: To license and in-
spect!
Mr. MacDonald: —six months to license and
get these things inspected. How many are
there? How many people are licensed
under it?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the num-
ber of rendering plants licensed in 1961 was
six; in 1962 is six to date. The receiving
plants in 1961 were 47, and up to date in
1962 were 39. The collectors in 1961 were
licensed to the extent of 79, and in 1962
there were 61. I would suggest that 35 per
cent of the receiving plant operators
licensed under The Dead Animals Disposal
Act are bona-fide mink ranchers.
Now the point that the hon. member is
trying to make here, I would say, is that
tainted meat has come into the city of
Toronto. I know of no proof in any court
that that has ever been done.
Mr. Bryden: It is an insult to the intel-
ligence of the House.
Mr. MacDonald: I have asked the ques-
tion and the hon. Minister has answered the
question, let him not take over on the
speech.
Now, if I have added this up correctly,
there were 88 institutions of various kinds
over a two-year period and only 12 or so of
them were in the first year. In other words,
Mr. Chairman, without going into the de-
tail, the fact of the matter is that the number
MARCH 5, 1962
817
of institutions for inspection— if this govern-
ment had gotten on its horse and moved in
face of this issue— could have been inspected
in four weeks.
An hon. member: Oh, nonsense!
Mr. MacDonald: No "nonsense" about it
at all!
Hon. Mr. Stewart: May I ask the hon.
member a question? Would he feel it was
fair, would he feel it was just, to bring in
an Act and immediately the Act was declared
and came into effect to say to the people
who were expected to be licensed—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Give them four weeks!
That is the way they would do it, smashing
and crashing right and left.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: That is not the way we
do business.
Mr. MacDonald: What the hon. Minister
did, out of the fullness of his heart, his pity
and compassion for these people, he per-
mitted a situation to continue in which
tainted meat was being sold.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Nonsense!
Mr. MacDonald: However, Mr. Chairman,
this is the real crux of the issue! The real
crux of the issue is that the people who
caught these were not this government
through its inspection branch, were not the
OPP. The people who caught these, because
this government had failed, was the RCMP
acting under The Food and Drug Act,
Ottawa.
Now, the hon. Minister cannot deny that.
That is the cold, hard fact. In face of that
fact, the hon. Minister can talk from now
until doomsday about what he did; because
what he did was nothing in terms of catching
the culprits who were in the game. The
people who caught them were the people
from Ottawa.
Mr. Bryden: He gave them licences.
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly. He gave them
licences behind which they were able to
carry on their business with the aura of
respectability.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, will the
hon. member permit another question?
Mr. MacDonald: Sure!
Hon. Mr. Stewart: There are two I would
like him to answer.
First of all, I would like him to define
"tainted meat" as compared with improperly
killed or improperly marked meat. Then I
would like to ask him furthermore if, in fact,
as he suggests that if the RCMP knew about
all of this that he refers to going on, and
frankly I do not know anything about it,
then why did the RCMP— the wonderful
police organization that they are— not lay
charges? If this in fact was going on as he
suggests.
He says that this is a fact and everybody
knew it was a fact and that the RCMP knew
about it. Then I ask, Mr. Chairman, why
did not the RCMP lay charges before they
got the information from our department?
Mr. MacDonald: Okay, now, Mr. Chairman.
Point one, I am not going to get into a
discussion as to what is "tainted meat." This
is completely irrelevant to the point we are
discussing. We can get experts to do that
and the hon. Minister does not need to come
in and ask a layman member of this House
vi'hat is tainted meat. This is a red herring!
Hon. Mr. Stewart: That is what the hon.
member is talking about now.
Mr. MacDonald: As to the RCMP! The
RCMP laid the charges and, Mr. Chairman,
the RCMP did not lay the charges on the
basis of information they got from the hon.
Minister's inspectors and he should not mis-
lead this House that they did!
The RCMP laid their charges on the basis
of information that they dug up. They dug
it up themselves without any assistance from
the hon. Minister, without any relationship
at all to The Disposal of Dead Animals Act.
The hon. Minister is misleading the House
if he contends this because this is what this
government has been i)eddling for eight
weeks in trying to get itself off the hook.
This government did nothing to solve this
situation. They were asleep for a year in
terms of getting the machinery implemented
and they did not catch the people— the RCMP
caught them under The Food and Drug Act.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That is the most unfair
statement the hon. member has made tonight.
The hon. Minister told the House why, what
was done and when it was done, and the hon.
member has repeated it the third time,
Mr. MacDonald: That is fine; and I am
going to repeat it once again for the hon.
Minister.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That is dishonest!
818
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: It is not dishonest, it is
the fact.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It is not the fact!
Mr. MacDonald: I defy this government to
have an investigation or deny—
An Hon. member: Another investigation!
Mr. MacDonald: —or to deny that the
charges were laid by the RCMP and that they
got the evidence and it was not with the hon.
Minister's assistance at all. The hon. Min-
ister was sitting idly on the sidelines not ful-
filhng his responsibilities.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The hon. member has
not answered the question I asked.
Mr. MacDonald: What is that?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I asked him: why, if the
RCMP knew all of these things long ago—
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: —now, just a moment
imtil I ask the question.
Mr. MacDonald: Okay!
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I have had to ask it
three times. If the RCMP knew that this
was going on, then why did they not lay
the charge? My hon. friend has never
answered.
Mr. MacDonald: I will answer it right now.
If this is the question presumably the hon.
Minister asked. The RCMP laid the charges
as soon as they had the evidence to get the
convictions.
But that is not the point I am arguing. The
point I am arguing is: it is now time for
this government to cease misleading the
people of this province that these convictions
were done by any action of this government,
because they were not.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That is the hon. mem-
ber's opinion.
Mr. MacDonald: That is not my opinion,
that is the fact.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I happen to be quite
conversant with this. I think it was in
January of 1961 that the livestock commis-
sioner who is responsible for the administra-
tion of this Act came into my office and laid
before me certain information in connection
with suspicions that the chief inspector and
assistant had and wanted to know what I
thought he should do, if he should get in
touch with the OPP and the RCMP.
I said by all means go all out and solicit
the support of the Ontario Provincial Police
and the RCMP to get to the bottom of this
so-called illicit dealing in meat. So that, Mr.
Chairman, is the situation. I knew about it
and at that point the livestock commissioner
brought it to the attention of the Ontario
Provincial Police.
Mr. MacDonald: I reiterate it and I sub-
mit to the hon. Minister— let him get out the
evidence and bring the necessary people to
prove that I am wrong— that he is once again
misleading the House. The chief livestock
inspector or commissioner may have come in
and told him something, and he may have
talked with him, he may have said to him, go
out and do your best, but the charges were
laid on the basis of information by the RCMP
as a result of the efforts of the food and drug
division in Ottawa and not because of any
effort on the part of this government.
However, Mr. Chairman, if I am wrong let
us have the proof, and no more assertions
back and forward across the House, because
there is something that is even more impor-
tant, and that is that we get tliis situation
corrected. I find it extremely disturbing the
kind of proposition that has been introduced
by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon).
As my colleague from Woodbine (Mr. Bryden)
has said, if the standards that are now laid
down and enforced by the federal inspectors
are too high— and therefore they are unneces-
sarily rigid in imposing standards as far as the
operators of small abattoirs are concerned—
I find it puzzling, because it would seem to
me that no government would set unneces-
sarily high standards to have an unnecessary
burden upon any abattoir, big or small.
However, if they are, my question to the
hon. Minister is this. Since it now appears
obvious, in spite of the observations of the
hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond), that
first we must have inspection done provin-
cially if the federal government will not do
it, it now appears that the government is
backtracking on this.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister of Health
backtracked 100 per cent.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, the hon. Minister of
Health, in his latest statement, in effect
suggests that this is not a provincial respon-
sibility.
Many times in the papers it has been
indicated that the provincial authorities are
going to sit down with the federal authorities
and talk over this and work out some sort
of an arrangement. My question to the hon.
MARCH 5, 1962
819
Minister is this. In his talking over with the
federal authorities, what has been the view
with regard to this question as to whether or
not the standards are unnecessarily high, and
whether it is possible to have another grade
of standards that would apply to small
abattoirs; and if so, then it would seem to
me that all this government has to do is to
pass an Act stating that all institutions that
are slaughtering meat for human consumption
must submit to federal inspection, and the
federal inspection becomes operative and, if
my information is correct, such inspection is
free.
It seems to me to be a very simple thing,
and the question my colleague asks is the
one that puzzles me. Why all this floundering
around for two months on an issue that the
lion. Minister of Health conceded to be
important, and certainly captured the head-
lines? What are we floundering for in the
first week in March when we had information
on this two months ago?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: What is the answer
the hon. member wants?
Mr. MacDonald: What is the result of the
lion. Minister's discussions with Ottawa, and
what is his reply to this question about the
standards being unnecessarily high for the
smaller abattoirs?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Chairman, in
the first place I would like, for the informa-
tion of the hon. member, to suggest that
federal inspection of meat applies for inter-
provincial or export trade.
Some hon. members: We know that.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is good to know that
the hon. members know that.
Mr. Bryden: I think it was pretty obvious
for the last hour that we knew that.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Chairman, if
the hon. members know the answers to the
questions they ask we will leave them with
their answers.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister is not going to sit down on some
petty excuse.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. Minister
did his best to answer the question. If the
hon. members have not the courtesy to hear
him out, let them sit down.
Mr. MacDonald: My question to the hon.
Minister is: what discussions have they had
with the federal government and what has
been the conclusion or the line of thinking
in those discussions with regard to the neces-
sary levels and standards for smaller abat-
toirs? Why is it not possible for this
government to pass a law stating that all
these abattoirs must come under federal
inspection and inspection would become op-
erative immediately?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member did
not ask that question before.
Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Minister gets
the Hansard out he will find it. That is the
question.
Just a minute now, Mr. Chairman. Is the
hon. Minister not going to answer that
question?
An hon. member: They had a man up there
on the floor. Let him speak; he wants to say
something.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, this is
not the question, I have asked the hon. Min-
ister a question; is he deliberately refusing
to answer it? Mr. Chairman, is the hon.
Minister deliberately refusing to answer this
question?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. I do not like to stand up when there
is one man standing, but when there are two
men standing I think it is a discourtesy to ask
a man to stand up and start to talk.
The hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald)— now if the hon. member for
Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) is through talking
maybe we can get a chance to say something.
My hon. friend from York South (Mr.
MacDonald) has suggested that there are
negotiations going on with Ottawa regarding
meat inspection in the province of Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond) said so.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. Minister of Health said so I will let
the hon. Minister of Health speak for him-
self, but he is not here. I have not met
with a single hon. Minister of any department
in the federal government, to discuss meat
inspection with them at all.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask tlie hon. Min-
ister this question? Is the provincial govern-
ment then considering the extension of
inspections for all meat consumed in the
province of Ontario? v
820
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, this is a matter
that can be taken under consideration. There
has been no announcement made about it.
We can take this matter under consideration
and I thank the hon. member for bringing
it to our attention.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman.
This happened two months ago and we have
had endless statements about this. There is
going to be provincial inspection or federal
inspection. Mr. Chairman, I am not going
to persist any further but it is obvious that
this government is, in a calculated and de-
liberate fashion, refusing to accept its re-
sponsibility.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: That is not the case
at all.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, what are they doing
then?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I said to the hon. mem-
ber that his case would be taken under
consideration. What more can I say?
Mr. MacDonald: It is not my case—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, it is a problem
that he is bringing to—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr Chairman, how fatu-
ous that the hon Minister should say this
is my case There have been editorial writers,
and the whole of the public of the province
of Ontario, waiting for the government to
make up its mind for two months, and for
the hon. Minister to say he is going to take
my case—
Hon. Mr Stewart: My apologies to the hon.
member if I described it as his case. May
I say the problem that he has brought to
the attention of the House will be taken
under consideration.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, I
would say to the hon. member that I am
advised that the matter is now under con-
sideration between the federal and provincial
people through the hon. Minister of Health.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, this is
very, very interesting. This is an issue which
is at least partially the responsibility of the
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart)
and he does not know anything about it.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I did not say that I did
not know it.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I can see that it
is all but impossible to get into what appears
to be a private war between the hon. mem-
ber for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and the
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart).
However, may I say, sir, by way of paren-
thesis, if you will permit me, that this
evangelical fervour demonstrated by my hon.
friend from York South is typical of the way
they approach everything that smacks of a
little bit of scandal, and that is why they
remain so ineffective on the hustings. He
goes after something like a rat after a piece
of cheese, a starving rat after a piece of
cheese, and he holds his hand out as if he
is shaking the hon. Minister of Agriculture
in his hands. And I wish we could approach
things in this House in a reasoned and moder-
ate fashion.
An hon. member: The hon. member is a
laughing stock.
Another hon. member: Self-righteous-
Mr. Sopha: Ah nay, ah nay, sir, I am not
like the hon, member, I am a man of sin,
I am not the self-righteous puritan that he is,
who has never done anything wrong.
An hon. member: The hon. member does
not need to make a parade of himself.
Mr. Sopha: Oh no, oh no, that is precisely
why people listen to what we say. We got
45 per cent of the votes and you got 17 per
cent. All right, I am not fighting the by-
elections again.
But so far as the remarks about when this
matter became a matter of public attention,
and when it came to the notice of the gov-
ernment; When these two last speakers were
trading Aeir dialogues of diatribe, they were
both wrong. And I just want to put on
record, as my hon. leader has invited me to
do, remarks made as long ago as March 23,
1955, by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr.
Gordon) who has departed for his home at
this hour of the night. I am going to read
these and let them be inscribed in the
record for all to see and all to heed as to
when these matters that suddenly assume the
character of emergency and excite such
passions in the breast of my hon. friend to
the left here.
Now I will do better and everybody will
do better if the hon. member just maintains
a little silence.
Mr. Bryden: Well, the hon. member is not
doing very well.
Mr. Sopha: It was not I who was the
laughing stock in Kenora, it was the hon.
member.
MARCH 5, 1962
821
This is very brief but I want it to be
inscribed in the current record of Hansard.
I beg leave to use my voice for that of the
hon. member for Brantford whom I say
has left for his home.
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Mr.
Chairman, I do not think this comes under
any vote at all but I would like to ask the
hon. Minister if he received a statement or
brief from the Canadian Association of Con-
sumers in connection with the inspection of
meat. I have a brief here which speaks of
meat wrapped in cellophane wrappers
which has never been inspected and it
was stated that of the 70 per cent of meat
sold to the provincial slaughter houses one-
third is unfit for human consumption.
Mr. Oliver: They should certainly do
something about that.
Mr. Gordon: When someone buys bone-
less beef and has it ground he does not
know where on earth it came from. There
was a family in Brantford which bought
some beef which tasted rather peculiar and
they took it to their doctor. He sent it to
the veterinarian, who said it apparently was
from an animal which had been sick and
had been given some medicine and the
medicine was flavouring it.
Hon. Dana Porter: It was not the dog,
was it?
Mr. Gordon: No, the dog is still in good
health.
Hon. Mr. Porter: Is it still driving
around?
Mr. Gordon: I discussed this matter with
our medical health officer and he would
like to know the authority for this state-
ment that one-third of the meat sold is
unfit for consumption. He is not convinced
it is practicable nor realistic to apply that
statement to all the meat slaughtered in the
12 abattoirs in Brant county. May I ask
the hon. Minister what can be done?
You see, he was of a querying mind that
night also.
What can be done? If 30 per cent of the
meat which was being consumed by the
people of Ontario is not being inspected,
I think that is a situation which should
not exist. Every pound of meat we export
from Canada has to be inspected.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask the hon. member who made that state-
ment?
Mr. Gordon: It appears in a brief by the
Canadian Association of Consimiers.
Hon. Mr. Frost: —
I can hardly credit his query. He says:
Who are they?
Mr. Oliver: Everybody belongs to it.
Hon. Mr. Porter: Does the hon. leader
of the Opposition belong to it?
Mr. Oliver: We all do.
Hon. Mr. Porter: Well, I do not know,
you cannot belong unless you apply for
membership.
Mr. Gordon: I have an extra copy of the
brief here if the hon. Minister wants it.
Hon. Mr. Porter: I do not think the hon.
member for Brantford knows who they are.
Mr. Gordon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, their
names are all here. It is a very large
organization, the Canadian Association of
Consumers.
Hon. Mr. Porter: Is the hon. member for
Brantford a member?
Mr. Gordon: No, I am not a member.
Hon. Mr. Porter: May I ask if any hon.
member in this House is a member?
Mr. Gordon: They police us in a sense.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Would the hon. member
for Brantford let me see that brief?
Mr. Gordon: It is quite a brief.
Hon. Mr. Porter: It must be.
Mr. Gordon: Has the hon. Attorney-
General never heard of the Canadian
Association of Consumers?
Mr. Thomas (Ontario): It is a very
strong organization, Mr. Chairman, com-
posed of housewives banded together.
He sort of made it sound like an earlier day
fang and claw society.
Hon. Mr. Porter: 1 have heard of tlie
organization but I have never heard of
this brief.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I think
this is a very, very important subject.
That is seven years ago, seven years ago
two weeks hence. But it happens that in
Ontario we have as federal inspectors
veterinary surgeons who are trained in meat
inspection in all of our larger abattoirs and
822
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
they are doing an excellent job. Where the
trouble lies is in the tiny abattoirs in the
country. If we can change human nature and
make these folks, shall we say, destroy meat
that is not good, and not sell it, then we
will have no trouble. However, Mr. Chair-
man—
An Hon. member: I guess they gave up.
Mr. Sopha: Well, the hon. Minister of
Health's predecessor and former Provincial
Secretary was a man known to have remark-
able perspicacity. However, Mr. Chainiian, I
think 30 per cent is very, very high. I know
tliat there is meat selling on the market which
is not good, but we have those two types
of inspections, the federal man who takes
care of most of it, and then at tlie municipal
level the local boards of healtli to look after
the smaller abattoirs, and that is where most
of the contaminated meat comes from.
To continue the quote from Hansard:
Mr. Gordon: Speaking with respect to
the board of health of the city of Brantford,
it is absolutely impossible for one veteri-
narian to inspect all the meat which is
slaughtered in 10 abattoirs.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Apparently that is not
where the trouble is, Mr. Chairman. This
says, "It has been stated that 70 per cent
of meat sold to our provincial slaughter-
houses is inspected and 30 per cent is sold
by farmers to the butcher, and one-third
of the latter is unfit for consumption.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
probably true.
I think that is
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is the meat sold
by the farmers to the butcher. They allege
one-third of that is bad.
Mr. Gordon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but 30
per cent is not inspected and a third of
that 30 per cent is not fit for human
consumption.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: No, what it says is
that 70 per cent is inspected by the fed-
eral authorities, 30 per cent is killed in
small abattoirs and of that one-third or
10 per cent is unfit.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Not abattoirs, it might
be killed by a farmer and sold to a
butcher.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I think that figure is
very high. I do not think we have that
much going on to the market. Not nearly
that much.
Now here is where it ends.
Mr. John Root (Wellington North): Mr.
Chairman, I have raised and trucked live-
stock for over 20 years and I cannot con-
ceive there is any foundation for saying:
that one-third of the meat sold by farmers
is not inspected. What happens is when
an animal takes sick they ask us to take
it to an abattoir but it is sold to the
abattoir subject to inspection. I have
never heard of farmers taking a sick
animal and selling it to a local butcher,
at least it does not happen in Wellington-
Duflferin and I do not think elsewhere
either.
It is quite a remarkable coincidence, is
it not, Mr. Chairman, that it should have
been the hon. member for Brantford (Mr.
Gordon) who raised that, because when this
matter became a matter of public urgency
and public concern, was it not in Brantford
that some of the earliest charges were laid?
And almost with a sense of prescience, crys-
tal-ball-sense, if you like, seven years ago,
two weeks hence, the hon. member for
Brantford in this House made acquainted
this government— which had not long grown
quite so tired as it has by this time seven
years earlier— made them acquainted with
the problem.
I should like to address remarks, in what
I described earlier as a moderate, reasoned
analytic fashion, to two aspects of this prob-
lem. One is this business of inspection. I
have always believed that it is the ultimate
of folly, the ultimate of almost stupidity,
that we have so much divided jurisdiction
in the field of inspection.
I have never been able to understand, in
this great land of ours, populated by intel-
ligent, progressive, energetic people, why
we have to have two sets of inspectors— one
federal and the other provincial, to perform
the same tasks? And, to our eternal shame,
that apparently the basis for the inspection
—well, not apparently, but it is a fact— the
basis is who picked up the apple grown in
the Niagara Peninsula, and looked at it, is
whether that inoffensive apple was going
to be consumed by a citizen of Ontario,
resident in Toronto, Sarnia, Owen Sound,
Duntroon, Sudbury, or whether the apple
was marked for export.
If it was marked for export, then a fed-
eral inspector had to come in and have a
look at the apple to see if it had a worm in
it. And so it goes with hogs, and so it goes
with cattle, and every other agricultural
product— that the criterion has been where
the product is eventually going. Now, thank
MARCH 5, 1962
823
the Lord, the Supreme Court of Canada, in
the last case that got into print apparently
has started to do something to reverse the
trend of that nonsense.
Now, in relation to wheat, I do not pre-
tend to know the details of the case but
they are getting away from the idea that
the federal government only has responsi-
bility if the product is ticketed or marked
for export or for interprovincial trade. I am
enough of a centralist, I have said it in this
House before, and I will say it again if I
have the good fortune to be elected back
here, that I think there are some spheres
of responsibility that the provincial govern-
ment should get out of— and one of them
is the marketing and inspection of agricul-
tural products — and let the whole of the
responsibility for that go to the federal gov-
ernment. In a nation which lives on trade-
it lives on trade internationally, it lives on
trade within its borders— surely tlie sensible
way to approach marketing and inspection
would be to give the federal government
the total responsibility for it?
It is in a uniquely favourable position to
perform the tasks such as no single prov-
ince can perform them. No single province
has the legislative power and legislative
responsibility, within the confines of Section
92 of the Act, to do it. When we speak of
inspecting livestock, we are speaking of
more than fallen animals, animals that have
taken sick, animals that apparently have
been injected with drugs and medicines
which have tainted the meat; we are speak-
ing of that same problem that we faced—
was it a decade ago— six, seven years ago—
when all the fuss was raised in this country
about the foot-and-mouth disease, and every-
body got into a great fervour about it?
Cattle are being shipped all the time into
Ontario. I walk on my way to the court-
house in Sudbury, and because the CPR
runs through Sudbury, I have to stop and
wait for 70 box-cars to go through and
almost every one of the 70 is loaded with
western cattle, coming from Brandon, com-
ing from Winnipeg.
My hon. friend from Lambton East (Mr.
Janes) imports them himself, and we have
talked about them coming from Regina and
points west into Ontario.
Therefore I say that in the realm of live-
stock, as well as all other agricultural prod-
ucts, it is time that this government, which
is always pleading penury and lack of money,
got out of some of these spheres of responsi-
bility and let them be performed by the
central government, which has the machinery,
which has the legislative power, which has
the ability to do them as they should be done
—and that is on a nation-wide scale— in order
to give complete protection.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member for
Brant disagrees with the hon. member for
Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: I do not care who disagrees
with me. I learned these ideas at the feet
of C. A. Wright and Bora Lascin, that is
where those ideas were inculcated in me. But
if this country is going to become great, then
we have to begin to think in terms of cen-
tralism, give some of these powers to the
federal government and get out of those
fields ourselves, and let us perform well and
efficiently those things that are peculiarly of
a local and provincial nature, those things
that are peculiar to the interests of the citi-
zens of this province as residents of this
province. Those are my beliefs.
The second thing I wanted to say is in
respect to the inspection of meat. I can
safely say that, so far as ability to inspect
meat is concerned, in the district of Sudbury
there is not a central place for slaughtering.
We have no abattoir; we have had two or
three futile attempts to build one, but appar-
ently it is a business that is attended with
grave economic risk; it is not too profitable
a thing; you have to go into all sorts of
ancillary side-lines, in order to make it profit-
able, and therefore it does not attract people
into it.
I would not swear— I know we have not got
one in the district of Sudbury— I would not
swear to it but I strongly suspect that there
is not one in the district of Timiskaming;
I strongly suspect that there is not one in
the district of Nipissing. I am almost certain
that there is not one in the district of Al-
goma, and I will bet that in Cochrane North
there is not one either. In fact, in the whole
of northeastern Ontario, I daresay there is
not a single abattoir.
The result is that we import most of our
meat from southern Ontario. In fact, the
fraction of consumers' products that we pro-
duce in northeastern Ontario for our own
consumption is about 15 per cent. That in-
cludes meat and vegetables and all the other
articles of produce that find themselves on
the consumers' table.
Well, maybe there is some economic ad-
vantage. My friend, the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development (Mr. Macaulay)
who thinks it is all right for people from
Sarnia to come into Sudbury and invest
money, would not agree with me; but there
824
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
might be some advantage in promoting some
agricultural secondary industry in northeast-
em Ontario with a view to producing more
of our consimiers' goods there, instead of im-
porting them and paying the high cost of
freight and express trucking that we have to
pay to bring them in. This makes it a more
costly proposition to live in northeastern
Ontario than to live in the heart of Metro-
politan Toronto. But that is a matter for
another speech.
I merely say that, so far as this business
of inspection is concerned, we can never feel
safe in buying local meat; and I had better
be careful about what I say here. We can-
not have the sureness that the local meat
meets the required standard and avoids the
risk of fallen or tainted animals reaching the
consumer until we have abattoirs in that part
of Ontario.
'Now, my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr.
Gordon) in his speech, I notice, seven years
ago in the county of Brant, is talking about
12 abattoirs. Well, I say that it is an
incredible thing. They have 12 abattoirs in
die county of Brant, but in the whole of
northeastern Ontario, we have not got one
abattoir of which I know.
My hon. friend from Fort William (Mr.
Chappie), that is far to the west of us, tells
us that they have one, so that would put one
in the whole of Northern Ontario. Then let
me sum up and finish in this way: that for a
problem that was brought to the govern-
ment's attention— not in the words of my
babbling friend, with his evangelical fervour,
to the left here, and of the Left, in Julv or
April of 1961— but, now the record is clear,
was brought to the attention of the govern-
ment on March 23, 1955, in all these seven
years, nothing has been done. I say, within
the area of the responsibility of the provincial
government, and within The Department of
Agriculture, let us, instead of all these travel-
ling expenses to which I referred earlier, have
a little subsidy, a little encouragement for the
establishment of some abattoirs in north-
eastern Ontario. I invite their assistance to
establish one in my own constituency, in that
area which is the most populated part of
northeastern Ontario. Then farmers, of their
own volition, would take their animals to
the abattoir to be slaughtered, or if such an
institution were established, the government
could bring in legislation to compel them to
take their animals to the abattoir to be
slaughtered under the supervision of an
appropriate inspector. And that, Mr. Chair-
man, ends the few remarks that I wanted to
address to this problem.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, I think it well that we get away
from the hilarious approach and return to the
wellbeing and health of the meat consumers
in this province and deal seriously with the
question of inspection of meat.
I am going to be brief, Mr. Chairman, but
I thought I should add my support to the
need for stringent inspection in slaughter
houses in the different ridings across the
province. I know of only two in my riding.
One of them I visited on a complaint and
it has been a terrible mess for some three
years. The complaint was looked into by the
medical officer of health, of course, and his
jurisdiction only covered those things that
would be considered a detriment to the health
of the people in the surrounding area, or
what might be considered a nuisance to the
people in the surrounding area. But certainly,
as far as my riding is concerned, I would be
in favour of the most stringent restrictions
and inspection to ensure the people that are
buying the meat from this small slaughter
house the best possible protection.
This particular place was not very much
bigger than a double car garage and they
retailed the meat out in front. There was a
lean-to on the side of the building where
they kept the cattle overnight or maybe
longer than overnight, ready for slaughtering
them. What caused the discomfort to the
neighbourhood was the stench, the blood
running down ditches for a complete con-
cession on all sides, the guts of the animals
being stored behind the building in barrels
for days, and rats as big as cats running
around the neighbourhood.
This comes under the jurisdiction of the
medical officer of health and he does not
inspect the meat. But after seeing the condi-
tions that existed there I cannot take any
other view than that the meat was not fit for
human consumption. So I certainly endorse
inspection, either by federal or by provincial
inspectors, I do not care which. But some-
body should take some action to clear up
some of these problems. If there were any
of this type of slaughter house in Brant
County, I think the hon. member for Brant
should take the same approach. I would
not consider the cost in the type of building
would have anything to do with producing
good meat and certainly it should not be a
criterion for giving the public the kind of
food they are entitled to have.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask the hon. Minister a question. Knowing
the hon. Minister is interested in all aspects
MARCH 5, 1962
825
of agriculture, could he state if this Associated
Livestock Growers of Ontario was granted a
charter to operate here in the province of
Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Might I ask the hon.
member to refer that question to the hon.
Provincial Secretary. It is under his depart-
ment.
Mr. Spence: Well, was this operation or this
association's operations inspected by the hon.
Minister's department?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, as far as I know,
Mr. Chairman, our inspectors had nothing to
do with it, nor any of our departmental
people, to my knowledge.
Mr. Spence: I understand, Mr. Chairman,
there are a lot of dead animals out around
this operation and I was wondering if the
hon. Minister had checked into this. I under-
stand by the paper there is supposed to be
6,000 hogs on three farms, so we would like
to know if there was any contact with his
department over this operation.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not sure what
the hon. member wanted me to answer this
time.
Mr. Spence: Well, sir, I would like to
enlighten the hon. Minister. On Friday,
March 2, 1962: "Armchair farmers lose
over $1 million. Pig scheme becomes hogwash.
Trouble in Piggyland. Dream world of ham
winds up in a jam." I understand there were
700 people who invested $1,800,000 out
there.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: What is the hon.
member's question?
Mr. Spence: I wondered if there was a
charter granted for this livestock growers
association in the province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, our department
does not grant charters of any type to such
an organization. This comes under The Pro-
vincial Secretary's Department as I suggested
to the hon. member in the first place.
Mr. Spence: Then the hon. Minister's de-
partment did not check this large operation
out here at Sunderland outside Toronto, de-
spite the dead animals?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: To my knowledge there
is no legal reason why we should inspect it
that I know of. For what reason would we
inspect it ?
Mr. Spence: I understood there were a
lot of dead animals there. Ten thousand
hogs are supposed to be on these places,
these three farms. Did the department take
any interest in the claims of this enterprise?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Pardon?
Mr. Spence: Did the department take any
interest in the claims of this enterprise?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would say that this
is entirely a matter which is beyond the
concern of The Department of Agriculture,
as far as the investment of people are con-
cerned in any corporation. This is something
that could be looked into by the Securities
Commission; it is perhaps the right place to
direct his inquiry, or through the corpora-
tions branch.
Mr. C. E. Janes (Lambton East): Mr.
Chairman, I have been trying to get on my
feet for the last 20 minutes. Surely there are
some rights on this side of the House.
I wanted to say to the House that I have a
great deal of respect for what the hon.
member for Brant stated in this House,
that we are making a lot of noise about
something that does not amount to too much.
I do not suppose the dead meat amounted
to one tenth of one per cent of the meat
consumed in Ontario, but we hear a lot of
noise about it. If we take the actions sug-
gested by our dictator friends over here we
will put hundreds of people out of business.
We have butchers all over Ontario who are
good honest people, who are doing a good
job, who have never sold bad meat to any-
body, and they are all going to be out of
business.
Mr. MacDonald: Now I can see why the
Cabinet is back-tracking.
Mr. Janes: Hold it for a minute. I have
got the floor right now. I have been working
with some groups in my area that have
poultry-killing plants. There are three in a
group together. One has been inspected for
years, the other two have not; and as soon
as they found out the situation they started
to try to get inspection and they are still
working on it.
They are not too large plants. It is going
to cost them from $25,000 to $50,000 to
comply with the regulations. They have to
go through our health department, the water
resources department, the department at
Ottawa; and they all take time, and these
men are working hard. They were in here
on Friday afternoon and I was working with
826
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
them. They are coming back next week.
They are trying to get into an inspected
plant and they can hardly do it.
Our smaller butchers cannot get into an
inspected plant over night, and maybe not at
all. Do not forget that Old Man Consumer
is going to pay for all these costs and all
these problems. Do not forget, also, that
probably not more than a tenth of one per
cent of the meat consumed in Ontario has
been dead meat. And do not forget that in
only a very odd case would that meat do
anybody any harm. My first surprise when
this came up was when I was talking to a
medical health officer in one of the cities
near where I live and he said: "This is all in
people's heads. We do not approve of this
dead meat being sold, but if it is well cooked
it will not hurt anybody." So let us face it,
Mr. Chairman. Do not rush into something
we cannot complete, and do not put all these
people out of business overnight, and do
not put extra costs on the consumers of this
province.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there are
two brief problems.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Mr.
Chairman, I am going back to the former
question, by my hon. colleague-
Mr. MacDonald: I wanted to follow this,
if I might.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I am inter-
ested still in this pig scheme. And I am
interested frankly because of the many
people who lost all their life savings because
of this. I know personally that it has
caused a great deal of hardship for many
of these people. And I was wondering if
the hon. Minister of Agriculture could tell
us if someone had informed his department
of the kind of operation that was taking
place on this pig farm — that there were
thousands of pigs dying and being buried
on the farms? If someone had informed his
department of that, would his department
have taken action?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Are you saying that
this did happen?
Mr. Thompson: I am saying, sir, that I
would like first of all the hon. Minister's
answer.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, but are you say-
ing this did happen?
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry, sir, I directed
a question to the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would say, Mr. Chair-
man, that the question as my hon. friend
has said is purely hypothetical. You have
said "if" such a thing happened, "would you
do such-and-such?" Now, I think until you
get down to cases, we will be unable to
answer the question. We have heard no such
complaints a» the rumours that he is sug-
gesting and, as far as I know, they are only
rumours. I never heard these things until
he brought them to our attention tonight
and I still do not know if it is a fact. Is it
just a rumour he is repeating?
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry, sir. It is not a
rumour. The papers have been full of this.
There are people who have lost a great deal,
they have lost their savings on it-
Mr. Simonett: What has that got to do
with this?
Mr. Thompson: It has a great deal to do
with this. There is concern on the part of
a number of people that they have lost their
money, and they are wondering why some-
thing such as this Association of Livestock
Growers of Ontario can be advertised across
this province. I might even say that this
particular outfit was advertised in Germany-
was causing concern to people in—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: On a point of order,
sir, this is a matter which properly belongs
under some other department— not under The
Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Thompson: Well, sir, I would suggest
that the growing of pigs has something to
do with agriculture.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is not his point
at all. His point is that they have lost their
investment; that is—
Mr. Thompson: No. My point is that some-
one from this operation did come to the
department and inform the department of the
kind of development that was taking place.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, I asked,
are you asking on a point of order or out of
order?
Mr. Thompson: I am talking, sir. What I
am interested in knowing is if there is fraudu-
lent operation—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, there
is a point of order before the committee. I
would ask you, if you would rule, whether in
your opinion this matter is in order or not?
Mr. Chairman: It is out of order.
MARCH 5, 1962
827
Mr. Thompson: I have another question for
the hon. Minister. If the hon. Minister's
department had seen an advertisement sug-
gesting that people could buy 100 sows and
within one year that they could make
$8,540-
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, this is
exactly the same point.
Mr. Thompson: This is the problem that I
am asking, sir, and what I am concerned
about. There are people who are in the
city-
Mr. Chairman: It is out of order. Order.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Let us get on with the
estimates. He can raise this question under
the Attorney-General, the Provincial-Secre-
tary, any number of places.
Mr. Thompson: I feel that if there are
large numbers-
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, could I
raise another question?
Mr. Chairman: Order, order.
Mr. Thompson: You have not heard my
question. I do not know why the hon.
Minister of Energy Resources is objecting
when he has not heard my question yet.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The other two were
out of order.
Mr. Thompson: Sir, I would hope that
you would not anticipate my question. I
think I should direct my remarks through
the chairman.
An hon. member: If all those pigs had a
vote.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Thompson: No, but a lot of people
who invested certainly would like to vote.
I would like to suggest, sir, in connection
with an operation where you have had the
deaths of thousands of pigs [laughter] it
is a very serious question. Surely The
Department of Agriculture does some inspec-
tion of carcasses that are buried wholesale
in fields just about 60 miles from Toronto.
What is your responsibility in connection
with loads of dead carcasses-
Mr. Cowling: We have been talking about
this for hours.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order.
Mr. Thompson: I want to see what you
did; if you have a responsibility in con-
nection with a large number of dead pigs
outside Toronto, what did you do about it?
( Laughter. )
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Thompson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am
really quite serious about this. I know a
number of people who have invested in this
operation-
Mr. Chairman: If the hon. member would
sit down, maybe he will get an answer.
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry, thank you.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, in answer
to the hon. member's question, I would say
that this is completely a matter which is
beyond the jurisdiction of The Department
of Agriculture. In the first place the hon.
member refers to hypothetical suppositions,
and he has referred to nothing factual that
has come to our department. If a request
comes to our department for a specific pur-
pose, we give an answer, or at least we try
to give an answer. But when a supposition
comes to our department we will wait until
the actual question comes, and then we will
try to do something about it, if it falls within
our jurisdiction.
Mr. Thompson: What I am asking is if you
had had an enquiry at your department. I
have asked if you have had an enquiry and
you say you do not know. Am I correct in
that?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, if my hon. friend
would be satisfied with this. If an enquiry
came, would it satisfy him if we said, if an
enquiry came, we would have a look at it.
Mr. Thompson: You would have had a
look at it if an enquiry had come?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: We would have a look
at the enquiry, not at the suppositions.
Mr. Thompson: Then may I say, sir, that
I hope to show you that an enquiry did come
and you did not have a look at it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there are
two brief points that I want to make. I want
to come back to the point that was made by
the hon. member for Lambton East (Mr.
Janes) and I want to suggest that this is a
completely intolerable kind of approach to
this problem.
828
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Nobody is suggesting that these people
should unreasonably be put out of business.
What we are suggesting is that the health of
the people of the province of Ontario shall
be protected. If the standards are too high,
I submit it is a responsibility of this govern-
ment to negotiate with the federal govern-
ment for standards that are tolerable. The
protection of the health of the people, not
the solvency of these small companies, should
be the first consideration. And, if, after
having decided on the standard that would
be permissible, there are some of them who
still cannot come up to that standard, I submit
that they should be out of business, and I
say that without any equivocation.
Mr. Nixon: So would we all.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, that is all I have
asked for. The second point I wanted to
raise is that I was very interested in the hon.
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) relating
the account of the hon. member for Brantford
away back in 1955, drawing attention and
presumably supporting representations of
the Canadian Consumers Association to the
effect that 30 per cent of the meat being sold
was not inspected. It is interesting that seven
years later in the city of Brantford there are
hospitals in which the meat supply is un-
inspected.
Vote 110 agreed to.
On vote 111:
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, may I
suggest to the House leader that it is now
11.20 p.m. and we are reaching 111, the
marketing development branch and several
other very important branches—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Have we finished vote
110?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, if we have
finished 110 then, Mr. Chairman, I would
move that the committee of supply rise and
report it has come to certain resolutions and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report it has come to certain
resolutions and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay moves that when this
House adjourns the present sitting thereof
that it do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. to-
morrow.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Speaker, before
moving the adjournment of the House, it is
with regret that I inform the hon. members
of the House that a very courageous and
beautiful young lady died tonight— the wife
of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Davis). I
understand her funeral will be on Thursday
afternoon.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:25 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 30
ONTARIO
Eegisilature of d^ntario
Betiatesf
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Tuesday, March 6, 1962
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 6, 1962
Welcome to Mr. Leonard Reilly, Mr. Robarts 831
Fourth report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Gomme 831
Extension, improvement and solvency of pension funds and the portability of pension
benefits, bill to provide for, Mr. R. C. Edwards, first reading 831
Local Improvement Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, first reading 831
Jails Act, bill to amend, Mr. Haskett, first reading 832
Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, first reading 832
Highways Improvement Act, bill to amend, Mr. Goodfellow, first reading 832
Presenting report, Mr. Yaremko 833
Report, motor vehicle noise research committee, Mr. Rowntree 833
Statement re jails in Ontario, Mr. Haskett 833
Resumption of the debate on the budget, Mr. Whicher, Mr. Bryden 834
Statement re live polio virus vaccine, Mr. Dymond 851
Recess, 6 o'clock 866
I
831
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, March 6, 1962
The House met at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests pupils from the following
schools: in the east gallery R. L. Hyslop
Public School, Stoney Creek; and in the
west gallery Terra View Heights Public
School, Scarborough; Fonthill Public School
and the A. K. Wigg PubHc School, Fonthill;
and under the Speaker's gallery a group
from Sudbury University.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
Clerk had received from the chief election
officer and laid upon the table the following
certificate of a by-election held since the
adjournment of the House:
Electoral district of Eglinton: Leonard
McKen2de Reilly.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
This is to Certify that, in view of a writ of
election dated the twenty-first day of November,
1961, issued by the Honourable Lieutenant-Governor
of the province of Ontario, and addressed to Charles
William Robinson, Esquire, returning officer for the
electoral district of Eglinton, for the election of a
member to represent the said electoral district of
Eglinton in the legislative assembly of this province,
in the room of William James Dunlop, Esquire,
who, since his election as representative of the said
electoral district of Eglinton, hath departed this life,
Leonard McKenzie Reilly, Esquire, has been returned
as duly elected as appears by the return of the said
writ of election, dated the twenty-eighth day of
February, 1962, which is now lodged of record in
my office.
(Signed)
Roderick Lewis,
Chief Election Officer
Toronto, March 6, 1962.
Leonard McKenzie Reilly, Esquire, mem-
ber for the electoral district of Eglinton,
having taken the oaths and subscribed the
roll, took his seat.
Hon. J. P. Roberts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, may I say a word of welcome to
the new hon. member for Eglinton (Mr.
Reilly) and wish for him, as I have wished
for the other hon. new members who have
come into the House as a result of the by-
elections held in January, a rewarding and
fulfilling life here; and a life of service to
constituents of that great riding of Eglinton.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. G. E. Gomme (Lanark), from the
standing committee on private bills, pre-
sented the committee's fourth report which
was read as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. PrlO, An Act respecting Metro-
politan United Church of Toronto.
Bill No. Pr26, An Act respecting the Town
of Richmond Hill.
Bill No. Pr27, An Act respecting the Town-
ship of Wicksteed.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. Prl4, An Act respecting the City
of Toronto.
Your committee would recommend that
the fees less the penalties and the actual
cost of printing be remitted on Bill No. PrlO,
An Act respecting Metropolitan United
Church of Toronto.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
PENSION FUNDS PORTABILITY
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth) moves
first reading of bill intituled An Act to Pro-
vide for the Extension, Improvement and
Solvency of Pension Funds and the Portabil-
ity of Pension Benefits.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ACT
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs) moves first reading of bill intituled.
An Act to amend The Local Improvement
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
832
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE JAILS ACT
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions) moves first reading of bill intituled.
An Act to amend The Jails Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): Would the hon.
Minister tell us what the bill is about, please?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, this amendment pro-
vides for the payment to a municipality, that
is a county or city, maintaining a jail of a
grant of 10 per cent of the annual cost of
operating the jail.
THE MUNICIPAL UNCONDITIONAL
GRANTS ACT
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend The Municipal Uncondi-
tional Grants Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): This provides for the continuance
this year of the unconditional grants in
respect of hospital treatment of indigent
patients.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
the bill presented by the hon. Minister was
an Act to amend The Assessment Act— The
Local Improvement Act. I wonder if he
would give a brief explanation of that one,
please.
Hon. Mr. Cass: Most certainly, Mr.
Speaker. There are two amendments, both of
which are procedural. One is to provide that
objections to a work to be carried on are to
be given to the clerk of the municipality, and
secondly to provide that in the case of an
appeal under The Local Improvement Act
to the county judge the notice is to be given
to the clerk in heu of the assessment com-
missioner.
THE HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENT ACT
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of High-
ways) moves first reading of bill intituled, An
Act to amend The Highways Improvement
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Speaker, this amendment to The
Highways Improvement Act is to make it pos-
sible to contribute up to 90 per cent of the
cost of bridges and culverts in towns and
villages with a population of over 2,500
where the bridge or culvert is on a street that
is designated as a connecting link between
part of the King's highway. The present
subsidy is 80 per cent. We are raising it to
90 per cent.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day I rise,
and I am sure that I am correct this time,
to extend felicitations to the hon. member for
Grey South (Mr. Oliver) on having attained
today his 58th birthday. He has now become,
sir, as a result of the lamentable death of
the former member for Brant, the dean
of this Legislature in service. His nearest
contender is, I think, some 10 or 11 years less
in service and he has the respect of all of us.
However, he might permit me just to say
that in his 36 years, I believe, of service he
had some 15 of those with the UFO and some
21 or thereabouts with the Liberal Party. I
am sure he will not mind me saying that
when he first crossed, or moved sideways, into
the Liberal Party he did not find the company
just as happy as he has since. I notice that
the record shows that after a year and a
half on the treasury benches he was indepen-
dent enough to resign.
However, in the last 20 years he has taken
that seat with a solidity that has made him
quite a mark. He has been leader of the
Opposition, the official leader of the Opposi-
tion in this House on several occasions and
he holds a record, sir, if I may say so, of
sitting in this House on his birthday. March
6 and March 17 are dates on which we
frequently find ourselves sitting here. He
holds a record of having sat in that seat in
Opposition for a longer period than any
living hon. member of any Legislature in
Canada.
I am sure, sir, that hon. members on this
side will join with me in extending him many
more years, as long as he remains in the same
position.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition ) : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
that the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
has taken this occasion to bring felicitations
to our good friend from Grey South (Mr.
Oliver).
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that what
the hon. Attorney-General said is substantially
true. There are one or two corrections, of
course, that he will understand that I would
immediately make. I think that he joined
the Liberal Party enthusiastically rather than
in any side motion. I assure hon. members
MARCH 6, 1962
833
that only recently he told me that he is
happier in his political career now than he
has ever been and looks forward to changing
his position, but not his party, in the not
too distant future.
Mr. Speaker, the second observation that
I would make is this, that the hon. member
has completed 35 years in the House. I
believe ne begins now his 36th year and
there are only two men in the history of
Ontario who have accomplished that feat, the
late Tom Kennedy and the late Harry Nixon.
I would suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I would
not be out of order if I would remind the
Hon. members opposite that the hospitality
fund has been used on occasions for less im-
portant functions than to honour this extra-
ordinary attainment, that is the occasion
Avhen a member completes 35 years of con-
tinuous service to this province in this Legis-
lature. This is an accomplishment of no
mean feat, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly rise
with pleasure to join in the tribute that
has been paid to the hon. member for Grey
South by the hon. Attorney-General.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, after all the assertions and correc-
tions that have been made, there is nothing
more left for me to say than to congratulate
the hon. gentleman on his birthday and on
his tenure of office here in this Legislature.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr. Speaker,
one is reluctant to take particular notice of
such days as this because as the years roll
along they seem to come with increasing
rapidity and as one gets older one attempts
in every way that he can to check the on-
ward nish of time. In our way of life we
have accomplished many things, but we have
have not been able to stem the moving tide
of time.
So I guess all one can do as he gathers in
maturity is to try to live his life the best he
can whatever years remain to him. I want
to just say now I am happy that my hon.
leader and the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) and the leader of the NDP have said
these nice things on this occasion. I just
would say thanks to all hon. members and I
hope to be with them and expect to be with
them for many years yet.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary and
Minister of Citizenship) begs leave to present
to the House the following:
Report of the Minister of Education for
the calendar year 196L
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Trans-
port): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day, may I bring attention to the fact that
the report of the motor vehicle noise research
committee has been printed and has been
distributed to the hon. members of the Legis-
lature today with a view to providing an
opportunity of study of that report in order
that it may be discussed and debated at an
appropriate time.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, before tlie
orders of the day I should like to make a
brief announcement regarding the jails in
Ontario.
There are 37 municipal jails, 35 of these
are county jails and two city jails. The
government proposes certain important
changes in the administration of these muni-
cipal jails.
Firstly, the government plans to transfer to
the municipality operating a county or city
jail the authority to appoint the jail staflF and
to set the wages. This will be done by way
of an amendment to The Municipal Act,
Section 358, that will be duly introduced by
my colleague, the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. Cass). This will solve those
problems that have flowed from the existing
division of authority as between the muni-
cipality and The Department of Reform
Institutions, including the status of the jail
guards, who do have a right of appeal, but
yet have lacked full recognition as either
civil servants or municipal employees.
The appointment of the jail governor will
require the approval of the Lieutenant-
Governor in Council and the province will
continue to make the inspections of the jails
as provided under The Penal and Reform
Institutions Inspection Act, thus assuring the
maintenance of standards tliat are required in
the operation of the jails.
The government plans also to make jail
assistance grants as set forth in the bill that
I introduced this afternoon under which the
municipalities maintaining jails will receive
grants of 10 per cent of the annual cost of
operating the jails.
Furthermore, sir. The Department of
Reform Institutions is embarking on or is
extending its progressive programme of trans-
ferring as many as possible of the short-term
prisoners from the jails to its open institu-
tions. This will contribute to the reform
work we are able to do and marks a real
advance in the treatment of the offenders.
It should aid too in preventing any crowd-
ing in the older jails, facilitating the proper
segregation of prisoners, and allowing better
maintenance of the jail.
834
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Though the programme could afford a sub-
stantial saving to the municipahties operating
jails, it is designed primarily to get as many
as possible of these short-term prisoners
serving 30- to 90-day terms out of the close
debilitating confinement of maximum security
jail cells and into our open institutions in the
country— from that place where they have
nothing to do but sit in idleness all day, day
after day, and into the clear atmosphere of
our open institutions where they will be do-
ing healthful work and following cfood
routine programmes of living.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): I wonder
if the hon. Minister would pennit a question?
He stated that the jail guards do have a
right of appeal and I wondered what that
right is; if it is a right as a right, or a right
as of grace?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, before you
call the orders of the day, may I ask the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) when the
matter that was referred to the committee on
privileges and elections prior to the Christmas
recess will in fact be directed to that com-
mittee? Tomorrow being a committee day, it
occurred to me this would be an appropriate
time to ask him, sir, when the necessary
motion will be made to refer that matter to
the committee on privileges and elections?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
hope to refer it to that committee some time
next week— it will not be this week.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Resuming the adjourned debate on the
motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
chair and that the House resolve itself into
the committee on ways and means.
ON THE BUDGET
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to lead off in this debate, may I
first, as always, congratulate the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) on his presenta-
tion of his budget. Just as in everyday life,
it is a pleasure to do business with a gentle-
man, so it is a pleasure to do business with
our hon. Provincial Treasurer, always a
gentleman, genial beyond the call of duty,
and truly a political adversary who will be
remembered in the future as he is appreciated
in the present for his kindness and gracious-
ness to all members of this House whatever
our political affiliations may be.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity
I have had to congratulate the winners of the
recent by-elections. I do so most sincerely.
and wish all of them a complete satisfaction
in their political lives, with the certain
knowledge that, frustrating though it may
be at times, there is much happiness in the
work of looking after the interests of one's
constituents and an appreciation by many
for the work that one does. Particularly is
it a happy occasion for us in the Opposition
to welcome three Liberal members and to
realize that there could very easily have
been five with a little more work on our part;
this work we are prepared to do in the
future, at whatever time the next provincial
election may be called. With 45 per cent of
the popular vote in the by-elections and
with the certainty of even more tlian this
in a general election, we say to the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts): the sooner an
election is called the better.
In my work in this House in the past
seven years, I am proud to say that I have
made many friends. As was said the other
evening at the dinner of Mr. Speaker, this
is an exclusive club, the most exclusive
in Ontario, made up of many fine people.
The good qualities of the hon. members are
not confined to any one party, and particu-
larly is this appreciated as one becomes
politically older. There is, therefore, a little
sadness in my heart for my many Conserva-
tive friends as I look at the beginning of the
end of their political regime. They know
it, and we know it. If they will not admit
it, it is nevertheless in their hearts.
There is today a different feeling in the
air. We Liberals smell the scent of victory,
while Conservative gentlemen opposite are
squirming to defend the indefensible: their
own pitiful position and the equally embar-
rassing position of their Conservative col-
leagues in Ottawa. It is the strength of
democracy— indeed, it is the very basis of
democracy— that you cannot fool all of tlie
people all of the time.
Today, the voters of Ontario are taking
a hard look at what has been going on in
this province, and they do not like what tliey
see. There is greater attention, a closer
scrutiny, being paid to provincial affairs, and
the Conservative Party cannot bear the ex-
amination. I do not envy my Conservative
friends; rather, I pity them as they try now
to explain away their sins of commission and
omission. Their words, Mr. Speaker, have
never been better expressed than in the
book of common prayer:
We have left undone those tilings which
we ought to have done; and we have done
those things which we ought not to have
done.
MARCH 6, 1962
835
The Conservative downfall, Mr. Speaker,
while paved with their lack of ideas and the
certain knowledge of the people of Ontario
that they have been here too long, will be
hastened by the lack of unity in their own
party. While tliis has been apparent to all
of us since the opening of the Legislature,
never was it more obvious than last week
when, two days before the Budget presenta-
tion, the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
(Mr. Macaulay)— The Minister of Everything
—relegated the hon. Provincial Treasurer to
the position of Minister of National Revenue
in Ottawa and appointed himself Minister
of Finance. The hon. Minister's economic
statement, which in years past has always
formed the first part of the Budget itself,
was truly a new and remarkable innovation.
The hon. Minister has apparently recalled
the words of Cicero: "When you are aspiring
to the highest place, it is honourable to reach
the second or even the third rank."—
Mr. D. C MacDonald (York South): He is
in that place now.
Mr. Whicher: But I ask the hon. Minister
with great respect, is he perhaps not over-
taxing himself? Let us look at his duties:
Minister of Economics and Development,
head of what we are told will be a gigantic
new housing development in the province,
head of a new Economic Council for Ontario,
head of the Ontario-St. Lawrence Develop-
ment Commission, the Ontario Research
Foundation, Minister of Energy Resources,
head of the gigantic Ontario Hydro-Electric
Commission, member of the all-powerful
Treasury Board, and first lieutenant and chief
adviser to the hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): And acting
Premier, too.
Mr. Whicher: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the
hon. Minister should also consider the words
of Longfellow: "Most people would succeed
in small things if they were not troubled with
great ambitions."
Allow me to assure the House, Mr. Speaker,
that we on this side do not protest against
this one-man wonder. While I have the
greatest sympathy for the bitter concern
which many of my Conservative friends feel
regarding this small clique which runs the
government, I know diey will not expect me
to lift a hand to stop it. When the history
of The Rise and Fall of the Tory Empire
is written, there will certainly be a chapter
on how the Macaulay clique brought on the
final fall.
Let there be no doubt about it, Mr.
Speaker. We, on this side of the House,
accept the Macaulay challenge, the Macaulay
clique, the Macaulay budget, and it is my
task and intention this afternoon to show
just how frail and fatuous is the Macaulay
salvation of the Conservative Party. This
afternoon I propose to put the cards on the
table; we shall examine them one by one and
we shall see who is more fit to play them.
Before doing so, just a word concerning
my hon. friends to the left. I must give them
some credit; they are bears for punishment.
Last autumn as we adjourned for the Christ-
mas recess, we were told by them that they
had reasonable chances in Eglinton and
Brant, probable victories in Renfrew and
Kenora, and a certain win in Beaches.
Mr. Bryden: Who said tiiat?
Mr. Whicher: The results are self-evident.
The only reason that they came as high as
third in every riding was because there were
only three parties running. And now they
have lost their former national leader.
Whatever the criticisms that one may make
of Hazen Argue, there are two things that
stand out. Firstly, he has proven over a
period of years that he has considerable
ability. Secondly, he certainly spoke the
truth when he left the New Democratic
Party. If there has ever been a party under
the dominance of one segment of the popu-
lation, it is the New Democratic Party. It
has almost no support other than the labour
movement, and really not a serious percent-
age of that. I must say, however, that they
have almost 100 per cent support of all
labour leaders. These leaders, drunk with
power in their own movement, now are
attempting to crvicify it completely by seizing;
government power. Mr. Speaker, let us re-
member this, to the people on our left only
a few months ago Hazen Argue was a good,
honest and truthful man-
Mr. Bryden: I did not say anything about
him.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, you did. —a born leader
who had done much for the C.C.F. Party in
the House of Commons. Today, according
to them, he is changed as day from night.
On top of this, our friends claim substantial
support in other segments of the population
other than labour and have tried vigorously
to obtain farm support. Let me illustrate to
you the support that they get from the
farmers of Ontario.
In a storv in the Owen Sound Sun Times
836
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of January 31, 1962, in reporting a meeting
in my area, it was described as follows:
The New Democratic Party provincial
farm policy meeting in Markdale Tuesday
was called off as only four persons of 150
that were to attend showed up.
Those who arrived were Donald Mac-
Donald, the provincial party leader, Mrs.
Jo Carter, provincial party secretary,
George Richer, an organizer from London,
and Robert Good of Brantford, who was
to be the chairman of the meeting.
The hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) will no doubt tell us that the
reason that there were so few who attended
was because of the unfavourable weather
conditions. May I, however, respectfully
point out to him that he got there from
Toronto, and others of his group arrived
from London and Brantford, but that there
was not one single farmer from the Bruce
and Grey county areas who attended the
meeting. Need I say more?
Mr. MacDonald: May I rise on a question
of privilege, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: There is no privilege there.
Mr. MacDonald: I think, Mr. Speaker, I
should correct factual errors in the statement
the hon. gentleman has just read.
( a ) the meeting was not held in Markdale,
it was held in Walkerton; secondly, the roads
were all blocked and he is wrong— the group
he named was there first— but another car
load got through behind the snowplows at
noon. So with two factual errors you have
an indication of the veracity of his statements.
Mr. Whicher: May, I say this, Mr. Speaker,
in answer to the hon. member for York South,
that knowing the farmers of Grey and Bruce
very well, there would not have been anybody
there if the roads had been open.
The farmers of the province of Ontario
will not swallow the ideas of any political
party who are led by union labour leaders
who continually demand more and more,
which in turn has made the price of farm
machinery an almost unbearable burden for
the average farmer to carry. I prophesy that
not only will they be unsuccessful in obtain-
ing the support of our Ontario farmers, but
also that they will now lose the sizeable
support that they have had in the province
of Saskatchewan in the past.
Mr. Speaker, let us start laying the cards
on the table. I have no intention of playing
with the cards dealt by the government in
the budget statement of the hon. Provincial
Treasurer or in the economic statement of
the hon. Minister of Economics. Those cards,
Mr. Speaker, came from a marked deck; they
were marked cards. The government's budget
was the result of phoney bookkeeping, just as
this government's budgets for several years
past have been the result of phoney book-
keeping.
That is a serious charge, Mr. Speaker, and
I intend to prove it. This government has
been cooking the books, and the time has
come to inspect the kitchen.
On page eight of his budget statement, the
hon. Provincial Treasurer reported the finan-
cial position for the fiscal year 1961-1962 in
these terms:
Our interim surplus on ordinary account
is estimated at $432,000 after providing
$28,000,000 for capital works financed out
of ordinary revenue and $35,800,000 for
sinking fund.
And on page 11 he dealt with the 1962-1963
fiscal year in these terms:
A surplus on ordinary account of
$374,000 is forecast for 1962-1963 after
providing $39,000,000 for sinking fund
and $66,000,000 for financing capital con-
struction out of ordinary revenue.
Now I shall discuss the government's queer
concepts of ordinary and capital expenditure
in a moment. Let me at this point simply
note what nice, neat, convenient figures these
nominal surpluses are! How easy they make
it for hon. members opposite to claim: "See!
The government does not overtax, neither
does it overspend! What good housekeepers
we are". Well, Mr. Speaker, we have been
hearing this refrain for quite a while; the
unerring accuracy which enables the hon.
Provincial Treasurer to forecast a surplus
within 1/25 of one per cent of revenues
has been a feature of his budgets for some
years.
So let us apply a little common horse sense
to these alleged surpluses, Mr. Speaker. What
businessman would conclude that he had
made a profit of $100 if at the end of
the year he had an increase of $100 in his
bank balance and if, at the same time, he
also had an increase of $300 in his unpaid
bills? Yet that is precisely what this govern-
ment is trying to sell to this House and
this province.
I invite hon. members to examine the
public accounts for the year ending March 31,
1961. That was a year in which the hon.
Provincial Treasurer claimed a surplus of
$391,000. But what was the real cash
position? The public accounts show the
MARCH 6, 1962
837
government began the 1960-1961 fiscal year
with $19,580,000 in liabihties; at the end
of the year it owed $22,240,000. Thus,
liabilities increased by $2,660,000 at the end
of the year. The government began the
year with $17,420,000 owing to it; it ended
the year with $19,090,000 in receivables, or
an increase of $1,670,000.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the net increase in
habilities was $990,000, producing a deficit
of almost $600,000 for the year after the
alleged surplus of $391,000 is deducted. And
yet a balanced budget was claimed.
Nor was the fiscal year 1960-1961 an
unusual year by any means. I have examined
the public accounts for the past five years,
and in four out of five of those years, the
government had a deficit in its real cash
position instead of a surplus as was claimed.
I shall table all the figures and simply give
a summary here. In the fiscal year 1956-
1957, the hon. Provincial Treasurer claimed
a surplus of $1,805,000; actually there was
a deficit of $60,000. In 1957-1958, the
claimed surplus was $866,000; in reality,
there was a deficit of $3,246,000. In 1958-
1959, the surplus claimed was $304,000, but
actually there was a deficit of $2,120,000.
The 1959-1960 fiscal year was another year
of error, but this time the government erred
on the side of the angels; it claimed a
surplus of $864,000 when its real cash
position showed a surplus of $3,241,000.
I have already given the figures for 1960-
1961 to the House. Over this five-year period,
Mr. Speaker, the government claimed sur-
pluses totalling $4,230,000 when in reality
it had a net deficit of $2,789,000.
This is the picture, let me repeat, simply
on the basis of what the government is
pleased to call ordinary revenues and expendi-
tures. When we include the so-called capital
account, the government's claim to surpluses
becomes downright laughable. I shall give
the figures in a moment, but first let me
repeat what I have said many times in this
House, that the government's concept of what
is ordinary and. what is capital revenue and
expenditure is arbitrary, deliberately mis-
leading and irresponsible. It serves only one
purpose, to enable the government to
manipulate the accounts and put enough into
current account to leave a nominal surplus.
So let us see what happens to the govern-
ment's famous surpluses when capital dis-
bursements are included. In the fiscal year
1956-1957, expenditures for highways and
buildings, less receipts from disposal of assets
and less provision for sinking fund, came to
$71,560,000, and when this is added to the
deficit on ordinary account, the grand deficit
is $71,620,000. In 1957-1958, the total deficit
was $64,277,000; in 1958-1959, $86,930,000;
in 1959-1960, $104,026,000 and in 1960-1961,
$97,076,000. For the five-year period, Mr.
Speaker, the government ran up deficits
totalling $423,929,000 while claiming sur-
pluses totalhng $4,230,000.
No doubt my hon. friends opposite will
say that statistics can be made to say what-
ever one wants them to say. I challenge
them to apply a very simple test. If what
I have said is true, then it follows that the
provincial debt is increasing. If the govern-
ment has really had the surpluses which have
been claimed, then the provincial debt must
be declining. What is the situation?
I quote from page nine of the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer's budget: "The province's net
capital debt as on March 31, 1962 is estimated
at $l,200,000,000-an increase of $148,100,-
000 over that of a year ago." The increase
in 1960-1961 was $99,000,000; in 1959-1960,
it was $93,023,000; in 1958-1959, it was
$81,926,000; in 1957-1958, $60,328,000 and
in 1956-1957, $52,972,000. In the last six
fiscal years, Mr. Speaker, the government's
own figures show the net capital debt as
increased by over $535,000,000.
Heaven forbid, however, that this govern-
ment shoidd ever have a deficit. Hon.
gentlemen opposite do not even admit that
the word exists. This government does not
have deficits; it has "shortfalls." 1 quote
from page eight of the budget of the
hon. Provincial Treasurer: "After providing
$211,500,000 for new capital construction,
our shortfall of revenue in this current fiscal
year 1961-1962 is estimated at $145,900,000."
And again on page 11: "However, since our
expanded capital programme for 1962-1963
calls for outlays of $230,000,000, the short-
fall of revenue on overall account is forecast
at $123,600,000."
Mr. Spetiker, what kind of double-talk is
this? What better proof is required that this
decrepit administration is so pitifully bankrupt
diat it must re-write the dictionary in a
desperate effort to keep up the appearance of
surpluses?
Mr. Speaker, we all know that appearances
are deceiving, and fortunately in a democracy
we have ways and means of getting at the
truth. One way is through the office of the
provincial auditor, who is a servant of this
Legislature. There is a section, sir, in the
auditor's report for 1960-1961 which is most
pertinent to the manipulation of the accounts
by this government so as to hide the province's
tme debt position. On page 17 of his report.
838
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the auditor makes reference to the govern-
ment's contribution to the teachers* super-
annuation fund and the pubUc service
superannuation fund. I quote from the
report:
The actuarial examination of the teach-
ers' superannuation fund has now been
completed as at December 31, 1958. The
actuary, Professor N. E. Sheppard, M.A.,
has presented his report dated January 12,
1961, to the chairman of the Teachers'
Superannuation Commission of Ontario.
The following j>aragraph is based on the
above-mentioned report.
—this is tlie provincial auditor speaking.
As at December 31, 1958 the actuarial
deficit of the fund was calculated to
amount to $203,886,000. The preceding
valuation, made four years previously, as
at December 31, 1954 showed an actuarial
deficit of $178,314,900. Thus the defici-
ency at the end of the four-year period
had increased by some $25.5 million, even
after taking into account that the 4 per
cent provincial contribution rate was
raised to 6 per cent from January 1, 1956.
The general increase in salaries during the
four years is the basic cause of the larger
deficit. The $204 million deficit, in respect
of the contributors, existing in 1958 will
continue to grow, quite apart from any
inflation, at 4.5 per cent interest per annum,
less the special grant of $1 million made
by the province each year. The growth
of this deficit at interest will thus be of
the order of $8 million per year.
—this is the provincial auditor talking, Mr.
Speaker.
This is a serious situation both with
respect to the amount of the deficit and
the fact that it is apparently increasing
each year. It is recommended that immedi-
ate steps be taken to place the fund on
a sound actuarial basis.
Mr. Speaker, what an astounding revela-
tion! Here is the auditor of the province of
Ontario stating that the government owes the
teachers' superannuation fund at least $235
million to put it on a sound actuarial basis.
Let us consider this most serious statement.
This is not the Opposition making a charge
but the provincial auditor placing the facts
before the Legislature. Thank heaven for an
imbiased individual to examine the books and
accounting procedures! And what does he
say?
The net debt at the moment is $1.2 billion,
but it now develops that the government
owes an additional $235 million to this super-
annuation fund— in short, at least a 20 per
cent concealment of the debt picture and a
cooking of the books as far as the taxpayers
are concerned.
Let us continue with the auditor's report.
He deals witli the public service superannua-
tion fund, and on page 17 he states:
No actuarial valuation of the public
service superannuation fund has been made
since March 31, 1952 and as a result the
amount of the existing actuarial deficit is
not known and will not be known until
the next actuarial valuation is carried out.
At the date of the last valuation this fund
showed a deficiency of $46,220,000.
I suggest, on the basis of a deficit of $46
million in 1952, that the present actuarial
deficit of the public service superannuation
fund must be at least $100 million. I ask
the hon. Provincial Treasurer: where has he
mentioned this situation in the budget? Does
he believe this concealment to be fair either
to the civil servants or to the taxpayers at
large?
Small wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the pro-
vincial auditor's certification of the public
accounts for 1960-1961 is most curiously
worded. In paragraph 3 on page 7, he
makes it clear that he is not prepared to
state without qualification that the financial
statements of the government have been
properly drawn up so as to present fairly
the financial position and the results of
operations for the year. "Subject to the
qualifications in this report," he declares.
Nowhere does he say explicitly what these
qualifications are, but a careful reading of
the subsequent paragraphs, I suggest, leaves
little doubt that the provincial auditor does
not approve and does not agree with the
arbitrary and misleading distinction which
this government has made between tlie cur-
rent and capital accounts— a distinction, I
repeat, designed solely to fool the taxpayers
and conceal the government's true deficit
position.
Mr. Speaker, this silly little game of "hid-
ing the deficit" is about to be played out.
For years, we on this side of tlie House
have been exposing it; we have asked the
government to reorganize the accounts, to
admit the facts and to establish a pro-
gramme for the orderly retirement of the
provincial debt.
As this latest budget shows, my friends
opposite have not barkened to our plea.
Yet they have not entirely closed their ears,
and it is a relief to note that the Provincial
Treasurer has at long last recognized the
MARCH 6. 1962
839
need to appropriate sufficient annual revenue
to retire the debt over a 30-year term. Dare
we claim some small credit for this, Mr.
Speaker, or is it more likely that the gov-
ernment has been warned by the bond
houses to cut out the nonsense and get
down to business?
Now, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend dealt
at some length in his budget presentation
with the Liberal party's proposal that no
sales tax should apply to consumer purchases
of $25 or less. From the political point of
view, I can understand why the hon. gentle-
man seems so concerned about this proposal,
and I can understand why he did not see
fit to give the Liberal party due credit for
advancing it.
But what I cannot understand, Mr.
Speaker, is why the hon. gentleman should
declare, and I quote from his speech:
The effect of such a change, while
extremely difficult to estimate, would re-
duce revenue substantially.
Why should it be so difficult to esti-
mate? The hon. Attorney-General had no
difficulty last September when he was on
what he thought was the victory trail to
Varsity Arena, Toronto. This would-be leader
of the Conservative party was in Kitchener,
and according to a report in that leader of
the Kelso Roberts fan club. The Toronto
Telegram, he told 121 delegates to the Pro-
gressive Conservative nominating convention:
The $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 which
would actually be collected under Mr.
Wintermeyer's scheme would scarcely be
worth collecting considering the cost
involved.
Nor did a more successful aspirant for the
Conservative leadership have any difficulty in
estimating tlie effect of a $25.00 exemption
in the sales tax when he addressed this House,
December 14, 1961. According to the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts):
If the leader of the Opposition's proposal
became effective, the tax returns would be
reduced on a full year's operations from
$150,000,000 estimated by the hon.
Provincial Treasurer to about $52,000,000.
And the hon. Prime Minister went on to
claim that this would be the equivalent of
increasing the sales tax to nine percent on
taxable items if the $25.00 exemption were
put into effect.
But the hon. Provincial Treasurer seems to
have had great difficulty in making an
estimate. Perhaps it is difficult to distinguish
between Roberts and Robarts, Mr. Speaker,
so the hon. gentleman decided to strike out
on his own. Blithely ignoring his leader's
claim that a $25.00 exemption is the equiva-
lent of a nine per cent sales tax, he declared:
If we make allowance for the avoidance
of the tax which would result from a $25.00
exemption, the rate on taxable items would
not be three per cent but closer to eight
per cent.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if it is the intention of
hon. gentlemen opposite to confuse us, let me
assure them that they have not succeeded.
All they have done is reveal their own con-
fusion and demonstrate to the House and the
public that they do not know what they
are talking about. For our part, I can only
say we have known as much for a long time
and I can only hope, in the interest of orderly
debate, that they will soon go into a huddle
and come up— all together— with a figure
which we can take seriously.
There is another aspect of the sales tax,
Mr. Speaker, which I suppose I should deal
with at this time. The hon. Prime Minister,
in his statement of December 14, made much
of what he called piecemeal buying if a
$25.00 exemption were applied. He cited
the case of the $200.00 television set which
could be broken up into cabinet, speaker
chassis and other component parts so that
each part would come to less than $25.00 and
thus would be exempt from sales tax. Well,
sir, I do not know where the hon. Prime
Minister buys his television sets; perhaps he
will be good enough to inform hon. members
where they can buy the cabinet, or the
speaker, or the chassis, or the picture tube
of a $200.00 television set for less than $25.00.
Frankly, I wasn't very impressed with that
example, and I gather the hon. Provincial
Treasurer wasn't either, because he preferred
the case of a set of golf clubs, asserting that
purchasers would avoid the tax by buying
one or two clubs at a time instead of a com-
plete set.
Now surely the answer to this alleged
problem is obvious. It is simply a matter
of definition in the regulations. Certainly, a
purchaser determined to avoid the tax would
be able to do so in some cases at consider-
able inconvenience to himself. But a host of
exemptions, all of which the government
claims are administratively difficult, would be
replaced by one exemption, with considerable
saving in the costs of collection and enforce-
ment. With a $25.00 exemption, for example,
virtually all sales from all the grocery,
general, variety, drug, hardware and shoe
$46
ONTARIO LEX;iSLATURE
stores in the province would be exempt from
sales tax. .; .
To the hon. Plrime Minister I ask this
question: **Of what are you afraid?" To the
hon. Provincial Treasurer I ask the same
question. We are not totally babes in arms
in the field of -finance on this side of the
House and our statements regarding the sales
tax are nbt dreams but realities. Well over
$100 million can be placed in the hon.
Treasurer's coffers with an exemption of
$25.00 and^ because of the fact that this will
exempt approximately 75 per cent of the
retailers in the province from the necessity of
collecting the tax, .it will greatly decrease the
administrative costs. Our oflFer, that we hope
has been accepted by the hon. Prime Minister
still stands. Let us sit down with his experts,
explain our position in detail, show them how
to do this job and, at the same time, greatly
help the small businessmen of the province
and the taxpayer in general.
Mr. Speaker j the government has been
drifting aimlessly for many years. It is a
policy of drift, without direction and without
a goal. It, is also a policy which pays little
or no attention to simple common-sense
economies. The government collects the
money it needs,, on a catch-as-catch-can basis,
and spends it the same way. The house-
keeping of government administration and
spending is not being done and the result is
a wasteful squandering of resources. Let
me dte some specific instances.
-The civil service— the backbone of govern-
ment administration— has been most shabbily
treated, and the taxpayer has been the loser.
It is simply good business, it is only common-
sense, to pay adequate salaries, competitive
salaries, for competent people. But this is
not the way this government views the civil
service. -Men and women are being forced out
of the public service because the government
will not pay enough to keep them; the govern-
ment then has to hire new personnel and
train them at great expense— until these re-
placements are driven away too.
The process has been repeating itself for
years until the turnover in the civil service
today is 10.6 per cent. The figures are even
more alarming for public servants on the
executive level. In the interests of false
economy, the government has vitiated the
competence and quality of the public admin-
istration.
In • this respect, Mr. Speaker, I ask the
government why it has done nothing to intro-
duce the merit system in the public service
of Ontario? I am informed this province is
alone in the western world in not having the
merit system; Ontario, I am told, is on. the
sarne level of the public administration of
Great Britain over one hundred years ago.
Eventually, the civil, servants of Ontario will
have collective bargaining; and when that
time comes, a great many incompetents will
be entrenched in the administration— many of
them placed there because of Conservative
political patronage.
A merit system now would do two things-
it would ensure that all job vacancies would
be filled only on the basis of competition
and impartial examination, and it wpuld
institute impartial standards whereby the per-
formance of existing operations could be
measured. I suggest it is obvious a merit
system must precede collective bargaining
and I think it is obvious it is essential to
improve the quality of the public service.
The salary bill for the civil service is a large
one; if economy were the watchword, a
prudent government would increase salaries
where appropriate in order to keep the many
key personnel in its employ, and thereby
save the taxpayer money in the long run.
But, Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen opposite
have not been adverse to looking after them-
selves. When one looks at the swollen
Treasury benches' opposite, one can see some
argument for having a Senate where hon.
gentlemen could be put out to pasture, in-
stead of being created hon. Ministers without
Portfolio. We have four such gentlemen
now, in a Cabinet of twenty-one.
And let us look at the composition of that
Cabinet, . Mr. Speaker. The Departments' of
EducatioTi, Health, Highways, Public Welfare
and Municipal Affairs between them account
for 75 per cent of the budget; there are .five
Ministers to administer these departments.
The remaining portfolios account for 25 per
cent of the budget and these are handled by
twelve Ministers. And then there are the four
homeless Ministers without Portfolio, whose
duties are most obscure.
Parkinson's Law is at work, Mr. Speaker,
and little empires— with secretaries, assistants,
chauffeurs, and cars— are being built. I venture
to say that the taxpayer could be spared at
least a quarter of a million dollars yearly by
reorganization and reduction of the Cabinet.
One wonders, Mr. Speaker, what savings
could be effected in the administration of
the departments themselves. No doubt they
would be substantial. Recently, for example.
The Department of Highways announced
that 22 service station areas will be built on
Highway 401. Such servicing .areas, of course,
MARCH 6, 1962
841
are necessary. But why were the sites not
bought and built at the same time as the
highway itself? The land buyers of the de-
partment have had considerable trouble
purchasing many of these sites and have had
to pay considerably higher costs. Construc-
tion and grading costs will also be higher
than they would have been had the govern-
ment shown a little foresight and planning.
Not only have the taxpayers at large
suffered for this shortsightedness, but many
small businessmen will lose heavily because
they took the government at its word. The
original policy was that Highway 401 would
have no servicing areas; as a result, service
stations, restaurants and motels have been
built on access roads— how much business can
these people expect when the servicing areas
on the highway itself are ready?
This lack of planning, Mr. Speaker, can
be seen many times and in many places on
the highways of Ontario. I invite hon. mem-
ber's to view Ontario's Stonehenge the next
time they are in the Hamilton area near the
Queen Elizabeth Highway and the Burlington
Skyway cutoff; sterile pillars of concrete rise
from the fields, bleak testimony to the fact
that The Department of Highways caprici-
ously decided to put tlie Chedoke by-pass
elsewhere, at a cost to the taxpayer of many
thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thou-
sands, of dollars.
Mr. Speaker, one could go on at some
length about this Department of Highways.
Suffice it to say that it is the department of
the contract overrun, whereby contractors
are paid for claimed expenses above the
mockery of tender bidding; it discounts econ-
omy; it places a premium upon inefficiency.
It has no place in a properly administered
department of government. Small wonder,
Mr. Speaker, that it is such a feature of this
government, a government which has overrun
its contract with the people and must now
face the dreadful accounting.
The Department of Highways is not alone
in its spendthrift ways. May I cite, sir, the
case of the Blenheim District High School
which was brought to the attention of the
House by my colleague the hon. member
for Kent East (Mr. Spence). Two proposals
were presented to the district high school
Iward, both of them bearing the tentative
approval of The Department of Education.
As explained by the Blenheim News-Tribune
on September 4, 1961, one proposal involved
adding nine new rooms and making certain
repairs to the high school at a total cost of
$407,985; of this, the provincial grant would
have been $178,210 and the school board's
share would have been $229,775. The sec-
ond proposal was that eight of the existing
classrooms be torn down and seventeen new
ones be built.
I ask the House to note that the net gain
of nine rooms was the same in each case.
Yet the second proposal would have involved
a total cost of $513,900, of which the prov-
ince would have paid $301,750 and the
school board $211,480. In other words, it
would have saved the school board $18,295
and it would have cost the province $123,540
more to tear down eight rooms and build
seventeen new ones, rather than simply
adding nine new rooms. The explanation, Mr.
Speaker, involves a tortuous explanation with
which I shall not weary the House; but
surely the lesson is clear: the government
has no real concept of economy, no concern
for saving the taxpayer a dollar wherever
possible.
A classic example is to be found in the
auditor's report for 1960-1961. On page 19
he points out that the federal government
allows a sales tax refund on goods purchased
by provincial government departments, but
will not do so when dealing with Crown
agencies of the provinces. I quote from the
report:
An example of the inequity that has
occurred under this system is that the
Manitoba Health Services Plan, operated
under the direction of the Minister of
Health and Public Welfare, can buy
materials free of federal sales tax because
the manufacturer under the provisions of
The Excise Tax Act is able to obtain a
refund of the taxes paid thereon, while
the Ontario Hospital Services Commission,
performing precisely the same functions
under a commission-type of operation and
under separate statutory authority, cannot
buy these goods tax free because the manu-
facturer is not permitted to obtain a
refund of the tax paid on the sale of the
goods. This condition appears indefensible
and as yet no effective steps have been
taken to correct it.
I am glad to see they are starting to sit
up anyway, Mr. Speaker, because there is a
lot more here yet.
What a slap in the face to the taxpayers
of Ontario; what a needless extra cost to their
lx)cketbooks, already overburdened by heavy
taxation. I ask the government when it will
take effective steps to correct what is truly an
indefensible position. If my hon. friends
opposite want to show some economy, here
is a place to start.
842
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): On a point of order, Mr. Chair-
man, would it be fair if the hon. member
pointed out that the—
Mr. Whicher: The point, Mr. Chairman,
is simply this: the auditor of the province of
Ontario, the hon. Provincial Treasurer of this
Legislature, has said that the government's
position is indefensible and as yet no effective
steps have been taken.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It is the federal
government he is referring to.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I turn now
to a forecast of what the position will be
ten years hence, if the trends established
})y this government are allowed to continue
without change, if the status quo is main-
tained—that is, if current tax rates and current
rates of government ser\ices continue— then
the budget of Ontario in 1971 will look like
this:
Government expenditures will be over $1.8
billion;
The year's deficit will be $520 million;
The net capital debt will have reached
$4.13 billion.
These forecasts, Mr. Speaker, are all on
the low side. They are based on 1961 dollars
and make no allowance for inflation. They
provide for no escalation for improved quality
in existing services. Because they have been
conservatively calculated, I believe they merit
the serious consideration of all hon. members
and I have therefore set them out in charts
which I shall table for the benefit of Hansard
and the hon. members.
Let us examine, Mr. Speaker, some of the
major spending areas over the next ten years.
The charts are particularly instructive in the
field of education costs. They show that in
1971, provincial grants for primary and
secondary education will exceed $410 million;
that municipal governments will be levying
$700 million in taxes for education; that
municipal tax rates for education will be up
62 per cent over current levels.
I think hon. members will agree that these
are startling figures and some extenuation of
them is justified.
In 1961, Mr. Speaker, the elementary and
secondary school enrolment in Ontario was
1,462,000. Assuming only that the current
retention rate of 94 per cent for elementary
schools continues and that the retention rate
for secondary schools will rise from the cur-
rent 65 to 75 per cent, then enrolment in
1971 will be 2,104,000. This means that
education costs will rise from $380 million
in 1961 to $1.11 billion in 1971. Again
I emphasize this is a minimum forecast and
makes no allowance for monetary inflation.
The province's share of this cost under the
current grant structure will rise from $191
million in 1961 to over $410 million in
1971; the municipal share will rise from
$289 million to $700 million.
All these forecasts, Mr. Speaker, are based
on the government's own statistics concerning
enrolment and pupil costs, school construction,
teacher training, and teacher-pupil ratios.
Obviously, the effect on the municipal tax
structure in Ontario will be catastrophic. We
will know how mounting educational costs
have placed a heavy strain on the munici-
palities in the last 10 years. But what has
happened in the 50's will be a mere drop
in the bucket compared to what will happen
in the 60's if current trends and tax structure
continue. In 1961, the municipalities spent
an estimated $290 million for education on
a total taxable assessment of $11 billion, a
levy which represents a 29 mill rate on
current assessment. If taxable assessment
simply continues to increase at 4 per cent
annually in real dollars, it will total $15
billion in 1971. In order to raise $700 million
for education on this assessment, the muni-
cipal mill rate will have to rise to 47 mills—
18 mills higher than in 1961 and an increase
of 62 per cent in the 10 years.
How can the municipalities possibly adjust
to this crushing burden? Where in this
budget is there a single clue to indicate
that my hon. friends opposite are even aware
of the problem? What have they done except
to wring their hands and cry that the muni-
cipalities must hold the line? Mr. Speaker,
the prospects for 1971 which I have outlined
cannot be prevented by holding the line.
Are my hon. friends advocating birth control?
Would they keep children out of the schools?
Perhaps this government will be good
enough to explain just what it means by
holding the line. Perhaps it will explain
why, in its own budget, there is no indication
anywhere of the need for a research crash
programme to find ways and means of
reducing education costs. Why is the govern-
ment not allocating funds for research into
school design, construction materials, class-
room layouts, optimum school sizes?
Would the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) be good enough to spare a moment
from his many duties and tell us, in his
role as hon. Minister of Education, whether
the most efficient classroom is one that
accommodates 15 pupils, or 30 pupils, or 200
pupils? Will he say how educational tele-
vision can be exploited? Is any research
MARCH 6, 1962
843
under way to determine the advisability of
standardized architects' plans for school con-
struction?
Mr. Sjpeaker, I repeat there is not a clue
in this budget to indicate any thought is
being given to research to lower basic costs.
If it is an honest budget— and I have stated
my doubts about that— the government is
doing nothing. It is content simply to dole
out the grants in the same old way, passively
accepting the status quo, abdicating its
responsibility to protect the taxpayers' money
by preventing unnecessary expenditures and
by assuring that full value is received for
money spent.
And may I point out to the House that
I have allowed nothing for the costs of the
new programme for technical and vocational
education, or of provincial grants to the
universities. The technical and vocational
education programme is a new area on which
little information is available at this time.
But obviously it will involve higher operat-
ing and construction costs per pupil than
is now the case in the academic secondary
schools, a fact which many municipalities ap-
pear to be forgetting in their eagerness to
accept the federal and provincial grants.
In respect of university education, the
province's grants in 1961 totalled $45.4 mil-
lion. Since only between 6 and 7 per cent
of the college-age group in Ontario is cur-
rently enrolled in the universities— compared
to 30 per cent in the United States— it is
virtually inevitable that university enrolment
in the province will increase drastically. It
is entirely probable, therefore, that the pro-
vincial government's grants to the universities
in 1971 will total at least $100 million. In
any event, I simply suggest to the House
that my picture of educational costs in 1971
has not been overdrawn.
Now, let us examine the next 10 years
with respect to highways expenditures.
In 1958, The Department of Highways
published a report giving detailed estimates
of capital and maintenance costs both for
provincial highways and for roads in counties,
townships and urban municipalities. This
report forecast an expenditure of $7.1 billion
in terms of 1957 dollars, for the 20-year
period from 1957 to 1977. The provincial
government will be required to spend $2,4
billion on provincial highways and secondary
roads. In addition, if the province shares the
municipal programme on a 50-50 basis it will
be required to spend an additional $2.3 bil-
lion for a total expenditure of $4.7 billion.
An examination of the capital expenditures
planned by The Department of Highways in
the budget shows that $247 million will be
spent in 1962-1963. This is no more than
one year's share of the 20-year programme
and makes no allowance for the heavy back-
log of work which the 1957 report said had
to be done immediately. Clearly, if the
overall programme is to be realized, there
will have to be an acceleration in spending
in the coming years. A little arithmetic in-
dicates expenditures of $320 million will be
required by 1965-1966, even without allow-
ing for monetary inflation, and that by 1971
the annual rate will be of the order of $420
million.
Now what about the municipal share? The
total cost to the municipalities for the 20-
year programme was estimated at $2.3 bil-
lion. This is an annual average of $115
million. How does that figure compare with
what the municipalities have been spending?
Assuming that municipal expenditures have
equalled the provincial grants, then the
public accounts reveal that the municipalities
in the past five years have been far below
the $115 million annual spending level which
was expected of them in the department's
20-year plan. In 1958, the municipalities
spent $51.5 million on roads; in 1959, $54
million; in 1960, $62.4 million and in 1961,
$70.4 million. In the fiscal year now closing,
they will have spent $73.1 million and
according to the budget, they will spend
$80.9 million in 1962-1963.
In short, Mr. Speaker, if the 1957 report
has been implemented to date, municipal
expenditures should total some $690 million
by the end of the next fiscal year. In fact,
they will total some $392.3 million, or about
$300 million short of the programme.
The conclusion is obvious: our back-log
demand for more and better roads is increas-
ing rather than decreasing. And it is equally
obvious that it is not the fault of the muni-
cipalities. It is the fault of this government.
"The powers of the municipalities devolve
from the provinces and therefore municipal
government is part and parcel of provincial
government."
I wonder if the hon. member for Victoria
(Mr. Frost)— I am sorry he is not in his seat-
recognizes those words? He should. They
are taken from a statement he made to the
federal-provincial conference in July of 1960.
We all know, certainly this government must
know, that the municipalities are strapped
by the current tax structure. For the muni-
cipalities to meet their share of the roads
programme this year, the mill rate for local
road construction and maintenance would
have to be increased by 44 per cent. I ask
844
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tliis government whether it seriously claims
such an increase is realistic. Why, then, does
it continue to blindly follow antiquated
formulae based on a horse-and-buggy tax
structure?
Mr. Speaker, I have shown that in educa-
tion and in highways, this government has
demonstrated no real desire to come to grips
with real problems. In education, the prov-
ince's share of the total cost has been approx-
imately 40 per cent and there is no plan
evident in the budget for relieving the muni-
cipal burden.
In highways, the department proposed a
2()-year plan but in the first five years the
plan has failed to meet even mininum
requirements.
Let me emphasize the point, Mr. Speaker,
that nowhere in the budget of this govern-
ment can any plan of expenditures be found.
There are no discernible priorities in the
government's expenditures.
I have here a chart, Mr. Speaker, which
will be tabled, that demonstrates what I
mean. It sets out departmental ordinary
expenditures as a percentage of the total
budget for each of the seven years from
1957 to 1963. In 1957, expenditiires of The
Department of Agriculture were about 2 per
cent of the total budget. In 1963 depart-
mental expenditures for agriculture were still
about 2 per cent of the total budget and the
same ratio prevailed for all the years in
between.
The same applies to the hon. Attorney-
General's department. Its expenditures have
been about 3 per cent of total costs.
The same thing applies to The Department
of Lands and Forests at approximately 3 per
cent; Public Welfare at approximately 6 per
cent; Commerce and Development at approx-
imately 1 per cent; Reform Institutions at
about 2 per cent, and so on.
The figures speak for themselves, Mr.
Speaker, and what they say clearly is that
the expenditure policies of this government
are those of drift. There is no direction to
expenditures.
The departments are all growing at approx-
imately the same rate and that rate is much
doser to Parkmson's law of bureaucratic
mushrooming than it is to the changing needs
and requirements of the j^eople of Ontario.
When one looks at these figures, Mr.
Speaker, one can almost hear the hon. Prime
Minister and his hon. Ministers drawing up
their annual estimates. The procedure is
simplicity itself. They get an estimate of
total expenditure by adding the amount of
15 per cent deficit to estimated revenue. Then
the hon. Prime Minister, or the members of
the Treasury Board, interview the hon. Min-
isters and say: "Gentlemen, this year the total
money available is X millions of dollars. The
hon. Minister of Agriculture^ therefore, can
expect 2 per cent of that; the hon. Attorney-
General 3 per cent; Lands and Forests 3
per cent; Commerce and Development 1 per
cent; Public Welfare 6 or 7 per cent; Reform
Institutions 2 per cent," and so on.
Mr. Speaker, the status quo triumphs again
and the dynamic needs of this province are
once again at the mercy of fate without any
government planning, without any govern-
ment direction, without any government
initiative.
What will be the picture in 1971 if we
go on in this way?
I have prepared a chart, which I shall table
for the benefit of hon. members, which shows
the actual revenues and expenditures for the
province for the 10-year period, 1951-1961,
along with the government's forecasts for
1962 and 1963. The chart then jDrojects these
trends to 1971.
The chart summarizes departmental ex-
penditures under the headings of education,
highways, health and welfare, interest
charges, public works, etc., and I believe hon.
members will find it merits study.
The figures for education show, for
example, tliat the department's total expendi-
ture in 1951 was $60 million. Tliis figure
included grants to elementary and secondary
schools, universities, libraries, the Teachers'
Superannuation Fund and the administrative
expenses of the department. By 1963 The
Department of Education estimates its total
expenses will be $330 million.
Carrying the same trend forward the de-
partment's expenses will be $440 million in
1966 and $600 miUion in 1971. This figure,
Mr. Speaker, makes no allowance for infla-
tion and will be required just to maintain
the status quo.
The same procedures employed in work-
ing out the projection for education costs have
been applied to all other departments.
Highway expenditures of $83 million in
1951 will be $264 million in 1963. If the
present trend continues, highway spending in
1966 will he $320 million and by 1971, $420
million.
Healtli and welfare expenditures of $55
million in 1951 will be $205 million in 1963.
By 1966 this amount will rise to $250 million
and by 1971 to $320 million.
Interest costs on public debt were $20
I
MARCH 6, 1962
845
million in 1950 and will be $60 million in
1963. By 1966, and listen to this, interest
costs will be $90 million and by 1971 the
interest costs bearing the debt that we have
accumulated will be $200 million annually.
Public works spending totalled $12 million
in 1951 and will amount to $50 million in
1963. Because the public works programme
of this province is not planned, Mr. Speaker,
I have deliberately kept the expenditures for
public works at the low figure of $60 million
by 1971 because I tliink it is inconceivable
that the figure could be less.
The expenditures of all other departments
in 1951 were $48 million and will be $177
million in 1963. Projecting the trend gives a
total expenditure of $210 million in 1966
and $250 million in 1971.
The total expenditures of all departments
in 1971 will be $1,850 billion in terms of
1961 dollars.
I turn now to the projected tax revenues—
the hon. Minister has to be fair about this
thing— he is the expert about the tax revenues.
We will give them to him. I turn now to
projected tax revenues for Ontario on the
basis of the present tax structure. In these
projections I have used the government's own
estimate of population increase and I have
assumed a real growth rate of 3 per cent per
year in terms of 1961 dollars. This growth
rate, Mr. Speaker, is relatively greater than
that experienced by Ontario under Progres-
sive-Conservative administration in the past
10 years.
The projections show that in 1966 provin-
cial government revenue will be $1,095
billion and $1,330 billion in 1971.
It is simple arithmetic to see what our
deficits will be in the years between now and
1971. The deficit in 1966 will be $270
million— that is only 4 years away. Averag-
ing the increase in deficit for the five years
from 1966 to 1971 at $50 million per year,
it is easy to see that in 1967 the annual
deficit will be $320 million; in 1968, $370
million; in 1969, $420 million; in 1970, $470
million and in 1971 $520 million. The
accumulated deficits will bring our net debt
to $4.1 billion in 1971. The hon. Provincial
Treasurer has expressed himself as mildly
alarmed at our present net debt of $1.2 bil-
lion. I wonder how he feels when he looks
at his projections, if he has made any pro-
jections that is, when he sees a net debt in
1966 exceeding $2 billion and in 1971 ex-
ceeding $4 billion?
On a per capita basis the net debt in 1971
will be about $536 for every man, woman
and child in Ontario, almost three times as
much as the figure of $180 in 1961.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: 1971 is not too far away,
you know. It is only nine years. The hon.
member will not be here by then, that is
certain.
An hon. member: You will not be here a
year from now.
Mr. Whicher: If I were the hon. Minister
I would not worry about it at all. I am talk-
ing mostly to my own fellows who worry
about it.
An hon. member: The hon. member is not
worried about it?
Mr. Whicher: We will show the planning
in a minute. And this $4.1 billion in net debt
by 1971, Mr. Speaker, is assuming no in-
creases in provincial services, no improve-
ments in the quality of existing services and,
to be fair to the hon. Provincial Treasurer,,
no new taxes and no increases in existing tax
rates.
As a consequence of this huge increase m
net debt, debt interest payments in 1971
will be $200 million or more than 10 per
cent of the province's total expenditures.
In 1961 interest costs of $44 million repre-
sented less than 5 per cent of the provincial
budget.
Mr. Speaker, here are the cards of an
unmarked deck placed face up on the table
where the taxpayers of Ontario can have a
proper look at them.
What price an incompetent government?
What price stagnation? What price Toryism?
Mr. Speaker, the increase in provincial debt
is only part of the total picture.
Let us look at municipal debt. I have pre-
pared a graph, Mr. Speaker, which shows
population increase in Ontario and trends in
provincial and municipal debt from 1935
until today, with a projection to 1980.
The chart shows clearly that from 1935
to 1945 municipal debt in Ontario steadily
declined from a high of $460 million to
$231 million. In 1945 provincial debt was
about $483 million.
From 1945 to 1961 provincial debt rose
from $483 million to almost $1.1 billion,
an increase of over 100 per cent. In the
same period municipal debt rose from $231
million to $1.62 billion, or an increase of
almost 700 per cent.
846
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In other words, municipal debt, which
was less than half as large as provincial debt
in 1945, is now one-third larger than pro-
vincial debt.
This, Mr. Speaker, is just another indica-
tion that the heaviest burdens of development
in Ontario are being borne by the munici-
palities.
Small wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the On-
tario Municipal Board is already issuing
words of caution to municipalities about
their growing debt.
In its last report, the board said the in-
crease in the fixed overheads of municipali-
ties was a serious matter and wovild become
crippling in periods of recession if the total
debt is not kept within a safe limit. During
the year, the board expanded its earlier
practice of requesting a capital budget or
forecast from municipalities which, in the
opinion of the board, were approaching the
limits of safety for capital debt.
What better indication can there be, Mr.
Speaker, of the increasing inability of muni-
cipal governments to finance their services?
If the position of municipalities is so bad
today that the municipal board has to cau-
tion them, what will their position be in
.1971?
Small wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.
Minister of Economics and Development
(Mr. Macaulay) and the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan) have gone to great
pains in their reports to leave the impres-
sion with this House and the public that
the government's policies and programmes
are directed towards economic growth. No
doubt their expressions are meant sincerely.
Unfortunately, the past is here to haunt
them.
The budget, Mr. Speaker, should be more
than an estimate of revenues and expendi-
tures. A budget in excess of $1 billion,
sir, has significant effects on the econ-
omy of Ontario and on the economy of Can-
ada. It is important that such a budget
become an instrument of economic growth
—a device by which the government exerts
initiative in expanding and developing the
economy in specific ways.
It is clear that the budgets presented by
Conservative governments for the past two
decades have not been geared to the speci-
fic task of promoting growth. They have
frequently worked against economic expan-
sion; they have caused Ontario to lose its
share of the Canadian economy; they have
resulted in the imposition of new and
heavier tax loads.
1 repeat: the Ontario budget has been
working against economic expansion.
The economy of Canada and of Ontario
goes in cycles. At a particular time it may
he in a period of rapid growth. Business
activity is high. There is large-scale capital
investment. ^Employment is high. Money is
in short supply and the general pressures of
the economy are inflationary because they
all tend to push up prices. In such periods
government revenues swell.
In such expansive periods, wise govern-
ment policy is to try to relieve excessive
inflationary pressures in a number of ways,
including tighter credit and reduced govern-
ment spending. While the general economy
spends, government saves and holds its sur-
pluses or its borrowing capacity in reserve
for a rainy day.
In periods of economic contraction business
activity slows; unemployment increases;
money is less in demand; and the general
pressures of the economy are deflationary as
prices tend to remain stable or to decline.
In order to alleviate the depressionary
effects of such trends, sound government
policy is to lower tax rates and to increase
spending. In other words, when private
business and individuals curtail spending the
wise governments increase spending.
In short, Mr. Speaker, government policies
should be employed as instruments to temper
the general trend of the economy by swim-
ming against the stream. This process is
called conlra-cycle budgeting.
But this policy has never been employed
by this government.
In fact, for the past 12 years this govern-
ment has been budgeting in a fashion that
compounds the difficulties presented by gen-
eral economic trends.
The budgetary practices of this government
have been to follow the trend of the econ-
omy. In good times it expanded its budget,
thereby increasing the competition for in-
vestment capital, increasing the competition
for labour and exerting a powerful added
pressure to inflationary trends.
In recessive periods it contracted its capital
spending thereby making it more difficult for
the economy to rally and recover.
This government's budget policies have not
provided a true surplus for 15 years. In
good times there is a deficit; in recessive
periods there is a deficit; in each and every
year there has been a deficit. Once again
we have a budget which follows the Conserv-
ative status quo.
MARCH 6, 1962
847
It is not a budget for economic growth.
It is a budget that inhibits economic growth.
And the reason it is not an instrument for
growth is because this government has no
policies of growth. This is not a government
with a plan for Ontario and the initiative to
carry it out; this is a government of care-
takers doing what they have always done-
presiding over an ever-expanding bureauc-
racy, watching expenditures rise in the
.same proportion in each department, estab-
lishing no priorities, and continuing a trend
of ever-mounting deficits.
In an expanding economy, government
revenues tend to rise in a ratio that keeps
pace with the cost of services. Because the
growth of the economy has not kept pace
with the rising cost of service this government
lias continued to have larger and larger
budgetary deficits. These increasing deficits
have resulted in ever greater pressures on
provincial credit. As our debt mounts the
interest rates rise so that today the credit
of Ontario is Httle better than some of our
larger municipalities. The costs of servicing
debt are rising steeply. The cost of debt
service in Ontario today exceeds the budgets
of all but the five largest departments.
The lack of growth has resulted, as it must
inevitably, in higher taxes. The lack of
growth is one of the reasons for the recently
imposed sales tax.
This government imposed the sales tax,
not to provide new services, or expanded
services, but to pay for old debts. The sales
tax in Ontario is one of the prices which the
people of this province have had to pay for
the lack of economic growth and the bad
financial practices of this government.
Mr. Speaker, this government has not had
a policy and a programme for economic
growth. In fact, Ontario is losing its share
of the Canadian economy. One of the chief
indicators of growth is new capital invest-
ment. In 1951 Ontario had 36.7 per cent of
the new capital investment in Canada; in
1959 it was 34.6 per cent.
What are the consequences of lack of
economic growth? The failure to grow re-
sults in tax increase to meet rising expenses;
it produces unemployment because the labour
force grows faster than job openings; the
debt increases relative to the total economy;
increasing welfare costs go up, and lagging
municipal assessments result in higher muni-
cipal taxes and increased municipal borrow-
ing. We will show hon. members the future
in a minute or two.
Mr. Speaker, I have already referred to
the imposition of the sales tax, the largest
single levy imposed upon the people of
Ontario by any government in this province's
history. The sales tax, expected to raise some
$160 million in the next fiscal year, will be
providing 17.3 per cent of the province's total
ordinary and capital revenue. And yet the
hon. Provincial Treasurer still anticipates a
deficit next year of some $134 million.
The effects of lack of growth on provincial
revenue is demonstrated clearly in the bud-
get's report that revenue from the corporation
income tax will be $19 million less than was
estimated last year. And this, Mr. Speaker,
in a year in which the hon. Minister of Eco-
nomics reported a good business climate with
a year-end upturn.
Rising unemployment is another indicator
of lack of economic growth. What is the
trend of employment in Ontario, Mr. Speaker?
On page A-3 of his economic survey, the hon.
Minister of Economics reported that unem-
ployment as a percentage of the labour force
in Ontario has been rising steadily from 2.4
per cent in 1956 to 5.5 per cent in 1961.
The number of unemployed has risen from
51,000 in 1956 to 132,000 in 1961.
This is a clear indication that Ontario's
rate of economic growth is not keeping pace
with the growth of the labour force.
What about other indices of economic
activity?
Do they reveal the economic growth
which the hon. Minister of Economics spoke
about so frequently last Tuesday, or to which
the hon. Provincial Treasurer made reference
last Thursday?
Let us look at the tables provided by the
hon. Minister of Economics in his survey.
Page A-4 shows industrial employment in
Ontario for the period 1946 to 1961 as a
ratio with industrial employment in 1949
taken as the base of 100. The hon. Minister's
tables show that industrial employment in
1961, at 119.2, was the lowest since 1955.
On page A-5 the hon. Minister shows hous-
ing completions for the period 1946-1961.
Housing completions in 1961 totalled 43,754,
the lowest number since 1954.
On page A- 15 the hon. Minister shows a
chart in which employment in primary indus-
try—farming, forestry, mining, fishing and
trapping— has steadily declined from 20 years
as a percentage of total employment. This
chart also shows that employment in manu-
facturing, has declined from 38 per cent of
the labour force in 1951 to 30 per cent of
the labour force in 1961.
Does this indicate economic growth?
848
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On page 28 of his report the hon. Minister
of Economics himself admitted:
It is apparent that there is still excess
capacity in many of our industries and
until this is fully utilized there will be
no large-scale investment undertaken in
the private sector.
And on page 29 he stated:
We recognize that our rate of growth
in the last four years has not been ade-
quate.
Small wonder that the advocacy of growth
and the espousal of growth which we now
hear from the hon. Minister has a hollow
ring to it. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think
the first step the hon. Minister of Economics
might take to establish an element of real-
ism in this matter would be to introduce
the man who prepared the tables in his
report to the man who wrote the text.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the present
tax structure, by its very rigidity, is inhibit-
ing economic growth.
The fixed base of the property tax is like
an aging Hercules straining to hold aloft
an ever-growing number of services, all of
them increasing rapidly in cost. The muni-
cipalities are straining now to keep pace
with current services. They will be incap-
able of assuming additional services or even
of improving the quality of existing services.
The rigidity of the municipal tax struc-
ture in Ontario is such that municipalities
are facing local austerity as the price of
local autonomy. Embellishment of munici-
pal life by the provision of worthwhile and
desirable amenities is almost prohibited by
the tax structure.
In years gone by, municipal leaders
worked hard for the growth of their com-
munities. Today, largely because of the
sterile rigidity of the local tax structure,
municipal officials look on population growth
as a mixed blessing at best, bringing more
problems than solutions, more headaches
than rewards, more dissension than satis-
faction.
A normal and healthy attitude towards
growth has been perverted. Caution has
replaced confidence.
The rigidity of the provincial tax struc-
ture, and the paralysis of action which is
evident throughout this whole budget pres-
entation, is another inhibiting factor in the
promotion of economic growth in Ontario.
The deficits which this government has
been accumulating down through the years,
in meeting the normal requirements of the
people of Ontario, have now mounted to
the point where there is little flexibility in
the present budget for additional provincial
government programmes which has allowed
circumstances to overwhelm it in the past
15 years. And now adjustments are no longer
sufficient and major overhauls in provincial-
federal and provincial-municipal relations
are required.
The municipalities must have equity and
flexibility restored to their taxing powers in
terms of their responsibilities. The provin-
cial government can no longer be a docile,
contented cow, gratefully munching federal
handouts and passing them on to the munici-
pal governments.
The provincial government can no longer
be a passive, unassertive middle man in the
structure of Canadian government. The pro-
vincial government must exert the leader-
ship which the constitution imposes and be-
come an active, aggressive agency for the
promotion of economic growth and develop-
ment.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Provincial Treasurer,
in his estimate of revenue for the coming fiscal
year, clearly shows that he does not really
expect economic growth in Ontario in the
next 12 months. It is true he has predicted
an increase in revenue of $148 million.
But this increase includes $84 million
more from the operation of the sales tax;
$33 million more from an adjustment in the
personal income tax rebate under the fed-
eral-provincial tax-sharing agreements. In
other words, higher taxes, not growth, will
be providing $117 million of the $148 mil-
lion increase in revenue. The hon. Provincial
Treasurer may talk economic growth, Mr.
Sp)eaker, but he is not counting on it.
Mr. Speaker, I have shown the past and
present sins of this government. I have
shown how it has cooked the books and
thrown a smokescreen around the true posi-
tion of the provincial accounts in order to hide
them fom the voters. I have shown how 15
years of Tory budgeting has resulted in
steeply rising municipal taxes, new provincial
taxes, rising unemployment and economic
stagnation. I have shown how the tired,
hackneyed budget presentation given this
House by the hon. Provincial Treasurer last
Thursday does not meet the times and the
needs of the people of Ontario.
I have shown how this House has been
given a shortfall budget by a shortfall
government.
Mr. Speaker, I turn now to the future. I
will not weary the House by asking the
MARCH 6, 1962
849
government whether it proposes to reform
and do better in the future. There is no
future but obhvion for this administration.
The future belongs to the people of Ontario
and to the Liberal Party, because only the
Liberal Party is alive to the possibilities, the
potential and the promise of Ontario.
I will therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker,
with an outline of what the Liberal Party
and a Liberal government will do in Ontario
in the field of fiscal and economic policy.
What do Liberals want for Ontario?
We want a province where every man and
woman who needs and wants a job can find
one. We want an economy where everyone
will receive a fair and decent return for his
labour and can face the future with con-
fidence and a sense of security and progress.
We want a community where there is a
sense of co-operation, of purpose, of unity
and of fair sharing.
We want expansion, not conservatism. We
want production, not stagnation. We want
change and movement and progress, not re-
action and privilege and fat-cat Toryism.
Mr. Speaker, we believe this Liberal
philosophy can be achieved by producing a
real economic growth in Ontario of at least
4.5 per cent per annum. Expressed in current
dollars, this would be an annual growth rate
of between six and seven per cent. A Liberal
government in Ontario will institute bud-
getary, fiscal and economic policies to ensure
a growth rate of between six and seven per
cent.
What would such expansion mean for the
people of Ontario in the next ten years?
Perhaps the best way to explain it would be
to simply point out that in the past five
years, there has been a 2.2 per cent increase
in the gross provincial product in real terms.
In short, the Liberal programme would more
than double the growth rate of the last five
years.
But a growth rate of 4.5 per cent in real
terms would mean much more than that. It
would mean a full employment economy.
Not only would those currently unemployed
be put back to work but jobs could be pro-
vided for all new entrants into the labour
force. It would mean a decrease in welfare
expenditures. It would provide the economic
foundation for the full realization of our
human resources. It would mean a 50 per
cent growth in personal incorne in real terms
by 1971; in other words, it would mean that
the average person in Ontario would be 50
per cent better off than he is now.
If there is no acceleration in the growth
rate— which the Conservative government has
tolerated— the gross provincial product in
1971 will be about $20 billion, and I have
already described what that means in terms
of deficits, provincial and municipal debt, and
inadequate government revenues to meet
essential services.
But an annual growth rate of 4.5 per cent
in real terms will mean a gross provincial
product in 1971 of $24 billion. And this in
turn would mean higher provincial revenues,
lower debt charges and a balanced budget-
without tax increases.
Mr. Speaker, to get the Ontario economy
going again will require new capital invest-
ment in Ontario by industry, commerce, and
all three levels of government, of $4.5 billion
per year for the next 10 years. By com-
parison, new capital investment in the prov-
ince this year is expected to exceed $3
billion. An annual average of $4.5 billion
is not a pie-in-the-sky figure. It is a realizable
goal if we design our programmes to achieve
it. New capital investment of $4.5 billion
annually would be the equivalent of 22 to
23 per cent of gross provincial product per
year. I point out to the House that this rate
is currently the target of the United States
and several European economies. But in
recent years, in Ontario, Conservative poli-
cies have produced an investment rate of
only 20 per cent, or less, of gross provincial
product.
One of the major reasons for the falling
rate in new capital investment has been
the failure of the government to devise and
carry out programmes for economic expan-
sion.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal programme for
economic growth will include a genuine and
sympathetic understanding of the problems
of business and industry and a willingness to
use provincial services to assist industrial
growth. I submit that the present govern-
ment's unsympathetic approach is driving
certain industry out of Ontario.
For example, Atlas Steels of Welland,
Ontario, has begun construction of a $40
million plant in Quebec, with the direct
assistance of the Quebec government in locat-
ing an industrial site, and in securing favour-
able hydro-electric power contracts which are
playing a significant role in the company's
decision to build in Quebec, instead of
expanding in Welland.
Atlas Steels is a company making a special
product. The cost of energy is an unusually
large part of the total cost of the product.
850
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Long-term hydro-electric contracts at reason-
able rates are a prime requisite for the
successful operation of this company.
Ontario Hydro did not meet Quebec's com-
petition in terms of rates over the life of the
contract.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): And that
is true, too.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): That is not true.
Mr. Reaume: That is absolutely true. The
lion. Minister knows it is true.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, the answer to
the thing is this: Atlas Steels are in Quebec,
not in Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: They are not in Que-
bec either.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, a government
desirous and determined to encourage eco-
nomic growth in Ontario would have been
certain that this $40 million investment was
kept here, along with the 400 permanent jobs
which this investment will create.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government
cannot, by itself, produce all the growth rate
which I have called for. But it can exert
powerful influence in securing that measure
of growth which is beyond its direct control.
By developing a set of plans and programmes
of its own, it can give leadership and direc-
tion to the other sectors involved. It can
co-ordinate and support the efforts of the
municipalities and it can take the lead in
securing closer co-operation from the federal
government.
To produce this co-ordination, co-operation
and support among the three levels of gov-
ernment, there must be a searching review
and reshaping of the entire tax structure. A
full diagnosis is required before there can
be an adequate cure. Many business and
industrial leaders have called for such an
investigation and study of the Canadian tax
system. A Liberal government in Ontario
will, as a matter of policy, promote, and if
necessary convene, such a tax conference.
A Liberal government will establish an
Ontario Development Fund with an au-
thorized capital of $200 million.
Mr. Speaker, let me cite you examples of
what this fund could do. There are many
manufactured products which the highly
industrialized province of Ontario imports.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Which speech of mine
is he reading now?
Mr. Whicher: I will tell him whose it is.
It is mine. I do not suggest to the hon. Min-
ister that he does not write his. I do not
think he is being too fair.
There is no reason why many of these
products could not be manufactured in
Ontario. We intend to promote the estab-
lishment of such industry by making loans
available from this fund at low interest rates.
For example, Mr. Speaker, Ontario is the
home of all the automobile manufacturers in
Canada. This year, some $400 million worth
of automobile parts will be imported into
Canada. I suggest that the government should
make it one of its goals to induce industry to
produce in Canada all the automobile parts
currently being imported. The active sup-
port of a sympathetic government together
with the positive assistance of the Ontario
Development Fund would go a long way
towards achieving this goal.
The fund would also be used to encourage
industry to process in Ontario, as much as
possible of the raw materials which are cur-
rently being exported in a raw, or semi-
finished condition, for finishing elsewhere.
This fund could also be used to particular
advantage in promoting industrial location in
regions that are currently being by-passed in
the development of Ontario— for example, in
eastern and northern Ontario. A strengthen-
ing of these regions, Mr. Speaker, would go
a long way towards a sounder provincial
economy.
A Liberal government will use the resources
of the Ontario Development Fund to promote
a massive programme of urban renewal.
Another function of the fund will be to
provide money to set up marketing agencies
in foreign countries to promote the sale of
Ontario's farm products. There are more than
18 marketing boards in Ontario now, whose
function is almost exclusively confined to
marketing Ontario's farm products within the
boundaries of Ontario.
The problem facing Ontario farmers is
over-production and lack of markets. An
aggressive sales force abroad is essential to
Ontario farmers, at a time when the formation
of new trading areas throughout the world
threatens our traditional position.
Mr. Speaker, another goal of Liberal policy
is a comprehensive programme of retraining
those in the labour force who require it.
A Liberal government will undertake to
provide leadership in co-ordinating labour,
management and government in the achiev-
ing and maintaining of an adequate rate of
economic growth.
MARCH 6, 1962
831
Mr. Speaker, these are the policies of the
Liberal Party. They will be the programmes
of the Liberal government.
They are policies and programmes worthy
of the people of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Oh, we have not
heard anything yet.
Mr. Whicher: They have not heard any-
thing yet? Mr. Speaker, what they have heard
is this. Action instead of sitting over there
doing nothing. Instead of starving the farm-
ers to death in this province, we are going
to look after them. Instead of having thous-
ands of people drawing money out of the
unemployment insurance fund, we are going
to put them back to work. And I think
earlier in the speech, you will agree that I
said we were going to make a few changes in
the provincial Cabinet.
To continue, Mr. Speaker: They are pro-
gressive, positive and forward looking.
They are the foundation of the future.
They are a rejection of the past and the
I)resent, I might add.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: He has mentioned two
planks, both of them he has stolen from us.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not care
whose planks they are, but they are most
important to the people of this province and
we are going to initiate them.
They are a clarion call to the restoration
of leadership. They are a condemnation of
this government, its record and its budget.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by Mr. H. Worton, that the motion
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair
and the House resolve itself into the com-
mittee of ways and means
be amended by adding thereto the following
words:
• This House regrets that the government
has failed during its term of office to pres-
ent an orderly accounting of the finances
of the province, and
This House regrets that the government
has established no system of priorities in
its expenditures and has exerted no con-
trol over the haphazard growth of its
departments, and
This House regrets that this govern-
ment has not utilized its budget as an
instrument to promote the growth of
Ontario's economy, and
This House regrets that the go\'ernment
has failed to implement the Liberal plan
of a $25 exemption in sales tax.
This House regrets that the government
has not undertaken a provincial-municipal
conference to restore equity and flexibility
to the tax structure, and
This House regrets that the government
has failed to exert its influence to secure
a thorough review of the Canadian tax
structure, and
Therefore, this House rejects the budget
as presented and must advise Your Honour
tliat the government does enjoy the con-
fidence of the people of Ontario.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, a House that is so overwhelmed
with regrets will, I think, be very delighted
to hear, through you, sir, that we have just
had notification from the federal government
at Ottawa concerning live polio virus vaccine,
an additional service to the people of the
province of Ontario. With your indulgence,
sir, I would like to announce Ontario's part
in this.
As of today, the federal Department of
National Health and Welfare have issued a
license to the Connaught Laboratories to
distribute polio virus live oral vaccine to
provincial departments of health.
We are all familiar with Salk vaccine,
which was a killed vaccine given by needle.
This new vaccine is prepared by a new
process developed by Dr. Albert Sabin, of
Cincinnati, by which the polio virus is treated
to remove its disease-producing power yet
retaining its power to produce protective
antibodies. This vaccine is prepared in a
solution of sweet syrup and is to be taken by
mouth. It can be diluted with water and
taken in a small paper cup, or by a plastic
spoon. In the case of small infants it can
be given by a dropper. At least two doses,
and preferably three doses, should be given,
at least eight weeks apart.
This vaccine will not be used to replace
Salk vaccine, but rather to reinforce the
level of immunity and give added assurance
that any person who did not for any reason
respond well to the Salk vaccine will get a
good booster from the live oral vaccine. Its
greatest value will be in giving adequate
protection to a whole family unit or a whole
community. It is easily and rapidly given
and only requires the services of a nurse or
other qualified person to measure out the
dose.
The Department of Health has ordered a
supply of this vaccine and will distribute it
free of charge to local boards of health for
administration by local health department
852
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
staff. Until the supply is unlimited we will
have to restrict the distribution in this way.
It will be supplied to local boards of
health to be given to children three months
of age and over, together with the other
members of time family. The family or house-
hold unit basis for administration is important
since this is the segment of our popula-
tion which is most vulnerable to poliomyelitis
infection. In due course, perhaps even by
next fall, it may be made available to every-
Ixxly.
Our people have been very well vaccinated
with Salk vaccine, but we have never had any
means to be sure that they all have as high
a level of protection as is possible. This new
live polio virus vaccine, given by mouth
instead of by needle, will give us a new level
of assurance that protection is as high as
possible.
The Connau^t Laboratories, located, as
hon. members know, here in Toronto at the
university, have once again accomplished a
great forward step in vaccine production.
They have produced this new product and
have made it safe and easy to administer.
We are justifiably proud of this accomplish-
ment.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this oppor-
timity to break into the normal proceedings
of the House in order that this announcement
may be made to the people of the province
of Ontario.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, by what stretch
of the imagination can the injection of that
statement at this stage be in order? We
were assured, Mr. Speaker, last week, that
the budget debate would be put on today
and that following the budget critic of the
Liberal Party would be the budget critic of
our group in the House. We are not in the
normal position of before the orders of the
day; we did not ask for a reversion to that
position on your part. In other words, it was
just an injection of a statement by the hon.
Minister in violation of the rules of the
House.
Now, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I did ask for a rever-
sion to the orders of the day.
Mr. Speaker: I will agree to some extent
with the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald). I was notified by a note that
the hon. Minister had a public announcement
of something of real importance to announce
to this House and I sent a note back that
possibly we could hear it after the present
speaker had resumed his seat. However, I
will agree with the hon. member for York
South that it possibly could have waited
until tomorrow before the orders of the
day.
Mr. MacDonald: With respect, Mr.
Speaker, I think your original idea was
correct. It could only have been in order
if it was made at the conclusion of the
sitting today, not injected at this point. There
are no special privileges for the hon. members
of the Cabinet to ride roughshod over tlie
rules of the House.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I did not ask for any
special privileges as a member of the Cabinet.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
personally do not begrudge the hon. Minister
his little effort to snatch a headline during
the time that is traditionally devoted to the
Opposition in the discussion of the budget.
I would feel that the only way in which his
eflrort could be considered to be in order
would be if it is regarded as his contribution
to this debate. However, I have no doubt that
we will hear from him further in this debate
at a later time.
In rising to participate in this debate, Mr.
Speaker, I would like first of all to take
advantage of this, my first opportunity to
congratulate the new hon. members of the
House. All of them have now taken their
seats and I feel quite sure that they will all
make a constructive contribution to the work
of the House. I wish them success in all of
their future endeavours which are not political
in nature.
I would also like to congratulate the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan), a man for
whom I have always had the highest regard,
and I hope I have always made it clear that
I have a high regard for him. Year after
year he struggles manfully and without
audible complaint to create an appearance of
order out of the chaos of government policy.
Admittedly, he has never succeeded in this
endeavour but one can hardly blame him for
that, because no man can achieve the impos-
sible. At least he should be given an "A" for
effort.
In discussing the budget, Mr. Speaker, I am
afraid that I am going to disappoint a man
whom I regard as a friend of mine, Mr. John
Miller, the perceptive observer of the Toronto
MARCH 6, 1962
d53
Globe and Mail, by refraining from asking
what he described in last Saturday's Globe
as the perennial question as to how the
government can claim a surplus when it
actually has a deficit. I have asked that
question many times in the past, I have
never got an answer to it— and I may say
many other people have done the same with
the same lack of success— and I do not see
much point in pursuing the matter any
further.
I think it would be better if the hon.
Provincial Treasurer would present his ac-
counts in a straightforward manner, avoiding
euphemisms such as "surplus on ordinary
accounts" and "shortfall" and that sort of
thing. After all, a deficit is a deficit, Mr.
Speaker, it does not matter what you call
it.
However, I will concede that the hon.
Provincial Treasurer's little subterfuges do
not really fool anybody. They are quite
harmless. They have not fooled anybody,
not even the hon. gentlemen on the Liberal
benches. Since the hon. Provincial Treasurer
seems to get genuine personal satisfaction
out of them, I do not want to deny him his
little pleasures.
I would, however, like in passing to refer
to another of the hon. Provincial Treasurer's
subterfuges. On pages nine and ten of his
budget statement he tries to tell us that
through his sinking fund arrangements he
will retire part of the province's debt over a
35-year period and the balance over a 30-
year period. I think that is a fair summary
of what he said. When I heard that and read
it 1 almost came to the conclusion that the
hon. Provincial Treasurer must have been
taking lessons from the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer).
Now as we all know, the hon. leader of
the Opposition has always been mesTiierized
by special funds. He seems quite convinced
that a dollar put into a special fund can be
made to do the work of two; it can first of
all be used for the purpose of the fund and
then be used for general purposes as well.
That is a very good trick if you can do it,
but I do not think even Houdini has managed
to find out how you do it.
As far as the statement of the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer is concerned, I would suggest
to him that the plain fact is that he is busily
engaged in increasing the debt. Now if he
knows a way of paying off debt by increasing
it, I think he ought to let all hon. members
in on the secret. I am certain that, possessed
of that knowledge, all of them could become
rich men in a very short period of time. In
this day and age, I would suggest to the hon.
Provincial Treasurer, for his consideration,
that the time may very well have come for
a province of the size of Ontario to abandon
double-talk about sinking funds, just as the
federal government did a great many years
ago. This, liowever, is merely in passing, Mr.
Speaker.
There are other more substantial matters
that I would like to deal with. But before
I do that, I would like to make one or two
references to the comments of my immedi-
ate predecessor in this debate.
Now the hon. member for Bruce (Mr.
Whicher) is a man with whom I rarely
agree, but I do not believe that there has
ever been an occasion when I have spoken
anything but well of him. I respect his sin-
cerity, and I consider him a kind of man
that I like to know.
It was therefore a matter of very consid-
erable regret to me, Mr. Speaker, to find
that political expediency had apparently
reduced him to a despicable attack, at the
opening of his remarks, on a perfectly hon-
ourable group of people, namely the men
and women who have been elected to
leadership in the trade union movement of
this province and country and who, in dis-
charging their responsibilities of leadership,
carry out decisions which have been demo-
cratically arrived at at conventions repre
senting the members who elected them.
Now it is a very old tactic, Mr. Speaker,
to attempt to destroy the organizations
which working people have formed for theij
own protection, by launching an attack on
the leaders, whom the working people them-
selves have elected, and to try to drive a
wedge between the leadership and the
membership. This is an old labour-baiting,
anti-union tactic, and apparently the hon.
member for Bruce considers it quite suitable
for the Liberal Party.
Apparently the tactic of that party in its
present political exigencies is to try to sow
dissension within the labour movement and
between the labour movement and the rest
of the conununity, in the hope that it can
cash in on the resulting confusion. If this
is the new Liberalism about which we have
heard so much of late, Mr. Speaker, it is
not much different or any different from the
old Liberahsm of Hepburn and Smallwood.
It is preposterous to suggest, as the hon.
member for Bruce suggested, and as I may
say, a gentleman such as the hon. Minister
of Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay) has
tried to suggest, that people who have been
854
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
elected to office in the trade union move-
ment, and indeed members of the trade
union movement, should not be permitted,
or perhaps should voluntarily abstain, from
exercising their democratic right— and I
would say responsibility— to play their part
in the public affairs of the nation.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): We just say
they should not be politicians and trade union
leaders at the same time.
Mr. Bryden: Tlie hon. gentleman from
Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) says of a man who
has been elected to a position of leadership
in the trade union movement and has to
stand for re-election and to submit an ac-
count of his stewardship, that if he wants
to take an interest in the affairs of the
nation, apparently, he should withdraw
from his position within the trade union
movement. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,
that if we carry that principle very far,
there would be very, very few people par-
ticipating in the affairs of the nation, and
the running of the country would be re-
duced to a group of professional politicians
with very few roots in the community.
I believe that people who are leaders in
the union movement, people who are leaders
in the business world, people who are
leaders in all phases of our nation's life
should play a part in the affairs of the
nation, should stand up and be counted,
and should be prepared to identify them-
selves when they have positive opinions.
The Liberal Party would like to restrict par-
ticipation in democratic affairs exclusively
to those people who support it. I will say
for myself, and I think for my colleagues in
the New Democratic Party, that we are
proud that many people in the trade union
movement, not all by any means, but many,
and an increasing number, both in positions
of leadership and among the rank-and-file
membership, find that the programme of the
New Democratic Party best expresses their
own philosophy and objectives. I congratu-
late them, these people who have the cour-
age to declare themselves, for having come
forward and accepted their democratic re-
sponsibilities within the community.
Mr. Sopha: —with a platform like that.
Mr. Bryden: Well, if we are talking about
platforms, maybe we will just pause for a
moment or two. The Liberal Party has
made a great attempt over the years to
curry favour in the trade union movement.
It has been conspicuously unsuccessful, and
that may be the reason for its chagrin on
this particular point. However, I would like
to take a moment to refer to one of the
more recent efforts of the Ontario Liberal
Association to curry favour among the ranks
of the organized working people of this
province.
Under date of June 15, 1961, a circular
letter was sent out, under the letterhead
of the Ontario Liberal Association and over
the signature of Mr. Ian Wahn, who is
described as the chairman of the labour
policy committee of the Ontario Liberal
Association, and I have no doubt a very
fine man, as the hon. gentleman says. This
circular was sent out to, as far as I know,
all or most trade union locals in the prov-
ince, and it reads, in part as follows:
At the last annual convention of the
Liberal association, the Liberal Party
adopted a strong, pro-labour platform
wliich will be of interest to your union.
Not only did the Ontario Liberal Party
adopt the general principle of full support
for the organized labour movement but-
Let us put in parentheses, attacking the lead-
ers all the way down the line-
Mr. Sopha: Is that what it says there?
Mr. Bryden: That is what the hon. mem-
ber's financial critic said this afternoon within
his hearing. I put it in parentheses-
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Is it in
the circular?
Mr. Bryden: I said "put in parentheses".
Apparently the hon. gentleman from Went-
worth (Mr. R. C. Edwards) has difficulty
understanding ordinary English. However, I
will continue with the quotation, Mr.
Speaker. The letter goes on to say:
It is also called for specific reforms of
the type the trade union movement has
been demanding. These reforms include-
There is a list of them which I will not
read, but I will mention the first one— which
is the one in which I am particularly inter-
ested. Hon. members can read the rest of
them if they like. The first one is:
Endorsation of the union label pro-
gramme.
Mr. Speaker, I might mention that the
circular which was set out conveying this
programme, including endorsation of the
union label programme of the trade union
movement, did not itself carry a union label.
This is an indication of the sincerity of
Liberal promises.
MARCH 6, 1962
855
I would like to call attention to a further
manifestation of the sincerity of Liberal
policy on this particular matter of endorsa-
tion of the union label programme. During
the recent Beaches by-election campaign,
the Liberal candidate, Mr. MacGregor, put
out a large-sized newspaper-style publication
—in fact, he put out two of these, I have one
of them here— which was devoted entirely to
extolling his merits, which I may say are
quite considerable in my opinion, and various
other matters which he considered would be
useful in persuading the people to vote
for him. Now tlien, when I received this,
I was naturally interested in it, for I am
always interested in items of this kind, and
knowing of the Liberal policy of endorsation
of the union label programme, I naturally
took a quick look for the union label on this
publication.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): Why would the hon. member do
that?
Mr. Bryden: Because I am interested in
seeing the union label.
Mr. Wintermeyer: What about the candi-
date of the NDP in Hamilton?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, on page two of
the publication, in the lower right hand
corner, my eye was attracted by something
that certainly appeared to be a union label.
This happens to be an area in which I am
particularly interested, so I studied it a little
more than perhaps the average person might
do. I looked at it very carefully and although
it is always noticeable that union labels, even
when they are quite small, are quite legible,
this one could not be read at all. Then I
noticed beside it the number 62, which we
know is the customary way of identifying
the particular shop which printed the publi-
cation. So I phoned up both of the organ-
izations that have authority to issue union
labels in this city and I found that neither of
them had a number 62. There is no 62 shop
either for the lithographers or the allied
printing trades in this city.
A friend of mine got a magnifying glass
and we studied tliis symbol more carefully.
It was impossible, Mr. Speaker, to distinguish
anything in it but straight lines. It appears
to be a union label but under examination
it becomes very obvious that it is not a union
label at all. It was a deliberate, calculated
effort to deceive the public, to make them
think that the union label was being used
and the publication was being printed in a
union shop under union conditions, when in
fact it was not being so published at all and
there was no union label on it at all. I
may say that this did not happen once,
Mr, Speaker-
Mr. Wintermeyer: If this is proved to be
an error, will the hon. menil)er apologize
to this House?
Mr. Bryden: Well, if it was in error, it was
a repeated error because it happened a second
time. A new edition of this newspaper was
circulated to the electorate in Beaches-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order I would ask the
members if they would listen to the present
speaker. The House has been very orderly
this afternoon and I would ask the members
to continue in that way. Up to the present
time with the present speaker, I have been
taking particular notice. If you add up all
the interjections and what is being said at
the same time, there are others who are
actually speaking more than the speaker. It
is very difficult under those circumstances.
Mr. Bryden: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that
there was a second such publication put out
in the campaign right on election day. It
was put out by the Liberal Party and it was
entitled: "The Danforth-Beaches Leader," but
it was a straight piece of election propaganda
put out by the party. The second one again
contained this phony label, but I would judge
that there may have been some complaint
because this time it was scored a little bit
even more than tlie one I have here, so
that even the number 62 was illegible. This
is what happened during the Beaches
campaign.
I may say that I do not want to get
into an argument at this stage as to whether
or not printing should carry the union label.
I believe that it should, and certainly no
literature would ever be issued on my behalf
that did not have the union label. But
whether or not I am correct in that, I think
all hon. members will agree with me that
this attempt to deceive the public is
thoroughly discreditable and totally un-
justifiable.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I do not know that it
was his paper.
Mr. Bryden: Well, the sponsorship of the
paper is shown here. I will give the hon.
leader of the Opposition a copy of it. In
the masthead it is described as "The Danforth-
Beaches Leader, published by the Don
MacGregor Youth Committee, Don MacGregor
856
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ciimpaign Headquarters, 2084 Qiieen Street
East, Phone OX 8-2535."
Mr. Sopha: Would someone ask tlie hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) to come in,
this may be organized crime.
Mr. Bryden: This is an indication, Mr.
Speaker, of tlie reliance the public can place
in Liberal promises.
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions ) : If this trademark were registered,
action could be taken for infringement, but
if the label be not registered the hon. member
would have to rely on one of passing off,
which is more diflRcult.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, certainly the
Allied Printing Trades label is registered and
so also is the Amalgamated Lithographers'
label, but I do not know what action the
printing trades council might decide to take.
I imderstand it is quite a complicated legal
problem. It is fortunately not my respon-
sibility to deal with that phase and I am
certainly in no position to give them any
advice at all. But I do call attention to the
fact of the matter.
In turning to deal with the substance of
the budget, I would like to say first of all that
I have certain criticisms to make of the
government and I am sure that the hon.
Provincial Treasurer would be very surprised
if T did not have. But I will promise him
tliat I will not content myself merely with
blasting the government from here to king-
dom come, with practically no suggestions
for concrete action. I believe that the govern-
ment ii) open to criticism. I hope to put
before it concrete proposals which I hope
will be useful. At any rate they will be there
for the government and the public to see
and to judge.
The hon. member who preceded me in this
debate (Mr. Whicher) blasted the government
at great length, but I would suggest to him
that it takes more to produce econornic
growth than simply to make a lot of noise
and do a lot of desk-thumping. There was
only one concrete suggestion in his budget
that might stimulate economic growth. It
was a good suggestion, it came out of the
New Democratic programme as a matter of
fact, and I will mention it myself a little
later. But by itself it is quite inadequate.
Much more than the hon. member suggested
is required to restore growth to an accept-
able level, and certainly much more is needed
than merely mouthing generalities about the
desirability of growth, with which I am sure
everybody could agree.
With that preamble, Mr. Speaker, I will
now proceed with my analysis of the budget
for what it is worth, and of the economic
situation in which this budget is produced.
Mr. Sopha: My daughter would like this
better than Huckleberry Hound.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Provincial Treasurer
has been at some pains to persuade the public
that the budget is a new departure. We have
a new and youthful looking hon. Prime Minis-
ter (Mr. Robarts) and a new and youthful
looking economic czar. No doubt, many
people expected that under the circumstances
we would also have a new and youthful look-
ing budget.
Unfortunately, even a superficial examina-
tion reveals that it is really just the same old
budget as the hon. Provincial Treasurer
presented last year and the year before and
the year before that. In fact, it is decidedly
in the hoary old tradition of the budgets
which the former hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost) presented regularly in this House be-
fore the hon. Provincial Treasurer assumed
his present portfolio. If one took any of
those old budgets and merely revised the
figures upward, including the debt figures,
one would have the present budget in all its
essentials.
The basic policy of all those budgets was
to drift with the tide.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I thought the hon.
member was not going to be critical.
Mr. Bryden: On the contrary, I said I had
criticisms to make, but I also liave con-
structive suggestions which I will come to if
the hon. leader of the Opposition will just
be patient.
This was hardly an adequate approach to
the responsibilities of government, but as
long as the tide was flowing in the main, it
was quite a pleasant avocation. All the
government had to do was to congratulate
itself on the growth tliat was taking place
independently of it and to scurry around suffi-
ciently to prevent developing shortages of
social capital from resulting in complete
collapse.
It is true that warning signs were appear-
ing, and not least in the area of government
finance. Gradually government surpluses de-
clined until they became deficits, and the
fact that the first deficit appeared right in
the period of peak economic activity, that is
in 1956 and 1957, might conceivably have
given the government some food for thought.
MARCH 6, 1962
857
It preferred, . however, to avoid the travail
of thought. If was easier to try to conceal
the deficits by the reverse application of the
forrnula which it had previously used to con-
ceal its surpluses, and to drift along with
the tide— right into the sharp recession of the
past few years.
This, however, is water under the bridge.
One could forgive the government its lack
of foresight in the past if it were showing
any disposition, to learn the lessons of the
past. Unfortunately, a study of the budget
statement and of the monumental economic
statement which preceded it reveals no such
disposition at al'l. We have once again the
same old complacency, the same old refusal
to consider anything beyond the moment.
The tone of both the economic statement
and the budget is one of self-congratula-
tion on the fact that conditions are now
somewhat better than they were a year ago.
Heaven help us if they were not, because
a year ago they were very bad indeed. There
is still, however, the same basic failure to
face reality as has been apparent in govern-
ment statements in previous years.
The hon. Minister of Economics (Mr.
Macaulay), for example, exaggerates the
present level of economic activity by failing
to take account of rising prices and rising
population in almost all his statistical series.
If he presented his figures in terms of con-
stant dollars per capita, as he surely should
if he wants to make valid comparisons with
previous years, the picture would be much
less rosy than he paints it.
Moreover, he totally ignores the fact that
almost all those who have studied the sub-
ject,, other than Tory politicians, are con-
vinced that the present economic revival is
inherently weak and is not likely to be long-
lived, There i.s currently some dispute as to
whether the ^lext downturn will come in the
last quarter of this year or Will be delayed
until the first quarter of 1963, but few experts
question that a downturn will surely come on
the basis of any evidence now available.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Now that is not true.
Mr. Bryden: \t certainly is true.
A study of Canadian economic develop-
ment since the end of World War TI indicates
that we moved forward in three successive
surges under the influence of three successive
powerful stimuli.
First, there was the upsurge of 1945-1949.
A large volume of unfilled demand which
had accumulated under the restrictions of
war was released, and in addition, there was
powerful new demand from European coun-
tries whose productive equipment had been
all but destroyed by war and which were now
in the process of rebuilding. These forces
produced rapid economic growth in Canada
but by 1949 they were largely spent and
our economy started to drift downward again.
We were rescued from this unhappy situa-
tion by the Korean war, which stimulated the
second surge forward in our economy. Peace;
however, ultimately broke out in that partic-
ular shooting war, and we again found our-
selves drifting downward. i
The third ^hd -most powerful surge forward
came in 1955 and 1956. Rapid development
of our natuhil resources, mainly by US con-
cerns, produced a powerful investment boom
in Canada. In fact, the boom was clealrly
excessive rfnd ought to have been checked.
Acute shortages developed resulting in strong
inflationary pressures.
One of the most unfortunate by-pW)ductg
of this situation was that the development
of essential social capital was seriously re-
tarded. Municipalities found it almost impos-
sible to obtain funds to provide even the
most elementary services. We are now pay-
ing the price for this lack of foresight. The
community has been starved of social capital.
This has obviously undesirable consequences
in terms of human welfare, and also has
undoubtedly been a factor in depressing
business activity.
No business can operate without the serv-
ices the community provides. Severe conges-
tion, lack of adequate transportation, water
and seWage facilities and of low cost housing,
the menace of air and water pollution ^ in-
adequate education resources, all help to
increase the cost of doing business to a de-
gree which cannot possibly be estimated, in
quantitative terms, but which is unquestion-
ably substantial. In fact, lack of : social
capital may very well be the most important
single factor contributing to a high' and
inflexible cost structure in Canada.
In the overall picture, the inevitable con-
sequence of the excessive boom of 1956 and
1957 was the bust which came in 1957 and
1958. Liberal propagandists are now fever-
ishly trying to create the impression that
recessions are the special prerogative of the
Tories. Tliey hope everyone will forget the
fact that the seeds of our present troubles
were all sown before 1957, when the lib-
erals, not the Tories, were in p6wer in
Ottawa.
Their total failure to control the boom of
1955-1956, to spread investment of the day
858
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
over a longer period of time and to allocate
scarce investment funds according to some-
thing approaching a sensible system of social
priorities was bound to result in collapse.
Indeed, the downturn had already started
while the Liberals were still in office, and
they gave no indication that they had any
clearer idea than the subsequent Conservative
administration of how to deal with it.
It is not my purpose, however, to assess
precise degrees of incompetence as between
two incompetent administrations. It would
take the wisdom of Solomon to do that. One
could forget the errors of the past if there
were any disposition to deal with" the prob-
lems of the future in an intelligent and
realistic way. Unfortunately, there is no
evidence of that at all.
The government of Ontario, like the gov-
ernment of Canada, is content to bask in the
reflected glory, such as it is, of the minor
recovery we are now enjoying, without any
thought about what comes after. This may
be good politics in a federal election year,
but it is bad economics, especially for a
government that now professes to have a
five-year plan.
Sooner or later we are going to have to
face the fact that the dynamic forces that
made for expansion in the decade or so
following the war are no longer present, and
there is no e\'idence at present of anything
to replace them. These forces, it should be
stated, were purely fortuitous. They were
not in any sense tlie product of government
policy either at Ottawa or Queen's Park.
But at least they existed, and it was feasible,
even if not sensible, for governments to drift
along with them— as they did, both at Ottawa
and Queen's Park.
Today we are in an entirely new situation,
and a policy of drift, which never was good
enough, is now entirely inadequate. Mr.
William Lougheed, the Toronto economist—
and an economist, I may say, who normally
represents the business point of view; he is
a very well qualified man but his associa-
tions are mainly with the business community
—summed the situation up in this way at
page 10 of his valuable new book, "Secondary
Manufacturing Industry in the Canadian
Economy.'*
From 1958 on it has become evident that
the economy has used up the head of
steam that formerly propelled it insistently
forward. The growth rate is diminishing,
and it is observable that boom periods are
becoming shorter and recoveries from
minor recessions longer and more trouble-
some.
Now, if I may interject for a minute, Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr.
Warrender) accused me a moment ago of
being a crepe-hanger. I have no doubt that
he would apply the saroe epithet to Mr.
Lougheed. Indeed, I would take it that he
would apply that epithet to any person who
wants to discuss our present situation in any
serious or realistic manner.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The hon. member
could get five economists to give the opposite
view.
Mr. Bryden: But continuing from Mr.
Lougheed, I would like to quote this:
Nothing appears at the present moraent
to be shaping up which would play a
part similar to the conditions of the 1945-
1949 period, or of the Korean War scare
which followed, or of the 1955-1956 round
of resource development and public in-
vestment.
Until some such stimulant as Mr. Lougheed
referred to appears or is created, we will
continue to limp along with chronic hard-
core unemployment and unused capacity.
There will undoubtedly be minor upturns
from time to time but the long-term condi-
tion is bound to be one of stagnation.
Moreover, there is no reason to believe
that we will be so lucky as we were in the
past, when strong expansionary forces ap-
peared spontaneously or fortuitously to
compensate for our own lack of policy. On
the contrary, all the evidence indicates that
external forces will be working against us
in many important respects.
The war-ravaged nations have now re-
covered and tliey are offering powerful com-
petition. The development of the European
Common Market and tlie probable adherence
of Britain and other outer seven countries
to it do not justify the immature squalling
we have heard from Ottawa during the past
year, but they certainly provide food for
serious thought The development of auto-
mation, both domestically and beyond our
boundaries, is already creating doubts and
fears and is bound to result in serious disloca-
tions in the near future. A stagnant economy
is not well equipped to deal with problems
of this kind.
The lesson is obvious. If we cannot count
on new expansionary forces to appear spon-
taneously, we must take positive steps to
create them. In this respect, our failure of
the past creates an opportunity for the future.
I have already referred to the shortage of
social capital which has been allowed to
MARCH 6, 1962
S59
develop in this country and province over
the years. Let us remedy this deficiency with
a bold, imaginative, co-ordinated programme
of public investment— to build the roads and
other transportation facilities, schools, hos-
pitals, houses, parks and recreation areas,
water and sewage works and power facilities
we need so l^adly, and to eliminate forever the
blight of slums and pollution. These are not
mere make- work projects; tliey will create
wealth as well as work for our people and
strength for our country and province.
There is no shortage of wealth-creating
projects to be undertaken. Our problem is to
make a proper selection and to develop a
programme that is both large enough and
balanced enough to produce maximum results.
The patch-and-paste type of public works
programmes this province has carried on in the
past and is still carrying on are not good
enough.
It is not sufficient to dive in here, there
and everywhere with makeshift programmes
designed merely to prevent growing crises
in various service areas from becoming
calamities. A carefully planned, long-term
programme of public investment, involving
close co-operation by both the federal and
provincial authorities, is clearly required.
I realize that talk of planned public invest-
ment conjures up visions of an undefined
calamity vaguely described as "creeping
socialism" in the minds of faint-hearted tories
in both Conservative and Liberal ranks. Per-
haps these escapists may be induced to face
reality by a voice from the business world,
and for that reason I would like to quote
another extract from the book of Mr. W. F.
Lougheed to which I have already referred.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Does the hon. member agree with his general
principle of attack?
Mr. Bryden: Oh, I think he has a very
sound argument. It would be surprising if
anyone agreed with everything he said, but
he certainly has a very sound thesis and a
very sound analysis. In my opinion, I think
it is an excellent book. But I would like
to read just one more sentence from it. This
is in the summary which appears at the very
beginning of the book and the page number
is roman numeral vi:
The horror of creeping socialism [he
says] is always with us and this fear is
not without basis, yet we must face the
fact that the economy is now suffering
from creeping paralysis. This is the choice.
Public investment to compensate for in-
adequate private investment is the only choice
sane men can make when faced with the
alternative of creeping paralysis. Not only
is it desirable in itself, but if undertaken on
a sufficiently large scale, it will provide the
stimulant to real growth which we now lack.
As it proceeds, new demands will be
created for the products of private industry.
The present excess capacity will disappear,
and provided with new opportunities, private
investment will revive. The result will be an
accelerating growth of the economy.
By itself, however, this will not be good
enough. We cannot afford to ignore the
lessons of 1955-1956. It is imperative that
in the future we avoid the uncontrolled kind
of boom we had then. Our aim should be
to stimulate steady and continuous growth,
avoiding the pitfalls of unemployment on
the one hand and inflation on the other.
This requires planning.
The subject of economic and social plan-
ning is one that has always been dear to my
heart, and I can assure the House that it
is only with the greatest of self-restraint that
I refrain from dealing with it in some detail
now. I do so in the expectation that I may
be able to express my ideas on this vital
subject more fully under the estimates of The
Department of Commerce and Development.
For the present I prefer to devote my atten-
tion to the more immediate problem of
restoring economic growth.
The budget discloses only two areas in
which significant new public investment is
contemplated.
The first is to pro\ide for the extension
of technical and vocational training facilities.
The programme envisaged is substantial and
very much needed.
It suffers, however, from the dlsadvantiage
of years of neglect by this government and
the then Liberal government at Ottawa of
the important problem of technical training.
As a result, the present programme is very
much of a shot-gun affair, blasted together
without adequate foresight or planning to
deal with an emergency that has now become
desperate.
From an investment point of view it is
useful, though by itself it is far from sufficient
to meet the requirements of the day; but from
the point of view of providing technical
training in a rational and efficient manner,
it leaves very much to be desired. Indications
are that substantial waste will result from
the wrong facilities being constructed in
the wrong places and, if I may add, from
the wrong courses being offered in many
instances, and this could have been avoided
by proper planning. This is a matter which
86a
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I hopie my. hon. colleagues and I will have
an opporhmity to deal with at another time.
The othJ^r hew departure the government
claims to have undertaken in the investment
field relates to' housing. The housing pro-
gramjTie which was first announced by the
hon. Prime Minister, is described in the
budget statement as "a new and bold effort
by the government to meet public housing
needs in the light of the greatly changed
conditions tliat now exist." .
^n fionl member: Bold and imaginative,
too.,
)Vlr. Bryden: The statement is bolder than
the programme, I may say. In fact, I would
say t^at it would take a lot of nerve to maTce
such a statement in view of the nature of
the programme. However,. I will proceed.
This, statenient sounds wonderful, but one
is entitled to be sceptical ip view of the
nunierous announcements this government has
made over the years of bold new housing
programmes which in practice did not amount
to anything. Perhaps the new hon. Prime
Minister and the new economic czar have
turned over a new leaf, but the evidence of
the . budget is not reassuring.
A little over $1 million is to be appropri-
ated on current account for housing in the
coming fiscal year, together with $5.6 million
on capital • account, making a total on all
accounts of a little more than $6.6 million
for this bold new housing programme. Over
the past five .years, annual appropriations for
housing on current and capital account taken
together ranged from a low of $5,776 million
in 1958-1959 to a high of $9,673 million in
1959-1960.
• In .other wordsj this year's appropriations
are ;. of .about the same magnitude as those
for previous, years. What, then, is so bold
about .the programme and what is so new?
It is tnte that in previous years the govern-
ment' actu&Uy spent only a fraction of the
amounts appropriated. The appropriations
were for window-dressing purposes only.
It is to be hoped that the appropriation
will actually be spent in the coming fiscal
year. If so, I agree something new will have
been added. Nevertheless, the total appro-
priation amounts to only two-thirds of one
per cent of the total budget.
If this is a "bold eflFort", I would hate to
contemplate, a timorous one. Clearly the
government Ls not serious about either
housing or investment.
r have already expressed the view that a
massive programme of public investment is
needed to restore to the economy the
dynamism it now lacks. I have also indicated
that such a programme will stimulate private
investment and will be reinforced by it.
The present situation is serious enough, how-
ever, that direct stimulants to private invest-
ment should also be considered.
In dealing with this subject, it is important
in my opinion to distinguish between measures
that have some reasonable prospect of
achieving the desired result and those which
will merely have the effect of making the
rich richer and this is a very important area
of debate at the present time, Mr. Speaker.
At the present time the community is being
deluged with a Hood of propaganda to the
effect that the level of government spending
and with it the burden of taxation in Canada
are too high to permit satisfactory economic
growth, and that if taxes on corporations and
wealthy individuals were reduced, economic
growth would be stimulated.
This mythology is the stock-in-trade of
Conservative and Liberal speakers as well as
many business leaders and editorial writers.
It is repeated time after time, yet I have
never seen a solitary shred of evidence to
support it. On the contrary, available
evidence points to a quite different con-
clusion. ^
The best available figures on rates of
economic growth have been produced by the
British National Institute of Economic and
Social Research and I would like, Mr.
Speaker, to refer to its Economic Review-
that is a publication— for July, 1961. This
publication showed that in the period between
1954 and 1959 Canada ranked tenth among
the nations of the western world in terms of
economic growth— Iron Curtain countries were
excluded from the study. Ahead of us were
Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Sweden, the
Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and the
United States, in that order.
Figures published in the United Nations
Yearbook of National Accounts indicate that
all of these countries except Japan and Italy
had heavier burdens of taxation than Canada,
and in most cases substantially heavier
burdens. Moreover, the same publication
shows that in the 1954-1959 period, ^bout
which we are talking, government spending
increased at a faster rate in all but one of
these countries than it did in Canada, and in
most cases at a much faster rate. The only
exception was the Netherlands.
Most of these countries, of course, have
more extensive social security systems than
MARCH 6, 1962
8fil
Canada, and this is a major reason for their
higher levels of taxation and government
spending. Their experience seems to indicate
that, notwithstanding the scare propaganda
of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, it
is not necessary to starve old age pensioners
and others in order to achieve a satisfactory
rate of economic growth.
The theory that reduced income and cor-
poration taxes will stimulate economic
activity is based on the claim that corpora-
tions and wealthy individuals undertake most
of the country's investment. If they have
ample funds available, it is claimed, they
will invest those funds in employment-
creating projects. The solution to our diffi-
culties, therefore, is to reduce the few pro-
gressive elements that now exist in our tax
structure and to shift more and more of the
burden of taxation from the rich to the poor,
as this government has already done with its
retail sales tax and as would still be the case
with the Wintermeyer version of this sales
tax.
This, of course, is a very comfortable theor>
for rich people and their spokesmen. If one
is not poor himself, it is always nice to think
that the way to save the country is to make
the poor tighten their belts. Such a proposi-
tion may be acceptable to the Conservative
and Liberal parties, which after all are essen-
tially the parties of special privilege, but I
can say quite categorically that it is not in
accord with the ideas of social justice held
by the New Democratic Party.
Moreover, it is not in accord with the
known facts regarding our current economic
difficulties in Canada and Ontario. Our prob-
lem is not a shortage of investment funds.
It is a shortage of investment opportunities.
Even the hon. Minister of Economics and
Development has had to recognize that in
a sentence that has already been quoted, but
I think is worth quoting again. It appears
on page 28 of his economic statement.
"There is still excess capacity in many of our
industries and until this is fully utilized
there will be no large-scale investment under-
taken in the private sector."
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: Now, I often disagree with
the hon. Minister, but notwithstanding the
immature chirping to my right from people
who do not understand these problems
thoroughly, I think he hit the nail right on
the head with that sentence. There will be
no large-scale investment in the private
sector as long as we have the present excess
capacity. Now let us face that fact and
work from it.
The crux of our problem is that consumer
diemand for goods and services is inadequate
to use to the full the productive capacity we
already possess. Therefore, it does not matter
how much money you try to put into the
hands of corporations and private individuals,
they will not invest in sufficient measure to
take up the present slack in the economy,
because they simply will not be able to find
sufficient opportunities for profitable invest-
ment.
That surely is just plain common sense.
No private individuals or corporations are
going to invest unless they can see a reason-
able opportunity for a profitable return on
the investment.
To shift the tax burden from the rich to
the poor will simply make matters worse, be-
cause it will reduce demand still further. I
liave made many criticisms of Ontario's new
sales tax, which I will not repeat here, but
my major criticism is that it necessarily
reduces demand to some extent, and to the
extent that it does, it helps to intensify our
economic difficulties. I submit, Mr. Speaker,
that is a basic economic objection with respect
to the timing of the tax which has never
been answered by the government or the
Liberal Party, both of whom favour this tax.
The futility of liberalized corporation tax
arrangements as a method of stimulating
investment under present conditions has been
demonstrated by the federal government's
experience over the past two years with its
provisions for accelerated depreciation. That
experience was well summarized in the
following paragraph which appeared in a
front page story in the Toronto Globe and
Mail on Febniary 28, 1962:
Trade officials believe that the tax
incentive devices introduced in the two
previous budgets, which consist mainly of
accelerated depreciation measures, have
had only a limited eff^ect in encouraging
the expansion of Canadian industry
required to provide an ever-increasing
demand for labour.
Mr. Sopha: Is the hon. member suggesting
we are advocating liberalized corporation
taxes? The hon. member should stop building
these straw men and knocking them down
and proving he is such a great-
Mr. Bryden: I have not had anything to
do with straw men at all. I leave that depart-
ment entirely to the hon. member for Sudbury
(Mr. Sopha). He is an expert at it.
862
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Tlie hon. member for Sudbury drivels on
and on in this House. Admittedly when he
has the floor his efforts are pretty poor, so he
tries to improve upon them when other people
have the floor.
Mr. Sopha: I am not immodest like the
hon. member for Woodbine and the hon.
Minister of Economics (Mr. Macaulay), I
admit tliat.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
carry my argument a stage further. Measures
which merely liberalize corporation tax
arrangements will not only not produce the
desired result in the current situation, but
they are positively harmful in that they in-
tensify another serious difficulty facing us at
the present time. I refer to the increasing
concentration of private investment funds
in the hands of a relatively small number of
corporations.
The days when new development was
financed mainly by placing new issues on the
stock market are long departed. Such de-
velopment is now usually financed by corpor-
ations, primarily out of depreciation and
depletion allowances and secondarily, and I
may say to a very considerable extent, out
of undistributed profits.
Canadians as individuals are frequently
accused of being unwilling to take risks. In
my opinion, tliis accusation is unjust. Their
problem is not that they are unwilling to
invest in risk-taking enterprises but that they
have little opportunity to do so. The average
citizen, unless he wants to take a wild
gamble on moose pasture, has little option
but to put his savings into bonds or insur-
ance policies or stocks that are already
trading on the market and whose purchase
does not represent any new investment.
Private investment is now becoming the
prerogative not of people but of faceless and
soulless corporations. This has led Eric W.
Kierans, president of the Montreal and Can-
adian Stock Exchanges, "to pause and to
muse on the future of a capitalistic system
that has no further need for more capitalists."
The result is that monopoly control is
rapidly being extended and tightened.
Relatively small groups of managers of in-
creasingly powerful corporations are more
and more taking over decision-making func-
tions within our economy.
When decisions are to be made as to
whether to invest or how to invest the funds
of the company, these managers quite natur-
ally determine their course according to what
they consider to be in the best interests
of their respective companies. But the best
interests of a particular corporation do not
necessarily correspond at any given time with
the best interests of the community as a
whole.
Mr. Sopha: Would the hon. member permit
a question? I would like to ask the hon.
member, with his permission, sir, whether
in Saskatchewan the corporations that ran the
leather tannery, the shoe factory, the paint
spray company, the woollen mill, the hous-
ing corporation, the box factory and the
sodium sulphate plant, whether those cor-
porations were faithless and soulless?
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): They
were boycotted by the rest of the country.
Mr. Bryden: I think it would be rather
dangerous to confuse the hon. member with
facts, Mr. Speaker, so I will ignore his per-
fectly frivolous question.
The problem is compounded in Canada by
the fact that most of our large corporations
are controlled from outside the country. We
are thus in the unenviable position where
many important decisions affecting our wel-
fare may be made from outside the country
on the basis of factors that have little or
nothing to do with our own best interests.
I submit that everything possible should
be done to reverse this trend. I believe it
is in the public interest that power to make
investment decisions in the private sector
be spread as widely as possible.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the
reactions of some of the hon. gentlemen in
both of the other groups to what I have been
saying up to now, I have come to the con-
clusion that I and my associates are perhaps
the only exponents of free enterprise in this
House. These other fellows apparently are
in favour of bureaucratic corporations con-
trolling the country.
Not only will this spread of investment
decision help to curb monopoly power, but
it will make for greater flexibility and, if I may
use this word, Mr. Speaker, greater venture-
someness in investment activity. The inherent
conservatism— and I think one could use both
a large and a small "C" in this particular
context— of the large bureaucratic corporations
is notorious and inevitable. It is simply the
product of its size. It is not a ground for
criticism, but there it is, the conservatism is
there.
MARCH 6, 1962
863
The fact that such large corporations have
so large a say in private investment decisions
is in my opinion an important factor holding
back growth at the present time.
In the light of this analysis I would like
to propose a number of measures which I be-
lieve will genuinely stimulate private invest-
ment and thereby reinforce the programme of
public investment which I have already said is
essential to full economic recovery.
My first suggestion is that the taxes on
corporation profits which are distributed to
the shareholders in dividends should be re-
duced—and I would say significantly reduced,
perhaps even with the ultimate objective of
eliminating them altogether— provided that
taxes on undistributed profits are retained at
least at their present level and preferably
increased, and provided also that the present
provisions regarding depreciation and de-
pletion allowances are substantially tightened
up.
Mr. Sopha: What is the hon. member's
objection? What jurisdiction does this Legis-
lature have over that?
Mr. Bryden: I had understood that the hon.
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) took up the
time of instructors at Osgoode Hall, and if he
did not learn from them that provinces have
powers in the field of direct taxation, I can-
not take responsibility for his education at
this time.
Mr. Sopha: What association have I with
Osgoode Hall? I graduated from the other
place.
Mr. Bryden: The effect of the provision
that I have just put forward would be to
induce corporations to disgorge at least some
of their retained profits. The shareholder
would begin to come into his own again, and
why shouldn't he? Theoretically, he is
supposed to own the company.
What is more important, potential invest-
ment funds would be spread more widely,
and investment decisions would be more
varied and flexible.
The company itself would suffer no harm
in the event that it had expansion plans of its
own. In all probability it would no longer
have enough funds in its own treasury to carry
out its plans, but that would hardly—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: And this would not
affect the numbers of shares?
Mr. Bryden: I think if dividends went up
that maybe the value of the shares would
increase.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: If dividends went
down, and the hon. member had forced this
kind of thing on us—
Mr. Bryden: I am proposing a distribution
of profits, a greater distribution than now
takes place. I know that the hon. Minister
has trouble with arithmetic, but that is going
to make dividends go up. The money that
I want to get out of the hands of the cor-
porations I suggest should go into the hands
of the shareholders. I think that would
create a very desirable element of flexibility
in our economic structure and in our invest-
ment structure.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I see. Then what does
the company use to invest?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): They
may borrow, like they used to do, in days
gone by, instead of getting it all-
Mr. Bryden: In all probability, a company
that wanted to expand would not have enough
funds in its own treasury to carry out its
plans.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I would like to
draw the attention of hon. members once
again to the fact that one speaker at a time
is quite sufficient in this Chamber. It is most
difficult for me, and I am sure many of the
other hon. members, to hear what the speaker
is saying when there is all the undercurrent
and interjection.
Mr. Bryden: I was trying to suggest, Mr.
Speaker, that the fact that a corporation is
not in a position to finance its expansion
entirely out of its own treasury should not
be regarded as a disadvantage. My suggestion
is that such a company can readily remedy
the deficiency by going to the market. I
would like to ask these hon. gentlemen, who
claim that they are exponents of the free-
enterprise system, what is wrong with ask-
ing a company to meet the test of the market,
which most of them can now escape?
Mr. Sopha: The hon. member could not
blame that speech on anybody else. He did
write that.
Mr. Bryden: I would further suggest, Mr.
Speaker, that the government would not suffer
any loss of revenue under my plan. It is true
that the revenue from corporation taxes would
be reduced but this would be compensated
for and probably more than compensated for
by increased revenues from the income taxes
paid by the people receiving increased
864
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
dividejnds. "I am assuming, of course, that the
present dividend tax credit would be eUmi-
nated, but this seems to be a fair assumption
since there could be no conceivable argument
for the retention of that credit under the
proposal 'I am now making.
It is true that if the provincial government
adopted this proposal on its own it could
very well lose revenue with the compensating
gain going to the federal government because
of the way in which the corporation and
income tax revenues are divided up. I believe,
however, that in this as in other proposals
I will make, there should be close co-opera-
tion between the federal and provincial
governments and I am satisfied that they
can jointly work out a plan that would be of
benefit to both the country and the province
and would not have any unfortunate con-
sequences for the treasuries of either the
federal government or the provincial govern-
ment.
The next suggestion I would like to make,
Mr. Speaker, is one that is now causing a
fair degree of public discussion, even to the
point where the financial critic of the Liberal
Party has picked it up. As I said earlier,
it was the only concrete suggestion he made
in quite a lengthy and vigorous speech.
The proposal, as I indicated at the time,
came from the programme of the New
Democratic Party and I would like to refer
to page 6 of that programme which has been
published in a booklet form and which I
think-
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: What date was that?
Mr. Bryden: This was adopted at the
founding tonvention of the New Democratic
Party held in Ottawa at the end of July and
the beginning of August. It represented a
digest of documents that had been circulated
a year or more before then and had been
under discussion widiin the New Democratic
Party for considerably more than a year
prior to August, 1961. But I am now taking
the oflBcial statement which was adopted by
the convention.
In that programme the New Democratic
Party advocates the establishment of a
Canadian development fund "to give Cana-
dians a greater opportunity to invest in the
future of their own country." I believe that
such a fund should be set up and I believe-
apparently this is now a matter of unanimity
as far as principle, at any rate, is concerned
within this House— I believe that we should
have a similar fund in Ontario.
I would like to make certain suggestions,
however, as to the composition of this fund,
because I am not quite sure if the specific
ideas I have in mind are as readily acceptable
to other hon. members. Perhaps they are,
perhaps they are not, but I would like to
put my ideas on the record. I believe that
the fund should consist of money contributed
in part by the government, together with
funds subscribed by the public on a share
capital basis.
Such a fund would provide the government
with some of the capital required for develop-
ment purposes. I really do not believe, Mr.
Speaker, that it could be stretched as far as
the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher)
apparently thinks, but, as I indicated earlier,
the hon. gentlemen on the Liberal benches
are always mesmerised by funds. They seem
to think that they can use the same dollar
in many difiFerent ways provided they have
it in a fund. However, I do agree that it
would provide some of the capital required
for development purposes.
It would not necessarily be used for
the purposes of public enterprise, although
that possibility should certainly not be ruled
out; it would also be available to assist private
enterprises of merit and joint public-private
enterprises. Above all— and as a matter of
fact, this is a feature of it to which particular
attention was called in the federal programme
of the New Democratic Party and the one
which appeals to me the most— it would give
the man of limited means an opportunity
he does not now possess to invest a little bit
of his savings in Ontario and in Ontario's
development.
In the past the government has boasted
loudly and at length about the development
of Ontario, but essentially what it has been
talking about is the Oshawa-Toronto-Hamil-
ton-Niagara complex and a few other isolated
spots in the province. A study of the Ontario
Survey— I think that is the title, it is hard
to tell from this frontispiece exactly what the
title is, but I believe it is Ontario Survey-
published by The Ontario Department of
Economics in 1961— a very excellent piece of
work, I may say, one for which I congratulate
the department and the hon. Minister.
An hon. member: Is there a picture of the
hon. Minister in it?
Mr. Bryden: Very likely, but I missed that
part. I was more interested in some of the
more thrilling sections of the publication. A
study of that survey indicates that those
parts of Ontario which have similar economic
characteristics to those of the less advanced
parts of Canada are similarly retarded in
their development.
MARCH 6, 1962
865
After all, this growth that took part in
some sections was not produced by the gov-
ernment. This is demonstrated by the fact
that they were not able to produce it in
other parts of the province.
In other words, the development that has
taken place in the province in the past 15
years has been localized and has really had
nothing to do with government policy. Un-
fortunately, it has been dazzling enough to
blind the government to serious problems of
imbalance. On the one hand, slow strangula-
tion is rapidly inflating costs in the metro-
politan complex, while other parts of the
province are suffering from underdevelop-
ment.
Concessions on corporation taxes are de-
vices that can be used legitimately to counter
this trend, and I would urge the provincial
and federal governments to get together in
working out a programme along these lines.
Now, I do not think they disagree with
me, why do they not do something about it?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Is the hon. member
quoting this, or is it his opinion on it?
Mr. Bryden: Anything I say is usually my
opinion unless I specify otherwise.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Let us be fair, it does
not sound anything more like the hon. mem-
ber than the man in the moon. Is he talking
about what he is saying or is he quoting
somebody?
Mr. Bryden: This is completely in accord
with my ideas of economic planning.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: As of when?
Mr. Bryden: As of a good many years ago.
And in accordance with views that I have
expressed in this House and other places
before. Tax incentives by themselves are
probably not enough— they undoubtedly
should be supplemented by direct subsidies
and public enterprise in appropriate circum-
stances—but they will certainly be helpful.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is a complete
reversal of policy.
Mr. Bryden: The great difficulty that the
hon. Minister of Economics always suffers
under is that he never pays attention, or
rarely pays attention, to what anybody else
says. He attributes to other people his own
twisted version of what he thinks they ought
to say, and then he blasts them for that.
Anything he has ever attributed to us has not
even a coincidental resemblance to what we
have said in the past. I am grateful, Mr.
Speaker, that at long last I appear to be
contributing something to the enlightenment
of the hon. Minister.
Coming to another and related point, I
believe that concessions on corporation taxes
can also be used to encourage enterprises
subject to heavy seasonal unemployment to
spread their operations more evenly over
the year. I would suggest that the federal
and provincial governments should work out
a joint programme of rebates on corporation
taxes for off-season production undertaken by
firms in specified seasonal industries.
An hon. member: Where did tlie hon.
member get that?
Mr. Bryden: It is all in our programme.
The only trouble is that these hon. gentlemen
go around spreading the most grotesque
falsehoods about our programme to the point
where they begin to believe them themselves,
and the truth comes to them as a great
surprise.
Mr. Sopha: The hon. member stood in
this House and he advocated increasing tax-
ation on natural resource industries.
Mr. Bryden: I still do.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Now I will appeal to
the hon. members for the third time, in one
afternoon. I will point out that the budget
debate is just starting and all hon. members
will have an opportunity to speak on it. At
this point, in the early part of the debate,
we more or less set the stage for the entire
debate and I am sure that when hon. mem-
bers themselves wish to speak, they will wish
to obtain order. As a matter of fact, I find
that some of the worst offenders, as far as I
am concerned, are some that insist on order
from the Speaker when they are speaking
themselves.
I would ask the hon. member to proceed.
Mr. Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will not attempt to penetrate the fog sur-
rounding the hon. member for Sudbury, Mr.
Speaker, but I would merely mention that
what I am talking about now has nothing
to do with revenues from natural resources.
I am talking about problems of seasonal em-
ployment which undoubtedly affect the
resource industries to some extent, but it is
a much more widespread problem than that.
Mr. Sopha: If the Speaker permitted me, I
would say to the hon. member, do not try to
weasel out of it.
866
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bryden: I would be very happy at any
time to repeat what I have said previously
about taxation of resources, but frankly, Mr.
Speaker, I think I have stated my views on
that a good many times in this House and
I do not really think it is necessary to repeat
them. I am quite sure that hon. members
are familiar with them.
There are some other matters, however,
that I would like to deal with. The final
suggestion I have to make is one of somewhat
more long-term import. I would propose
that the federal and provincial governments
should work out a plan to induce private
industry to deposit part of its retained earn-
ings in special accounts, which would be
released for investment only at times to be
determined by an appropriate government
planning agency. The inducement given to
industry to co-operate in such a project would
be reduction or elimination of the corporation
tax on any profits deposited in the special
accounts.
Experience in Sweden has demonstrated
that such a device can be very useful in
levelling out the business cycle. In periods
when private investment is too high and
threatening to produce inflation, private com-
panies can be induced to defer some of their
plans. Subsequently when private investment
begins to fall off, the deferred investment can
be brought into play to offset the natural
trend towards reduced economic activity and
rising unemployment.
I realize that there is no need to induce
industry to defer investment at the present
time. We should, however, be looking to the
future. If the federal and provincial govern-
ments would undertake the large-scale pro-
gramme of public investment which I am
advocating, we can reasonably look forward
to a time in the not-too-distant future when
strong inflationary pressures will again be
present in the economy. It is only common
sense to start laying the groundwork now for
plans to offset those forces when they appear.
Certainly, a plan of the type I have just
outlined would have been useful in control-
ling the boom of 1955-1956 and the sub-
sequent recession.
I believe that the various proposals I have
made, when taken together, will solve our
number one domestic problem in Canada
today— the problem of inducing a sufficiently
high rate of growth to eliminate unemploy-
ment.
Basically our problem is lack of demand
for the goods and services we are already able
to produce. . I think that almost all econ-
omists agree that increased investment is the
most effective stimulant of demand. Because
of the so-called multiplier effect, any given
amount of money spent on investment will
have a much more powerful influence than
the same amount spent directly on consump-
tion. In the present situation, however,
private investment itself is insufficient because
of the insufficiency of demand.
The only way to get out of this vicious
circle is to use public investment to compen-
sate for inadequate private investment. This
will stimulate private investment since it will
provide opportunities which do not now exist.
In addition, I have proposed that certain dir-
ect stimulants for private investment should
also be provided.
The measures I have proposed are instru-
ments of planning. In view of the ill-informed
charge often made that planning necessarily
involves large-scale regimentation, I would
like to point out that not one of the proposals
I have made would involve any compulsion
of any kind whatever. They would provide
stimuli and offer inducements and incentives,
but they would not require anybody to do
anything.
The point is that each of them is part of
a co-ordinated programme which, in turn,
is based on a careful analysis of the exact
nature of the problem facing us. This in my
view is the essence of democratic planning,
and, as I indicated earlier, I expect that I will
have an opportunity to elaborate those views
at a later time.
Mr. Speaker, I have completed that phase
of my address which relates to the budget
and to the economic situation in the province.
There is, however, one other matter unrelated
to the budget itself, which I would like to
deal with, and perhaps, since it is now 6
o'clock, that could be deferred until after
the recess.
It being 6 of the clock, the House took
recess.
No. 31
ONTARIO
Hegisilature of (2^ntario
Betiatesf
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Tuesday, March 6, 1962
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk : Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3D0. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 6, 1962
Resumption of the debate on the budget, Mr. Bryden, continued 869
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. White, agreed to 875
Estimates, Department of Agriculture, Mr. Stewart, continued 875
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 897
869
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
when I left off just before the recess, I had
completed my remarks that were specifically
directed to the budget and to the economic
situation in which the budget is presented.
The budget debate is traditionally a time
when private members can call atten-
tion to grievances. There are a number of
grievances that I could feel quite justified
in bringing to the attention of the House
but, in view of the amount of time I have
already taken in this debate, I will confine
myself to one which in my opinon is of
such major importance that no opportunity
should be missed to deal with it.
I am referring to the situation existing in
the Metropolitan Toronto jail, otherwise
known as the Don Jail. I heard the state-
ment made, before the orders of the day,
on this subject by the hon. Minister of
Refonn Institutions (Mr. Haskett). I am
happy to note that after years and years
of efi^ort on the part of many people to move
the government to take some action to
remedy a totally ridiculous situation, at last
under the new hon. Minister a step is being
taken. At least, I would judge— I have not
had time to study his statement— but I would
judge a step has been taken to remove the
employees from the totally impossible situ-
ation they were in where, year after year,
year in and year out, for about 10 years,
action on their legitimate and very urgent
grievances was never taken, because the
province of Ontario passed the buck to the
city of Toronto, or the municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, the municipality
passed it back to the province.
And so it went, back and forth, no action
ever taken, the employees admitted on all
sides to be grossly underpaid, without proper
procedures for dealing with grievances, with-
out proper procedures for negotiating reason-
able working conditions. I would judge from
the statement of the hon. Minister that this
situation is now remedied and the jurisdic-
tion turned over entirely to the municipal-
ity of Metropolitan Toronto.
Tuesday, March 6, 1962
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Reform Insti-
tutions): If I may correct the hon. member;
about to be.
Mr. Bryden: About to be, yes. I think
that will be beneficial to the employees
because the municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto, I think, has a pretty good record
in labour-management relations and it pays
reasonably good wages. I am certain that
when these employees get to deal with the
Metro council they will at least have their
association recognized— if it still exists— and
that is a point I will deal with in a moment.
They will be able to negotiate some sort of
a collective agreement which will, I trust
and I feel sure, provide for quite substantial
wage increases which are long overdue.
So that is a constructive step in a situ-
ation which had come to appear almost
hopeless.
But I would like to state, Mr. Speaker,
that it does not by any means remedy the
injustice-
Mr. R. Cisborn (Wcntworth East): On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, could we please
draw your attention to the squabbling and
arguments that are going on to my left. I
am close to my colleague but I can hardly
hear him myself. Would you call these
gentlemen to order so that we can hear the
fine presentation the hon. member is making?
Mr. Bryden: I would like to state, Mr.
Speaker, that the step that the hon. Minister
announced today, though valuable, still does
not wipe out the gross injustice that was
perpetrated in this institution over the past
few months.
It came as a matter of surprise and regret
to many of us to discover not long ago
that the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. War-
render) had blatantly lined himself up on
the side of the Royal York Hotel and the
Canadian Pacific Railway in their clear at-
tempt to smash a union of employees of
the Royal York Hotel. This was shocking
to many of us but after a little reflection,
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I found it
was not so surprising after all; because.
870
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
wlien you get right down to it, tlie govern-
ment itself was engaged in what was noth-
ing more than an attempt to smash an asso-
ciation of employees in Metro Toronto jail.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: Well, there is an old quota-
tion to the effect that there is no use in
crying "peace, peace" when there is no
peace. And peace cannot be based on in-
justice. A fundamental injustice took place
at the Don Jail that has not been rectified;
and as far as I am concerned, there will be
no peace until it has been rectified.
It began when an employee of that insti-
tution—perhaps it began a little earlier than
that. Some time last summer, I think in
July, the government arbitrarily removed
from the employees of that institution the
grievance procedure which they had gained
for themselves after very long and arduous
efforts, and which was the only concession
they ever had managed to get. This was
arbitrarily taken away from them, so they
were left again completely defenceless as
they had been before. Then, back two or
three months ago, an employee of that insti-
tution committed what apparently was the
unforgivable crime of dyeing his hair.
This became a matter of great moment in
the institution; it reached beyond the particu-
lar employee concerned and by a curious
coincidence, Mr. Speaker, in no time at all
the president of the employees' association in
that institution, which is a branch of the
Civil Service Association of Ontario, found
himself involved in this matter.
As far as I have been able to determine,
the sum total of his action was to carry out
what I think would be quite properly re-
garded as the duty of a president of an
employees' association— to relay from the em-
ployee who was under the gun to the
association information that this employee
was under the gun. For this heinous offence,
the president of the association, Mr. James
Keatings, was suspended and subsequently
was dismissed.
An hon. member: Good.
Mr. V. M. Singer (^'ork Centre): That is a
typical Tory remark.
Mr. Bryden: This, I would call to the
attention of the House, is a very ancient
device. If you want to smash a union or an
association, fire the person who is the leading
figure in the association. Mr. James Keat-
ings, as everyone knows, was for a long time
the spearhead of the association in the Don
Jail; he was the man who provided leader-
ship to the other employees, and an oppor-
tunity was seized to get rid of him. This is
a very old union-busting device.
We hear many suggestions from the gov-
ernment benches at this moment that what
I am saying is "bosh". Is that one of the
words I heard? I do not know, but words to
that effect. So I would like to put it on a
broader basis than merely my "say so".
I have here an article which appeared in
the Toronto Telegram for January 9, 1962,
written by Mr. Frank Tumpane. Now, my
observation is that Mr. Tumpane is a man
who, temperamentally, I think, is inclined in
the main to support the Conservative position.
He is, I think, a man of independent judg-
ment; but I think his temperament tends in
the Conservative direction. That is his busi-
ness and he is quite entitled to his views, in
my opinion. But I think that should be borne
in mind as we hear just what Mr. Tumpane
had to say about this disgraceful episode at
the Don Jail. The heading of his article is:
"What Goes On Here?" and I am going to
read the whole article, because I think it
sums up the situation very well:
This business of the jail guard who
dyed his hair has ceased to be a joke.
The affair began with a light-hearted
discussion of whether a man with grey hair
has the same right as a woman to dye his
hair. It has now gone far beyond that.
As a consequence of the situation, two
other guards at the jail have been fired, the
guard with the dyed hair has been sus-
pended for 10 days, and the public is
confused about the whole issue.
As far as the public is concerned, one
man has been suspended over a triviality
and two otliers have been deprived of their
livelihoods for speaking on his behalf. I
can hardly believe that is the whole story;
but if it is not, then what is? The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions owes the
public a full explanation of this matter, an
explanation that will be frank and not
evasive.
And if I may interject here, Mr. Speaker,
we have had no such explanation as yet.
One of the guards who was dismissed
has two children, the other has three. To
fire men with children depending on them
is a serious matter at any time. In the
present instance, it seems outrageous.
Any reasonable person recognizes that
an institution like the Toronto jail can only
be operated with strict discipline and rules
that must be obeyed. Nor is it necessary
1
MARCH 6, 1962
871
to discuss every internal personnel problem
in public.
Nevertheless, .the case of the guard with
dyed hair received publicity through the
entire country. The jail authorities may no
longer plead that it is a private matter
that should be handled quietly. It has
become a public matter.
The public is suspicious. What is going
on at the Toronto jail? Are men fired to
satisfy the stuffed-shirt dignity of their
superiors?
One guard is said to have been fired for
telling the press about his colleague who
was threatened with dismissal for dyeing
his hair. The other guard lost his job for
failing to answer questions at the inquiry
into the matter.
What were the nature of the questions he
refused to answer? This man was president
of a branch iof a civil service association,
and the strong implication is that he was
fired for. union activity.
I repeat that I am quoting Mr. Tumpane,
these are not my words. He goes on to say:
If he was not—
that is, if the man was not fired for union
activity:
—then I, as one citizen, would like to be
assured that he was not, and would like
the assurance supported by facts.
The three guards involved in this matter
have forfeited any right to privacy. They
were the ones who brought the matter
themselves before the tribunal of public
opinion. If their superiors have any further
evidence against tliem, evidence that will
convince the pubhc of the justice of their
dismissals, the . authorities should reveal
what it is.
All that has emerged so far bears a
strong resemblance to pure malice, as if
the authorities in The Department of
Reform Institutions had declared: "Make
us look ridiciilous by telling that story to
the press, will you? Well, well show you.
Well fire you."
Finally— and this issue has almost been
lost sight of— is it against the rules of The
Department of Reform Institutions for a
male employee to dye his grey hair black?
If it is, why is it?
And, as far as I'm concerned, it will
not suffice in reply to say that it's because
the jail governor doesn't like men who dye
their hair black.
The man who should be answering these
questions is not the jail governor, nor the
Deputy Minister of Reform Institutions,
both of whom are employees themselves.
The man who should be answering the
questions is the Hon. Irwin Haskett, the
Minister of Reform Institutions, who has
had practically nothing to say so far.
I think we can update this and bring it
to tlie present date; he still has had practically
nothing to say— in fact I do not remember
him saying anything.
And then the final sentence in Tumpane's
article:
It is time for him to start talking.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources ) : Does the hon. member know
where this should have been raised? In the
estimates of The Department of Reform
Institutions.
Mr. Bryden: Well, the estimates have not
come up yet but maybe we will raise it
there too if the hon. Minister wishes.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
read into the record a written statement of
Mr. James Keatings, who is one of the men
who was fired, the man who was the president
of the local branch of the civil service asso-
ciation. This statement reads as follows:
I, James Keatings, age 29 years, of 61
Langley Avenue, Toronto, a guard em-
ployed at the Metro Toronto Jail will state:
On Thursday, 14th December 1961, I
reported for duty at the jail for the eleven
p.m. to seven a.m. shift at approximately
10 p.m. On entering the guardroom I over-
heard a discussion between a number of
guards and I gathered that they were dis-
cussing the position of a guard, Mr. T. B.
Keatinge.
One of the difficulties in this matter, Mr.
Speaker, is the confusion of names. The man
who dyed his hair was Mr. Keatinge; the man
who was president of the branch of the asso-
ciation is Mr. Keatings. Mr. Keatings' state-
ment says:
I gathered that they were discussing the
position of a guard, Mr. T. B. Keatinge,
who had apparently been before the
governor because he had dyed his hair.
At 10.45 p.m. I was making my way to
my corridor when I passed Mr. Keatinge,
who stopped me and handed me a letter
and requested that I pass it along to the
proper authorities at the Civil Service Asso-
ciation of Ontario.
At 8.30 a.m., Friday, December 15, I
delivered the letter to Mr. Harold Bowen,
Executive Secretary of the CSAO. During
the weekend 16-17 December, I received
872
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
* a number of calls from Mr. Keatinge, re-
^ questing advice, and in each case I re-
ferred him to the CSAO head office.
On Thursday, December 19, 1961, I
reported for duty at the jail at 10.40 p.m.
I was then informed by Mr. A. Grey, Chief
Turnkey, that Mr. Frost, Assistant Deputy
Governor, wanted to see me in his office.
I reported to the office and on entering I
saw Mr. Frost seated at the desk, and Mr.
Garrett, another Cliief Turnkey, was stand-
ing nearby.
Mr. Frost then said: "You are ordered to
appear before the chief inspcK^tor at 3 p.m.
tomorrow, Wednesday, December 20." I
asked him to repeat the statement and he
did so and I said: "Mr. Frost, 1 regret I
cannot make it at that time, I have a pre-
set appointment which I cannot alter." Mr.
Frost then replied: "I am only the message
boy around here." I then said: "You are
aware that I am on niglit shift; I have been
given insufficient time to make myself avail-
able; am I not supposed to sleep?" He then
rephed: "Well that's that, I have given you
the message." I then left the room and
commenced my regular duties.
At 2.45 p.m., Wednesday, December 20,
I presented myself at the jail. Two guards
were outside the office occupied by the
inspectors, Mr. Moore and Mr. H. Clarke.
Mr. V. Hughes, who was acting as escort-
ing officer, told me that I would be going
in after the others. The two waiting guards
were clear at approximately 3.15 p.m., and
at 3.40 p.m., Mr. Jacobs, inspector,
beckoned me into the room. I entered and
saw Mr. Wright, Chief Inspector, seated
at the Governor's desk. I noticed a record-
ing machine before him together with a
number of press-clippings.
He reminded me of the powers of an
inspector regarding inquiries, and he then
asked me if I would be wilhng to take
the oath. I agreed, and he then switched
on the recorder and after administering the
oath, and identifying myself, he asked me
if I was in fact the president of Branch 91
of the Civil Service Association of Ontario.
I said that I was. He then drew my atten-
tion to the press-clippings which contained
three photographs of guard Simonson. I
had previously seen these photographs in
the Telegram.
He then asked me if I had been
approached in any way with regard to Mr.
T. B. Keatinge, and I replied: "Sir, my
involvement with regards this incident is
as follows. Mr. Keatinge approached me
and handed me a statement relating to his
incident, and asked me to pass it along to
the proper authorities at the civil service
association, which I did. That is the sum
total of my involvement in this aflFair."
Mr. Wright replied: "Mr. Keatinge made a
phone call to you prior to appearing before
me, and you told him not to answer any
questions. Is this correct?" I replied:
"That is not correct, and may I add that I
have made my statement under oath, with
regards my implication and involvement in
this matter, and I cannot add anything to
it."
He then asked me if I could give any
information regarding the publicity given
to this incident, and I replied: "Sir, I
respectfully decline, and I repeat I have
made my statement." The chief inspector
then said: "Mr. Keatings, are you aware
that as chief inspector I have the power to
carry out such an inquiry under The Jails
Inspection Act, I would like to remind you
of the seriousness of the situation, and
grant you five minutes to reconsider." I
replied: "Thank you for your considera-
tion, I have no desire to reconsider, and
again state that I have made my state-
ment, and have nothing further to add. I
respectfully decline and again I repeat I
have made my statement."
The chief inspector then said, "Mr. Keat-
ings, are you aware that as chief insx)ector
I have the power to carry out such an
inquiry under The Jails Inspection Act. I
would like to remind you of the seriousness
of the situation, and again grant you five
minutes to reconsider." I replied: "Thank
you for your consideration, I have no de-
sire to reconsider, and again state that I
have made my statement and have nothing
further to add. I respectfully decline to
make any further comment."
Mr. Wright then read for approximately
one minute from The Jails Inspection Act.
When he had finished I said: "Thank you,
sir, but on the advice of the association
I have nothing further to add." He then
again offered me five minutes to reconsider,
and I again thanked him, and declined.
He then drew my attention to the serious-
ness of the situation, and stated that he
had no alternative but to suspend me. I
replied: "That is your decision, sir, I have
given my statement under oath, with re-
gards all I know in this matter." He then
said: "I am sorry Mr. Keatings, you are
suspended until this inquiry is completed."
I thanked him and left the jail.
I have read the above statement before
signing and have found it correct.
MARCH 6, 1962
873
Mf. J. R. Simonett (Frontenac-Addington):
Where did the hon. member get that?
Mr. Bryden: I got it from Mr. Keatings.
Mr. Simonett: Under oath?
Mr. Bryden: No, it is not vmder oath, but
perhaps he should be asked, along with some
others, to make a statement under oath.
Mr. Simonett: He must have a good
memory.
Mr. Bryden: Well, in reference to the
crack that he had a good memory, apparently
implying that he was fabricating some of the
story, I think from knowing him reasonably
well that he is the careful and intelligent
type of man who would make very extensive
notes of an interview of this kind.
Mr. Simonett: We will accept your word.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Does the hon. member know him?
Probably that is where all the trouble came
from.
Mr. Bryden: I am acquainted with him.
An hon. member: That does not help him
any.
Mr. Bryden: I am proud to say that I have
tried to bring the situation at the Don Jail to
the attention of the public and the authorities
on many occasions in the past, and naturally
in that work I have become acquainted with
Mr. Keatings.
Now, here is a further statement from Mr.
Keatings, which I think at least in part is
relevant to the matter under discussion, and
I would therefore like to read some of it.
On Friday, January 5, 1962, at 10 p.m.,
Mr. Dougall phoned me at home and asked
me to come in and see him the next
morning, Saturday, January 6, 1962, at
10:30 a.m.
The hon. members will realize that at this
time Mr. Keatings was under suspension and
therefore was not regularly reporting for
duty.
By telephone to T. B. Keatinge and Mr.
T. Simonson, I discovered that they, too,
were to report at 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 re-
spectively; we agreed to go together. The
following morning, Saturday, January 6,
we entered the jail at 10.00 a.m. At
10.15 a.m., Mr. T. B. Keatinge went into
the governor's office; he came out at 10.18
a.m. '
I passed him and went in. As I entered,
Mr. Dougall was standing talking to Mr.
Woodside, assistant governor. The gov-
ernor looked at me and after passing the
time of morning he said he was not going
to answer any questions I may have or
discuss anything with me, but that he was
only going to read a letter to me from the
Minister of Reforms, Mr. Haskett. He did
so and its context stated that I was dis-
missed for flagrant contravention of The
Jails Inspection Act, and my dismissal was
retroactive to the date of my suspension,
December 20, 1961.
I asked Mr. Dougall if I could have the
letter, he said no. I then asked for a
copy, and this to was denied. I then
asked if I at least had the right to read
it. This was allowed, and I noted the
signature was A. Graham, Deputy Minister.
I left the office and Mr. Simonson went in,
and came out in approximately three
minutes.
There is a little more but it is not of any
particular consequence. I think the substance
of the matter is now before the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that
in a jail it is necessary in certain situations
to adopt rather arbitrary procedures in the
interests of security. Emergencies arise from
time to time where security becomes the
paramount interest and other matters take
second place. But there was no issue of
security involved here. The procedures that
are provided to deal with security problems
were abused, in this instance, to deprive
employees of their democratic right to a fair
hearing. The tribunal before which Mr.
Keatings appeared was nothing but a
"Kangaroo Court," acting under legal pro-
visions that were not designed to deal with
such a situation under any circumstances.
It was an extraordinary procedure that
should only have been adopted in an extra-
ordinary situation. This certainly was not an
extraordinary situation, except perhaps with
respect to the extraordinary stupidity of the
department; but as far as any matter at issue
was concerned, surely this man, and all three
of these men, were entitled to a fair and
reasonable hearing. They were entitled to be
represented by someone from their associa-
tion, or any other spokesmen whom they
wished to name.
In fact, it appears ridiculous that they
should ever have been hauled up on the
carpet at all; but if they were, surely they
were entitled to ordinary protection. Surely
they were entitled to bring in anything they
wanted, to make any statements they wanted
874
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and to refrain from making statements if they
wanted; and si|re|y they were entitled to
protection from being badgered by a superior
oflBcer with disciphnary authority, to make
statements that they, in good conscience,
could not make.
Mr. Keatings says that he told the gentle-
man time after time that he had told him
everytliing that he knew about the matter.
Now why should it not have been left at
that? Why should he be pushed, intimidated
into stating something more, into making
statements of which he had no knowledge,
^ ptesttinably. This sort of thing, Mr. Speaker,
should not be tolerated; and the fact that
the jurisdiction is now to be transferred to
Metro council does not wash out this terrible
injustice. I believe that action should be
taken to remedy it. I think these men should
be reinstated— all of them, with full pay
back to the date of their original suspension,
unless— as Mr. Tumpane has suggested, the
department, and in particular the hon. Min-
ister, can bring out infonnation that has
not been brought to light as yet.
A long time has passed since these men
were suspended, and since two of tliem were
dismissed. As a matter of fact, at the time
of the dismissal I wrote a letter on the subject
to the hon.. Prime Minister of the province.
I may say my letter got the same consideration
as all correspondence that I send to hon.
Ministers of the Crown, it was not even
acknowledged. But I sent it to him, never-
theless, and I would like to read it to the
HjQuse now. It is to a slight degree dated,
but substantially, I think, contains a valid
point: '
The purpose of this letter is to propose
to you—
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): What is
the date?
Mr. Bryden: The date is January 8, 1962,
just a couple of days after these men were
notified of the disciplinary action against
them, at the time the information about it
appeared in the press.
The purpose of this letter is to propose
to you formally that a Justice of the
Supreme Court of Ontario be appointed
to conduct a public inquiry into the ques-
tion of labour relations at the Metropolitan
Toronto Don Jail. It is public knowledge
that there has been serious discontent
. among the employees of this institution
• for a long time, over such matters as rates
of i)ay, grievance procedures, etc. The
matter is now brought to a head by the
dismissal of guards James Keatings and
A. V. Simonson, and the suspension of
Keatinge without right of appeal, for what
appeared to be completely trivial reasons.
The case of James Keatings is particularly
alarming since he is the president of the
employees' association at the jail, and it
is difficult to escape the conclusion that his
dismissal is part of an attempt to smash
the association by intimidation. I submit
to you that public confidence and har-
monious employer-employee relations can
be restored only by a full public inquiry,
and by the remedial action which is found
by such an inquiry to be necessary.
And I would repeat this proposal now,
Mr. Speaker. I think the situation has
reached the point where it is not sufficient
merely to provide these people wdth an
appeal. As a matter of fact, under intense
public pressure, the government did 'ofFer
them a form of appeal, and on the advice
of their association they rejected the specific
offer made, because the association wanted to
fight this matter on a question of principle.
It took the position that these people should
have restored to them the same grievance
procedure that all other employees of the
government haxe, and that the appeal should
be taken under the regular grievance pro-
cedure.
It is not my business to comment on the
wisdom or otherwise of that particular
decision of the association, but certainly it
is a decision with considerable merit, and
it is one which can be supported by sound
arguments. But we have got past the point
of a mere appeal, Mr. Speaker. This matter
is such a grave injustice and is indicative of
such a disgraceful situation existing in a
public institution in this province, that we
need far more than an appeal on the specific
case of the employees of this institution. We
need a full inquiry into what is going on in
the institution, because if anything of the sort
described in Mr. Keatings' statement can
happen, a real clean-up is needed in that
institution.
His statement is not made under oath;
it is merely his statement; and it is possible
that there is more to the story than he said.
I do not know, but the onus is on the gov-
ernment to bring out whatever additional
information, if there is any, that is relevant
to this matter. I would say now, in vie\y of
the way the department, the hon. Minister
and the government have acted, the way
they have tried to conceal facts on the
matter, no one can have any confidence in
any inquiry that they themselves undertake.
Only an inquiry undertaken by an impar-
tial person of unquestioned standing in the
MARCH 6, 1962
875
comitiuriity can ever resolve this matter, and
satisfy the pubhc that the situation, if there
is a situation, and there appears to be, has
been properly cleaned up.
Hoii. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, would
the speaker allow a question? Is the speaker
aware that the Minister saw that each of
the men concerned was personally served
witii information that he had the right of
appeal to the Minister; and if any one of
them sought to avail himself of that right,
that the Minister promised him an impar-
tial tribunal outside the department, outside
the government, an impartial tribunal to
hear his case; that if anyone felt that he
had been unfairly or unjustly treated, he
had the right to appeal, and that not one
of them took advantage of that impartial
tribunal-
Mr. Brydent I have already made refer-
ence to that fact. I stated that under intense
public pressure, the government did offer
a form of appeal, and I stated the reasons
that the Civil Service Association had for
turning that appeal down. I am not com-
menting on their reasons, one way or the
other, but I certainly think they have a basic
validity. I am suggesting that this has now
gone far beyond tlie particular matter of the
appeal of the employees, and that the whole
situation needs to be inquired into. If the
government has nothing to hide, and if, as
Mr. Tumpane said, there is further informa-
tion and further explanation, then they
should have no fear of a full and impartial
public inquiry. They should welcome it
indeed.
I have heard, and I regret to say that I
heard, very malicious rumours about one of
these men. The form in which I heard them
was— that it would be better just to leave
this all alone because some of this dirt,
which was rumoured about this particular
man, might come out in public. I do not
know where those rumours started, Mr.
Speaker, but it is certainly a totally insuflfi-
cient reason for refusing a full inquiry.
As Mr. Tumpane pointed out, the men
themselves have sacrificed any claim for
privacy; they have brought the matter out
into the open. I presume they are 21 years
of age and they knew what they were do-
ing; they want it out in the open. I think
it should come out in the open in a full
public inquiry, not in a kangaroo court or
back-door proceeding. Let us get to the
bottom of this matter.
I do not see how the public can possibly
be satisfied with the situation as it now
stands; and I would point out, Mr. Speaker,
that I have not seen any public comment
anywhere that supports the government in
its position. Newspapers, such as the
Toronto Globe and Mail, which tends to be
sympathetic to the government, have con-
demned the government absolutely; so have
the Toronto Telegram and the Toronto Daily
Star. Public opinion is 100 per cent against
the government, and to clear the situation
up the only answer now is a full public
inquiry.
An hon. member: Responsibility of the
hon. Minister.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr.
Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee of supply; Mr. K.
Brown in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
( continued )
On vote 111:
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister without
Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, on vote 111, the
marketing development branch, I propose to
make some observations tonight and amplify
to some extent the remarks I made in the
House a year ago concerning the agricultural
export markets study group which toured the
United Kingdom and certain European coun-
tries in the fall of 1960.
A year ago, when I discussed this matter,
it was to relate the positive manner in which
increased export trade could and would pro-
vide jobs for our people; and it is heartening
to note that the efforts of the federal Minister
of Trade and Commerce, associated with the
assistance that has been provided at provin-
cial levels and particularly by our own Ontario
departments, has had the desired result. For
the first time in nine years a favourable bal-
ance of trade amounting to $84 million has
been accomplished.
Going hand in hand with this accomplish-
ment our jobless figures are more favour-
able than they have been for quite some
time, and I say this in complete contradiction
of all the speeches and assertions that have
been made in this House today. This is proof
positive to me, Mr. Chairman, that a definite
link between export trade and employment
does exist.
In the course of my comments a year ago
the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher)
876
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
made an observation to be found on page 382
of Hansard. He said:
Why did not a committee go ten years
ago? Have they just found out about it?
A few weeks later the then Minister of
Agricailture also made reference to the
marketing development branch and the tour
of the export marketing committee, and he
summed up the situation nicely when he said:
The terms of reference provide for en-
couraging and fostering any activity which
will develop additional outlets for farm
production.
However, Mr. Chairman, the Opposition
commented in their usual pessimistic fashion
and, on page 1109 of Hansard, we find the
hon. member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver)
stating:
This government has done nothing in 17
years to broaden the base of operations—
(Applause)
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Applaud, go
ahead. The hon. members should applaud
now because they will not a few minutes
from now:
—to broaden the base of operations from
which they could work to sell our products
in the markets of the world, until a few
months ago.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): What did
they sell?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, that is a
facetious remark. Just listen.
I would point out to the House that 17
years ago, the hon. member knows because he
has been around for a long time, the United
Kingdom was at war. During the war years,
of course, imports of all commodities to the
United Kingdom were handled on a strictly
controlled basis and Canada, at that time, was
called upon to assist the war effort with the
provision of foodstuffs of all description.
Little or nothing beyond what was related
to the war effort was required to ensure that
a market was provided, for much, if not all,
of the food commodities this country could
produce. And my hon. friend from Grey
South knows that.
Mr. Oliver: Oh, I know that. There is no
argument there.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): We are
with the hon. Minister up to 1945. What
happened after that?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The lion, member
for Bruce, as I have mentioned, asked why a
committee did not go abroad ten years ago.
The reason, of course, has been stated many,
many times before this House, that ten years
ago, as during the war, imports to the United
Kingdom and many areas of Europe were
strictly controlled. They were controlled to
the extent that the export of currency was
restrictive; allocation of dollars was only made
for the importation of certain strategic
materials, and many items of foodstuffs could
not enter the United Kingdom because alloca-
tion of funds could not be obtained for this
purpose.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Name one food
that could hot go into the United Kingdom.
Just one.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Everything was
controlled in those days, everything was re-
lated to the allocation of hard currency funds
for that purpose; and the hon. member, if he
does not know that, has been asleep at the
switch.
Mr. Whicher: I happen to have been there
during that time.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: As has been re-
vealed—
Mr. Whicher: I was one of those
bombardiers.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: As has been re-
vealed, I repeat, said action was taken by
this government to develop trade, in the
manner which has been described, as soon as
these restrictions were removed. The tour
of the committee, the agricultural exxx>rt
inquiry committee, then was the direct result
of the removal of these trade restrictions, at
which time the marketing development branch
immediately recommended to the government
that an export marketing study be under-
taken. The government approved the recom-
mendations and the industry group was sent
overseas. The inquiry, Mr. Chaimian, was
very broad and included over 500 interviews
with importers, agents, wholesalers and manu-
facturers using Ontario agricultural products.
Buyers for independent and multiple stores,
government agencies, trade representatives-
all were contacted and without exception, Mr.
Chairman, they indicated their appreciation
of the interest shown by Ontario in re-
establishing itself on that market.
Mr. Whicher: How many products did you
seU?
MARCH 6, 1962
877
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
may I clarify that particular point. Nobody
in this committee went over there actually
to sell.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, if
they will keep quiet for a moment, may I
just say that it is not the prerogative of
representatives of government to go over with
order books and pencils in their hands.
Concurrent with the tour of the committee
in 1960 was identification with the United
Kingdom Food Fair. The response to this
identification was so enthusiastic that it was
continued in 1961 and again it was expanded
to include the Ideal Home Show, the largest
of its kind in the United Kingdom and prob-
ably the largest in the world. Last year,
over 1,200,000 people attended this show and
it is expected that attendance will increase
substantially at tliis trade fair this year.
Further proof of the enthvisiasm engend-
ered by the marketing development branch
and the tour of the committee is the fact
that a full range of over a thousand cases of
Ontario canned fruits and vegetables will be
sampled and sold to the public by the Tender
Fruit Institute staff of professionally trained
demonstrators and nutritionists. This effort
is being sponsored and largely underwritten
by Ontario industry; by such firms as the
Boese Foods Limited of St. Catharines;
Canadian Canners Limited at Hamilton; W.
Clark Limited of Harrow; Libby, McNeil
and Libby Company of Chatham; Niagara
Food Products Limited of Stoney Creek;
Smart Brothers Limited of Collingwood;
E. D. Smith and Sons Limited of Winona;
and Stokeley-Van Camp of Canada Limited,
Essex. It is expected that identification on
the part of those I have just named will
result in increased demand for our canned
fruits and vegetables.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the
United Kingdom is largely dependent on the
importation of canned fruits and vegetables,
and that agents, brokers, wholesalers, grocers
and supermarket operators have indicated
many times that Canadian goods are ex-
tremely well regarded because of their high
quality standards. Actual figures cannot be
given at this time because they are compiled
on a national basis, and published a year
later.
There is no question, from the experience
of the fruit and vegetable canning companies
of this province, that they have re-established
themselves in a substantial way on the British
market, particularly, Mr. Chairman, for
canned peaches, pears, cherries, cherry pie-
filling material, and several tomato products.
While the greatest progress has been made
with canned fruits and vegetables, definite
achievement has resulted in other fields.
During the past year, 35 tons of fresh
peaches were shipped to London, England, to
test the market for this product. Again last
fall and this winter some 150,000 bags of
onions and 100,000 bags of carrots for fresh
consumption and for processing were shipped
to the United Kingdom market; but more
significantly, Mr. Chairman, these were all
firsts for shipping such quantities of perish-
able products that distance. They received
an excellent reception at good prices.
This is all new business. I repeat, Mr.
Chairman, this is all new business which the
department hopes will open the door for
future expansion as the years progress; and
that, in part, is my answer to: "What did we
sell?"
Interest, however, is not confined to the
products I have just mentioned. Previous to
1940, Ontario traditionally had a good market
for apples in Great Britain. Today I am
happy to report that Ontario apples moved in
greater volume in 1961 to the United King-
dom and at better prices than ever before;
and that again, Mr. Chairman, in part, is my
answer to: "What did we sell?"
It is interesting to note that the quality
of our red Delicious and Macintosh apples
—and I say this to the hon. member for
Oxford (Mr. Innes)— from Oxford county,
arriving on the United Kingdom markets,
has been outstanding.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): I would like to
ask the hon. Minister without Portfolio (Mr.
MacNaughton) if the manager from the
Oxford Fruit Co-operative did not personally
go to England this year to instigate a large
percentage of that order himself?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I will answer the
hon. member for Oxford. He said: did the
man in charge of this from Oxford go this
year? He probably did not hear me correctly,
but I said today I am happy to report that
the Ontario apples moved in greater volume
in 1961. This, Mr. Chairman, is 1962. I
relate this entirely to the efforts of those men
who represented the Tender Fruit Institute
and who accompanied this trade mission in
1960.
Mr. Innes: I would inform the hon. Min-
ister without Portfolio that the orders the
878
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Oxford Co-operative got were made person-
ally by the manager of tlie co-operative.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Chainnan, on a point of order,
the honour of this House— Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Innes) has
asked the hon. Minister without Portfolio
(Mr. MacNaughton) to be truthful and he has
suggested that the president of the organiza-
tion to which he made reference personally
visited and arranged—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, this com-
mittee had nothing to do with it. We are
just unnecessarily taking the time of the
House.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chainnan,
may I simply say they were making so much
noise, I did not properly hear the hon. mem-
ber's question. There is a little difference
between a question and a speech, but at
least, Mr. Chairman, it provided the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
an opportimity to make a brief speech.
Now then, in answer to the question, if it
was a question: I say I do not know whether
anylwdy from Oxford went over there, but I
do know that a well-constituted committee
appointed by the hon. Minister of Agriculture
in 1960 went over there and did a very
excellent job.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I would say
that these apples have been well received by
the British trade and have been realizing top
prices compared to apples from all over
Europe. Reception has been particularly
good from Scotland and north of England
buyers, and if the hon. member for Oxford
does not want us to help him sell his apples
let him say so.
Mr. R. C. Edwards ( Wentworth) : The hon.
Minister stated he did not go over to sell any
apples.;
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We went over to
sell everything. Let me rephrase that, Mr.
Chainnan; we went over there to find out
ways and means of helping our people sell
everything.
An hon. member: Was the hon. Minister
paid out of the hospitality fund? \^
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
may I say this? The greatest interest in
Ontario agricultural exports centres around
our Ontario cheese, which has long held an
enviable reputation in the British market.
An hon. member: It did not say that in the
public accounts.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Ontario cheddar
cheese very obviously has been able to
establish itself as a specialty product in view
of the substantial premium that it has been
able to command over all other cheese on
the United Kingdom market. This is because
of its peculiar flavour, as the only raw milk
cheese now produced anywhere, and because
of its excellent quality.
Mr. Chairman, may I make an observation?
Why do these people scolf? Why do they
laugh? Do they not want us to do business
for this province or develop this province?
Mr. Chairman-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. P. Manley ( Stonnont ) : Mr. Chainnan,
on a point of privilege. I would want to
remind the hon.—
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources ) : What point of privilege is the
hon. member-
Mr. Manley: Just a minute and I will
let the hon. Minister know, if he will just
give me the time. Just give me time.
The hon. Minister from Huron (Mr. Mac-
Naughton ) , Mr. Chairman, did say that our
cheese had a peculiar flavour. I take
objection to that. It has one of the best
flavours of any cheese that is made anywhere
in the world. I do not like to hear him say
it has a peculiar flavour. It has a flavour
that appeals to the people of England and
it is not a peculiar flavour at all.
Hon. Mr, MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
if I can have the attention of these hon.
members over here, particularly the hon.
member for Stormont, if he will bear with
me I am going to describe a certain flavour
relating itself to cheese that he may not be
quite so happy to hear about.
Ontario cheddar cheese very obviously has
been able to establish itself as a specialty
product in view of the substantial premium
that it has been able to command over all
other cheese in the United Kingdom and on
the United Kingdom market^ This is why we
are so quality-conscious of this product and
why we took the determined step that we did
in 1960 to maintain that ireputation.
The major change in chfeese export trading
today compared to pre- World- War II days
MARCH 6, 1962
879
is that today over 95 per cent of cheese
exported is actually handled by the Ontario
Cheese Producers Marketing Board at Belle-
ville. In 1958 this organization exported
15,489,000 pounds. In 1959 some 19,846,000
pounds. In 1960, 18,522,000 pounds, and in
1961 some 18,301,000 pounds, chiefly to the
United Kingdom.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, and I think
this is significant, that if Ontario could have
produced and provided more cheese the
United Kingdom market would have absorbed
at least another 10 million pounds of our fine
cheddar last year.
During the course of the visit of the inquiry
committee, it was learned that the United
Kingdom cheese trade is very well satisfied
with the businesslike operations of the Ontario
Cheese Producers Marketing Board.
Mr. Manley: I am a part of it.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, the hon.
member did not give much evidence of that
last night. Last night in this House we heard
some criticism, Mr. Chairman, of the action
of the Ontario government in protecting the
reputation of our Ontario cheese. I think
the House is entitled to the facts in this
connection.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, I am. I
propose to give the hon. leader of the
Opposition the facts on that story right now.
In the spring of 1960, the Ontario cheese
producers' association and the dairy branch
received criticism from the United Kingdom
that cheese made in a particular factory was
not entirely satisfactory to that market and
had deteriorated greatly in flavour. As a
result the dairy division of the Kemptville
Agricultural School was instructed to investi-
gate the possible source of defect. Investiga-
tion was made and samples of the cheese in
question were returned to Canada. This
matter was drawn to the attention of the
owner of this particular cheese factory.
As further complaints were received the
investigation was stepped up and Mr. J. M.
Bain, the director of the products division
of the dairy branch, an internationally recog-
nized cheese expert and a former outstanding
cheese maker, was sent to the United
Kingdom to make a thorough investigation
of these criticisms as to the quality of Ontario
cheddar cheese. Mr. Bain consulted with all
the importers of all Ontario cheese and
particularly those few who complained as to
the quality of certain lots. The particular
criticism of the cheese was it had a distinctly
"off" flavour. On his return Mr. Bain made a
detailed report of his findings and recom-
mendations and I quote directly from Mr.
Bain's report dated December 9, 1960.
Flavour was the major weakness of Cana-
dian cheese, particularly the October
cheese. Only minor complaints were
registered about the summer-made cheese.
—and the hon. member for Stormont will
know that summer-made cheese is largely
regarded as better than fall and winter-made
cheese-
Then I would suggest they were normal
complaints and probably experienced each
year, because all the importers agreed that
they anticipated a small percentage of pick-
outs from raw milk cheese and they buy at
a price allowing for a small loss.
—I am still quoting from the report of Mr..
J. M. Bain-
October cheese carried a miscellaneous
lot of flavours but the true catty odour—
—and this is still the language of the man
who made the investigation—
—the true catty odour-
Mr. Wintermeyer: What is that?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Catty. I could
enlarge on that but it probably would not be
parliamentary to do it.
Mr. Manley: It means it was not good-
peculiar.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton:
—was confined to two registration num-
bers, 652 and 844, and were probably all
made in the one plant but not necessar-
ily, in fairness, as there was quite a range
of back numbers from No. 844 carrying
a very objectionable flavour.
-I am still quoting, Mr. Chairman:
It was indeed unfortunate that this
cheese was so widely distributed through
quite a number of importers. The odour
is very foul smelling and does resemble
a cat smell, as stated by some buyers.
It created havoc, as some of this cheese
would go out in a mixed shipment to a
store, where it would . be cut up and
placed on the counter, for sale, by some
employees not familiar witli cheese. Cus-
tomers would purchase a piece of cheese
and immediately return it to the store.
The retailer would then return the whole
lot as "catty" to the firm that sold it to
them.
880
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bain concludes his report as follows:
The Enghshman is wilHng to pay
a premium price for premium cheese and
is not prone to complain about small
amounts of spoilage. The situation in
England is in jeopardy and cannot be
minimized. My findings [quoting Mr.
Bain] re the 1959 make, have been sub-
stantiated by the recent close examina-
tion of tlie 1960 make, results of which
revealed almost 100 per cent depreciation
in quality of tlie factories concerned.
As a result of the situation revealed in
Mr. Bain's report, the dairy branch, in co-
operation with the federal dairy authorities,
made sure that no cheese from the two fac-
tories in question was permitted to be ex-
ported. The co-operation of the two
factories in Stormont County left much to
bo desired.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: And I am still
quoting from the report of Mr. J. M. Bain—
As a matter of interest one of the fac-
tories closed in 1960, and the other
burned to the ground in October, 1960,
and both have been replaced by a modern
new plant under new ownership, which
today, I am happy to say, has been giving
full co-operation. They have an excellent
record of quality of cheese on a re-graded
basis.
Now to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would
ask these things from the hon. member for
Stormont. Can there be anything but advan-
tage to the continued development of our
Ontario cheese industry in terms of the
methods that have been employed? Can he
honestly say that the money which was spent
to remove this quantity of cheese— which
was prejudicing one of our most important
agricultural markets— was not warranted?
Does he not believe that this relatively
small expenditure to maintain the good
name of one of our principal agricultural
export commodities was as good a promo-
tional feature as the expenditure of stuns
of money in various forms of advertising?
Surely the remarks made by him yesterday
will not find favour with the many thou-
sands of people engaged in the cheese in-
dustry of Ontario, who, I am confident,
appreciated the assistance provided by this
Department of Agriculture, which he so
strongly criticized.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, I want to
first thank the hon. Minister from Huron
for bringing to the attention of the House
the problems that he has this evening, and
for giving me an opportunity, through you,
Mr. Chainnan, to answer some of the charges
he has made this evening and something I
do not think is going to help the industry
as far as the cheese manufacturers in this
pro\'ince of Ontario are concerned.
The hon. Minister referred, Mr. Chairman,
to two factories. The one number I got— the
registration number 844. I did not get the
other registration number.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I will give it
to him.
Mr. Manley: Will he give it to me?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes; 652.
Mr. Manley: That is fine; 652. I want to
say, Mr. Chairman, that I brought up this
question last evening, I saw it in the pub-
lic accounts where Lovell and Christmas
was paid $11,500 by this government, to
bail them out of a loss they were supposed
to have had in connection with cheese that
was sent overseas.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On a point of
order, Mr. Chairman— this money was not
advanced to Lovell and Christmas to bail
them out of a loss.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, I asked the
question last night from my own seat here,
"Why the amount to Lovell and Christmas?"
The hon. Minister replied that these were
losses sustained by this company outside of
the province of Ontario, in Quebec. That
has been in operation for far longer than
the hon. Minister from Huron or myself
has been in existence in the province of
Ontario.
I want to say more than that, Mr. Chair-
man, that this same company, and others,
before the cheese producers of the province
of Ontario was formed, and before we had
a marketing board, were one of the biggest
companies that were making payments under
the table to factories and buyers, in order
to get rid of having the cheese placed on
the board, where they would have to go and
compete against the other buyers. Their
method was losing many dollars to the cheese
producers of this province. I think that I
was justified in pointing out to the govern-
ment, that a company operated under those
conditions, and in operation as long as they
had been, that this government of the prov-
ince of Ontario was not justified in making
a payment of that kind to them in order to
MARCH 6, 1962
881
take care of a loss that they might have
sustained.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On a point of
order-
Mr. Manley: Let me continue. He brought
up the situation. Let me continue. He has
named two factories in the county of Stor-
mont; in other words, he has said that this
$11,500 was attributed to those two factories
alone. I had some connection with getting
a j>ermit for one of those factories— to be
rebuilt; and it is producing a quality today
equal or better to any in the province of
Ontario, and I am proud of it.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I did not say
that.
Mr. Manley: I can tell him if he did not
say it. He said he was proud of the record
of that factory.
Another thing I want to say is that that
plant, when they came for a permit, were
turned down— not for the reason that the
record was not too good. But the main
reason why they were turned down was be-
cause it was pointed out to the people who
applied for the permit and to me, who
interceded on their behalf after they were
turned down, that those plants had only
received— in the flow of the milk— 15,000
pounds of milk. Surely my hon. friend can-
not say to the House tonight that the loss
of $11,500 could come to a plant that only
received 15,000 pounds of milk a day in the
flow of the milk. My hon. friend had better
go back— •
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On a point of
order-
Mr. Manley: And now let me finish with
him.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On a point of
privilege, Mr. Chairman, I said no such
thing.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, what did he
say?
Mr. Manley: He left the implication,
thou^.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I said no such
thing, nor did I imply any such thing. Nor
did I imply that this particular loss was
applicable to one plant.
Mr. Chairman, still on my point of priv-
ilege, I read into the record the statement
of Mr. J. M. Bain-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Now, Mr. Chair-
man, I am going to speak about another
point of privilege.
Mr. Manley: We have one point of priv-
ilege at a time. If the hon. Minister has a
point of privilege, let him state his point of
privilege.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister referred to two factories and two
factories only, 844 and 652, which are owned
by the same operator. I will go so far as to
say that, even though he did come from the
county of Stormont, he was not a good oper-
ator, and the responsibility fell with The De-
partment of Agriculture here in not putting
in the proper regulations and not having the
instructors going in and enforcing the regula-
tions in order to produce the qualities that
should have been produced.
I see my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr.
Connell) having a great joke out of this.
Maybe I could tell him a thing or two, too,
if I get into that mood. But I want to say
this again. We have an inspection depart-
ment but they have not been doing their
duty, as I pointed out last night. Maybe we
do not have enough inspectors. But then,
cheese is graded, Mr. Chairman. The cheese
is graded. It is regraded again— that is the
regulation— before it is shipped overseas. The
grading of cheese is done by the federal
Department of Agriculture.
Far be it from me to say that the graders
are not doing the job they should do. But
that cheese passed the regulations of the
province and of the Dominion, as far as grade
was concerned, and it went overseas.
If it has passed the grading regulations
here as far as our grading regulations go—
and they have to be up to the standards
in order to export to the United Kingdom-
then I do not think that I, or you, or any-
body else, can be responsible for the condi-
tions under which it is put on the boat and
shipped overseas.
I do not think that we have the responsi-
bility, once it gets over there, of the com-
panies that buy it or of the manner in which
it is stored. We have no assurance whether
it is going to be disposed of at the time it
arrives there, or whether it is going to be
disposed of six or eight months hence. We
do not know that the conditions of the
buyer, or the storekeeper or distributor, are
882
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in order to display and keep that cheese in
storage and prevent spoilage.
So, if there is any responsibility, it is not
on the member for Stormont. I brought
this to the attention of the House last night
and I think I made it emphatically clear
that I was very concerned about the quality
and the future market of the cheese of this
province.
I am a cheese producer myself. I am
milking over 50 cows— I am interested— that
is my livelihood. I say we have to maintain
the quality of cheese in the province of
Ontario and that we have to have this market
in England, if we want to maintain the
income for our farmers in the province of
Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, unless we look after the
quality of our milk and our cheese, we are
not going to keep the market that we have
at the present time. There are other markets
that we hope to get into, and there are
other things on which the hon. Minister with-
out Portfolio can convince some of his friends
in the front rows here and his friends in
Ottawa. Maybe he could go down to Ottawa
and convince them to try to get a little
more of our good cheese going into the
United States; we have only 500,000 pounds
going there at the moment, but it is a good
market.
Maybe they could explore the markets out
west and get some of our good cheddar
cheese out there. Do not try to pull a red
herring across the trail and accuse the
member for Stormont of defeating the pur-
pose of the cheese industry of this province.
There is no one more interested than I.
The hon. Minister without Portfolio has
done a disservice to the cheese producers of
this county because his is not a cheese indus-
try area. He is just a spokesman for the Tory
party on that side of the House. He thought
he was going to get up in the House and
tear me to pieces. But I can hold my own
with him or anybody else on that side of
the House.
' As long as I am the member for Stormont,
I will look after the interests of the farmers
in that particular area and especially the
people who are engaged in the cheese
industry. ,
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, Mr. Chair-
man, it is a singularly peculiar thing to me
to hear these observations from the hon.
member for Stormont here tonight. I made
no criticisms about the type of representation
he makes for the people of Stormont. He
singles out, Mr. Chairman, the firm of Lovell
and Christmas. I did not mention the name
of the firm of Lovell and Christmas, but I
suggest this to him that the sale of all cheese
in the province of Ontario is largely under
the jurisdiction of the Ontario Cheese Pro-
ducers Marketing Association.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right, Mr.
Chairman, does the hon. member say that
the Ontario Cheese Producers Marketing
Association is not doing a good job?
Tens of thousands of cheese producers in
this province, Mr. Chainnan, say the Ontario
Cheese Producers Marketing Association is
doing an outstanding job, and I say so.
When the hon. member levels these criti-
cisms, he is in effect criticizing the board of
which he is a member.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, this is the most
far-fetched and ridiculous statement that I
have ever heard. I have not in any of the
remarks I have made tonight made any refer-
ence at all to the Cheese Marketing Board
or the Cheese Producers Association of which
I am a member.
An hon. member: Yes, the hon. member
did.
Mr. Manley: I never did. I mentioned
Lovell and Christmas. I am not concerned
about the back benchers over here. I have
been here long enough for that. But I do
want to co-operate with the hon. Minister,
the hon. member for Huron.
The Cheese Producers' Association and the
Cheese Producers' Marketing Board have done
a remarkable job. I did not refer to them
until just now, but I say they have been a
remarkable board. I am a very modest man.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Just by implica-
tion.
Mr. Manley: Not by implication or any-
thing else. I have not a word against them.
I am a very modest man; I am a member of
them. They have done a remarkable job
If they were not in existence today we would
not be getting the price that we are for
cheese.
I mentioned before the methods in which
Lovell and Christmas and some of these com-
panies that I could name bought, cheese
before our association came into being. The
cheese producers themselves and the market-
ing board, when they came into being, re-
moved some of the difficulties we had with
; MARCH 6, 1962
883
those large buyers; and I have to say that
the cheese producers and the marketing
board have done a remarkable, job, and we
are looking forward to them doing a greater
job still.
For the hon. Minister to say that I was
casting reflections on the workings of the
cheese producers and the marketing board, is
going a long way and is accusing me of
something that I had not even thought of or
even suggested. I am a member of it, I
pay dues into it, and I hold them in the
highest regard.
I want to say to the hon. Minister that
far be it from me to say that they have not,
because they have been doing it. And if it
was not for them, Lovell and Christmas and
some of those other companies would be in
the position of still giving payments under
the table, and getting cheese in there at a
much lower price than they are at the present
time.
An hon. member: The hon. member does
not sell to Lovell and Christmas.
Mr. Manfey: Lovell and Christmas has
come up, yes. Lovell and Christmas bought
cheese through the Cheese Producers
Marketing Board auction.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is exactly
what I said.
Mr. Manley: No. The hon. Minister did not
say that at all.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is exactly
what I said.
Mr. Manley: I want to make it plain to the
House because I do not want any difficulties
here and misunderstandings. Lovell and
Christmas, I presume, bought the cheese. If
it was Ontario cheese they would buy at the
auction conducted by the Cheese Producers
Marketing Board. All the cheese has to go
through that auction system. If my hon.
friend goes to an auction sale in Ontario and
buys a cow or anything else, once the sale is
over the product is his. He has the cow or
the horse or anything else, but the product
is his.
The same thing applies here, except that
we have qualities here, and grades. The
cheese, as I said before, was graded; it was
graded before it went overseas, and it passed
the graders here. How can we be responsible
for it after it leaves the port at Montreal?
The hon. Minister has tried to make some-
thing out pf this tonight, but I do say in all
sincerity that he had better know his facts
again before he starts speaking about the
cheese producers of the province of Ontario
and taking the member for Stormont to task.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
would just-
Mr. Manley: I asked a simple question last
night in regard to what this payment was to
Lovell and Christmas. I did not know what
it was myself until I asked that question.
Surely a member of the Opposition can go
into public accounts and ask what an item of
$11,500 was paid for; and surely We are de-
serving of an answer without this ridicule
that the hon. Minister has tried to heap upon
me tonight in this honourable House.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a
few comments to what has already been said
here tonight.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, are we all going to be per-
mitted to discuss this over again? That vote
was carried, I thought.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: We are talking, I
believe— .
Mr. R. C. Edwards: May we have a ruling
on that, sir?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now, before you start
ruling on this, Mr. Chairman, I am devoting
my remarks to vote 111 which has to do in
my book with marketing development grants.
In relation to the remarks that have been
made tonight, it would seem to me that it
would be well indeed to recall some of the
facts that actually apply to this case. I would
like to go back and remind the hon. members
of this House through you, Mr. Chairman,
that a few years ago, in fact I believe it was
something like 10 years ago, in 1952, when
dollar supplies were very, very tight and as
my hon. friend, the hon. Minister Without
Portfolio from the riding of Huron (Mr. Mac-
Naughton) has suggested, there w^e liter-
ally no dollars available for supplies from
this country in the United Kingdom market,
we sent over our Department of Agriculture
officials, our chief of marketing who is now
our Deputy Minister, and Mr. Coomb, the
president of the Cheese Producers Associaition.
They talked to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer in the United Kingdom and they
were successful in getting dollars released to
buy Canadian cheese. This is what v The
Department of Agriculture has tried to (Jo for
884
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the farmers of Ontario down through the
years; and I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that it
will always be our intent to help the little
farmer of this province to maintain his
market after he has secured it.
Along with that I would like to suggest
to those— and I am not a cheese producer
myself, but I would like to suggest to those
who are, that when the cheese producers'
organization was seeking to become estab-
lished as a major marketing agency for the
cheese of this province, The Department of
Agriculture came to their assistance with the
provision of a guaranteed loan, and sustained
them to get into business, to take the cheese
off the market and to export it through these
importers who were in the business of import-
ing cheese into the United Kingdom. And we
have followed this cheese through, from the
time it was made right through to the time
it was sold in Great Britain.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it was in the
interests of the cheese producers, the little
farmers of this province, that we followed
through on this particular project when the
cheese was known to have gone wrong; and
we maintained the reputation that is the
most outstanding reputation that there is
known in this world for cheddar cheese-
Canadian cheddar cheese.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest
further, in replying to hon. members of the
House, that when we have done this we have
guaranteed the integrity of the farmers of
Ontario through The Ontario Department of
Agriculture.
I Wish further, Mr. Chairman, to say that
if my hoh. friend from StOrmont (Mr. Manley),
who has indeed the interests of the cheese
people at heart— he is one of them himself,
we do not doubt this— but we question his
methods of promoting their interests. If, in
fact, we had provided the type of inspection
which my hon. friend from Stormont suggests
that perhaps we should have done, and we
had stopped the farmers from sending milk to
this plant, and we had put an inspector in
there 24 hours a day and he had seen some-
thing wrong every day, that he could find
fault with— and I suppose there are few places
in the province of Ontario that one could
not criticize some time during the day— if
this indeed had been the case and the inspec-
tor had said: "We are going to close you up;
you are through doing business; your farmers
can take their milk somewhere else"— because
if there was a lack of water, if there was a
lack of the right quality of water, it could
easily have happened— what would have hap-
pened to the market of those people?
It was done with the best of intentions.
These people were allowed to make their
product, it was shipped in good faith, we
followed it through, and we came across and
maintained the name of Canadian cheddar
cheese and the quality that it is famous for
in this country.
Mr. Wintermeyer: On a point of order, is
the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart)
suggesting that the regulations do not mean
a thing? That is exactly the inference that
he left.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, no, that is not it.
Not at all, Mr. Chairman, not at all.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would
have to reiterate the statements which the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) just made. The hon. Minister, in
speaking to this, suggested that because of
the fact that the hon. member for Stormont
(Mr. Manley) had raised a question which
was rightfully within the public accounts,
that he was in fact saying that the department
should go in and close up these factories.
This was not what he said at all.
But I suggest to the hon. Minister, and
I do not profess to be an agricultural man,
but if we have inspectors and if we have
standards, surely it is the responsibility of
those inspectors to see that those standards
are maintained. And if he is suggesting that
the milk that was going into these factories
was not satisfactory and did not meet with
these standards, and if this is the reason the
cheese gave us this problem, it seems to me
that it is only common sense that he would
do something about it. And if we are going
to maintain the standard of Canadian cheese
abroad, by buying off these companies that
take the unsatisfactory cheese in the first
place, it is going to cost us a lot more in
the public accounts next year. Surely he is
not suggesting that standards should be
changed and should be winked at in certain
cases? Because if he is, I suggest to him
it is time there was a review of all the
standards.
Mr. Whicher: May I ask the hon. Minister
a question arising out of what was said by the
hon. Minister without Portfolio? In coimec-
tion with this export market study group that
went to England a year or so ago, may I say
that I agree with tlie hon. Minister without
Portfolio in many of his remarks; I think that
this was an excellent group and I am very
pleased that there are some results, according
to his words, some results so far. He rrien-
tioned such things as the selling of peaches,
apples and carrots and some others, too.
MARCH 6, 1962
885
Before I ask a question: I want to say
that I really think that this is good; as far
as I am concerned, and the hon. members
on this side, the agriculture members par-
ticularly, hope that he sells a great deal
more. The problem, as we see it in agricul-
tural production in this province, is the fact
that we have too much production and not
enough sales, so the more that is sold the
better, I want that clearly understood. But
my question is this, Mr. Chairman: what is
the hon. Minister doing to continue the sales
of agricultural products in England? And I
would like this specific question along with
another that I am going to ask: who has
the hon. Minister got representing him in
the United Kingdom now, to sell Ontario
farm products?
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, before I sit
down, I might say that we have 18 market-
ing boards under this estimate of vote 111.
As I understand it, the total of money in-
volved is $115,000.
If the marketing of products is good in
the province of Ontario, my question to the
hon. Minister is this: did he ever consider
the possibility of having marketing boards
in foreign lands, not just in England, but in
other lands— in Europe, in Asia, or anywhere
where they have hungry people who have
money and will give us that money so that
we can give the over-production of the
farrriers of the province of Ontario a fair
exchange?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the
question was directed to me, was it?
Mr. Whicher: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think there were
several questions. To deal with the last one
first, if I may, Mr. Chairman, the question
that the hon. member has raised regarding
the provision of food for people in lands
where there is definitely a shortage of food
and marketing agencies: this method of dis-
posal of our surplus foodstuffs is well under
consideration by the federal government to-
day and, in fact, the federal government
through the federal Minister of Agriculture
has led the way in the world in the forma-
tion of, and his recommendations for, the
establishment of a world food bank,
Mr. Chairman, I know of no better way
of disposing of our surplus food than through
this particular method. This is the way we
feel, in a unified eflPort, we can concentrate
in providing the foodstuffs that we have
in abundance for those people who need
them— provided we can find a way to get it
to them in a way that they can absorb them
and can handle them. This is the answer to
that. I hope I have made myself clear.
With regard to what has been sold in
Great Britain— that was the first question
of the hon. member? I would like to say
that we have appointed a full-time director
of oUr overseas marketing in the marketing
development branch, Mr. Ted Merritt, who
is working on this very matter. As a matter
of fact, he arrived in England again this
week. It is his job to develop tlie markets
that were explored by this group that went
over a year or two ago. And many i>ossi-
bilities were opened up to him.
We have hired this man and we have
given him a full-time job to promote over-
seas sales. I would like to suggest that in
this past year 35 tons of fresh peaches were
shipped to London, England. Again this last
fall, some 150,000 bags of onions and 100,-
000 packages of carrots were sent over to
Great Britain.
This is sent over there simply to provide
a sample, if j'ou will, of the products that
we have in abundance in this country. And
we feel that with the general acceptance
of our products and the favourable recep-
tion they are receiving in the food shows
of Great Britain, where in one instance they
had 1.2 million people at the show lookinig
at our products. This, we think, is a fair
start on providing a reasonably good outlet
for Ontario products.
Mr. Whicher: I would like to ask another
question in regard to the same thing. Firstly,
1 want to thank the hon. Minister for the
capable way in which he has attempted to
answer the questions that I gave him.
But I want to go back for one minute
now to the English market. Do I under-
stand that the hon. Minister has one man
over there in a full-time capacity selling
foodstuffs from the province of Ontario to
look after the needs of 50 million people?
Is that the situation, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, would the hon.
member suggest we send over a percentage
of the 50 million people?
Mr. Whicher: No, I would suggest that
the minimum the hon. Minister could do is
organize a sales staff of at least 10 or 20
people. What good is one man attempting
to sell all of the food that we have, the
overbundance of food that we have in the
province of Ontario? It may be all ri^t
as a trial, but I must say it is a mighty
886
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
poor attempt as far as looking after the
needs of all the farmers of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, one thing more I would
like to say—
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Trans-
port):" That sounds like eggs at three cents
a dozen.
Mr. Whicher: Well, if they are that cheap,
the hon. Minister of Transport will be able
to buy some.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the
hon. Minister has said, and- of course we all
realize, that the federal Department of Agri-
culture and the Minister of Trade and Com-
merce in Ottawa have made a legitimate
attempt to get rid of some of the extra food
that we have here in Canada. But I am a
little tired of hearing them boastfully saying
to the hon. members opposite that for the
first time in a great many years we have had
a trade surplus in Canada, when they know
perfectly well that the reason that there is
a trade surphis is because they sold Red
China millions and millions of dollars worth
of wheat that they have never collected for
yet.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We did not sell one
single bushel that the hon. member said we
sold. Now what does he say?
Mr. Whicher: I said— Mr. Chairman, I
would suggest that the hon. Minister of
Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay) was think-
ing about something else altogether. If he
would let the hon. Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Stewart) look after this, we would get
along much better. I do not mind him look-
ing after everything else, but when he starts
looking after the farmers of the province he
is going a little bit too far.
Mr. Chairman, what I said was this, that
the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce
had initiated the sale, and the hon. Minister
of Agriculture in this province has suggested
that this province has co-operated. With
that, I heartily agree. But I point out that
the reason there is a substantial trade balance
this year as far as foreign trade is concerned
is because they sold millions of dollars' worth
of wheat to Red China.
Hon, Mr. Macaulay: Well, what is wrong
with that?
Mr. Whicher: Nothing whatsoever.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, then, stop
apologizing. , .
Mr. Whicher: I want to ask this: that
when you get the trade back from Red
China—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We are getting paid
for it; that is all that matters.
Mr. Whicher: But we are not getting paid
for it.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Every dollar that has
been due has been paid.
Mr. Whicher: Every dollar that is due,
but what about the dollars that were due on
February 27?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: They have been paid
in full.
Mr. Whicher: Well, Mr. Chairman, all I
can say is I certainly hope they are paid.
But I suggest this: that Red China, instead
of sending cash over to us, is going to have
to trade with us. Trade is not a one-way
street.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It is paid in full, in
cash.
Mr. Whicher: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
certainly hope the hon. Minister of Energy
Resources knows what he is talking about.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It is paid in full, in
cash.
Mr. Whicher: If it is paid in rice, or in
textiles or something like that, I have no
objection to this whatsoever. Now, Mr.
Chairman, what I wanted to get back to is
this. If we have been successful in selling
wheat to China, what is wrong with having
agencies, marketing agencies, go to other
countries to sell our pork, for example, or our
peaches?
The hon. Minister just told us a few
minutes ago that last year they sold 35 tons
of peaches to England. I suggest to you
that is not one slice of peach to each
Englishman who lives in London alone; it is
a very small effort and I do hope the hon.
Minister will reinforce his efforts and improve
the staflF and enlarge the number he has
attempting to sell the over-abundance of
food that we have in this province.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, maybe as one from this small
group that had the opportunity to express
some concern over this problem, in the face
of being asked again what do I know about
MARCH 6, 1962
887
farming, I would suggest that not always
does one have to be in the bush to observe
what is going on. I have been listening very
closely to this discussion about finding
markets for our so-called surplus of Ontario
farm goods. I wonder and would ask the
hon. Minister to take a brief moment or two
to explain to me what portion of this ex-
penditure, or any expenditure, has been
spent in trying to develop the consumption
in Ontario of our Ontario products? Certainly
there has been a lot of time spent in the last
hour or two talking about developing markets
in Great Britain for peaches, apples and other
fruit from Ontario. I think we have over-
looked the problem that has brought about
the necessity to find these markets— that is, a
failure to develop the consumption of our
home-grown fruits in our own country.
I would like the hon. Minister to point
out to me what is being done in this regard.
You can go into almost any of the chain
stores, walk up and down the aisles, and what
you find on the shelves are imported fruits
and canned goods of farm products from the
United States. Peaches, asparagus, celery,
all this sort of thing— I think this is where we
lost track of the real problem in the last few
years; we have lost track of the development
of processing plants in Ontario to process
the types of products we produce on the
farm. Now we are faced with what we call
a sui^plus. I think we have got the problem,
and I think if we look at it squarely we can
consider it superficial if we get down to the
business of educating, and promoting our
own product on our own markets.
The greatest example of this is our grape
industry. There is more imported wine con-
sumed in this province than any otlier type;
and yet we grow one of the finest wine grapes
in the Niagara Peninsula that can be pro-
duced. I believe it is all for the lack of
promotion and education by either our farm
groups or these manufacturers. I would like
the hon. Minister to explain to me, or give
me some idea of, what part of this expendi-
ture in this estimate is going to develop the
consumption in Ontario of our Ontario
products?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would say, Mr Chair-
man, the answer is that about one-half of our
award is going for this purpose We feel that
the home market is the best market there is
and . should be developed and expanded to
every extent, and we have done everything
we ^ pan to do that very thing.
Mr. A. E. Thompson ( Dovercoiirt ) : Mr.
Chaittnan, I would like to follow on what the
hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) has
been asking. I know that the promotion of
trade overseas is naturally very fundamental
to not only the farmers but every citizen of
Ontario, and that the hon. Minister is con-
cerned with this, sir, and that his Ontario
government representatives have gone over
there in order to do something about it.
I was interested that there was an em-
phasis on the traditional British trade and
the hon. Minister's people must be deeply
concerned about the transition that is taking
place in connection with the trade patterns
in Europe. He must be concerned about
the European Common Market and the
developments there. Because he is taking
a positive role— I should say, sir, that I am
therefore directing the question to the hon.
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) or to
the hon. Minister without Portfolio.
He is concerned with this and I am
wondering if he is trying to promote a
broader marketing area in connection with
this European Common Market? Could he
give us sonie of the steps by which he is
trying to promote this? In other words, is
he active? I am sorry; I am asking the
hon. Minister of Agriculture; is this on a
point of privilege he is rising?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, this is a point
of order. The hon. member wants to know
generally what we are doing in terms of the
European market not just in agriculture-
Mr. Thompson: No, in respect to agricul-
ture.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Not, surely, just in
respect to agriculture, surely he wanted to
proceed on a broad front-
Mr. Thompson: No, I am sorry. I am
asking the question of the hon. Minister of
Agriculture—
Hon. Mr, Macaulay: —and this is a matter
which comes under my department and I will
be reporting on it next week. If the hon.
member does not want to wait until then,
or if he does not want to know the real
answer in the matter, we will have to let it
go until then.
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry, sir, biit I am
interested at this point because I know the
hon. Minister of Energy Resoufces (Mr.
Macaulay) has got many explanations, and
I should say i have listened with interest
to his remarks previously on this. But I am
interested in hearing from the hon, Minister
of Agriculture who has, obviously from his
888
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
department, got someone over in England
right now who is trying to develop trade
with England. In fact it was said by the
hon. Minister from Huron "Trade with
England with everything."
There is a very dangerous tendency perhaps
for us, or perhaps a golden opportunity, and
I am interested in knowing the hon. Minister
of Agriculture's opinion about this— if he is
interested in moving into the European
Common Market. And I am asking him what
steps his department is taking to get broader
market opportunities in the European Com-
mon Market.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: We are doing everything
possible to consider the very points that the
hon. member has raised and, as was pointed
out by the hon. Minister of Commerce and
Development (Mr. Macaulay), an announce-
ment will be made according to the delibera-
tions with which we are now proceeding,
at the proper time.
Mr. Thompson: I am not interested in what
the hon. Minister is going to do in the future.
I am asking what he is doing now; could
he recount that to me? Has he made plans
now?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: To make to the House?
Mr. Thompson: Has he made plans? This
development has been taking place for some
time about Britain joining the European
Common Market—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It has not joined yet;
it will be a year and a half before it does.
Mr. Thompson: I asked the hon. Minister
of Agriculture. He knows the situation, for
example, that took place in Accra. We know
the point of view—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Every department
would have to have an ambassador? The hon.
member wants them to reduce costs and yet
he wants everybody to have a foreign repre-
sentative.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I consider
this a very fundamental question in con-
nection with both the farm people and others.
Perhaps I know the policy of the government
in Ottawa; we have heard their statements at
Accra and we have heard their statements in
other places, and I am interested because
some of us felt they were a little bit confused
about what role they played. I am interested
in knowing from the hon. Minister of Agricul-
ture (Mr. Stewart), in view of the very obvious
situation that Britain is moving into the Euro-
pean Common Market— and many of us have
known this for a long time— in view of the
hon. Minister knowing this, what plans has
he developed in connection with the Euro-
pean Common Market and getting sales there?
Or has he not developed any?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: When the hon. member
sits down I will stand up.
An hon. member: The hon. Minister is
getting kind of touchy over there.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: We are not getting
touchy at all, I always understood that when
an hon. member was on his feet the otlier
fellow kept down.
Mr. Chairman, we have had our marketing
people examining every possible means of
finding markets for Ontario products, not
only in Great Britain but in Europe. Our
market study group that went over on the
instruction of my predecessor in ojffice in 1960
examined the markets of Europe and we have
sent our marketing people back there to give
further study to promoting the sales of
Ontario products there.
Now, if my hon. friend knows that Great
Britain is going into the European Common
Market I think he is ahead of even the British
themselves, because I do not know of any
announcement to that effect as yet. We are
certainly concerned with it and are giving it
every consideration. What more my hon.
friend wants than that I do not know.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
have one more observation to make here. I
think it is a rather peculiar situation and a
very singular thing, and if the hon. member
for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) was in his seat I
would have addressed my remarks to him.
First of all, I think I would like in fairness
to congratulate him for the very fair way in
which he expressed himself tonight. Now
that he is not in his seat I will address this
question to the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer).
I find it very difficult to condone the differ-
ence of opinion that seems to exist in the
Opposition benches across from me, when I
recall that a little over a year ago when
I discussed this matter before the House I
found the hon. leader of the Opposition
espousing some of the things that the govern-
ment has since done: at that time I pointed
out that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr.
Trotter) criticized us very largely for a matter
involving something that we could not solve,
MARCH 6, 1962
889
that we could not touch. Now where do we
stand on this thing?
Mr. Wintermeyer: What is the hon. Minis-
ter talking about?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am asking the
hon. leader of the Opposition, where does he
stand?
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): I have never dis-
cussed this.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, I can find it
in Hansard for the hon. member for Park-
dale.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I do not know
what he is talking about. I do not think he
knows what he is talking about.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
will go and look it up in Hansard for the hon.
member for Parkdale. He said we were
embarking on a course involving trade that
was entirely within the confines of the federal
Department of Trade and Commerce, some-
thing that we could not solve and that we
could not touch. Here tonight we get praise
from the hon. member for Bruce to some
extent for what we are doing, we get criti-
cism from others for what we are not doing,
and a year ago the hon. member for Parkdale
told us we have no business being involved
in it at all. How do you add all this up, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Trotter: If the hon. Minister knows
what he is talking about, I would like him
to come and tell me and we will have a nice
discussion.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Chairman,
we have had a lot of discussion about the
European market and the British market. I
personally would like to tell hon. members
that there must have been some good work
done by the committee that went over there
because there have been some results. I
would say that there is a great potential
there for the future.
Could I ask the hon. Minister if Mr. Merritt
is permanently located in Great Britain at
the present time?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No.
Mr. Innes: There is nobody there at all on
a permanent basis?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have Ontario House
there and we definitely feel that our market-
ing director can be more effective if he is
conversant with what is going on here and
what is going on over there. We are moving
him back and forth to do the most effective
job that can possibly be done, I think it is
much better to have a man who is fairly
conversant with the product that is available
and the quality of the product available, so
tliat he can put that product into the trade
channels in Great Britain in an effective way.
This is our policy.
Mr. Innes: I am amazed at tliat statement
by the hon. Minister. To tell the truth, I had
asked about a year ago of the then hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) if London House
did have any liaison between the agricultural
enterprise and the disposing of agricultural
products over there, and the answer was
definitely no. What does the hon. Minister
expect our people there to do, handle it all?
And the hon. Minister tells rne today that he
has Ontario House there.
Might I ask him this: Has Ontario House
a liaison with distributing the agricultural
products in London at the present time? He
has actually admitted to me that at the present
time there is no permanent person in Great
Britain. This is shameful, when the hon.
Minister from Huron made his great oration
here tonight, and the hon. Minister comes
and tells us that he has nobody permanently
there. I think it is time that somebody got
there. ...
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This department does
not, but there is one of them in my depart-
ment. But the hon. member does not want
to discuss what our department is doing.
Mr. Innes: Would the hon. Minister of
Energy Resources mind? I am speaking to
the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will answer the hon.
member's question, Mr. Chairman. I sug-
gest that we are interested in expanding our
trade regardless of what product it is that is
produced in the province of Ontario. And I
would further suggest to my hon. friend that
if he expects every department of this gov-
ernment which is interested in expanding
trade to put a whole staff over there to do
nothing more than to sell that department's
individual product, then he will be back
next year telling us we are spending the tax-
payers' money. ' I"
Mr. Innes: I am speaking on agriculture.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Just a minute and I
will answer my hon. friend's question. He
890
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
asked me if we had a permanent resident
man in England representing this department.
We have reptesentatives at Ontario House
represented by the hon. Minister of Com-
merce and Development's people over there,
and our man here, Mr. Merritt, to whom I
have referred, is doing the job of liaison
between Ontario producers and the export
market channels to Great Britain. Now, what
better arrangement could one find than that?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On a point of
privilege, Mr. Chairman. My privilege relates
to the comments of the hon. member for
Parkdale. Mr. Chairman, I make reference
to page 102 of the Hansard of the last ses-
sidnj the hon. member for Parkdale speaking:
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime Min-
ister and his cohorts over on the gov-
ernment side want to talk about foreign
trade. They want to get away from the
problems that are in the province, they
want to talk about something they cannot
touC'h or cannot solve.
Mr. Trotter: In answer to that, Mr. Chair-
man, we were discussing unemplo>TTient in
the province of Ontario. We had literally
thousands of unemployed here. They were
doing Nothing about winter works. We were
not discussing these problems at all. I would
say the hon. Minister is completely out of
order there. So I still say he does not know
what he is talking about.
Mr. Innes: Could I ask the hon. Minister
if the members at London House, who are
apparently there representing the interests of
agriculture, have been appointed since his
study committee made their trip to Great
Britain?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: First of all, I would
like to point out to the hon. member that it
i!> Ontario House, I am told, but that is beside
the point. We are all interested in selling
Ontario products over there just as much as
my h^n. friend tries to let on that he is, and I
am sure that he is interested in this.
Mr. Innes: On a point of personal privi-
lege, I think the hon. Minister should with-
draw" that. 'There is no one more interested
in iigricultiire than I am, and I want the
hon.' Minister to know that.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I did not say the hon.
member was not.
Mr. Innes: And I would like to ask tiie
hph.' Minister how much tobacco was sold
in' England this past year. Tobacco sales
are cut in half this year on the Tillsonburg
market now.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well now, what ques-
tion is it the hon. member wants to ask?
Mr. Innes: I would like to know what
training the man has that has been appointed
to Ontario House and when he was ap-
pointed, who he is, and also how much
tobacco— well, that is enough for the mo-
ment. But will the hon. Minister tell me
when he was appointed, who is he, and what
are his qualifications?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The hon. member has
stated his questions in an excellent manner,
but I think they should take their time
over there because they are befuddling him,
I can see that. I would suggest this—
Mr. Wintermeyer: Can the hon. Minister
answer this without consultation?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I told the hon. mem-
bers, if the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer) would only listen, that
we have no agricultural representative in
Ontario House specifically hired by this
department to do the job. We are vising
the departmental people of the whole gov-
ernment to do this very thing.
Vote 111 agreed to.
Votes 112 to 116, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 117:
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Chairman,
in connection with vote 117, I would like
to say again that the remarks by the hon.
Minister at the outset of the discussion of
these estimates emphasized the fact that
our educational institutions in Guelph on
the OAC campus are expected to have an
overall enrolment of 4,000 by 1970 and the
total vote in 117, 118 and 119, which actu-
ally, after the passage of one of the bills
before the committee on agriculture at this
time, will all be one, is well over $7.5
million. ■•
Previously, in this debate I have attempted
to point out to the House and the hon.
Minister the importance I feel there is in
extending to the Ontario Agricultural Col-
lege full university status, in that they can
grant graduate degrees, particularly at the
doctorate level. Now the advantage of this
is obvious in attracting scholars in agricul-
ture from all over the w^orld and also
retaining oiir own scholars in this province,
bec?ause at the jpresent timfe they are forced
MARCH 6, 1962
891
to leave Ontario for graduate work in agri-
culture.
Granting university status to the Ontario
Agricultural College would therefore be a
tremendous step forward for agriculture in
Ontario and the wJiole academic community.
I would therefore ask the hon. Minister
of Agriculture if he contemplates seeking
this university status for the Ontario Agri-
cultural College and, if not, perhaps he
could explain why he is not going to do that?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I sug-
gest to the hon. member who discussed this,
I believe, at Guelph during the committee
the other day, "-that this matter can be very
well discussed when the committee on agri-
culture meets to deal with the bill. This
has nothing to -do with the estimates what-
ever, and I suggest there will be the fullest
opportunity to discuss this at the time the
bill is being discussed in the committee on
agriculture.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister was not present at that discussion, and
when I asked the question there was a
pregnant pause and there was no answer
forthcoming, although I had the distinct
impression that the President of the OAC
wanted to answer but said nothing under the
circumstances. Now I asked this question; no
answer was forthcoming in committee and
I ask it here.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, I might be able to assist the
hon. member in this question dealing with
the status of OAC, OVC and MacDonald
Institute.
These institutions are basically developed
for the benefit of the agricultural commu-
nity of the province and they do not at the
moment and under tlieir present organiza-
tion fit the pattern of our university devel-
opment in the province in any way. They
are completely subsidized by the govern-
ment, both academically and as far as resi-
dences and so on are concerned. They do
not fit the pattern of our universities, all of
which are independent and have sources of
revenue independent of the government.
That is one diiEFerence that I would point
out.
We have introduced two bills in the present
session in order to separate two functions
that have been carried on in these three
institutions, namely, the educational function
and the research function. The purpose in
separating these two functions as we have
done by uniting the three institutions into
one group and establishing a research insti-
tute to handle research, is to distinguish
these functions so that we will have the
piuely educational function on one hand and
the practical research function, which has
served agriculture so well over the years,
separated from research as it is associated
with an educational institution.
Now, as far as granting university status
to these three colleges, I would say that a
great deal of thought would have to be given
to that matter. I think we have taken the
first steps in these bills in order to develop
the idea and see whether it would, in fact,
prove to be feasible, whether we would
establish a university there.
Hon. members can see now that this is
basically a farmers' college and has been
over the years. It has performed that function
very well. It is one of the few institutions
of its type in the British Commonwealth of
Nations and I think we would have to pro-
ceed very carefully before we made dny
changes in its status, and particularly change
its relationship to the rural communities and
to the rural economy and the farm economy
of the province. '
For these reasons, I would say that im-
mediately I cannot see any possibility of this
institution becoming a university. On the
other hand, I do point out to the hon. mem-
ber that in separating these functions as we
have done with these two bills— and L believe
these were the bills that were being discussed
in the committee— this is the first step to
seeing what can be done.
But hon. members have to consider the
possibility of duplication of facilities. If these
institutions became a university, then of
course, they would, I assume, want to im-
mediately institute all types of university
courses. I would point out that we have a
university in Waterloo which the government
is subsidizing quite heavily, which is devel-
oping and providing many courses for young
people from that area. We have another
university in London being subsidized by the
government for some few years. Recently
we have created another university in the
Windsor area. Now, at the moment, it is a
good question as to whether we need another
general university in the Guelph area.
So if hon. members put these various points
together, they can see that it is a' very
complex question and one that cannot be
settled immediately. It is a question that
will require a great deal of examination and
study in order to trace through the final
892
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ramifications and results of the hon. member's
proposal.
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort William): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask the hon. Minister
about these particular votes. Most of them,
as they go along, seem to be rather high.
There does not seem to be any real considera-
tion being taken as far as seeing if it would
be possible now or in the future to see that
reductions are made in any of these votes.
This particular one here— we spent $5,091,-
429; now we are asked to spend $5,306,000.
All the different categories here are added up
and it comes to a certain figure; does the
hon. Minister take these different votes, look
at them very carefully to see if they can be
pared?
There does not seem to be any indication
through the whole vote, that I can see,
where this has been done in any of the
votes. I feel that if the hon. Minister could
look at these things very carefully and see
where savmgs could be made— just because
something is to cost a certain amount last
year does not necessarily mean it is going to
cost the same and more this year. Surely
there should be some reduction shown some-
where along the line througli this particular
department.
Of course, I would not want to say all the
departments are doing exactly the same thing
but the indications seem to be there. Surely,
we should or could expect real concentration
of savings within this department, at least,
and I certainly would like to see for once
some indication of this being done.
Vote 117 agreed to.
On vote 118:
Mr. Innes: Mr. Chairman, with regard to
the revenue of the various departments—
OAC, OVC— from where does the revenue
from the various departments come? Does
it come back to the department, does it
come to OAC, or does it come back to the
general revenue of the province?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The consolidated rev-
enue fund.
Mr. Innes: Recently, I believe it was last
year, the dining hall concession was tendered
to an outside firm at the OAC; previously it
had been operated by the college. What was
the reason for tendering it out? There seem
to be some complaints.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think it Was done in
the interest of efficient administration. This is
done in most of our high schools across the
province, and we simply expanded it to the
OAC as a very efficient way of handling this
particular service.
Mr. Innes: Well, it may be efficient but I
understand from the students up there that
it is not too satisfactory, and I bring that to
the attention of the hon. Minister.
In the public accounts for the OAC there
is an item for Rochester and Pittsburg Coal
Company-$ 146,000. I would like to know
if any Canadian coal was tendered for that
particular college? Why an American firm?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I understand that is a
Canadian company; the tenders are called,
and considered, and the low tender gets the
bid. Again, it is a Canadian company as I
understand it.
Mr. Innes: Do we understand this is
Canadian coal? There is a difference.
Vote 118 agreed to.
Votes 119 and 120 agreed to.
On vote 121:
Mr. C. E. Janes (Lambton East): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to say a word on vote 121,
the Ontario Telephone Commission. I
would like to express to the House my
satisfaction in the work this commission is
doing. I had considerable to do with getting
it appointed, a number of years ago, and
they are trying to fill a place where some
assistance is very necessary. When they first
were appointed, there were 500 independent
telephone companies in the province of
Ontario, serving about 175,000 phone holders.
That number of phone companies now is
down to 270 and the strange thing is it is
serving about the same number of phone
holders, because more people are taking
phones on all the time.
Different people have said to me, why do
we have these independent companies? Why
are they necessary?
Back over the years the rural people had
to help themselves. The Bell Telephone was
serving the urban areas and was not interested
in rural areas- that is partly correct. They
were not interested in branching out into the
rural areas because it is not a paying proposi-
tion. They established in the towns, villages
and urban centres and in many instances
farmers took their own lines in and attached
on to the Bell central. They became, what
they call, service station companies. They
have operated that way over the years.
MARCH 6, 1962
893
This telephone commission has been
gradually trying to get these companies
amalgamated. There are still quite a number
of those in existence, yet. It means that a
company like that is not large enough to
maintain a staflF of repair men and operators
to carry on in a businesslike way, and to make
any money. And, like any other business, if
you are in the telephone business, you must
make some money. They have been dis-
appearing very fast and it is causing a very
great worry to many people in this province.
In 1961, 39 companies disappeared— 27 of
those were taken over by the Bell. I want
to say here and now that the Bell does not
want to take those companies over. The Bell
is worried about the situation. They have no
desire to become a monopoly. We already
have our NDP people with a platform that
is going to take over the Bell Telephone Com-
pany, and as soon as any company becomes
a monopoly there is always the possibility of
being accused of monopolizing things and
getting into trouble. We have worked with
the Bell Company all our lives. I have been
on the telephones directing the company for
about 40 years, and we have found them very
co-operative and anxious to work with in-
dependent companies.
The telephone authority has been oflFering
various kinds of assistance to these companies.
They help them set up bookkeeping and
proper accounts. They assist them in
engineering. They have an engineer who is
the chief engineer and doing an especially
good job. We have used him two or diree
times in our work and he is very co-operative.
The authority is very co-operative in assisting
in any way they can.
We are worried about the fact that the
companies are disappearing through the coun-
try and I want to make a statement here right
now that Bell Telephone does not give as
good a service to country people as indepen-
dent companies do and can. They are closer
to their work, closer to the people, and are
doing an exceptionally good job.
Of course, disputes arise and they are
brought to this board to be settled. They try
to get the companies together, trying to get
them to amalgamate and get them stronger,
because a company must be a certain size
before it can have enough income and revenue
to carry on. We have a hundred systems
today that involve less than 500 phones and
any company under 500 phones cannot oper-
ate successfully. My worry, Mr. Chairman, is
that unless something is done to assist these
companies to carry on they will gradually
disappear and we may get to one system.
I can assure the hon. Minister— and I re-
peat myself-the Bell Telephone Company
does not want this and they are wiUing to do
anything and help in any way to keep these
smaller systems working. Bell Telephone
assists the small systems in giving service be-
cause they are interested in following the
service right through to the subscriber
whether it is on their line or on the indepen-
dent line.
We have— there is no need of me reading a
hst of them of 59, there is a list of 500 or
more— our number was about 100 with less
than 500 phones. I am not going to take
much time on this, because it is only a small
item of expenditure, but one that has been
very useful to a great number of people in
the province.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring
this before the House, if the time has not
come when there should be some assistance
given to these small independent companies?
I am suggesting that there be a IxMa company
or something set up for the government to
loan them some money. I am not suggesting
that we give them any subsidy or bonus of
any kind.
There is no place they can go to borrow
money. The loan companies are not allowed
to lend it to them, and apparently this IBB
in Ottawa is not allowed to lend it to them,
as so far they have not approved any loans.
I am suggesting that the Ontario government
could well step into the picture and make
money available at, I would suggest, not less
than 6 per cent or whatever it costs the
Ontario government to supply the money.
There would be no loss in this because it
would be under the control of the telephone
commission, who have now had enough
experience. They know the situation, they
know the business; and the telephone business
is one business where you know where you
are going.
I might say I have been a director of our
company for years. We have 1,600 phones.
We have two centrals that have been changed
over to dial. We are proceeding now to
change over the third central, and by the
time it is changed over we are going to have
approximately 2,000 phones.
It requires a lot of money for this service.
The people are demanding it, and unless some
money is made available for these companies
to carry on, the people themselves, in de-
manding services, are going to force them
all out of business; because country people
have the same rights to the same kind of
telephone service that anybody else has. It is
894
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not a question of tlie government giving any-
thing; it is a question of the government
making available money to assist these firms
to carry on and put their systems up to date
and give the people in the rural areas the
proper kind of telephone service.
-I would suggest, Mr. Chainnan, that there
be a minimuiu set for the number of phones
that would be assisted, I would say it should
not be less than 800 to 1,000, but I would
not want to be too definite about that figure.
Sonietimes there is a company in a situation
with 500 phones, which number it is not pos-
sible to increase without a great deal of
difficulty. I would suggest that while there
should be 800 to 1,000 minimum, there
should be a leeway made that the commis-
sion, or the hon. Minister, or whatever board
is set up to handle it— and I believe a com-
mission would be the proper board— where
there was, say, a company with 500 phones,
would hav€ the deciding vote or authority
to ^say whether that company should have a
loan or note
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring this
up before the House; I think it is worth con-
sidering and wortli some discussion, and I
think would be a great deal of help to the
rural people and the farmers of Ontario.
Vote 121 agreed to.
On vote 122:
' Mr. JR. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask a question of the hon. Minister under
vote. 122? I should like to know how many
loans are still outstanding to the Ontario
junior farm loan branch.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, tlie
ans-wer to the question is that there are just
under 3,200 loans outstanding at this date.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, we
know that under the estimates for this we
have a budget of some $100,000. 1 checked
back into the public accounts for last year
and find, that we have some six or seven
executive-type personnel on the payroll. This
loan board,, as I understand it, has ceased
operations for the purpose of granting loans
since the federal government went into the
business of making loans. Now, there are
3,200 loans outstanding and it costs us $100,-
000 a year to administer this department; it
seems to me that it is costing us $3,000 per
year per loan. Is that correct?
, An. hon. member: No— $30.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, in any event,
Mr. Chairman, I will get the hon. Minister
of Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay) to figure
it out for me, and maybe correct it for me.
In any event, I do not think any organization
would continue a staff this large to service
such a few loans. If we figure that it re-
quires $100,000 simply to keep the records
and take in the payments with respect to this
limited number of loans, I think it is costing
us too much money; and I think the hon.
Minister should take another look and per-
haps cut these estimates.
I have raised this matter in the Legislature
before, Mr. Chairman, and I note that very
little has been done. I suggest that possibly
the only changes that have been made have
been the odd one that they have been able
to absorb into other departments within The
Department of Agriculture.
I wonder if the hon. Minister would inform
us as to why it is necessary to maintain a staflF
this large to service these few loans which
are still outstanding.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Chairman,
this is a matter that is certainly under con-
sideration. I would point out to my hon.
friend that the estimate has been dropped
$16,500 for this year; that there are three less
on the payroll today than there were at this
time last year, and that we assume that as
this matter consolidates itself into purely a
collection agency we can perhaps reduce tlie
staff even further.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, I am pretty
sure, Mr, Chairman, that if the hon. Minister
were to, as suggested, tender out the servic-
ing of this loan to a private enterprise <)om-
pany, it could have been done for at least
half of this.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: A collection agency to
collect from these junior farmers? Does the
hon. member really believe in that?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I think that if this is
as efficient as the government can operate this
system, they had better look around for some
method of getting it done. I did not suggest
a collection agency, and apparently the hon.
Minister is of the opinion that the only
people who could do it was a collection
agency. There are otiier facilities available
in the province that I think could do it.
Mr. Oliver: Did the hon. Minister tell the
House how much money was outstanding?
I just came into the House and I did not
know if that information was given or not.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Does the hon. member
want that information?
MARCH 6, 1962
895
Mr. Oliver: Yes, I do.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The principal outstand-
ing is $20,250,000, approximately, just within
a few dollars.
Vote 122 agreed to.
On vote 123:
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort William): On vote 123
I would like to ask about this Co-operative
Loans Act. Is there money still being loaned
for co-operatives under this Act?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.
Mr. Chappie: There is money still being
loaned?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, yes.
Mr. Chappie: And this $450,000 is avail-
able this year for loans under this category
to co-operatives? It is $450,000 here set
aside. Is that so?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I am not
too clear on what the hon. member is asking,
hut the amount loaned this year was $488,000
to co-operatives. Now, this has been set as
an estimate of $450,000, for the coming year,
and if there is more needed we will-
Mr. Chappie: I just wanted to know that.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I had
noticed on the leadership convention of the
Conservative party, that there was a plat-
form which had been drawn up, and in this
platform it was going to give assistance to
immigrant families to settle on farms. I
wonder would this assistance come under
this co-operative loan or is there any way that
an immigrant can get a loan to settle on a
farm? Does he have to be a resident of
Canada, or does he have to be a Canadian
citizen?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The Ontario govern-
ment is not in the farm loan business. The
junior farmers loans were the only ones we
were engaged in and we withdrew from
that at the establishment of the Canadian
Farm Credit Corporation, which does pro-
vide loans for farm people engaged in full-
time farming.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, I would hke
to ask the hon. Minister: has his department
given any consideration that they might
possibly go back into the field again to
give loans to junior farmers in the province?
Might the department go back into that
field again?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No consideration has
been given to that. We have had no par-
ticular demand for it. As far as I know, the
Canadian Farm Credit Corporation is pro-
viding satisfactory credit for farmers and I
have not heard of objections to it in our
area. We would feel that at the moment at
least there would not appear to be any
demand for a dupHcation of services.
Mr. Manley: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can-
not altogether agree with the observations
of the hon. Minister when he says that the
Canadian Farm Loan Corporation is meet-
ing the demands in this province. I have
had considerable experience with this and
I find that young farmers are having great
difficulty in getting loans from the Canadian
Farm Loan Corporation.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Manley: I was saying that I have had
some experience, Mr. Chairman, and I find
that this really does not meet the needs of
the young farmers in the province of On-
tario, nor in fact in Canada.
Now the Farm Co-operation Loan Board,
as we know it, at Ottawa, will not look at
a loan unless the acreage is far in excess of
100 acres. I have had experience where a
son wanted to buy a farm adjoining his
father. The father had the machinery and
the equipment and they could work to-
gether, but the young farmer was turned
down. They figured that what they were
going to loan on was not of sufficient acre-
age and he did not have the full equipment
in order to operate the farm. Nevertheless
the equipment was there which could run
both farms' acreage. I think there definitely
is a place— if we are so concerned with the
future development of the farming industry
in this province and if we are going to
contribute in a way that is going to keep
the young farmers on the farm then we
have to provide the credit that is necesary
for them to get into the business of farming.
I do not know why in the world the On-
tario government pulled out of this field.
I do not think that the losses were such that
that was a deterrent at all, or know why
that would be any reason for them to pull
out of this field.
It is quite different in other provinces,
and I want to give the example of Quebec.
Quebec did not pull out; they went on and
made loans more available and easier for
the young farmers there. They are encour-
aging the young men in Quebec to stay on
the farms.
896
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An bon. member: It has changed a bit
Mr. Manley: Surely, it is making credit
easier. The loans have increased in Quebec.
They have shown a forward step in Quebec.
But in 1959, the latest figure that I have,
the Quebec government put out loans to the
value of $7,243,295 at an interest rate of 2.5
per cent. They are only charging 2.5 per cent
down there. They are leading the way, they
are encouraging the young farmers to take up
farming and to stay on the land.
But here the government is putting tlie
young farmers off the land, they are increas-
ing the unemployment rolls across the
province and tliey are not giving any encour-
agement at all to the young farmers who
might want to stay on the land if they had
an opportunity to get started.
Any hon. members who have any experi-
ence in farm operations today or who have
been in the position of having to start a
young boy out on a farm, surely they must
know the amount of money that it takes. I
think there is a definite place here as far as
the Ontario government is concerned. If
they are interested in the welfare of the
farming interest today, then I think there is
a place for them to get back into the loan-
ing of money to young farmers in order to
get them established on the farms of this
province.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington- Duff erin): Just on
a point of information, did the hon. member
say that Quebec is loaning money at 2.5 per
cent? Under what conditions and in what
amounts?
Mr. Manley: Pardon?
Mr. Root: Under what conditions did they
loan money at 2.5 per cent and in what
amounts?
Mr. Manley: The length of the loan runs
up, I believe, to about 35 or 39 years. They
(give up to 75 per cent of the value of the
farm. I hope that will answer the question
of the hon. member.
Mr. Root: Mr. Chairman, that was not the
question I asked.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is an existing
programme today, is it? Is the hon. member
for Stormont asserting that?
Mr. Root: Mr. Chairman, my question was,
how much money can you borrow at 2.5 per
cent and under what conditions, what type
of farm, or what type of operation can you
borrow money at 2.5 per cent?
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr. Chair-
man, I want to get involved here just for a
minute. Maybe it would be a good place for
this government to borrow money, from
Quebec at 2.5 per cent. Look at the money
they would save in interest in a year.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I
would like to come back to this platform
about the immigrant families settling on
farms. I would like to say to the hon. Minis-
ter of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) that in my
riding of Dovercourt there are many men
with a background of farming. Right now,
and over the past couple of years, these men
have been without work and are huddled in
small homes. I came down once with a dele-
gation to The Department of Agriculture.
They have this background in agriculture and
would give anything for the opportunity of
owning a small bit of land. I notice— and I
would say that I thought it was a very far-
sighted policy— that hon. members opposite
had at their convention mention of placing
people on farms. But I would say that from
the point of view of these people— I am
speaking particularly of Portuguese immi-
grants—who have tried to set up a co-
operative farm base so that they could farm
after having had some experience on Ontario
farms, have heard that the government would
help. I understand that previously the federal
government, through a department of settle-
ment, did give some assistance. I understand
that in Alberta and some of the other prov-
inces there has been assistance given to
immigrants after they have had a certain
period of residence.
I would like to just raise this to the hon.
Minister, that in view of the congestion of
people in cities and in view of the un-
employment picture, instead of having to
keep people on relief payrolls, it might be a
wonderful thing if we had some way to give
them a foothold to get some land. I am quite
sure that they would prove their value as
farmers of Ontario if this opportunity was
given to them, and perhaps given through this
Co-operatives Loans Act or if there was some
extension from The Junior Farmers Act.
Vote 123 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee
of supply rise and report that it has come to
certain resolutions and ask for leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
MARCH 6, 1962
89T
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves,
seconded by hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister
of Energy Resources), that when this House
adjourns the present sitting thereof, it do
stand adjourned until Thursday next at 2:00,
p.m.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10:50 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 32
ONTARIO
Hegisflature of Ontario
Betiates
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty'Sixth Legislature
Thursday, March 8, 1962
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address/ Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 8, 1962
Third report, select committee re standing committees, Mr. Rollins 901
Fifth report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Gomme 903
First report, standing committee on education, Mr. White 903
First report, standing committee on agriculture, Mr. McNeil 903
Public Parks Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, first reading 904
Estimates, Department of Transport, Mr. Rowntree 908
Recess, 6 o'clock ...r.......: 940
901
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests students from the follow-
ing schools: in the east gallery Danforth
Technical School, Toronto, and in the west
gallery Islington United Church Sunday
School Class; Silverthorn Public School,
Cooksville; St. John's Separate School, New-
market, and Our Lady of Grace Separate
School, Aurora.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. C. T. Rollins (Hastings East), from
the select committee appointed to prepare
the lists of hon. members to compose the
standing committees of the House, presented
the committee's third report which was read
as follows and adopted:
Your committee recommends that the re-
vised list of the standing committees ordered
by the House be composed as follows:
Committee on agriculture: Messrs. Allen
(Middlesex South), Auld, Boyer, Brown,
Brunelle, Carruthers, Chappie, Council,
Davis, Davison, Downer, Edwards (Perth),
Edwards (Wentworth), Evans, Fullerton, Gis-
born, Gomme, Guindon, Hall, Hamilton,
Hanna, Hoffman, Innes, Janes, Johnston
(Carleton), Lavergne, Letherby, MacDonald,
Mackenzie, MacNaughton, Manley, Morning-
star, Myers, McNeil, Nixon, Noden, Oliver,
Parry, Quilty, Rollins, Root, Sandercock,
Simonett, Spence, Stewart, Sutton, Whicher,
Whitney, Wintermeyer, Worton— 50.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of seven members.
Committee on conservation, lands and
forests: Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South),
Auld, Belisle, Boyer, Brunelle, Carruthers,
Chappie, Davison, Edwards (Perth), Evans,
Fullerton, Gibson, Gisborn, Gomme, Guindon,
Thursday, March 8, 1962
Hall, Hamilton, Harris, Hoffman, Innes,
Janes, Johnston (Carleton), Johnston (Parry
Sound), Lavergne, Lawrence, Letherby,
Lewis, MacDonald, Mackenzie, MacNaughton,
Manley, Morningstar, Morrow, McNeil,
Nixon, Noden, Oliver, Parry, Rollins, Root,
Sandercock, Simonett, Sopha, Spence, Sut-
ton, Troy, Quilty, Wardrope, Whicher,
White-50.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of seven members.
Committee on education: Messrs. Auld,
Beckett, Belanger, Belisle, Boyer, Brown,
Brunelle, Bryden, Carruthers, Cowling,
Davis, Davison, Downer, Edwards (Perth),
Evans, Gibson, Gould, Guindon, Hamilton,
Harris, Janes, Johnston (Carleton), Law-
rence, Letherby, Lewis, MacDonald, Mac-
Naughton, Morin, Morningstar, Morrow,
Myers, McNeil, Newman, Nixon, Parry,
Phillips, Price, Reilly, Root, Sandercock,
Simonett, Singer, Stewart, Sutton, Thomp-
son, Trotter, Troy, Whicher, White, Winter-
meyer—50.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of seven members.
Committee on energy: Messrs. Brunelle,
Bryden, Bukator, Carruthers, Chappie, Davis,
Gomme, Guindon, Hamilton, Haskett, Janes,
Johnston (Parry Sound), Johnston (Carleton),
Lawrence, Letherby, Lewis, MacDonald,
MacNaughton, Myers, McNeil, Nixon, Oliver,
Phillips, Reaunie, Reilly, Rollins, Root,
Simonett, Singer, Sopha, Stewart, Thomas,
Whicher, Whitney, Wintermeyer— 35.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of five members.
Committee on game and fish: Messrs. Allen
(Middlesex South), Beckett, Boyer, Brown,
Brunelle, Chappie, Cowling, Davis, Davison,
Evans, Fullerton, Gibson, Gisborn, Guindon,
Hamilton, HoflFman, Innes, Janes, Johnston
(Parry Sound), Johnston (Carleton), Lavergne,
Lawrence, Letherby, Lewis, Lyons, Mac-
Donald, Mackenzie, MacNaughton, Manley,
Morningstar, Morrow, Myers, McNeil, New-
man, Nixon, Noden, Parry, Price, Quilty,
Rollins, Root, Simonett, Sopha, Spence,
902
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Stewart, Sutton, Troy, Whicher, White,
Wliitney-50.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of seven members.
Committee on go\ernment commissions:
Messrs. Auld, Beckett, Behmger, Bnmelle,
Bryden, Davis, Downer, Edwards (Perth),
Guindon, Janes, Johnston (Parry Sound),
Johnston (Carleton), Lawrence, Lewis, Mac-
Donald, MacNaughton, Morningstar, Morrow,
McNeil, Oliver, Parry, Phillips, Price,
Reaume, Root, Sandercock, Singer, Sopha,
Sutton, Thomas, Trotter, Troy, Whicher,
Whitney, Wintenneyer— 35.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of five members.
Committee on healtli and welfare: Messrs,
Auld, Belisle, Boyer, Brunelle, Brown,
Bukator, Carruthers, Chappie, Cowling,
Davis, Davison, Downer, Edwards (Perth),
Edwards (Wentworth), Evans, Gomme, Guin-
don, Harris, Janes, Johnston (Parry Sound),
Johnston (Carleton), Lavergne, Lawrence,
Letherby, Lewis, MacDonald, Mackenzie,
MacNaughton, Morningstar, Morrow, McNeil,
Newman, Noden, Oliver, Parry, Phillips,
Price, Reilly, Rollins, Root, Sandercock,
Simonett, Spence, Sutton, Thomas, Thomp-
son, Trotter, Troy, Wintermeyer, Worton— 50.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of seven members.
Committee on highways and highway
safety: Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Auld,
Beckett, Belanger, Belisle, Boyer, Brown,
Brunelle, Carruthers, Cowling, Davis, Ed-
wards (Perth), Edwards (Wentworth), Fuller-
ton, Gibson, Gisbom, Gomme, Gordon,
Grossman, Guindon, Hall, Hamilton, Hanna,
Innes, Janes, Johnston (Parry Sound), John-
ston (Carleton), Lavergne, Letherby, Lewis,
MacDonald, Mackenzie, MacNaughton, Man-
ley, Morrow, McNeil, Newman, Noden,
Price, Reaume, Reilly, Rollins, Root,
Simonett, Singer, Sutton, Thomas, Thompson,
White, Worton-50.
The quonun of the said committee to
consist of seven members.
Committee on labour: Messrs. Auld,
Belanger, Belisle, Carruthers, Cass, Daley,
Davis, Davison, Downer, Edwards (Went-
worth), Gibson, Gisborn, Gomme, Gross-
man, Hamilton, Hanna, Haskett, Lavergne,
Lawrence, MacDonald, MacNaughton, Morn-
ingstar, Myers, Newman, Parry, Reaume,
Rowntree, Simonett, Singer, Sopha, Trotter,
Wardrope, Whicher, White, Yaremko— 35.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of five members.
Committee on legal bills: Messrs. Beckett,
Bryden, Cass, Davis, Downer, Edwards
(Perth), Gould, Grossman, Hall, Hanna,
Haskett, Lawrence, Macaulay, MacDonald,
Myers, Nickle, Noden, Parry, Price, Rown-
tree, Singer, Sopha, Trotter, Wintermeyer,
Yaremko— 25.
The quonmi of the said committee to
consist of five members.
Committee on mining: Messrs. Belisle,
Brunelle, Bryden, Chappie, Davis, Evans,
Fullerton, Gisborn, Gomme, Grossman,
Harris, Hoffman, Janes, Johnston (Parry
Sound), Johnston (Carleton), Lavergne, Mac-
Donald, Mackenzie, Manley, Morin, Morrow,
Newman, Noden, Price, Quilty, Rollins,
Root, Rowntree, Sandercock, Sopha, Thomp-
son, Troy, Wardrope, Wintermeyer, Worton
-35.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Committee on municipal law: Messrs. Auld,
Beckett, Belanger, Belisle, Brunelle, Bryden,
Carruthers, Cowling, Davis, Downer, Ed-
wards (Perth), Edwards (Wentworth), Evans,
Fullerton, Gibson, Gomme, Hall, Hamilton,
Haskett, Janes, Johnston (Carleton), Lavergne,
Lawrence, Lewis, MacDonald, Mackenzie,
MacNaughton, Manley, Morin, Myers, Mc-
Neil, Newman, Nickle, Oliver, Parry, Price,
Reaume, Reilly, Root, Rowntree, Sandercock,
Singer, Sopha, Stewart, Sutton, Thomas,
Whicher, Whitney, Worton, Yaremko— 50.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of seven members.
Committee on printing: Messrs. Auld,
Belanger, Belisle, Boyer, Brown, Brunelle,
Carruthers, Cowling, Evans, Fullerton, Gis-
born, Gomme, Gordon, Hamilton, Haskett,
Janes, Johnston (Carleton), MacDonald, Mac-
kenzie, Manley, Morin, Parry, Whitney,
Wintermeyer, Worton— 25.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of five members.
Committee on private bills: Messrs. Allen
(Middlesex South), Auld, Beckett, Belanger,
Belisle, Boyer, Brown, Brunelle, Bryden,
Carruthers, Cowling, Davis, Edwards (Perth),
Evans, Fullerton, Gisborn, Gomme, Gordon,
Gould, Grossman, Guindon, Hall, Hamilton,
Hanna, Harris, Innes, Janes, Johnston (Parry
Sound), Johnston (Carleton), Lavergne,
Lawrence, Lewis, MacDonald, Mackenzie,
MacNaughton, Manley, Morningstar, Morrow,
Myers, McNeil, Newman, Nickle, Nixon,
Oliver, Parry, Price, Reaume, Reilly, Rollins,
Root, Sandercock, Simonett, Singer, Sopha,
MARCH 8, 1962
903
Sutton, Thomas, Trotter, Troy, Whicher,
Whitney-60.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of seven members.
Committee on privileges and elections:
Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Belisle,
Boyer, Brunelle, Davis, Gomme, Grossman,
Harris, Lawrence, Letherby, MacDonald,
Morrow, Oliver, Trotter, Wintermeyer— 15.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of five members.
Committee on public accounts: Messrs.
Auld, Beckett, Boyer, Brown, Brunelle,
Bryden, Chappie, Cowling, Davis, Downer,
Edwards (Perth), Edwards (Wentworth), Ful-
lerton, Gomme, Gould, Grossman, Guindon,
Hanna, Haskett, Hoffman, Janes, Johnston
(Parry Sound), Lavergne, Lawrence, Leth-
erby, Lyons, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mac-
Naughton, Morrow, Myers, Noden, Oliver,
Parry, Price, Reaume, Rollins, Rowntree,
Sandercock, Simonett, Singer, Sutton, Thomas,
Thompson, Trotter, Whicher, White, Whitney,
Wintermeyer, Worton— 50.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of seven members.
Committee on standing orders: Messrs.
Allen (Middlesex South), Auld, Behsle, Ful-
lerton, Gordon, Hall, Hanna, Hoffman, Janes,
Lavergne, Lyons, MacDonald, Mackenzie,
MacNaughton, Manley, McNeil, Newman,
Noden, Parry, Sandercock, Sutton, Thomas,
Troy, White, Wintermeyer— 25.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of five members.
Committee on travel and publicity: Messrs.
Allen (Middlesex South), Auld, Beckett,
Belanger, Belisle, Boyer, Brown, Brvmelle,
Bukator, Carruthers, Chappie, Cowling,
Davis, Davison, Downer, Edwards (Perth),
Fullerton, Gibson, Gisborn, Gomme, Gordon,
Grossman, Guindon, Hamilton, Harris, Janes,
Johnston (Parry Sound), Lavergne, Lawrence,
Letherby, Lewis, Lyons, MacDonald, Mac-
kenzie, MacNaughton, Morin, Newman,
Noden, Parry, Quilty, Reaume, Reilly, Rollins,
Root, Sandercock, Simonett, Trotter, Troy,
Whicher, Whitney-50.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of seven members.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, before the motion
is actually voted on, I would like to request
of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
that the hon. member for Renfrew South
(Mr. Quilty) be added to the committee on
education. He has made that representation
to me just recently, after the arrangement
was made. I presume that will not cause
any undue interruption or imbalance.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I am
sure tlie mover the motion will agree to
that and we can add him.
Mr. G. E. Gomme (Lanark) from the
standing committee on private bills, pre-
sented the committee's fifth report which
was read as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. Prll, An Act respecting the City
of St. Catharines.
Bill No. Prl7, An Act respecting the City
of Ottawa.
Your committee would recommend that
the following bill having been withdrawn
be not reported and would further recom-
mend that the fees less the penalties and
the actual cost of printing be remitted:
Bill No. Pr6, An Act respecting the Town
of Orillia.
Mr. J. H. White (London South), from the
standing committee on education, presented
the committee's first report which was read
as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill without amendment:
Bill No. 33, An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Education Act.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. 34, An Act to amend The Schools
Administration Act.
Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin), from the stand-
ing committete on agriculture, presented the
committee's first report which was read as
follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. 70, An Act to amend The Agri-
cultural Societies Act.
Bill No. 74, An Act to amend The Bees
Act.
Bill No. 75, An Act to amend The Co-
operative Loans Act.
Bill No. 76, An Act to amend The Horti-
cultural Societies Act.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
904
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
PUBLIC PARKS ACT
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend The Public Parks Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if the hon. Minister would outline
the purpose of the bill.
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many
amendments to the Act. Among other things
it removes the restrictions on the area of
parks which can be held by a board of parks
management and makes it the same as those
for parks operated by a council. It provides
tliat a municipality may raise, if it so de-
sires, in its annual estimates more than the
one or two mills, as the case may be, now
required by statute to be raised for park
purposes. It will allow a board of parks
management to do work with their equip-
ment and personnel for the municipality
and other boards of the municipality and
charge therefor.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr.
Warrender) of which he has had notice.
Three men have been killed recently in
three separate accidents while working on
a Malton airport building. We are informed
that Toronto township carried out no safety
inspection and that the township officials
were unaware of The Building Trades Pro-
tection Act.
My question to the hon. Minister is this:
has The Department of Labour notified
Ontario municipalities of The Building
Trades Protection Act as recommended by
the McAndrews report?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, as noted in the ques-
tion, there have been three fatal accidents
on a construction job at Malton airport in
Toronto township. First in November last
a foreman stepped into an opening in the
floor and fell eight feet. Second, in Febru-
ary, 1962, a workman was pulling a tar-
paulin over the steel framework as a tempor-
ary roof and he lost his balance while standing
on a 2 by 10 inch plank laid across two
steel beams. He fell onto the tarpaulin and
struck the base of a steel framework. Third,
on Monday last, a workman was pulling a
tarpaulin into position to serve as a temporary
shelter and an eyelet suddenly gave way
causing him to lose his balance and fall
through the steel framework 19 feet.
The foregoing information was supplied to
my officials by the construction safety associa-
tion, one of whose inspectors, by the way, had
advised the workers against using 2 by 10
inch planks and advised the use of a duck-
walk. The McAndrews report recommends
a repeal to The Building Trades Protection
Act and the enactment of a new Act to be
entitled The Construction Safety Act.
As hon. members of the House know, we
have established by legislation the Labour
Safety Council of Ontario and one of the
first jobs it undertook was to examine a draft
of the new Act, The Construction Safety Act.
I expect it will not be too long before this
legislation will be in the House. This, of
course, will mean the repeal of The Building
Trades Protection Act.
Insofar as notifying the municipalities of
their responsibility to enforce The Building
Trades Protection Act, the answer to the
question is that because the McAndrews com-
mission has recommended its repeal, because
the Labour Safety Council of Ontario con-
curs, the municipalities were not notified.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, by way of a
supplementary question; I take it then that
neither prior to the Hogg's Hollow disaster
nor subsequently after the Hogg's Hollow
disaster, or the McAndrews report, was any-
thing ever done to try to enforce the regu-
lations that were supposed to be in force here
in the province of Ontario. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I could not answer
that question.
Mr. Trotter: The hon. Minister does not
know if they are enforcing the regulations at
all?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The Act has been
there since 1911, I am told. It has been
drawn to the attention of the municipalities
over the years. The Act should be known to
all the municipalities. But what happened
prior to my time I do not know.
Mr. Trotter: It is the same government,
Mr. Speaker!
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I am saying that
since both the McAndrews report and the
labour safety council have recommended the
repeal of The Building Trades Protection Act
that is going to be done.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask a question? Has the
MARCH 8, 1962
905
safety council recommended specific legisla-
tion and, if so, when?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The council has
recommended specific legislation. The legis-
lation is now in the process of being studied
and put into legislative shape by the legisla-
tive council and it should be in this House
very soon.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask when they so
recommended?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: When did they rec-
ommend it? I would think about three or
four weeks ago.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have two
questions I would like to ask before the
orders of the day, copies of which have gone
to the appropriate hon. Ministers, through
you.
The first one to the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts): in view of the recent statement
by the Most Reverend Alexander Carter,
Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Sault St. Marie, that, the regular scale of
wages established in union contracts will be
met in diocesan work and, other things be-
ing equal, diocesan work will be given to
contractors with union contracts, has the
government given consideration to establish-
ing policy applicable to all government
departments that in public works union wage
scales will be met and in letting contracts
preference will be given to contractors with
union agreements?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to this question, I would say first that matters
of this type are pretty well always under con-
sideration. To expand that a little bit, our
government contracts are let to those firms
whose tenders are accepted. The acceptance
of a tender depends upon the price quoted
and the ability of the contractor to perform
the work involved. It is not a question of
whether the firm, whose tender is accepted,
has a union or has not. It is a good question,
I think, as to whether there should be a
consideration. Now this is the point, I believe,
of the hon. member's question.
In the first place, not all firms in this
province that are taxpayers are necessarily
unionized and thus I do not think that it can
be considered proper for the government to
discriminate against some firms that are tax-
payers and do not happen to be imionized,
in favour of other firms that are taxpayers
and that are unionized. I would point out,
in addition, that not all the workers of this
province belong to unions, and it is the task
of the unions to establish themselves in those
firms that they wish to unionize, rather than a
task of this government to force workers to
join unions, or firms to establish unions in
their plants, if they are to share in govern-
ment business.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
a supplementary question? In making a de-
cision with regard to contracts, does the
government in any sense at all examine
whether or not a tender is lower because of
the fact that the company has not got a
union and therefore is paying lower wages?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, in
assessing the fact of what a low tender is,
various matters are considered, and I assume
this is considered as well. But the hon.
member knows as well as I do that rates of
pay vary considerably from area to area across
the province and I am inclined to doubt that
a low tender would be refused because the
rates of pay of the firm tendering were
arbitrarily below those of any union standard
that someone might suggest.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
may I direct—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not propose to
debate this matter this afternoon. There will
be other opportunities. I am only answering
a question before the orders of the day. I
think these things get out of hand.
Mr. Bryden: Has the government ever given
consideration to a fair-wage policy to ensure
that contracts would not be awarded on the
basis of labour exploitation?
Mr. MacDonald: My second question,
which I mentioned a moment ago, is directed
to the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond).
Yesterday's Toronto Daily Star carries com-
ments from Dr. Albert Sabin, if that is the
correct pronunciation of the name, the U.S.
researcher who developed the oral polio-
vaccine, asserting the vaccine need not be
used merely as a booster for the Salk vaccine
but rather should be supplied for everybody
in the community. "If this is not done
in Ontario, the Minister of Health will be
responsible for every paralytic polio case in
Ontario this summer," Dr. Sabin is reported
as saying. My question to the hon. Minister
is this: would the hon. Minister comment on
this statement, particularly from the point of
view of what is the considered view of medi-
cal authorities as to the reliability of the new
Sabin vaccine?
906
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the outburst of Dr. Sabin was
surprising to me, to put it mildly, and would,
I suggest, be considered most unprofessional.
I am not, however, at all exercised by Dr.
Sabin's opinion of me or the charge he has
levelled against me. I am very much con-
cerned lest his charge might rouse doubts
and fears in the minds of the people of
Ontario, concerning the efficacy of our pro-
gramme to protect them from polio. Any
such fears or doubts are completely ground-
less, as Dr. Sabin well knows.
Our proposed use of live oral polio virus
vaccine is based upon the advice of our
Canadian medical scientific advisers, in whom
we have every confidence. These advisers
are fully knowledgeable regarding our Cana-
dian Salk vaccine and the extent of Salk
vaccination in Canada. They also have all
available knowledge of the results of the
Sabin types of oral vaccination. They have
given their advice, and we are going to
follow it, irrespective of the opinion of any-
one else.
We are advised that the Sabin vaccination
alone will not give any higher a percentage
of successful immunization than the Salk
vaccine alone will give. The two combined
may be expected to improve this position.
Therefore our experts say that, and I quote:
It will be wise to use Sabin vaccine to
supplement the effect of Salk vaccine and
programmes of individual immunization.
We have every confidence in our Canadian
experts and I have no hesitation in stating
publicly that they are as well, or better,
qualified in this field than any group in the
world. May I repeat again my statement of
the other day; a statement based upon Cana-
dian expert opinion, quote:
The Sabin type of vaccine will not be
used to replace Salk vaccine but rather to
reinforce the level of immunity and give
added assurance that anyone who did not
for any reason respond well to the Salk
vaccine will get a good booster from the
live oral vaccine. Its greatest value will be
in giving adequate protection to a whole
family unit or a whole community.
This, of course, is in contradiction to the
Salk vaccine, where the individual could be
immunized without the necessity of the whole
family— although it would be better of course
that the whole family should be vaccinated
—therefore until our experts advise otherwise,
this is the plan we will follow. Perhaps,
Mr. Speaker, it would be very interesting
if Dr. Sabin were to advise us here in Ontario
how many States in his own country have
endorsed and are using Sabin vaccine to the
exclusion of all others.
Mr. Trotter: Before the orders of the day,
I have a question for the hon. Prime Minister
and Minister of Education (Mr. Robarts).
It has been stated in the Toronto Globe and
Mail of March 7, 1962, that Ontario is in
danger of failing to qualify for a 25 per cent
bonus the federal government is offering
toward the cost of retraining the unemployed.
The question is in two parts:
How far does this province have to go to
reach the required quota by March 31, 1962;
and secondly, what effort is the government
making to reach the required quota?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the quota
of training days is based on 7 per cent of
the working population as of some date in
1959, and the working population is assumed
to be everyone over 14. This is the basis set
in the formula with the federal government
and, if you exceed the number of training
days produced by applying this fonnula, then
the federal government will assume 75 per
cent of the cost of retraining unemployed,
and if you do not reach that figure they will
assume 50 per cent.
I believe the term "bonus" is a misnomer.
I do not think it is a bonus. It is merely
a formula that has been worked out. How-
ever, the quota of training days that we must
reach in this province in order to obtain a
75 per cent sharing of the cost by the federal
government is 286,400. As of January 31,
1962, we had total training days of 201,829.
Now I must project for February and
March, if I am to answer the hon. member's
question, because I have not the figures for
February, and of course, we are into March
at the moment. These courses end and start
at various times and training takes place in
20-odd communities across the province, so
I will have to take rough figures and project
them in order to see where we can reasonably
expect to be on March 31. The number of
trainees in the province in January was 2,166
and the number of training days in February
was 20, and in March was 22. So if we
add these together for the two months we
get 42; and if we multiply the number of
trainees by the number of training days
available, we will reach a figure of 90,972
training days, which we might logically expect
to establish in these two months— barring such
events as a school burning down or something
of that nature. And if the hon. member
adds the 90,972 that I project, to the 201,829
up to January 31, we will have a total of
292,801 as opposed to the 286,400 required
MARCH 8, 1962
907
to qualify for the 75 per cent grants. So
we anticipate that we will reach the 75
per cent.
Now, what effort is the government making
to reach the required quota— the other part
of the hon. member's question. These courses
are run on a local basis— except here in
Toronto at the Provincial Institute of Trades
where we run courses ourselves. In the
normal course of events these courses are
set up by local committees, who are aware of
the circumstances in the local areas, who
know what the unemployment situation might
be there, who know what the job oppor-
tunities might be for those who are trained.
We of course co-operate with every munici-
pality.
We are in the process of acquiring a new
building here which will be devoted entirely
to retraining of the unemployed and will
accommodate about 500 people. For that
building, as I say, the negotiations are going
on now. We have acquired another building
on Wellesley Street which is presently being
renovated to accommodate the automotive
trades, and which in turn will relieve some
of the space at the Provincial Institute of
Trades on Nassau Street. I think I can assure
the House that, providing there is a flow of
unemployed people who want retraining, we
will have facilities to reach this 75 per cent
figure without any possibility of a doubt in
the coming fiscal year.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, by way of a
supplementary question: In November we
heard that $100 million was going to be spent
in a period of time. I am surprised to hear
from the answer of the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) that we are just possibly going
to make the minimum allowed. Has the pro-
gramme not started which he expected to
start in November?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. member is
talking about two entirely diiferent things.
Mr. Speaker, I will deal with this whole
problem of the $100 million programme in
the estimates of The Department of Educa-
tion. The $100 million programme really
has nothing to do with the subject matter
of the hon. member's question.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week during
the estimates of The Department of Agri-
culture there were two questions submitted
by the hon. member for Kent East (Mr.
Spence), I believe, one of them having to
do with the affairs of the milk industry board.
I believe one of the questions asked was the
number of meetings held by the board, which
is 31. The appliciitions for licences refused
by the board, three.
Prosecutions under The Milk Industry Act
and the regulations: Two transporters pleaded
guilty to the operation of a vehicle not in
compliance with the regulations; two charges
for distributing fluid milk products in an
area not specified on the licence, were with-
drawn after one or two adjournments. There
were also a few cases where the board found
it necessary to instruct the field men to
institute court proceedings, but the require-
ments were met before a charge was actually
laid.
The second question I recall, submitted by
the hon. member, had to do with the recent
vote held by the grain corn producers, con-
cerning their marketing plan. I believe he
wanted to know if the ballots were submitted
in such a way that it could not be deter-
mined whether they were identified with the
man who had cast the vote. Now the pro-
cedure is simply this; I have the ballot here
and the contents of the letter that was sub-
mitted to each individual corn grower,
according to the list of corn growers who
had registered to vote.
The instructions for the mail vote— includ-
ing an envelope to return the ballot— were
submitted to each grower, and he was in-
structed to mark the ballot and to place the
ballot in an unmarked brown envelope which
I have here; he was then to seal the brown
envelope. On neither the ballot nor the
brown envelope are there any marks of
identification of any kind or any number.
The brown envelope was then placed inside
the blue envelope here, and was returned to
the farm products marketing board to Mr.
J. W. Drennan, who acted as returning officer
for the particular vote.
When the envelope was returned to the
marketing board, the number that appears
on the blue envelope was ticked off as the
number corresponding to the producer's num-
ber listed on the vote. Each individual corn
producer could submit only one ballot. These
blue envelopes were then held until February
5—1 believe it was— when the vote was
counted. The scrutineer in favour of the
plan and the scrutineer in opposition to the
plan were both called in, and sat while the
returning officer opened the blue envelope
and discarded it.
The brown envelope was withdrawn and,
when all the blue envelopes had been opened
and discarded, the brown envelopes were
then opened and the ballots withdrawn and
the disposition of the vote was recorded
according to the vote on the ballot. Now,
908
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this would, I think, prove beyond a shadow
of a doubt that there could not have been any
way that a determination could have been
made as to the individual voter's favour or
disfavour of the plan.
I trust that is satisfactory, Mr. Speaker,
and I thank the hon. member for raising
the matter.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) a
question in that regard? Was this outlined
to the growers before they received this
ballot? It seemed to be misleading, confus-
ing, to the growers with that number on the
little envelope.
Hon Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, all I can
say is that the instructions are clearly stated
on the letter that went with the ballot. Any
voter who read that letter would clearly
understand, so there could be no misunder-
standing as to how it was to be done. Now
whether or not every voter understood this,
I am in no position to know. This was
something that was agreed upon by those
who were promoting the corn vote. It was
explained— as I understand— at meetings. Cer-
tainly a vote by mail is not a new procedure,
but it is the first time I have ever heard the
question raised.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
House in committee of supply; Mr. D. H.
Morrow in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT
On vote 2001:
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Trans-
port): Mr. Chairman, may I say that it is a
very great privilege to appear before this
House and to present the estimates of my
department for the fiscal year of 1962 and
1963. In doing so, I will be reporting to the
hon. members on one of the greatest years of
accomplishment in the history of The Depart-
ment of Transport.
Mr. Chairman, before doing so, and before
proceeding, there are three matters of
immediate interest to the hon. members of the
House to which I should like to refer.
First, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to an-
nounce to the hon. members of the House that
a survey of the number of licences issued up
to last night shows that the number of un-
insured owners in Ontario has dropped 75 per
cent compared with the same period last
year. This reduction can be credited to the
$20 fee required from uninsured motorists.
This fee was increased from $5 at the begin-
ning of the year.
As a result of the increase in this fee the
records indicate that 98.6 per cent of the
applicants for licences up to date have shown
proof of insurance compared to 94.4 per cent
for the same period last year.
Now Mr. Chairman, if this trend continues,
it will mean that in the current year 97 per
cent of all motor vehicle owners will be
insured as compared to 91 per cent in 1961.
This will mean, according to information
available to us, that Ontario will be in a
better position in this regard than any other
jurisdiction. Quebec claims under their new
financial responsibility law, introduced last
year, about 75 per cent insured. Manitoba,
which for many years has had a law requir-
ing the impoundment of uninsured motor
vehicles involved in accidents, claims 95 per
cent insured. It is estimated that New York
State with its compulsory insurance law, has
only 95 to 96 per cent insured vehicles on
the road at any one time.
I am also pleased to announce Mr. Chair-
man, that the motoring public has responded
very well indeed to the recent request not to
wait until the last day to secure their licences.
Up to the close of business last night better
than 85 per cent had renewed their licences
and permits. This leaves approximately
250,000 still to secure their licences by March
14. There should be no problem in issuing
the remainder by the March 14 deadline with
the some 260 agency offices located through-
out the province.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that if anyone
is waiting until the last day hoping for a
further extension, I am afraid he is due for a
disappointment. There will definitely be no
extension beyond March 14. Anyone operat-
ing a motor vehicle after midnight on that
date— without 1962 plates— will leave himself
open to such action as the authorities may
deem appropriate in the circumstances.
May I again, Mr. Chairman, remind all
motorists of the necessity to produce proof
of insurance at the time of registration, to
avoid payment of the $20 uninsured owner's
fee.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a second
important announcement to make concerning
the subject of reciprocity with respect to the
operation of commercial vehicles on an inter-
provincial basis. A reciprocal agreement has
just been signed and has been jointly an-
nounced by the hon. Minister of Highways
of the province of Alberta and by me today.
MARCH 8, 1962
909
concerning an agreement between the govern-
ments of Ontario and of Alberta. As a result
of this agreement, owners of commercial
vehicles in each of the two provinces will be
permitted to operate in the other's juris-
diction at a reduced registration fee. This
announcement, as I have said, is being made
simultaneously in this House and in the
Alberta Legislature in Edmonton by my dis-
tinguished friend, the hon. Gordon Taylor,
the Minister of Highways.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to
tell the House that The Ontario Department
of Transport has taken the initiative in
approaching all the other nine provinces and
other nine governments in an effort to obtain
reciprocity with all provinces. These nego-
tiations are continuing. The New Brunswick
government has accepted our proposal in
principle and I have received their assur-
ance that the agreement will be signed in
the very near future. Negotiations with the
Saskatchewan government have also been
successfully concluded, and the agreement
awaits the final approval of the provincial
cabinet in that province.
The agreement provides that all commer-
cial vehicles having a gross weight of three
tons or less will be exempt from paying
the registration fee in the other provinces;
that is where a reciprocal agreement exists.
For vehicles over three tons gross weight,
a uniform fee of $10 per gross registered
ton is to be le\'ied in lieu of the registration
fees. A reduced fee for all commercial trans-
port operators will result. This could mean
a saving of up to $700 for each tractor-
trailer combination.
In addition to their regular licence plates,
special plates and stickers for each province
entering into the agreement will be issued
to bus and truck fleet operators to identify
their vehicles. These will permit such
vehicles to operate in the other contracting
provinces without paying additional regis-
tration fees.
These agreements, Mr. Chairman, consti-
tute a major breakthrough in facilitating
the movement of people and goods by bus
and truck transport across Canada. They
will also result in a much greater use of the
Trans-Canada Highway which will inevit-
ably benefit garages, service stations, restau-
rants, motels and other commercial operations
catering to the transport trade all along the
Trans-Canada route.
Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, it gives me further
pleasure to announce to this House that
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) has
directed all departments of the Ontario gov-
ernment to proceed with the installation of
seat belts in government cars, if this has
not already been done. Mr. Chairman, I
believe that Ontario is the first of all 10
Canadian provinces to take this step in pro-
viding continued leadership towards greater
safety.
Now, Mr. Chairman, during the past two
decades, the economic growth of this prov-
ince, along with that of Canada, and other
countries, has been very, very great. Dur-
ing those 20 years, the rapid growth in
population and personal incomes in Ontario
has produced greatly increased demands for
consumer products. Not low on the list of
demands has been that for motor vehicles.
Registrations increased between 1941 and
1961 from 740,000 vehicles to 2.1 million
vehicles.
To keep pace with this rapidly expanding
use of the motor vehicle in Ontario, The
Department of Transport has grown from
its early beginnings in 1903 under the Pro-
vincial Secretary's office, through The De-
partment of Public Works and Highways to
the Motor Vehicles Branch of The Depart-
ment of Highways. Finally, in 1957 it blos-
somed forth as a fully fledged department—
The Ontario Department of Transport. Since
1957, it has steadily grown until today it
consists of nine separate branches with just
under 900 employees. The future must see
a continued growth of the department dur-
ing the next 20 years, by which time it is
estimated there will be twice as many
vehicles and drivers as there are today,
using the roads and highways of this prov-
ince.
Now, with respect to registrations and
revenues. The tremendous economic growth
in Ontario since the end of the last war
is reflected in the tremendous increase in
the number of vehicles, as I have said. To
illustrate this growth let us look at the fig-
ures for 1941.
In that year there were some 740,000
registered vehicles and just vmder a million
drivers. The revenue for 1940-1941 totalled
$9.3 million, of which $8.7 million came
from permits and licences. By 1951 the
number of vehicles had jumped to 1.2 mil-
lion and drivers to 1.4 million. During the
same period, revenue more than doubled to
$20.3 million, $18.5 million of which was
attributable to permits and licences.
During the next ten years, vehicles and
drivers almost doubled while our revenue
increased almost 3.5 times. In 1961 there
were 2.1 million vehicles, 2.4 million drivers,
and the total revenue amounted to some
910
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
$67.7 million, of which $61.8 million was
derived from permits and licences.
By 1970 it is estimated that there will
be some 3.5 million vehicles operating on
our highways and, by 1980, over 4 million.
With these increases will come a proportion-
ate increase in the number of drivers. How-
ever, all this has not taken place, nor will
take place, without increasing the problems
confronting The Department of Transport.
With respect to accident statistics, Mr.
Chairman, traffic accidents are, regrettably,
a major and ever-growing problem in Ontario
and one which gives me grave concern. As
the hon. members will already know, during
the calendar year 1961, the overall traffic
accident picture showed some relative or
apparent improvement with a drop of approx-
imately 2 per cent from 87,186 to 85,577.
Unfortunately, at the same time personal
injuries showed a slight increase, and fatal
accidents recorded an all-time high, with
1,268 deaths against the 1,166 for 1960.
While over the years, the total number
of accidents and fatalities has increased
owing to the tremendous increase in the
number of vehicles and the mileage driven
each year by these vehicles, there has been
a marked improvement in the fatality rate
per 100 million miles driven. For example,
in 1931 the rate was 15.1 fatal accidents
per 100 million miles. In 1941 the rate was
14.0 and by 1951, 9.3. In 1961 the figure
had dropped to 7.1 fatal accidents per 100
million miles driven.
Traffic accidents and their terrible loss of
life, limb and property are, nevertheless, a
growing problem in Ontario. It is a problem
that must be relentlessly and continuously
attacked by the department.
There are three main approaches to the
problem of traffic accidents : ( 1 ) The safe
driver; (2) The safe road; and (3) The
safe vehicle.
Because we believe it to be the first line
of attack in the prevention of traffic accidents,
The Department of Transport has channelled
much of its efforts towards the safe driver.
Continued progress was made during 1961
under the new driver examination programme,
and a number of highlights merit mention
here.
On April 1, 1961, the department com-
pleted the conversion programme from the
former "fee examiner" system to one consist-
ing entirely of trained civil service examiners.
To provide adequate examining service under
the new system, the department now operates
43 permanent centres in major cities and
towns across the province. In addition, service
is provided by travelling examiners in an
additional 95 towns and villages, on a weekly
or twice-monthly basis as required.
These some 140 centres are strategically
located throughout the province so that, with
very few exceptions, no person has to travel
more than 25 miles for such an examination—
and in a great majority of cases less than 15
miles. I wish it were possible to have an
examiner visit every community in the prov-
ince, but this would not be economically
sound, and I am ever mindful that it is the
citizens of the province who in the end must
pay the costs. I am confident that the present
facilities available in Ontario are second to
none, either in Canada or in the United
States.
At the region No. 1 workshop of the
American association of motor vehicle admin-
istrators held in New York City last year,
Mr. Victor Veness stated that, of the 14 states
and provinces in region No. 1 of that organi-
zation, Ontario had made more progress in
driver licensing, driver control and driver
improvement than any other state or province
in the region.
Mr. Harry D. Fletcher, specialist in fleet
safety at Pennsylvania State University, on a
recent visit to Toronto asked for materials on
the driver licensing programme and a copy of
our road test score sheet, which he thought
was superior to anything in use in the United
States.
The introduction on June 1, 1961, of tests
for temporary instruction permits may be con-
sidered a significant improvement in driver
licensing. Now, before being issued a permit
to practice driving, all applicants are required
to pass a preliminary test of vision and a
written test on the rules of the road and
sign recognition. Previously a temporary
instruction permit was issued on application.
The written test for an instruction pennit
is very basic but it was considered desirable,
with the increasing traffic density, that every-
one driving on Ontario streets and highways
should be familiar with highway signs and
rules of the road.
During the vision test the examiner has
an opportunity to check other characteristics
to ensure an applicant meets the required
physical standards before getting behind the
wheel of a car.
Since June 1, 1961, of 150,000 persons
tested, 15,700 have had instruction permits
restricted to wearing prescribed lenses. 403
applicants were referred for a professional eye
examination and of this number 9 persons
have not filed satisfactory eye certificates or
did not meet other physical standards.
MARCH 8, 1962
911
Further value of these tests, Mr. Chairman,
is shown in the improvement now apparent
on the more comprehensive written and sign
tests required before taking a road test for
an operator's or chauffeur's hcence.
Analysis of first attempts for driver licence
during 1961 show only 9 per cent failed inside
tests compared to 37 per cent in 1960.
For a number of years it has been depart-
ment policy to require re-examination in the
following cases:
(a) Drivers 80 years of age or over, who
must be re-tested annually.
(b) Drivers 70 years of age or over, if
at fault in an accident.
(c) Accident repeaters.
(d) Drivers involved in fatal accidents.
(e) Drivers previously suspended under
the point system.
Some 7,979 persons were re-examined dur-
ing 1961. Of this number 2,909 or 36.5 per
cent failed first attempt. Analysis of first
attempt failures shows 21.7 per cent lacked
adequate knowledge of signs and rules; 42.4
per cent failed the road test and 35.9 per
cent failed both tests.
During 1961 the re-examination programme
was expanded to include school bus drivers
seeking authority to operate school buses
having a seating capacity of 10 or more
passengers.
A total of 5,214 applicants met special
examination standards for authority to drive
school buses. Eighteen applicants for this
authority were rejected because they failed
to meet physical requirements; 16.9 per cent
failed first attempt, or their first test.
Commencing March 5, 1962— this week-
all drivers suspended for a definite period
will be included as an additional class to
be re-examined. The drivers in this latter-
mentioned group have been suspended for
serious violations of traffic laws and it would
seem proper to require them to show that
they possess or have skills and sufficiently
mature attitudes necessary to participate suc-
cessfully in traffic.
Approximately 15,000 drivers in this class
will be re-examined in 1962,
Commencement will be made in the com-
ing year on the installation of the proposed
mechanized licence-issuing procedure. Pre-
liminary studies on this project have been
completed and we are now ready to proceed
with the first part of the changeover. Com-
pletion of the programme is planned so that
it will be possible to issue drivers' licences
by machine, starting in 1964. At that time
it will be possible to commence the depart-
ment's planned re-examination of all drivers
on a periodical basis, if such re-examination
is indicated.
Now, with respect to the safe driver and
driver control, while we are constantly striv-
ing to improve our standards of driver exam-
inations and the quality of instruction of our
examiners it will be recognized that driving
tests, at best, can show whether the applicant
can drive but not how well he will behave
after the licence is issued. Provision for this
situation must be made by some method of
record-keeping and follow-up.
It was for this purpose the point system
was introduced in April, 1959. The point
system operates on the principle of weighting
traffic offences according to their seriousness.
When a driver is convicted for a traffic viola-
tion, an established number of points are
scored against his record. If he accumulates
a specified number of points in a two-year
period, action is taken in an attempt to im-
prove his driving.
Under the present point system regulations
a driver is sent an advisory letter when he
accumulates six demerit points. The letter
sets out his record, urges that he give greater
attention to his manner of driving behaviour
and warns of more serious action that will
be taken if he fails to do so.
If the driver receives further points that
bring him to the nine-point level he is asked
to attend an interview with a review officer
of the department, who has had special train-
ing in such work. The review officer's job is
to determine the cause of the bad record and
to offer corrective help. The vast majority of
the drivers interviewed show a willingness to
co-operate. A few show a high measure of
arrogance, belligerence, impatience or dis-
regard for others, and in such cases immedi-
ate suspension is recommended. Other driver
improvement action may include a driving
examination, attendance at a traffic court
clinic, or probation. If these various efforts
to improve the driver are not successful and
he moves to the twelve-point level, immediate
suspension is applied.
During the first 34 months' operation of
the system, 56,348 drivers were sent advisorv
letters at the six-point level; 12,706 inter-
views were conducted at the nine-point level;
and 3,764 drivers had their licences with-
drawn upon accumulation of twelve points.
The fact that only 4.7 per cent of the
drivers who received advisory letters subse-
quently reached the twelve-point suspension
level indicates that the initial warnings had
a beneficial effect.
912
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I should like to make it very clear to the
hon. members tliat it is not the intention
of the system to take drivers oflF the road, but
rather to encourage the few bad drivers to
impro^'e their driving. It is only when all
else fails that the licences are suspended.
It will be realized that in conjunction with
a system of driver control, a highly efficient
method to maintain driver records is required.
I am happy to say that the department's
driver control branch now is credited with
ha\'ing one of the most up-to-date mechan-
ized record filing systems on the continent.
Provision has been made in the department's
estimates to further extend and complete this
system in the coming year.
In addition to their use for internal depart-
ment purposes, information from the drivers'
records is made available to police, insurance
companies and other agencies. During 1961,
a total of 77,785 statements of operating
records were processed for this purpose.
In reviewing the operations of the point
system after a two-year period, I was most
pleased and gratified to learn that over 95
per cent of our drivers had not accumulated
sufficient points to warrant even a warning
letter, and it is estimated that over 85 per
cent have not accumulated any points. I
congratulate the drivers of Ontario and com-
mend them on achieving such an enviable
record in the exercise of care and courtesy
in their daily driving habits.
I am confident the point system can do
much to improve the driving habits of the
ver>' small minority of bad drivers. As a
result of the experience gained in the opera-
tion of the system, I believe that a few
changes in the rules and regulations may be
desirable. These are now being drafted and
will shortly be announced.
And now, Mr. Chairman, I would like with
your permission to discuss for a few minutes
the highway safety programme of our depart-
ment.
In an attempt to bring about a radical im-
provement in the traffic accident situation
during the next fiscal year, the department
intends to pursue a vigorous programme of
accident prevention measures within the lim-
its of the resources placed at its disposal. The
work of eveiy branch and division and of
ever>' individual in the department is related
in some measure, either directly or indirectly,
to the accident prevention problem. And I
can assure hon. members, that they are un-
likely to find anywhere a group of men and
women more anxious to improve the traffic
accident picture than among the members of
the staff of our department.
But, however devoted, however sincere,
and however dedicated they may be in their
efforts to save lives and prevent needless in-
jury and loss caused by motor vehicle mis-
haps, they cannot possibly be successful
without the wholehearted interest and support
of many agencies, organizations and individ-
uals both inside and outside the government.
And here, let me assure you, Mr. Chair-
man, that finding adequate solutions to the
problem is not a task that can be performed
successfully by governments alone. It de-
mands the active and continued support of all
public-spirited citizens from every walk of
life and from every part of Ontario.
May I remind hon. members that every
citizen of this great province is either a
motorist or a pedestrian. It is therefore up
to each one of us to examine our own con-
science and our own attitute with respect to
this modern phenomenon, and to decide for
ourselves whether we want to accept personal
responsibility both as motorists and pedes-
trians, for learning and obeying the few
simple rules that will enable anyone to sur-
vive in today's traffic.
I have mentioned that no success can be
expected in this field without the whole-
hearted support of many individuals and
groups outside the government. Chief among
these are the local safety councils that labour
selflessly and without expectation of any
return to bring the traffic safety message to
as many of their fellow citizens as will listen.
I would like at this jimcture to pay heart-
felt tribute to the men and women who are
members of the 81 local safety councils now
organized and operating at the grass-roots
level in communities large and small through-
out the province for their extremely effective
work in helping to make the people of
Ontario more safety conscious.
This is voluntary community ser\'ice of
the highest order and I would like on behalf
of all hon. members of this House to express
our deep and sincere appreciation for their
excellent co-operation. It is true to say that
without the help of the local safety councils,
our field men would be unable to make any
headway at all in the never-ending battle to
reduce the tragic accident toll.
To focus attention on the work of com-
munity safety organizations and to develop
public support for their efforts a series of
regional highway safety conferences is being
planned to take place at various locations
in the province during the next fiscal year.
The objective of this programme will be
to bring together a representative group of
leading citizens in the western, north-western.
MARCH 8, 1962
913
north-eastern and eastern parts of the prov-
ince to discuss the motor vehicle accident
problem and to recommend measures for
preventing such accidents more effectively
in the future.
You will recall that province-wide highway
safety conferences have been held annually
at one central location here in Toronto during
recent years. This year we are planning to
organize a series of regional road safety
workshops to serve the people in the four
main geographical areas of Ontario. It is
our sincere hope that these meetings will
attract many new supporters for the cause
of traflBc accident prevention.
Another phase of our highway safety pro-
gramme which is generating a good deal of
interest is that which concerns itself with
developing assistance among women's or-
ganizations. Our director of women's
activities, Mrs. Ethel McLellan, is in constant
contact with women's groups at the national,
provincial and local levels to encourage them
to undertake traffic safety projects. Her
traffic safety programme for pre-school chil-
dren in nursery schools and kindergartens has
been particularly ejffective and has won broad
and wide acceptance among educators, par-
ents and children alike. In addition to sup-
plying kits of materials to nursery schools
and kindergartens in Ontario free of charge,
these kits have been sold at cost in consider-
able quantities to interested groups and
individuals all over Canada and the United
States.
Another important activity for which the
department is responsible is the highway
safety advertising and publicity programme of
the Ontario government. This is an intensive
and continuous attempt to persuade our
fellow citizens to observe the basic rviles of
traffic safety and to exercise care, courtesy
and consideration for others, both as motorists
and pedestrians.
During the next fiscal year, a carefully
co-ordinated series of public announcements
will be broadcast using every suitable
medium of public information, including
daily and weekly newspapers, radio and
television stations, outdoor billboards, and
farm and foreign language publications.
In addition, a continuous flow of highway
safety material, suitable for editorial use in
the press and on radio and television, will
be maintained.
The department will also place a number
of displays in exhibitions, conferences, con-
ventions and other public gatherings. These
include the Canadian National Exhibition
here in Toronto, the Central Canada Ex-
hibition in Ottawa, and the Western Ontario
Fair in London. In addition, the department's
mobile traffic safety centre will be on display
at county fairs and exhibitions at numerous
locations in various areas. Tlie centre con-
sists of a 38-foot all-aluminum trailer in
which portable display units are installed.
One side of the trailer opens up to form
a stage and a covering canopy. As a result
of an article on our display trailer which
appeared in a prominent periodical in the
traffic safety field published in the United
States, we have received requests for the
specifications of this unit from the New York
City Police Department and the Superin-
tendent of Traffic in Hong Kong.
Personnel of the highway safety branch
are also actively engaged in promoting
driver instruction in our secondary schools.
To date there are some 57 schools giving
courses with a number of others giving
consideration to starting courses this year.
These personnel also appear on radio and
television, give talks to boards of education,
local councils, service clubs, safety councils
and other organizations interested in pro-
moting safety.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I should like
to bring to the attention of the hon. mem-
bers four organizations which are co-operat-
ing actively with this department in the
field of traffic accident prevention, and I
should like to commend them here for the
fine work they are doing.
The Ontario Motor League is a fine
example of a non-profit organization which
has been serving Ontario motorists for 50
years. Their present membership amounts
to some 250,000 and is increasing at the rate
of 5,000 new members each month.
The Canadian Highway Safety Council is
the co-ordinating body for all of Canada.
The Department of Transport assists this
association and council with a grant of $10,-
000 every year, and lends further assistance
with personnel serving on various advisory
committees.
The Ontario Traffic Conference, to which
we give a grant of $5,000 a year, consists
of a body of experts in traffic engineering,
and of police, dedicated to tlie safe move-
ment of traffic on our streets and highways.
Department personnel again assist in an
advisory capacity on committees.
And finally the Ontario Safety League,
another non-profit organization engaged in
all fields of safety and particularly in high-
way safety. This organization pioneered
914
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
driver instruction in secondary schools and
the "Elmer, the Safety Elephant" programme
in primary schools. The Ontario Safety
League receives a grant of $15,000 to further
their important work.
Organizations such as these, and there
are others, are to be commended for their
excellent work and co-operation with The
Department of Transport and the govern-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, tlie "safe road" constitutes
the second area of attack on the prevention
of traffic accidents, and is an area that
largely comes under The Department of
Highways. That department has been and
is certainly putting considerable effort into
the "safe road" by continually improving
highways, removing bad curves and obstruc-
tions and otherwise making our roads safer
for the motorist.
At this time I should like to commend
the hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Good-
fellow), my colleague, for the efforts of his
department by way of design and construc-
tion to make our highways safe and to
express our appreciation also for the excel-
lent maintenance— both winter and summer
—which The Department of Highways has
provided for Ontario's highways. There can
be little doubt that these efforts are not
only of great assistance to my department
in the field of highway safety, but have a
direct relationship with accident prevention.
Now, Mr. Chairman, with respect to
vehicle inspection. The Department of
Transport maintains a staff of vehicle inspec-
tors whose main duties consist of the admin-
istration and enforcement of The Public
Vehicles Act, Public Commercial Vehicles
Act, Motor Vehicle Transport Act— which
relates to extra-provincial motor vehicle
transport— and other sections of The High-
way Traffic Act.
These inspectors operate the highway
weigh scales located on the main arteries
of commercial transportation and portable
scale units, where no permanent weigh
scales are located. At these points a care-
ful check is made of commercial vehicles
to ensure that they are operating at gross
weights within the authority granted them.
Bills of lading are also carefully checked
as are loads for violation of the Act and
regulations applicable to them. In addition,
special investigations are carried out as
required and school buses are examined for
mechanical fitness at least twice a year.
With the recent regulations respecting school
buses, made under The Highway Trafiic
Act, examinations are becoming more exact
as are the requests for information from
both operators and school boards alike.
During 1961 a total of 1,035,373 vehicles
were examined by our department through-
out the province. In the interests of safety
the department's inspectors inspect all school
buses twice yearly, as I have said, for
mechanical fitness. The examination entails
the inspection of safety equipment which
includes brakes, exterior and interior lighting,
mirrors, heaters and defrosters, windshield
wipers, tires, body-construction, emerg-
ency exits and push-out windows, fire ex-
tinguishers, axe or claw bars and the various
signs which are required under the regula-
tions. In addition, the chauffeur's licence of
the school bus driver is inspected to ensure
that he is the holder of a proper licence and
qualified to operate the vehicle.
Our inspectors make it a point to observe,
in their general patrol duties, the operation
of school buses on the highways throughout
the province to ensure proper operation of
their equipment and the observance of safety
regulations.
Now, these activities of our vehicle
inspectors assist greatly to keep roads safe
by ensuring that commercial vehicles operate
within safe limits. At the same time, they are
efi^ective in assisting The Department of High-
ways to keep down its maintenance costs.
Through traffic engineering the department
is attempting to achieve improved traffic
management throughout Ontario municipali-
ties. To do this, assistance is given to the
municipalities in the planning of traffic control
in their communities in order to give them
the safest possible traffic system.
Our traffic engineers also make a careful
scrutiny of all municipal by-laws concerning
the control of traffic, which must be sub-
mitted to the department for approval, to
ensure that the uniformity of local traffic
regulations is maintained. Uniform traffic
regulations throughout the province are essen-
tial to the achievement of the "safe road."
Now with respect to "built-in safety"— if I
may use that phrase: Since the dawn of the
century and the advent of the motor vehicle—
which was to become a prime mover of
people and goods today— considerable
advances have been made in producing "the
safe vehicle." Although technological pro-
gress in years to come will improve even
further the built-in safety features on motor
vehicles, today our motor vehicles may be
considered considerably safer than those of
50 years ago, or even 10 years ago.
These advances in the field of the "safe
MARCH 8, 1962
915
vehicle" have been brought about by the
ingenuity of the automobile manufacturers—
with legislation to force them— and I feel they
should be highly commended for their
achievements. And if I may, I should like
to mention a few of these advances.
The introduction of four-wheel brakes for
added safety— then the hydraulic and air-
brake systems, to say nothing of the power
brakes of today. Better steering mechanisms
have been developed, including power-
assisted steering. More impact-absorbent
bodies have been developed which collapse,
thus reducing the impact force on occupants.
Numerous other safety features are included
on the new vehicles, including padded dash-
boards and sun visors, dished steering wheels,
pop-out windshields with safety glass, seat
belts and improvement in lighting systems, to
mention a few.
The automobile manufacturers are to be
commended, as I say, for their efforts in try-
ing to produce and achieve the "safe vehicle."
However, given the finest of vehicles with
every conceivable safety device, unless the
vehicle is looked after and maintained
properly, it will deteriorate, and eventually
may become a menace to its driver and other
users of the road. Consequently, some pro-
visions had to be made to ensure this did not
happen.
When The Highway Traffic Act was
drafted, and became the law in regard to the
operation of motor vehicles, provisions were
made whereby any police officer had the
power to stop vehicles and inspect them if he
felt they were unsafe. Then, if he was not
satisfied with the condition of the vehicle
he could order it to be taken off the road.
Over the years a great many vehicles have
l^een so stopped and inspected and, where
found unsafe, ordered removed from the road
by our police officers.
We realize, Mr. Chairman, that there is a
great need for concentrated effort in the fielfl
of the "safe vehicle," and now that the
department has completed the establishment
of the driver examination programme it is
intended in the coming year to turn our
attention to this important aspect of traffic
accident prevention.
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that two
motor vehicle inspection lanes have been
operated continuously by the department since
1958 at the Metro centre on the south side
of Highway 401 near the Keele Street inter-
section. Here it is possible for any driver
to take his car, truck or bus and receive a
thorough and complete examination using
the best and most modern equipment avail-
able. The inspection is carried out by trained
and experienced personnel in uniform and
belonging to our permanent staff. They cover
38 points including wheel alignment, front
end suspension, lighting and brakes. The
whole procedure takes less than 10 minutes
and is entirely free of charge.
When a vehicle completes the inspection
successfully, an "approved" sticker is affixed
to the windshield. If it fails to pass any of
the tests, the driver is informed of the defect
and is advised to have it repaired.
These lanes were planned as a pilot opera-
tion by the department to ascertain some
information on the average condition of motor
vehicles.
The results have been very satisfactory and
much has been learned from their operation.
In fact this experiment in the field of motor
vehicle inspection has been so successful that
we are planning to extend the service so
that it will be available to motorists outside
of the Metropolitan area.
Our estimates for the coming year include
provision for the purchase of five mobile
vehicle inspection units. Each unit will in-
clude the same equipment that is installed on
a fixed and permanent basis in the inspection
centre at Highway 401 and Keele Street: that
is a wheel alignment tester, a brake tester, a
lieadlight tester and a hoist to permit the
examination of front end and suspensions.
The only difference will be that the equip-
ment is portable and capable of being trans-
ported in trailers from place to place.
These mobile units will be allotted to
western, central, eastern and northern areas
respectively with one being held in reserve
to meet unforeseen demands. Their method
of operation will be roughly along these lines.
Each of our four regional accident prevention
organizers will contact the authorities in the
larger communities in their areas to determine
those that are interested in setting up a
vehicle safety-check lane on a voluntary
basis. In those communities wishing to adopt
the programme, our APO's, as we call them,
will help establish a committee to organize
the activity and to obtain the necessary local
co-operation.
They will also get in touch with local
safety councils, service clubs, police depart-
ments, automobile clubs, chambers of com-
merce, and other community-minded groups
to enlist their assistance and support. Arrange-
ments will then be made to have one of the
mobile units sent to each community on a
rotational basis for periods of one to three
916
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
weeks, depending on tlie local vehicle popula-
tion. Each unit will be accompanied by a
trained and experienced inspector from our
vehicle inspection branch who will be respon-
sible for supervising the safety-check lane and
issuing the official seal of approval to those
vehicles that pass the tests satisfactorily.
The department will assist communities in
conducting local vehicle safety check pro-
grammes but it is expected that most of the
advertising and publicity will be arranged
under local auspices.
We have made preliminary inquiries to
find out what sort of reception this pro-
gramme is likely to get from the munici-
palities and I am happy to say that in every
case the response has been most enthusiastic.
It appears that the vehicle safety check ser-
vice will find a real need at the community
level throughout the province.
Now, earlier today, Mr. Chairman, I made
some references to the sale of licences and
permits, and to the group of uninsured
owners. That statement has direct reference
to the question of the present so-called un-
satisfied judgment fund, and I am pleased to
report, Mr. Chairman, that the unsatisfied
judgment fund continues in a sound financial
condition.
It is estimated that payments out for the
year ending March 31 next will amount to
$2,800,000. Since the inception of the fund
in 1947 some 10,000 innocent victims of
motor vehicle accidents have received pay-
ments from the fund totalling over $23
million. Almost $2 million was paid to un-
fortunate victims of hit-and-run drivers.
Despite these large payments out of the fund
there is still a surplus in excess of $7 million.
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the
select committee on automobile insurance in
their second interim report to this House
recommended a number of amendments to
the present legislation dealing with the fund.
Within a few days legislation will be intro-
duced to implement many of these recom-
mendations.
One of the recommendations was that the
fee payable by the uninsured be raised to
some $20, and I have already dealt with
the present status of that situation as my
department officials inform me as of yesterday.
With respect to licences and permits. The
Department of Transport has some 260
agency offices strategically located throughout
the province where motor vehicle permits
and drivers' licences are issued. There are
also five offices manned by department per-
sonnel, including the main office in the east
block.
The main or central issuing office was com-
pletely remodelled last year. New lights were
installed and facilities improved to give faster
and better service to the public. With the
exception of a few days at the first of the
year and just before the renewal deadline
in March when line-ups may be necessary
to handle the crowds, the office can issue
documents very quickly and the public can
])e in and out in a matter of minutes.
One reason for a central issuing office is
that certain classes of permits and licences,
such as PCV and other types, cannot be
issued at branch offices. In addition all
duplicate permits and licences must be issued
there since these require checking against
central files.
Mr. Chairman, as you will see from the
information before you concerning The
Department of Transport's estimates for the
fiscal year 1962-1963, I am asking for
$5,822,000 for the coming year, some
$647,000 more than for 1961-1962. This
represents an increase of some 12.5 per cent.
The most of this increase is required to
expand the facilities of the department's
vehicle inspection programme as I have
already mentioned, and in addition to com-
mence the installation of the proposed
mechanization of licence issuing. Preliminary
studies and work on this project have been
completed and we are now ready to proceed
with the first part of the changeover.
Completion of the programme is planned
so that it will be possible to issue drivers'
licences by machine, starting in 1964 if that
is so desired. At this time it will be possible
to commence the department's planned re-
examination of drivers periodically when the
renewal of their licences becomes due, if
that is so desired.
During the coming year The Department
of Transport will continue to fulfil the role
that it was given when it was established in
1957— to ensure the safe and smooth flow of
traffic on Ontario's streets and highways by
every means at its disposal. I should like
to say, Mr. Chaimian, that our problems will
not be easily surmounted and that the task
before me and my department is very great.
Today we have some 2 million registered
motor vehicles in Ontario; we have 2.3 mil-
lion licensed drivers. These represent some
40 per cent of all the vehicles and drivers
in the whole of the Dominion of Canada.
If the vehicles registered in this province
were placed end to end they would make
two and a half lines between Toronto and
Vancouver. To tliis vast number of indigen-
ous Vehicles have to be added some 6 million
visiting vehicles per year.
MARCH 8, 1962
917
The experts tell us that by 1970 the
number of vehicles in Ontario will have
increased to nearly 3.5 million, and by
1980 it will be over 4 million with a corres-
ponding increase in the number of licensed
drivers.
We have a tremendous job ahead of us, not
only in the coming year but in each successive
year. However, Mr. Chairman, I and the
staff of The Ontario Department of Transport
are dedicated to our role and we shall relent-
lessly continue our efforts to fulfil our obliga-
tion to make our streets and highways even
safer through the safe driver, the safe road
and the safe vehicle.
Mr. Chairman, in concluding my remarks,
may I express my personal appreciation as
Minister of Transport to those of my staff
throughout the department, and including the
members and stafiF of the Ontario Highway
Transport Board, may I express my apprecia-
tion as Minister to them, who have worked
diligently and faithfully throughout the past
year.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Chairman, I could not help but think of the
cartoon that I heard about when the hon.
Minister mentioned that if the vehicles regis-
tered in Ontario were placed end to end they
would form two and a half lines between
Toronto and Vancouver. I hope it will not
be the case as in the cartoon where it said
that if this happened some fool would turn
out and try to go past them.
Mr. Chairman, in rising to make my
remarks at this time, 1 suppose one must be
cognizant of the fact that we are all engaged
in political endeavours. It is always a tempta-
tion to be political in one's observances of
the estimates. To admit that one's views were
tempered by political thoughts would I am
sure be an honest admission for any hon.
member of this House. To deny that one's
views were influenced by his political lean-
ing would not in my opinion be quite true.
With this knowledge then, let me say that
I am fully aware that there may be some on
the benches opposite who are tempted to
make remarks, such as the one from the hon.
Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) the other
day, when he suggested that much of the
information being sought from this side of
the House during the estimates could be ob-
tained privately, and that in seeking this
information in public, hon. members of the
Opposition were engaged in political speech-
making.
Nevertheless, the strength of our govern-
ment is dependent upon a conscientious
Opposition, intent upon exposing the weak-
nesses of the government in power and,
where necessary, ready and willing to offer
a constructive alternative. With respect to
the matter of material for criticism, the hon.
Minister of this department has been very
kind to hon. members of the Opposition.
Since this department was founded some few
years ago, there has been little in the pro-
gramme that one could call imaginative or
progressive. I do not suggest that no good
has come from this Department of Transport,
because I think there have been some pro-
grammes which have been worthwhile. On
the other hand, I would say that most of the
programme was suggested by the select
committee on highway safety, which recom-
mended the establishment of a safety depart-
ment.
Generally speaking, the history of The
Department of Transport is that they have
simply provided the administrative machinery
to carry out part of the programme as sug-
gested by the select committee which
spawned it into existence in the first place,
and thereafter to remain void of any further
leadership in attacking a problem of vital
concern to every man, woman and child in
the province of Ontario.
There could ver>' well be positive and
concrete reasons for this state of inertia on
the part of the hon. Minister (Mr. Rowntree)
and his department. One would think that if
the government viewed this matter of safety
in Ontario to be as challenging as stated by
the hon. Minister without Portfolio from
Kingston (Mr. Nickle) in his introduction of
the report of .the select committee on highway
safety, that they would leave a responsible
Minister with the department long enough
to at least familiarize himself with the staff.
I suggest to hon. members that the game of
musical chairs which when applied to hon.
members of the Cabinet in the province of
Ontario can only work to the detriment of
the people themselves. And surely the people
are paying enough in the taxes that are being
extracted from them to deserve something
better than this.
There is the matter of overlapping re-
sponsibilities so necessary if we are to prevent
these accidents, death and injury, which was
suggested as the chief concern of the depart-
ment. If a programme is to be effective, it
must of necessity receive the utmost of co-
operation from other departments, such as
that of the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts), the hon. Minister of Education (Mr.
Robarts), and The Department of Highways.
And while the personnel of the present
government is divided into several camps, as
918
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
indicated by tlie bizarre-like contest which
took place during the leadership convention
of that party, how could anyone doubt that
this type of co-operation so necessary would
be extremely difficult for any hon. Minister
to obtain?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Beginning of the politics
here.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Prime Minister has suggested that this might
be the beginning of the politics. And so, lest
there be any doubt that I am being political,
I should like to prove the statement which I
have just made. To do that it will be neces-
vsary for me to quote from an article which
appeared in the Windsor Star on April 17,
1961 and which deals, I believe, with the
only really effective programme which has
come from this Department of Transport. I
speak of the programme of examination to
ensure that the drivers of vehicles in this
province are qualified to retain that privilege,
and I would like to quote from the remarks
as reported by the hon. Attorney-General of
this province.
Hon. members may recall that I spoke of
co-operation. I should like to read this and
ask hon. members to judge for themselves
whether or not this is a case of co-operation
or a case of too many cooks trying to spoil
the broth. It is not my intention to read the
article in full but I shall read it in part. It is
entitled "Probation for Drivers?"
Attorney-General Urges Leniency
Development of a probation system in
driving cars where licences would normally
be suspended was advocated by hon. A.
Kelso Roberts, QC, Attorney-General of
Ontario.
I go down further and read of the suggestion
from the hon. Attorney-General:
A probation officer assigned to such a
case could help determine under what
conditions his licence might be restored
under restrictions as to use and under the
proper supervision and control. In this
way, if he is dealing with a normal and
penitent type of individual, I would ex-
pect at the end of a period of probation
we would have a better driver than we
could possibly expect under return to
driving after complete suspension involv-
ing in addition to probation to drive
supplementary problems of earning a
living and maintenance.
Now, Mr. Chairman, on one hand we have
established in Ontario a demerit point system
which the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr.
Rowntree) has told us this afternoon is one
that is the envy throughout the continent.
On the other hand, we have the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) going around making
speeches, suggesting it be changed so that
the effectiveness of the programme can be
destroyed before it has even had an oppor-
tunity to prove itself.
Now I think that statement is a fair one
in view of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that we
were told in this House last year by the
hon. Minister of Transport that they had
not even had an opportunity at that time
to assess the effectiveness of this programme.
And I think it demonstrates, better than any
words that I could utter, the lack of co-
operation which exists between the various
departments to make The Department of
Transport function as it should and as it
was intended by the select committee.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member is
talking as though these were the estimates
of another department. These are the esti-
mates of The Department of Transport and
I will take the responsibility for what goes
on in my department.
As we bring in our legislation probably
in the next few days— it does not come in
until this stage of the session because all of
our amendments largely come under one
Act and have to be concluded before it is
advanced— hon. members opposite will see
what our legislative programme is, and will
be delighted. Now I will be surprised if
they are not applauding us.
But on the question of perfection, nobody
on this side of the House— and let this be
recorded, once and for all— pretends for one
moment to be perfect, but we are striving
to do the best job we can and striving to-
wards perfection and that is what we are
trying to do.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: As I pointed out to
the hon. Minister of Transport at the begin-
ning, we also have a duty on this side of
the House, and we shall endeavour to per-
form that duty to the best of our ability in
accordance with the strength and wisdom
that is endowed within us.
Since the hon. Minister has risen to protest
the statement that I have just made, I am led
to wonder whether or not he is in agree-
ment with the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts). Whether he is or not I think the
clipping that I have just read substantiates
the statement that I made in the first place,
that the department is hindered because of
MARCH 8, 1962
919
the lack of co-operation which exists within
the departments.
Mr. Chaimian, it is not my responsibility to
pinpoint the reason for failure of the depart-
ment to accomplish the goals which were set
for it in the first place. It is my responsibility
to point out that The Department of Trans-
port has indeed failed in those objectives. I
was very disappointed to hear the admission
this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, with respect to
the increase in fatalities in this province. On
one hand the hon. Minister says it is the
greatest year of accomplishment, and on the
other hand he tells us that the fatalities are
higher than they have ever been in the history
of Ontario.
When one considers the statements which
were made some two years ago by the then
hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Yaremko) in
which he stated that the matter of safety of
our people accounted for some 67 per cent
of the budget and that this was the principal
concern of The Department of Transport, I
do not see how the hon. Minister of Trans-
port (Mr. Rowntree) can come to us this
afternoon, report to us that we have an
increase in the number of fatalities and at the
same time call it our greatest year of accom-
plishment. It leads me to wonder, Mr. Chair-
man, if the remarks this afternoon are not
just so much "window dressing."
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it has
become the principle of our society that if
one fails to carry out the responsibilities with
which he is charged, then it is the respon-
sibility of that person or organization to go.
An hon. member: Right! Been there too
long.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Perhaps, Mr. Chair-
man, we might decide here that this is indeed
a situation where we might follow the advice
of the Gordon commission on the organization
of government in Ontario, which was widely
acclaimed by the then hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost) upon its release some two years
ago and which, for some peculiar reason, is
not so often quoted by my hon. friends
opposite at the present time.
An hon. member: A fine fellow!
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Let me quote to hon.
members from the second paragraph of this
report on page 39:
We believe the government of Ontario
might function more smoothly and easily
with fewer departments than there are at
present and if the temptation to create new
ones is resisted as much as possible.
The past 15 years have brought an
especially rapid growth in government ser-
vices and though the pace may change the
trend is quite likely to continue. In the
course of it occasions will arise when new
functions are being undertaken by the
department organization and these functions
may have no apparent connection with
existing departments.
The establishment of additional new de-
partments may thus occasionally be un-
avoidable. But if this is so every considera-
tion should be given to the possibility of
merging two or more of the then existing
departments and thus avoiding an increase
in the total number of departments.
We believe that there might be advan-
tages gained by consolidation of the work
of government within somewhat fewer de-
partments than the present number.
Mr. Chairman, let me stop here long
enough to say that I believe that The Depart-
ment of Transport, when it was constituted,
was in the form of an experiment. I think
that the department has now had the oppor-
tunity to demonstrate that it has been no
more effective than if these various pro-
grammes were carried out within the walls
of the departments of government which
already existed. I suggest that there is noth-
ing being done by The Department of Trans-
port that could not be done within either
The Department of the Attorney-General,
who then might not go around contradicting
the hon. Minister of Transport, or within The
Department of Highways or the other depart-
ment within which the duties apply.
I might stop here to state that I know that
there probably are those in the benches
opposite who will disagree with the pre-
dictions of my hon. friend from Bruce (Mr.
Whicher) in his criticism of the budget yes-
terday with respect to the alarming rate at
which this province is going into debt.
Whether or not hon. members disagree with
those remarks, I suggest to the hon. members
of this House today that time will sub-
stantiate that the trends which were predicted
by my hon. friend will in fact be so. I think
that if this is going to happen there is a
responsibility right now and here to start
cutting down on the expense of government;
I think that this is one place it can be done
without affecting the results which are—
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Would the hon. member permit a question?
1 am wondering, Mr. Chairman, how the
hon. member can be sincere in the statement
that he is making now and at the same time
920
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
support a policy of reducing the revenue of
the province by exempting all purchases up
to $25 from sales tax.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I might throw back the
remark that came from the other side of
the House when I started these remarks and
ask who is getting political now?
If the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Allan) is sincere in his remarks, I suggest
that he have his experts get together with
our experts and we will iron this thing out
and find out whether it works.
An hon. member: He is rightl
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Thank you. Mr. Chair-
man, in dealing with this subject let me
make it abundantly clear that I believe that
this goal could be accomplished in an
orderly manner without the possibility of
leaving the personnel of the department
without jobs, with the possible exception
of the hon. Minister himself who, after all,
would still be entitled to draw a stipend as
a member of this House. If the reduction
were too steep I suppose the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) might add him to the
hon. Ministers without Portfolio with at
least some saving to the taxpayer.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I hope there is noth-
ing personal about this.
An hon. member: Maybe they will make
him the Attorney-General.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: If the government
were to announce a reduction in the num-
ber of unnecessary departments, the people
in these departments could be absorbed into
other departments under normal expansion
increases so that there would be a saving
to the people of this province, who are pay-
ing these taxes, without undue hardship to
the personnel who staff the departments at
the present time.
Let me attempt to show you, Mr. Chair-
man, some of the reasons why I believe this
department has broken faith with the Legis-
lature and the committee which suggested
its existence in the first place.
Would hon. members not think if one
wanted to determine the degree of useful-
ness of any organization that one of the best
places to examine the records would be in
the annual report of its manager? Can hon.
members imagine, for instance, the presi-
dent of the Royal Bank of Canada going to
the directors or the shareholders at a meet-
ing and providing an accounting for his
stewardship in the form of a report that is
over a year old? Can hon. members com-
prehend the reaction of the directors? Yet
at this time, we are given the estimates for
consideration and the latest annual report
of the hon. Minister of this department is
for the year ending March 31, 1960. This
is the latest report given to hon. members
as of this date— nearly two years later.
An hon. member: Shame!
Mr. R. C. Edwards: We are asked to judge
the efficiency of this department and to vote
money for the year ending March 31, 1963,
without even the annual statistical report
entitled, Acts and Facts, 1961, to judge for
ourselves whether or not the expenditures
in the preceeding year has been effective.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is something that
has somewhat amazed me since I have come
to this House. I cannot for the life of me
understand why it would be necessary for
the Minister of a department, if it was
administering smoothly, to take well over
one year after the end of activities and to
be presenting the estimates two or three
years hence, without even publishing the
annual report for that year. It seems to me
unreasonable to suggest that the hon. mem-
bers of this House can honestly deal with
the problems, if they consider these prob-
lems to be serious, without being given
some kind of a report on the activities of
the past. Is it any wonder, Mr. Chairman,
that we feel that the administration leaves
something to be desired. The hon. Prime
Minister indicated to this House earlier that
traditionally the opportunity was accorded
the Opposition to inquire into the opera-
tions of the various departments of govern-
ment during the debate on the estimates. If
we think about these things, a report of the
findings of the motor vehicle research com-
mittee on noise was submitted to the hon.
Minister on November 15, 1961, yet it was
not released to the hon. members of this
Legislature until the last day of sitting of
this House, just prior to the presentation or
the time of debating the estimates.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion this is not
due to the pressure of work in the depart-
ment. It is a deliberately calculated attempt
to hinder the members of the Opposition
in attempting to discuss the conclusions of
that report. How can we be expected, in an
intelligible manner, to discuss the conclusions
of that report which could very conceivably
have an eflFect on these estimates when the
hon. Minister deliberately withholds it from
the hon. members until just before the pres-
entation of the estimates? How, in the name
MARCH 8, 1962
921
of reason, can we be expected to read a 60
page report, to dwell on it, to think about
it and form any conclusion, if that is all
the notice we are given?
I would be very pleased to have the hon.
Prime Minister answer.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, this report was not withheld for
the purpose that the hon. member attempts
to put on it. I can only point out to him that
in the case of very many legislative reports
that have come in here, upon request they
have been put on the order paper for debate.
If he feels strongly about this report and he
wants to discuss it here, there is no attempt
on the part of the government to muzzle
discussion on any point in this House and I
do not think he can, in all fairness, say there
ever has been.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Half the time
these items do not get debated, though. .
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I have yet to know of
any report that the Opposition asked to have
debated in this House that was not put on
the order paper and given a full thorough air-
ing in discussion here in the House. Now, if
this is what tlie hon. member wants, he might
ask the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer) to ask me and I will arrange
it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I at
least thank the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) for suggesting that we will have the
opportunity to debate it if we so wish. The
point I am trying to make is that we are,
today, debating the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Transport. When these estimates
are completed and passed, that is the last
opportunity we will have to make any
recommendations to the estimates for the
forthcoming year. I do not know whether
or not this report will have any bearing on
our thinking. I am merely trying to point
out to the hon. Prime Minister that we have
not had the opportunity to determine whether
or not it will have any effect, and I think it
is unfair.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, let me
assure the hon. member that there is nothing
in that report of the noise research commit-
tee that will have any bearing on our esti-
mates. It is a subject that will require a
full debate in the House and we look forward
to that at an appropriate time.
The report was received by me in Novem-
ber, a day or so after the date it bears in
typewritten form, and after I had read it I
ordered it printed. That was delivered and
subsequently distributed to the House.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, before—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member's
suggestions just do not fit or lie right. That
is just not my nature, Mr. Chairman, to do
that sort of thing.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I did
not quite catch the remarks. If he suggested
that I suggested that he was lying—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No, I did not say
that. I certainly did not.
An hon. member: Lying down on the job.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: But while we are on
the subject and since my remarks have been
interrupted this far—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It did not lie right.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Since my remarks
have been interrupted this far, I wonder if
the hon. Minister would tell me why we have
not received his annual report for the year
ending March 31, 1961?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, if the hon.
member would like an honest answer, I think
he has got a good point.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I commend the hon.
Minister for his honesty, and I wish to serve
notice on the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) now that I intend to raise this ques-
tion of every other hon. Minister whose esti-
mates are presented prior to the filing of his
report, because I think that this is the one
place where members of the Opposition— if
they wish to take the time to study— have
the opportunity of finding out just .what does
go on within the department.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: May I say, just while
we are straightening up the general points
of government policy, that this whole ques-
tion of ministerial reports has been discussed
and debated in the committee that is sitting
on the organization of government, and I
can assure the hon. member that a big effort
is being made in every department to have
the annual report available before the sub-
mission of the estimates. With pardonable
pride I should say that the report of the
Minister of Education (Mr. Robarts) was
filed last week and the hon. members will
have ample time to look that over before
we deal with the estimates.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): For
which year?
922
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts: For the most recent year
for which we have statistics available. But
this is the point that I am coming to; it is
not always possible to compile all the infor-
mation that goes into one of these reports
in time to have it in here to suit the con-
venience of the hon. members of the Op-
position and to fit the time-tabling of the
business of the House. In some instances it
is possible and in some instances it is less
possible, but I can assure the hon. members
that every effort is being made to do that.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr Chairman, I think
we should make it clear that we are not ask-
ing the hon. Minister necessarily to meet our
convenience, but at the same time I think we
are entitled to this information if we are
going to debate it intelligently
Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the very
frank comments of the hon. Minister, I think
I still must say that up until this time the
accounting which has been given to us leaves
something to be desired, and it is my hope
that, when the hon. Prime Minister follows
my suggestions and absorbs this department
into the various departments where they
belong, he will keep the hon. Minister in
mind for the next portfolio that comes open.
Let me continue with my criticism of the
department. I was quite— perhaps it was a
fair statement, I thought it was a sort of
profound statement in the hon. Minister's
remarks this afternoon when he suggested
that every citizen was either a motorist or
a pedestrian. I think that is a fair statement,
and I should like to talk a little bit—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is just plain
talk.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I should like to talk
a little bit about the matter of crosswalk
legislation which in my opinion is a matter
of serious concern to the motorists of the
province as well as the pedestrians. In this
direction, Mr. Chairman, the government is
completely responsible for the frustration of
the municipalities and for the lack of permis-
sive legislation which exists in Ontario.
The position taken by the government— as
exposed by the hon. Minister of Transport
(Mr. Yaremko) on January 29, 1960, in this
House— indicates that they feel that the re-
sponsibility to enact pedestrian crosswalk
legislation is that of the municipality. This
position in my opinion is a very dangerous
one, leading to confusion and frustration of
the people of Ontario. This situation has
produced a present state of controversy which
presently exists because a city such as the
city of Hamilton feels that they have a pedes-
trian by-law which will, in their opinion, be
more effective than the one in the city of
Toronto, and where The Department of
Transport in turn tells the city of Hamilton
that unless the by-law for Hamilton is the
same as the one in Toronto they cannot put
it into operation.
However, Mr. Chairman, because the de-
partment itself is not very sure what they
want, the door is left open to Hamilton when
delegations are advised that the matter may
be reconsidered by the department after a
period of time. It is my opinion, Mr. Chair-
man, that these laws should emanate from
The Department of Transport and not a par-
ticular municipality. What sense does it
make, sir, to suggest that a person driving
from a place like Grimsby, for instance, has
to conform to special laws of the road in a
city such as Hamilton because of a peculiar
by-law that might be passed by that council?
Let me attempt to illustrate this point.
I understand that the pedestrian by-law
which exists in the city of Toronto has
recently been granted permission for an
amendment making it illegal to pass an-
other vehicle within 100 feet of that cross-
walk. Now, I ask you and I ask the hon.
Minister of Transport (Mr. Rowntree) how a
person, outside of the city of Toronto, would
have any knowledge that such was the law
of the land while driving in the city of
Toronto, And I suggest to the hon. Minister
that it might make just as much sense, if we
are going to have peculiar by-laws which are
related to one municipality and not another,
to suggest that they might pick whichever
side of the road they wanted to drive on.
Now, I would like to make this point clear:
I am not suggesting to the hon. Minister at
the present time that I feel it is his responsi-
bility to force every community in Ontario
to pass a pedestrian by-law. But I am sug-
gesting that any pedestrian laws which are
passed should emanate from this department
and could be printed then in The Highway
Traffic Act, or printed somewhere, so that all
of the people in the province would have
some knowledge of the laws which exist in
another municipality.
I think following the policy which has been
followed by this department with respect to
this pedestrian by-law has only resulted in
confusion and frustration to the municipali-
ties and I think that it may be responsible
for some of the accidents which could have
been prevented if the people coming from
surrcrmding municipalities had had a knowl-
edge of the law in the first place.
MARCH 8. 1962
923
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister without Port-
folio): Why does the hon. member say this?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: The hon. Minister
without PortfoHo asks me why I say this. I
thought I had made it clear but let me say
this to him: if he was coming from a city
such as Kingston— I presume they do not
have a pedestrian by-law there— how would
he know when he arrived in the city of
Toronto that it was illegal to pass another
vehicle within 100 feet of a crosswalk?
Perhaps the hon. Minister would answer me
that.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I know this: under The
Highway Traffic Act, where a motor vehicle
hits a pedestrian the onus is on the operator
of the car to prove that he was not negligent.
Now I am not that stupid nor am I that
naive and I assume— and the man on the hon.
member's left will tell him it is good law-
there is an onus and you are presumed to
know the law. And the law is that where a
motor vehicle hits a pedestrian he has to
prove he was not negligent, it is not on the
pedestrian. And the crosswalk is only one
more step in relation to pedestrian safety,
but the onus section to me is paramount
and I think that is something the hon. member
has missed.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I think the hon.
Minister without Portfolio is entirely correct,
but let me again state my interpretation of
the law in Toronto, not as I have seen it from
anything emanating from The Department of
Transport but as I read it in a news section
of the press. My understanding is that it is
illegal to pass another vehicle within 100
feet of a crosswalk, whether or not you strike
a pedestrian. I wonder if that is correct?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It is a breach of The
Highway Traffic Act to pass another vehicle
within 100 feet of a crosswalk. The onus
never shifts in relation to an accident,
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman,
if it were in the Act, then I as an outsider
would know that wherever I came across a
crosswalk it would be illegal for me to pass
another vehicle in that section and I would
not be prosecuted for violating the law of
which I had no opportunity to have know-
ledge,
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, Mr. Chairman,
might I just comment on that point? I will
say at the outset that the entire subject of
crosswalks is a very difficult one for every-
one concerned, whether it be a municipal
council, the motoring public, the group of
pedestrians or provincial authorities. The
simple facts of the situation are these: The
reason that municipal traffic by-laws are re-
ferred to The Department of Transport for
approval before becoming efiFective is to try
to achieve a high degree of uniformity of
such legislation throughout the province.
Now here was the situation: The so-called
Metro by-law originally was started on this
principle in the town of Leaside and was
adopted by Metro with certain variations.
Now the system as presently in effect in Metro
is in effect in some 16 other municipalities in
Ontario and is working very well.
In addition to that, we have approvals
from some 14 other municipalities who have
indicated their support of that situation, and
that indication without our solicitation, I
might say.
Now the position was this, that in the city
of Hamilton they wanted to adopt a cross-
walk system which had certain variations—
we do not need to go into them today because
I hope that this subject will be referred to
the committee on highway safety for some
discussion there. But Hamilton wanted a
system with some variations from Toronto's,
And the position seemed to be that having in
mind the highly built-up areas between
Toronto and Hamilton and the immediate
proximity of the city of Hamilton to Metro
Toronto, that there was a very real question
as to whether or not two opposing systems
should exist in such proximity.
We had many delegations; we heard from
the people at Metro and we heard from the
people at Hamilton, but there was another
group that we heard from, which some of
the hon. members on the other side of the
House support and that was the Ontario
Traffic Conference— a very expert group of
police chiefs and traffic experts who operate
on specialized subjects and specialized
matters and in that conference are represen-
tatives from Hamilton.
The Ontario Traffic Conference voted
unanimously in support of the crosswalk
system as presently in force in Metro Toronto
as opposed to the Hamilton crosswalk system.
Now, there is the situation. I am not saying
that the Hamilton people are wrong; let me
make my position clear, I am simply pointing
out that, after the Ontario Traflfic Conference
indicated their unanimous approval— and I
must say I think there were one or two
abstentions from voting of those who were
present, and I believe they also were people
from Hamilton, but the point is they did not
vote against the situation— in a few days they
9^
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
had gone back to Hamilton and the matter
was reopened. We received another delega-
tion which was quite informative.
There is the situation. It is a question,
Mr. Chairman, as to who is right. Who is to
say who is right in a thing like this? We
have to find some scheme whereby we will
achieve some form of uniformity, and I
mention that Toronto-Hamilton relationship
because between Toronto and Hamilton along
No. 2 highway, you go through a constant
progression or succession of built-up muni-
cipalities. There is a perfect example of
where uniformity of legislation is needed and
is desirable.
We have not been sitting back ignoring
this but we want to come up with something
that meets the needs and the views, because
there are able people in Hamilton who
are knowledgeable on this subject and we
recognize that. We probably will advance
legislation, we will advance it from our
department having to do with this subject.
When our legislation comes up, this is one
of the items that will be dealt with in some
\ery great detail.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, I want to thank
the hon. Minister for helping me make my
point. The point that I was trying to make
was that the responsibility rests with The
Department of Transport to ensure this uni-
formity he speaks of. And certainly there
would be nothing to prohibit the hon. Min-
ister from showing some leadership in this
matter, and to prevent this controversy and
frustration by simply passing a law in Ontario,
defining a crosswalk and defining where it is
legal to pass and where it is not legal to
pass; in defining what shall be a crosswalk
and then leaving it to the municipalities to
determine whether or not they want to mark
their crosswalks. Now the hon. Minister knows
full well that this is done in New York State,
he knows that this is what is done in the
State of California and he knows that this
is what is recommended by the very confer-
ence that he spoke about, which voted against
a different type of by-law for Hamilton. May
I say that I am in complete agreement with
him. I am not suggesting that the Toronto
by-law is or is not a good one, but quite
frankly it is nerve-racking for an individual
who drives from outside the municipality to
come into Toronto and not know when he is
within the law and when he is outside the
law. I say the responsibility rests with The
Department of Transport in not establishing
some permissive legislation on the statute
books in the first place so that everybody can
be acquainted with the law as it is.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Let me just reply
briefly to those observations. Who says that
The Department of Transport did not recog-
nize its responsibility? I have just finished
telling him we are doing something about it.
This is the session of the Legislature when
matters of this kind are to be advanced. He
is taking the position that we are doing
nothing about it. He has not heard the
legislative programme of The Department of
Transport.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I am
saying that the department has not done
anything about it. They have known of tliis
problem for three years, and at this late
date they tell us they are going to do some-
thing. Now, I suggest that the responsibility
was on The Department of Transport in the
first instance, in not allowing municipalities
to go around establishing by-laws here and
there without putting the permissive legisla-
tion on the books so that there would be a
guide for all the municipalities. It is all
right to tell us that they are going to do
sometliing in the future. I am criticizing the
hon. Minister, which I think is my duty and
responsibility, for not having done it before.
Certainly The Department of Transport has
been in existence—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, I will have to
rise and say very strongly that I do not
think it is a very fair criticism of anybody,
as this is the first legislative session following
my own appointment. Believe me, when I
said earlier today that this was a great year
of accomplishment for this department, I
really meant it. I am not just speaking for
myself; I am telling you what the members
of the public and the citizens of Ontario
think of what is being done by The Depart-
ment of Transport, and what they have told
me.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I would say to the hon.
Minister that I am telling him what some
of the citizens in my riding think of The
Department of Transport so it is not all one-
sided. If I might proceed, Mr. Chairman,
I think that the hon. Minister made very
well the point that I presented earlier when
I stated that this game of musical chairs—
in so far as the government is concerned—
is not working in the best interests of the
people of Ontario. It is unfortunate that he
must be criticized for the sins of his hon. pre-
decessor, but as long as he supports the
government presently in power, and adopts
this policy, I am afraid he has got to be
tarred with the same brush.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: What is wrong with that?
MARCH 8, 1962
925
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Well then, why
did the hon. Minister quit if they are all
such good pals?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Let me say to the
hon. Minister from Kingston (Mr. Nickle)—
and I am going to be kind to him and not
repeat the remarks in case the Hansard
reporter did not get it— immediately he leaves
the government benches opposite and returns
to his law practice in Kingston, I am going
to start supporting him instead of opposing
him.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Well, I will tell you what
you can do. Send me down some business
and I will give you a good rate.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: On page 1511 of
Hansard for the year 1960, the former hon.
Minister of Transport stated, and I quote:
Yes, accidents, deaths and injury are
the chief concerns of the department.
and if, as quoted in the Economic Survey of
1961, the functions of the department are
as stated on page 47:
The department is much concerned with
one of the most serious problems of our
time, the needless loss of life, health and
property from motor vehicle accidents-
why has the department not done something
with respect to leadership in this matter of
pedestrian legislation? I suggest to the hon.
Minister that a person is just as dead if
killed in a city which does not have a by-law
as he is if he is killed in one where there
is a by-law and I suggest—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: There is no argument
about that.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: If these people
opposite keep on, I am going to lose my page.
Hon. Mr. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Too bad the hon. member does not
lose his speech.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I may even reconsider
my original submission; but I do not think,
in the face of the record, even though I do,
like the hon. gentlemen opposite, I can change
my opinion.
Mr. MacDonald: Figure that out!
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) is having
trouble figuring it out, so I will repeat it.
I think it is time to abolish The Department
of Transport. Even he should be able to
comprehend that.
If we consider another aspect of this matter
of safety, Mr. Chairman, we should turn our
attention to the ever increasing number of
deaths which annually are attributed to
accidents and which directly are created by
the increased number of watercraft in Ontario.
Now before someone interrupts me again to
remind me that constitutionally this is a
federal matter, let me remind the government
that, generally speaking, these are Ontario
people who are losing their lives. If the
department is concerned about this matter,
I will look forward to an explanation from
the hon. Minister outlining what steps have
been taken to deal with this problem.
Earlier I suggested, and it was a bit of a
laughing matter at the time but I suggest it
is not, that a person was just as dead if killed
in one city as killed in another. I suggest
to the hon. Minister that a person is just
as dead killed in a water accident as they
are if killed in a motor vehicle accident. If
we are seriously concerned, as has been
stated, with the loss of life and with the injury
to our people, I suggest it is the responsibility
of this department of the Ontario government
to look into the matter. Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I think we had better
correct the record at that point because he
does not even know what has been going on.
Now he has stated the point that the water
operation, and so on, is a federal matter
basically, but apart from that we in Ontario
have a very great interest in what happens
on the water, even though the various resort
operators and hotel people and cottage resort
groups cannot agree with the federal authori-
ties as to what kind of licensing or control or
safety legislation would be effective. In spite
of that, I directed— I did not know it had
happened, but it was after some conversations
in our department-^ne entire issue of the
Safety Btdletin published by our department
was devoted to safety on the water last
summer, in 1961. Another issue will be
devoted to the subject this year, so that we
can avoid a duplication of expenditure and
use what forces and strengths we have to
advance that side of safety.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, on
this issue I feel that this is a very serious
matter. Originally in my comments I criticized
the hon. Minister for not giving us reports.
Now he tells me I do not know what is
going on.
He did not say anything about it this
afternoon. How would I know what is going
on from the reports that are emanating from
his department? The simple fact of the matter
926
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is that they are treating this thing in too
light a manner.
These are taxpayers' monies that are being
expended and it is the responsibihty of the
hon. Minister of Transport to report to the
members of this House and this is the tradi-
tional time for him to do it. He had the
opportunity to make a statement and I did
not hear him mention anything about what
he was doing with respect to the matter of
water safety.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, I
think it is your duty to point out that this
is most irregular, indeed. My duty is to
answer the question, which I am now doing.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I am
not going to be interrupted further. I am
sorry sir. Mr. Chairman, I am not yielding
my point.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I do not want to be
unreasonable, any more than the hon. Minister
does, but if he is going to continually interrupt
me in my speech, he is going to distort the
theme and I think it is improper. I have a
responsibility here and I am endeavouring
to fulfill that responsibility.
I am not here to bias!: the hon. Minister
or in any way to personally criticize him as
an individual, but I would remind the gov-
ernment that they are charged with a re-
sponsibility, and we are charged with a
responsibility. We say that they are not
living up to the responsibility that they are
charged with, and we say that the department
has failed, they have had five years as an
experiment and they have not done the job
and I think the remarks that the hon. Minister
is making are amplifying that statement.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We just do not toot
our horn enough, that is all.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. Minister says he does not toot his horn
enough. If we look at the advertising bills
for this province I think they have been
tooting their horn too much, and I think the
taxpayers are becoming aware of it.
I criticized the hon. Minister of Travel and
Publicity (Mr. Cathcart) who suggested that
I should not have criticized some of his ex-
penditures. There was one publication called
Ontario Government Services, and if I re-
member correctly there are 110,000 copies of
this report that go out every month. The
hon. Minister will recall directly.
Hon. B. L. Cathcart (Minister of Travel
and Publicity): What has this got to do with
Tlie Department of Transport?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I will be pleased to
tell the hon. Minister if he will sit down and
listen. They are Hke jack-in-the-boxes over
there. If the hon. Minister will recall, I
suggested to him that that report was being
used for promoting Tory personalities rather
than a programme. The hon. Minister says
he is not tooting his horn enough, and I
suggest that if he will speak to the hon.
gentleman on his left, perhaps he could send
out a little notice to the people of Ontario
on what he is doing in this matter of water
safety. But at this point, if we take as any
example the statements which have been
made by prior Ministers of this department,
they have informed the hon. members of
this House that it was not their resp»onsi-
bility.
Mr. Chairman, I think that it might be as
well, after I sit down, if the hon. Minister
would stand up and just tell the House what
is being done with respect to this matter of
water safety. It seems to me that if he is
going to get any action from the federal
go\ernment his best opportunity is to act
quickly, because he knows and I know there
is going to be a change down there. He may
not be so friendly with the next government,
so he should operate now.
Mr. MacDonald: He may never get
another chance.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: The hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald) says he may
never get another chance.
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that I told
you I was going to endeavour to tell you
the reasons why I thought that this depart-
ment should be abolished. I am going to
turn now to another phase of the responsi-
bilities of The Department of Transport and
I am going to read from page 293 of this
textbook that I call the Gordon Report on the
organization of government. It states as
follows, quoting one of the functions of The
Department of Transport:
The development of plans for taxing
vehicles to provide funds for the construc-
tion and maintenance of roads.
I am led to wonder, Mr. Chairman,
whether or not such is still the case. This is
the third session of the present sitting of this
Legislature and as far as I can determine
nothing has been presented to this Legisla-
ture to indicate that any constant revision of
MARCH 8, 1962
927
this matter of funds for an expanding high-
way programme has been considered by The
Department of Transport. You would think
that they would if they were fulfilling these
functions for which they were set up, both
under the terms of reference as established
by the select committee which was the
original beginning of The Department of
Transport, as more fully set out in the
Gordon Report, and I think if we turn again
for another authority you will find the same
thing in the responsibilities of the depart-
ment under the Ontario economic and social
aspects study of 1961, they would take some
action.
Here we have a department which should
be concerned with this very important
matter. We have a sales tax which was pre-
sented last year, and which was made men-
tion of by the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Allan) a few moments ago, when he tried
to change the subject by suggesting that our
plan would make the matter worse. Perhaps
if the hon. Minister of Transport wanted to,
he might tell us just what recommendations
his department has made with respect to this
matter, and more correctly, perhaps, if this
is one of his functions, he might table it
in the Legislature so that all hon. members
could know what is happening.
It is very difficult with information that
is available to hon. members of the Opposi-
tion to determine just whether or not the
government is doing their job in the manner
that they are supposed to.
I, for one, am becoming very concerned
with the increasing number of reports that
are being gathered with taxpayers' money,
and then Ministers like the hon. Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) will come to this
House and say this is a Minister's committee.
Now, if he wants to take that responsibility
on his own shoulders that is up to him, but
if he is going to spend taxpayers' money and
keep these reports to himself, then he can
hardly wonder at being criticized, both by
the taxpayers themselves and the Opposition
representatives of the electorate, when he
does not make this information public.
I am not able to study what has been
completed since March 31, 1960, as I sug-
gested, due to the lack of information from
this department. One would think, however,
that if these comprehensive studies are be-
ing undertaken that some form of conclusion
would find its way into legislation in accord-
ance with the functions of the department
as set up.
Now let me deal with another point— and
the hon. Minister made great mention of it
here and I think again he can be criticized.
Recommendation No. 6 of the select com-
mittee on highway safety said as follows:
A standing committee on highway legis-
lation to be appointed at each regular
session of the Legislature.
Now it seems significant, Mr. Chairman,
that if the hon. Minister really wanted to carry
out the intent of this suggestion he would
have thought it desirable to at least refer
enough business to a committee which had
been constituted to at least indicate the
necessity of the Chairman calling a meeting.
This session of the Legislature commenced
on November 22, 1961, and yet some four
months later there has been no cause for
this committee to convene to consider this
important matter of highway safety.
Now, if we consider, Mr. Chairman, that
the government does view this matter as
seriously as the publications indicate, and as
the hon. Minister indicated in the introduc-
tion of the select committee report on safety
in 1955, and as set out in the other publica-
tions, surely we would view this matter
seriously enough while the hon. members are
in session to at least call this committee into
being and let them discuss some of these
very important matters. Since this has not
happened, I suggest that the department
again has not fulfilled its duties in the manner
in which it could be expected.
I should like the hon. Minister— if he
would, some time— to advise the House with
respect to recommendation No. 11 of the
select committee report which dealt with the
matter of safety advisory councils. If the
department is devoid of ideas and sugges-
tions, with respect to education or legislative
matters dealing with safety, perhaps either
of the two groups outlined in the select com-
mittee—that is, the committee of this House-
could report to him and give him something
for his use. Instead of forward action, the
hon. members of this House today are again
subject to the same stereotyped presentation
of the estimates, indicating that we can look
forward to little more in the forthcoming
year than we have had in the past, and since
the inception of the present session of this
Legislature.
When we deal with this matter of safety,
Mr. Chairman, as the hon. Minister has said,
a citizen is either a pedestrian or a driver.
I suggest to him that the matter which was
introduced by my hon. leader in last year's
debate— with respect to some kind of leader-
ship in this matter of commuter trains, with
bringing people into the cities— could have
928
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
been studied by the department and the hon.
members advised as to the leadership that is
being undertaken there. It makes me wonder
how much money we are spending in our
metropoHtan areas to provide arterial roads
to get the people there in their cars and
tlien to provide parking lots for their cars
once they are there, if another method could
be found which would better take care of the
situation.
I think it is the responsibility of the hon.
Minister of Transport (Mr. Rowntree) either
to tell us there is or there is not a better
way. I cannot recall, during the session
since I have been here, of any report of this
nature coming from The Department of
Transport.
If we are concerned with the movement
of people, if we are seriously concerned
about the accidents and deaths which are
the result of this movement of people, per-
haps we should be doing some studying in
this direction to determine whether or not
some better method could be found. I per-
sonally think that there could be. I sub-
scribed to the suggestions of my leader last
year when he indicated that the trains could
be used to bring people to central depots
so that they could move rapidly by rapid
transportation into the centre of these metro-
politan areas.
While I am dealing with this subject let
me say this. I think that the manner of get-
ting people into the metropolitan areas goes
hand-in-hand with this matter of financing.
For instance, I note that Highway 401,
which originally was built as a by-pass for
the city of Toronto, has now become an
arterial route for the people themselves.
This highway was built 100 per cent with
provincial funds and yet it now is being
used as an arterial route for the city dwellers.
Now, I think it is time we had a study.
If we consider all these other expressways
that are going though the cities we begin
to wonder just whether or not there is any
order in this matter of highway financing.
I think that some leadership in this direc-
tion should be forthcoming from The Depart-
ment of Transport. Since it has not been
forthcoming I do not see any sense in pro-
longing it any longer, I think that this could
come from the new department which will
be in The Department of Highways after
this reorganization is completed as I have
suggested.
Let me deal for a few minutes with the
matter— the hon. Minister is smiling at me
and I do not think he has yet got the sig-
nificance of my remarks.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I am worried to
death about them.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
They are even amusing to the hon. member.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I did not hear the
hon. Minister of Health but I am sure—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I said, "They are even
amusing to tlie hon. member"— I mean his
own remarks.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Thank you. I was
just going to say, Mr. Chairman, I am sure
these remarks would show the fine, con-
genial nature he always exhibits but I am
led to wonder since I heard him a little
better.
Mr. Sopha: Now the hon. Minister may
return to his book.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I think there is an-
other matter of very serious significance to
the people of Ontario. It is one complaint
I have received during the past year more
than any other and it deals with the matter
of school bus legislation. I was very pleased
to hear the hon. Minister tell us this after-
noon that diey now have a programme which
requires school bus drivers to undergo
examinations. This was suggested first from
this side of the House and I am glad that
they listen to us once in a while.
I am still concerned about the matter of
The Highway Traffic Act as it relates to
the movement of traffic when a school bus is
stopped on the highway. It has been tlie
attitude of The Department of Transport—
and this is once when they did have a safety
committee meeting and we were able to
ascertain their feelings— that they did not
wish to stop traffic coming in the opposite
direction because this would result in further
vehicle accidents.
I am not one that agrees with that
thought, I believe that again our school bus
legislation should be consistent. As I have
stated before in this House most States be-
low the border have a law which requires
traffic to stop in both directions. There have
been several coroners' juries reports, there
has been a Hamilton magistrate, and there
have been great numbers of citizens who I
believe are dissatisfied with the present con-
dition of our school bus legislation.
Let me illustrate the point for a moment,
if I may, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
ask the hon. members of this House who
are seated here today how many of them
MARCH 8, 1962
929
know when they are travelling on a high-
way whether or not they are in a built-up
area?
I am ready and willing to confess that as
I dri\'e down the highway I do not know
when I am in what is constituted as a leg-
ally built-up area and when I am not. Yet
our school bus legislation states that other
vehicles must stop outside of a municipal-
ity, outside of a city or town or built-up area.
I protested this legislation in committee
when it came forward. I would suggest
that it is inadequate and it is creating con-
fusion in the minds of the public. I suggest
that it should be changed and I personally
believe that traffic should stop in both direc-
tions so that this matter of school bus legis-
lation becomes consistent with that of other
municipalities. I was very critical—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: If the lion, member
would just wait until the legislative pro-
gramme of the department is tabled, after
we get the estimates through, he will just
see how imaginative a programme we have
got.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I thank the hon. Min-
ister for his imaginative programme but I
would remind him that I suggested this
some two years ago so that it really is not
very imaginative on the department's part,
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): The hon.
members have finally come to their senses
o\er there.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Now, Mr. Chairman, I
have to go back and find my notes and start
over again because I was interrupted. I
think in this respect the department has
failed the people of Ontario in the manner in
which this previous legislation was put for-
ward. I am very pleased to hear the hon.
Minister tell me this legislation is coming
forward in some form or other, and I think
this all the more amplifies the point that I
have been trying to make this afternoon.
We are going to be asked in these estimates
to budget a certain amount of money for
advertising. At the time the last school bus
legislation came into effect there was very
little concentrated programme put forward in
the way of advising the public that it had in
fact become law. When I asked the hon.
Minister in charge at that time what had been
done, he told me that they had been informed
by various press releases and that was the
only method that had l^een used to inform
tlie public.
If he is going to bring forward legislation,
as he suggests, which again is going to
change this school bus legislation, I suggest
that he make adequate provision in his budget
so that the public can be properly informed
of this change in legislation. I think it is a
serious one, and I think, instead of spending
the many thousands of dollars which are
spent each year around this time to advise
people that if they do not get their licences
by such-and-such a date they will be prose-
cuted, he might better spend that money
advising the people of the safety laws as
they are passed.
As a matter of fact, while I am dealing
with that, I would like to say that I for one
cannot understand the necessity of putting
half-page advertisements in daily newspapers
telling people if they do not get their licences
by March 14, they are going to be prosecuted.
I think it is a complete waste of money. Any-
body who has been driving knows that along
about March 14, he has to get a new licence
and yet this matter of advertising in the press
results in nothing more or less than a handout
of the public funds to keep the press happy.
Now that is a pretty serious charge but in
effect that is all the good that it does. It
might please the publisher of the paper who
charges for his advertisement but I suggest
that it is doing little good to the citizens of
Ontario.
Now, Mr. Chairman, you will be pleased to
know that it has come time for the conclusion
of my remarks. In the introduction I indicated
that the department had given hon. members
of the Opposition plenty of room for criticism.
I have touched on a few; there are many
more, and while examining these estimates it
will be the duty and responsibility of the
members of this group to investigate very
thoroughly the other operations of the depart-
ment. I suggest to you, sir, that this depart-
ment of government has been "tried and
found wanting," and that the time has come
either for the department to show leadership
and concern for the responsibilities for which
it was charged, or the department should be
amalgamated with other departments of
government, I think I have made a good
case, Mr. Chairman, for this department
being amalgamated with the other depart-
ments where it rightfully belongs.
In the matter of dollars expended I will
agree with the hon. Minister that its impor-
tance to the overall budget is small, but with
respect to the importance of the matters which
we are discussing, to the people of Ontario, it
is extremely important. We cannot afford to
allow a single person— and I am dead serious
about this— we cannot afford to allow a single
person to be maimed, killed or injured on
930
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
either our highways or our waterways if it
ean be prevented. It is our intention on this
side of the House to discharge those responsi-
bihties completely by examining every comer
of the estimates to inquire and ensure that
everything that can be done is done to pro-
mote the functions of this government. Thank
>'ou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, The
Department of Transport has taken such a
merciless beating this afternoon that I am
almost tempted to come to its defence and,
to a degree, I am going to. Because, Mr.
Chairman, there are many aspects of what
was said by the hon. member who has just
taken his seat (Mr. R. C. Edwards), many as-
pects of his criticism with which obviously one
would have to agree. But in his basic theme—
and since he reminded us so many times his
basic theme was that the department should
be abolished— I must say, without necessarily
wanting to get into an argument, that I do
not think his case was a convincing one.
Many of the points which he raised, I
repeat, are points of some validity. I think
he destroyed some of the effectiveness by
exaggeration. For example, to say that the
department is completely bereft of all pro-
gressiveness, I do not think is true. I think
this department has introduced the point
system-
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I did
not say that. I have a copy of what I said
here and I would be pleased to repeat it for
the hon. member if he wishes.
Mr. MacDonald: That it was bereft of
progressiveness! I think, for example, the
introduction of the point system has been a
progressive move, and I must say that I was
impressed with the statistic— in fact, I was
startled with the statistic that the hon. Min-
ister gave us— that 85 per cent of the people
in the province of Ontario have not accumu-
lated any points at all. It almost persuades
me to believe that enforcement is not as great
as it should be, because I do not think we
are really as close to being paragons of virtue
and perfection as that figure would suggest.
But with any reservations one might make, I
still think it is a pretty impressive figure.
I would hope, now that the hon. member
for Victoria (Mr. Frost) with his Victorian
views with regard to breathalizers has gone
ofiF, that his views would not still dominate
the government, and that police officers and
people in safety councils and others who feel
that they have a role to play might be pro-
gressive enough to induce the department to
introduce this.
Such criticisms, as for example, the delay
with the annual report, I could not agree with
more. But this is not just a criticism of the
department, this is a disease in this govern-
ment. It is a disease we have taken a look
at in the select committee of which the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) and I both
happened to be members. I am hoping
that we can do something about it.
I think, to conclude, as the hon. member
for Wentworth (Mr. R. C. Edwards) has done,
that the hon. Minister wrongly claimed great
achievement for the department because
there has been an increase in fatalities, I
think this is non sequitur. I think there
have been some achievements in the depart-
ment and that we should acknowledge them—
moreover, they are not wiped out by the
fact that there has been an increase in fatali-
ties over the last year.
Unfortunately, increases in fatalities are
almost part of our way of life. I would sug-
gest that if we are going to correct the
increase in fatalities that the responsibility for
doing so rests not so much in this department
as in increasing our enforcement agencies;
and that maybe would reduce the 85 per cent
figure with no demerits, too. I think this is the
answer to getting at the problem of increasing
fatalities.
If the hon. member for Wentworth is
puzzled as to the contradiction between what
the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) said
and any other hon. Minister in the govern-
ment, I am surprised that he is puzzled by
this. Surely it has become very obvious for
quite some time that the hon. Attorney-
General is out of step with everybody in the
government.
There is added reason why in this particular
department he is out of step. He is nursing
a burning sense of pique. For many years the
functions of this department were in the
department of the hon. Attorney-General and
they had a fantastically great capacity for
headlines and he exploited that headline
potential in safety and everything else.
I hope the hon. Minister will not agree
with me by shaking his head affirmatively
because this is going to get embarrassing.
However, the hon. Attorney-General ex-
polited this to the hilt in terms of safety and
everything else and to his great chagrin this
was taken out of his department and trans-
ferred to The Department of Transport. Now
they are doing a job without necessarily
exploiting 101 per cent the headlines of it.
The hon. Attorney-General is still unhappy,
and the sense of pique makes it necessary for
him to make a speech every now and then, as
MARCH 8, 1962
931
he did dQ\yn in Windsor, showing once again
what everyone knows: that he is out of step
with everybody even in the government.
However, the point I want to conclude on
with regard to the theme of the hon. member
for Wentworth is that I think he draws the
wrong conclusions. I think there is enough
important work to be done in this department
that it is wortiiy of having a Minister who
will give it his full-time responsibility at
Cabinet level. My criticism, and this will be
the main burden of my general remarks to
the introduction of the estimates, is that there
is another important phase that the hon.
member for Wentworth just touched on at the
conclusion which I think this department
should be tackling and so far, apparently, it
has not gotten around to it.
The phase I refer to is the whole rationaliz-
ation of transport in this province— the moving
of people from one place to another. Now,
in checking back over the estimates last year,
I was interested to note that a very significant
proportion, particularly of the introduc-
tory statements, was devoted to this prob-
lem of commuter services. It was raised by
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) and the hon. Prime Minister of the
day (Mr. Frost), took it up. He was in rather
a petulant mood that day because apparently
he had had his fingers rapped or had been
rebuffed by Donald Gordon and everybody
else in the railways. We had quite a battle
flowing back and forth across the red carpet
here, and about the only thing that came
out of it apparently was a meeting with
Donald Gordon some time later; what came
out of that, I do not know.
But the point I want to make, Mr. Chair-
man, is that commuter services are only one
aspect of this whole problem of transporta-
tion at the moment. I would think that The
Department of Transport in the province of
Ontario is the appropriate government depart-
ment, either through its own research facilities
or through co-operation with the research
facilities over in the Macaulay empire, to do
the necessary job in trying to find answers for
reconciling and rationalizing this whole prob-
lem of transportation today. It would seem to
me, Mr. Chairman, that we are now in a
position to proceed with this, because as you
know, during the past year a report of the
Royal commission investigating transport at
the federal level has come down, and here—
if I may just pause for a moment— I think you
get a mixture of federal and provincial
responsibilities, and it is impossible to sort
them out. Unfortimately, to be frank with
you, I have not had time to read the report
at the federal level. Unfortunately, one would
come to the conclusion from the publicity that
it has had, and the comments in the press,
that it is for the most part devoted to rail-
way problems. It has come up with a
solution which personally does not impress
me— that the answer to the railway problem
is to restore free competition between the
railways.
Now some people may think that con-
clusion of mine is part of my ideological bias.
I was rather interested shortly after the report
came down to hear Viewpoint after the news
one evening on TV. The speaker was the
head of the department of commerce, I
believe in the University of Toronto, and
certainly not a person who normally would
be sharing my ideological bias. After a cold
analysis of the whole thing, he ventured the
prediction that, a few years from now, those
who think they have found the answer to
the railway problem by restoring free compe-
tition will discover that it is not, and they
will be retracing their steps. Surely anybody
who has studied the whole economics of trans-
port long since will have come to the con-
clusion that this is not an area where there is
very much scope for free competition. It
seems to me, in fastening one's attention and
hanging one's hopes on this as being the
answer to the problem, that we are being
led up a blind alley by the hon. Minister's
colleagues at Ottawa at the present time.
However, Mr. Chairman, without going to
great length into this— because until the de-
partment gets into it I do not think there is
very much point for us in the Opposition
speaking at great length— the obvious point
that strikes one in the situation today is
that we have gotten ourselves into a position
where every form of transport is subsidized
very heavily.
Air transport is subsidized with free
meteorological services and with airports.
Our truck transport and our bus transport
are subsidized by provision of highways on
which they operate, when they do not
contribute in an equitable way to the cost;
they do not contribute to the parking space
problem that cars and buses create down in
our cities. If you examine water transport
you will find that it is subsidized. The result
is that we are dipping into the public pockets
to subsidize every kind of transport, and yet
we end up with a kind of irrational system
that still is not paying for itself, and year
after year, we have to dip into our pockets
still further.
Now it seems to me that we have reached
the point where the kind of study that I
932
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
assume was done at Ottawa, and with the
kind of supplementary study that this depart-
ment will do, we can begin to work towards
luiswers of rationalization which, my present
guess is, will have to be dividing up traffic-
designating it for certain forms of transport.
I read one very interesting brief that was
submitted to the Royal commission at the
federal level. They were advancing the
argiunent that short-term traffic- 100 to 200
miles— in which the problem of delivery is a
major portion of the haulage, would be a
logical kind of transportation for trucks. But
long-term traffic across the nation, was a
more logical one for railways.
By permitting both to get into it, you end
up with each cutting the other's throat and we
the people of the province and of the nation
have to subsidize them because they cannot
survive. Now, without going any further into
this topic— because its ramifications are really
endless, Mr. Chainnan— I would like to say
that rather than see this department abolished,
I would like to see this department expanded
with research staff. I would be willing to
vote for the addition of research staff—
because I think the research staff over in The
Department of Economics and Development
has got more than enough to keep it busv
now— for the necessary qualified research staff
in this field to start tackling the job of
commuter services, the uneconomic com-
petition between the other forms of transport,
and come up with the kind of answer that
we can at least tackle the problem at the
pro\incial level. ConceiNably, if we take a
step, we can persuade the federal level to
move into it too.
In taking my seat, Mr. Chainnan, I just
want to draw attention to one other rather
remarkable contradicton in the general theme
of the Liberal spokesman before the estimate.
He wants to wipe out a department, because
he says— along with Parkinson— that we have
too many of them. But there will be, before
the House is finished with its deliberations this
year, somebody else who rises to argue that
they want a new department, a department of
northern affairs, for example. I want to sub-
mit that, in that particular instance, it is not
more government we want, it is better govern-
ment, and it is created by seeing that each
existing department does its job.
So the hon. member was perhaps very
correct in starting his remarks by saying that
he was going to play the political song
tliroughout his remarks. He did throughout,
I think, to the extent of not recognizing the
job that has been done by this department
in promoting what I would describe— not in
any sense of derogation— as the routine
functions of the department, highway safety
and things of that nature. I would hope
that in years to come they will move on
to the broader vistas that are possible for a
department of transport, solving problems
that lie ahead of us, which nobody has yet
tackled.
Mr. Sopha: In respect of the first vote,
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some
remarks concerning the administration by the
hon. Minister of those monies provided by
statute, and noted in the estimates at the
bottom thereof, under capital disbursements
for the unsatisfied judgment fund which this
year amounts to $2.8 million. I might say
parenthetically that I inferred from what the
hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Rowntree)
said that their experience is such now that
a great many more people are being im-
pelled to purchase insurance from private
insurance companies rather than pay the $20
to the unsatisfied judgment fund.
Now, the remarks of my hon. friend from
Wentworth (Mr. R. C. Edwards)— and not-
withstanding what may have been said in
a non-political theme by the hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald)— I want to
comment that the remarks by my hon. col-
league were very much worth listening to
and I thought very effective and very telling.
Now. as was pointed out by him, all tlie
people have not yet come forward to buy their
licences, and apparently do not have to
do so until at least the 15th day of this month,
and perhaps there will be another moratorium.
After that time— the hon. Minister shakes
his head—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No. I said that there
would not be any extension past the 14th—
Mr. Sopha: Well, along with what my hon.
friend said, it has often been a source of great
curiosity to myself that, so far as other
mandatory Acts are concerned— for example,
filing of income tax returns by April 30, and
everybody in this country knows that he has
to do that or he pays the penalty. I have
been curious to know why, in this depart-
ment, year after year, and as long as I can
remember— my memory does not go back as
a good many memories of this House, but
as long as I can remember— every year there
have been these large advertisements giving
a further moratorium and further period in
which people may come forward and buy
their licence—
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Where has the hon. member been for the last
three years?
MARCH 8, 1962
933
Mr. Sc^ha: Why, I ask, does the govern-
ment not set a fixed date and everybody has
to have their licences by that time and that
is the end of it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That has been the case
for the last three years.
Mr. Sopha: All right, fine, but it has not
been the same date.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is a very good
point that the hon. member raises, and there
is no secret about the situation. There has
been no extension of time after a fixed date
has been declared or announced for at least
three years. In earlier years, an earlier date
was set, which was extended and, I believe,
in some years there has been more than one
extension.
Quite frankly, it is a matter of accounting
and there is no secret about it that the fiscal
year end for 1961-1962 includes the revenue
of the sales in the first three months of this
year. And that is the real reason.
Now, the next thing that is of interest on
that point is that I think that some considera-
tion should be given to the opportunity of
new licences and permits being available
prior to the first of January.
The first of January is New Year's Day.
Many people are away. Actually the licence
has expired on December 31, and that period
to March 14 or such other date that may be
declared, is really in the nature of a period of
grace.
I do not think— and we have looked at this
—that there is any revenue by way of trans-
fers or new licences that would be of any loss
or significance that would prevent us this
coming year from putting *63 licences and
permits on sale some time around Decem-
ber 1.
Mr. Sopha: I am very grateful to the hon.
Minister for his enlightening remarks and it
is a refreshing return to the days when the
hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost) was in
charge when he always used to get up and
make his speech with one's own, and I have
missed the departure of those days under the
new regime.
Now, that was not really what I wanted to
embark on and say, I sort of got side-tracked.
I was going to say in preface to my later
submissions that we will not know until
everybody comes forward and gets their
licence just what percentage of owners of
motor vehicles in this province are going to
resort to private insurance companies and
what percentage are going to remain under
the aegis of the unsatisfied judgment fund.
I hope it will be a high percentage that will
purchase private insurance, as every other
hon. member of this House, and particularly
the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cowl-
ing), I imagine, would hope that it would
be.
Now that I have got started with everyone
in agreement let us see if I can cultivate a
little disagreement.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Well, it is not bad to sound
like Charlotte Whitton. She has been pretty
successful as a politician.
Interjections by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: She is not old enough, she
was introduced this morning as being 36.
An hon. member: She will only have to
wait four years.
Mr. Sopha: What I wanted to refer to or
describe as one of the greatest anomalies in
a government which itself has become an
anomaly in the province, is the administra-
tion of the unsatisfied judgment fund. I am—
though I have a great deal of trepidation
about it— I am impelled this day to speak a
little more vigorously about it and more to
the point than I would have, say, two days
ago, because of events that have supervened
in between.
I have said in this House before, and I beg
leave, Mr. Chairman, to repeat, that I see no
justification whatsoever that the payment of
$2.8 million should be placed in a depart-
ment under the responsibility of an hon.
Minister whose responsibility, sir, goes only
so far as the actual mechanics of paying it
out.
Now, whether there is justification for pay-
ing it out, whether the judgment under
which it was paid out was properly secured
in the courts, whether the action was properly
defended, is no responsibility of the hon.
Minister at all. The first thing he knows
about it in his department is when there is
a letter received by the unsatisfied judgment
fund branch or the financial responsibility
section. It refers to a judgment and contains
an application for payment out of the fund.
The hon. Minister and those responsible to
him, his solicitors, check over the application,
see that the application is in order and pay
the money out.
But so far as the defence of that action
is concerned, whether the defendant, the de-
faulting defendant— the hon. Minister from
934
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Kingston (Mr. Nickle) will be one who will
be aware of everything I say— whether he
was properly defended, whether every witness
was brought before the court, whether in fact
it has been determined satisfactorily that an
insurance company ought to have paid that
money, are all matters that are completely
unknown to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Because that regime, and the responsibility for
that, have for many years past remained in
The Department of the Attorney-General. I
say it is an anomaly, and my word is well
chosen.
The whole of the unsatisfied judgment
fund, everything relating to the payment out
of these public monies, I say, and I say in
rationality, ought to be in one department.
I suspect that the reason it is not falls com-
pletely in line with Professor Parkinson's
thesis.
' I know where this fund got started. I
know the person— and I will make a remark
later that perhaps with a little more caution
of two days ago I would not have made—
away back when this matter got started and
the individual who put it into operation
devised the scheme which has been much
amended and much changed in the inter-
vening years. I say that probably the whole
thing is the reluctance on the part of a senior
civil servant to divest himself of authority
and power.
It is quite remarkable; I say, Mr. Chair-
man, quite remarkable that in reorganization
of the courts we see that same senior civil
servant, in a period of three months from
making a report until yesterday when the
bills were rushed through a committee and
the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Rown-
tree) was there, that same senior civil servant
would not permit a little reorganization of
the inner workings, the inner sanctum of
government and get that unsatisfied judgment
fund branch out of The Department of the
Attorney-General and get it where it properly
belongs, under the direction, the responsi-
bility and the aegis of the hon. Minister of
Transport.
The second thing I want to say with
respect to it, and here I am going to speak
from personal experience, that in a great
many cases, I suspect— I am going to recite
two, and I will put the facts on the record-
but I suspect if two cases occurred to me
then there are a great many more cases of
like and similar nature where monies have
been paid out of the public revenues and the
public treasury of this province and the un-
satisfied judgment fund when there is no
justification for paying them out.
A year ago or more I put facts on record
in this House and I was promised at that
time that an explanation would be given to
me in relation to them. It has never been
forthcoming. I referred to the case of Byrns
against Dionne, tried three or four years ago
in the district of Sudbury, where after judg-
ment was secured by the plaintiff— I acted
for the defendant and judgment for some
$3,500 went— then a dispute arose between
my client, Dionne, and his insurance com-
pany about the liability for payment of the
judgment. The company took the position
that there had been a statutory violation of
the policy and therefore they were not on
the risk. Well, there was some disagreement
about that, some disagreement about it, and
the disagreement was of so sensitive a nature
that Dionne was impelled to commence
action in the Supreme Court of Ontario
asking for a declaration that the policy was
in force and the company was liable to
indemnify him according to the terms there-
of.
In the meantime, of course, the plaintiff
made an application to the unsatisfied judg-
ment fund. Becoming aware of this, I wrote
to the solicitors for the unsatisfied judgment
fund bringing it to their attention that an
action had been started and suggesting to
them that they had no jurisdiction to pay
any monies out of the unsatisfied judgment
fund until that issue had been determined.
Quite logically, I felt— I still feel, nothing
has ever changed my mind in relation to
this— that if there is a possibility of saving
public monies, be it $3,500 or $350 or any
amount, then the unsatisfied judgment fund
ought to join with the plaintiff in such an
action in order— to resort to the vernacular,
and this may offend the hon. member for
High Park (Mr. Cowling)— to endeavour to
nail the insurance company.
That is a good phrase, to nail the insurance
company. If we can save the public of this
province money and demonstrate to the satis-
faction of a court that an insurance company
is on the risk, then that is good business.
Now, just to conclude it, in that case I got
a letter back— I still have it on file— from the
solicitor to the hon. Minister of Transport,
and he said, to paraphrase him:
"We have no concern about this. All we
need is an aflBdavit from the plaintiff saying
that he knows of no insurance coverage that
is in force to indemnify him and we pay the
money out."
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: What year would that
be?
MARCH 8, 1962
935
Mr. Sopha: That would be 1956 or 1957.
Then I want to tell about another case
that I thought was even more remarkable
than that and demonstrated the approach of
the people who administered the unsatisfied
judgment fund; the strictness or the vigour
with which they defend these actions.
I had a case where my client was named
Nicolic. We were suing an Indian by the
name of Devassige— that is a good Manitoulin
Island name, Devassige, his father was a chief
in the Manitoulin Island then— and the
registered owner of the vehicle was one Gray.
We can put Gray aside very quickly because
Gray never appeared after the accident
occurred. He, of course, was not driving the
motor vehicle at this time, Devassige, the
Indian, was and Gray never appeared. No-
body saw him at any time.
There was an insurance policy in force for
$100,000-$ 100,000, that really warms a
lawyer's heart when there is coverage like
that. So normally and naturally action was
brought against both Devassige and Gray,
the registered owners. Devassige— I should
go on to say though that I acted for Nicolic;
but Flynn, a passenger in the front seat of
the same vehicle, was killed in the accident.
I did not act for the Flynn estate. He came
from Oshawa and they retained local solicitors
in Oshawa.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Might I just say some-
thing at this point, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: As the hon. member
is probably aware this is a statutory item
which is disclosed at the end of our estimates.
I am very much interested in the instances
which he is citing, but as he knows the
insurance committee of which some of his
hon. colleagues were members brought in its
report immediately towards the end of the
year and there will be major legislation
brought forward within a few days which will
implement a substantial portion of those
recommendations. When the bill is brought
down it will provide a very real opportunity
to discuss the fund and go into some of these
things.
Mr. Singer: And everything that was before
the committee?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Oh, not everything.
We will discuss the bill.
Mr. Bryden: The bill may be unduly
restrictive.
Mr. Sopha: I wonder why the hon. Minister
—I thank him for his intervention— but I
wonder why he did not bring that legislation
in before he asked us to vote the money to
run his department.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, the hon. mem-
ber's hon. colleague was on the committee.
Mr. Sopha: I do not know what is in it,
but I know the second interim report which
I had taken the opportunity to read before
I got up to speak, satisfied me that they did
not deal with these matters I am now
referring to in their second interim report.
The hon. Minister may recall that I
presented a brief before that committee and
it was not very effective even with my own
hon. colleagues. They did not include much
of what I recommended— some of it, but not
much of it— in their second interim report.
Maybe at some future time—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It would be my desire
that when the bill is brought down we
would have a debate or ample opportimity
to discuss some of the matters that the
hon. member is raising, if they are pertinent.
Mr. Sopha: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman,
I am not going to be very lengthy about this.
I said that Flynn, in the front seat, had been
killed; Nicolic had been seriously injured,
and accordingly two actions were started, one
on behalf of Flynn, who was killed, and the
other on behalf of Nicolic.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member
wants to go ahead now on this?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I do!
Now the company in this case denied
liability because they said that Gray was
not the true owner of the vehicle and the
vehicle in fact, though not by registration had
been transferred prior to the accident to
Devassige. The action proceeded along those
lines and since Flynn had been killed and
the damages to Nicolic were quite serious, it
was quite obvious that the amounts that
would be recovered in the courts if the action
went to trial would far exceed the limits of
the unsatisfied judgment fund. Now the total
judgments that were eventually recovered in
the two actions was $39,000. Hon. members
can see that is almost double the amount
that was in the fund.
The department and the soHcitors for the
fund were perfectly aware of all this and
perfectly aware of the nature of the defences
that had been raised by the insurance com-
pany. At one point in the action, and some
936
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
months before they came to trial, I was
approached by one of the soHcitors of the
unsatisfied judgment fund branch, and he
made a remarkable oflFer. He made the
remarkable oflFer that the fund would kick
in $10,000 of the $20,000 that was available;
the insurance company that had insured Gray,
the registered owner, they would kick in
$10,000. My chent Nicolic would take
$10,000; Mrs. Flynn, the widow, would take
the other ten and we would wrap the matter
up and settle it!
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
What about Flynn?
Mr. Sopha: This is a very serious matter.
It is a very serious matter and we know,
Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Minister of
Mines (Mr. Wardrope) is the Bob Hope of
the poor, but we have not got the time to
stop and listen to him.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: What year was this
case?
Mr. Sopha: What year? That was 1959.
I was quite impressed with the prodigality
of civil servants with public funds. I was
quite impressed with the fact that apparently
conversations had taken place between the
solicitors of the unsatisfied judgment fund
and the solicitors for the insurance company.
Of course, I was not invited to participate in
those conversations.
But hon. members see how the deal had
been made; $10,000 from the fund, $10,000
from the insurance company.
There is a compromise! We take far less
than we eventually got and the whole thing
would be settled. The offer was rejected, was
rejected out of hand; completely refused and
we proceeded to trial.
Now, my complaint is this and I state it
very simply: The solicitors for the unsatisfied
judgment fund, if they were about their
business— and I might add if they were
properly paid, which they are not and never
have been, there has been a great progression
of them that have come in there, stayed a
few months and then gone on to greener
pastures after eight years of going to law
school— if they were about their business and
there was a possibility of hooking the insur-
ance company and getting them on the risk
and getting that $100,000 of insurance that
was available under the policy which insured
Gray, they would join forces and aid and
abet the eflForts of the plaintiflFs in the case in
order to endeavour to bring about that result.
But why should these solicitors, who are
hired— I do not want to blame the solicitors—
but why should the hon. Minister or the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) who has the
responsibility of protecting this $2.8 milHon
which comes from the public monies of this
province— why should there be such prodi-
gality in paying it out and oflFering to pay
it out? Why not make every endeavour to—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: If the hon. member
would give me the identification of the files,
I would be glad to look into them and inform
myself as to the facts and put myself in the
position to discuss the matter.
Mr. Sopha: Nicolic against Gray and
Devassige. D-e-v-a-s-s-i-g-e.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: And the other case?
Mr. Sopha: Byrns — B-y-r-n-s— against
Dionne.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I would be pleased,
Mr. Chairman, to inform myself and put my-
self in the position to discuss these matters in
an intelligent way with my hon. friend, but
at the moment I have no knowledge of them
because they are of some ancient vintage.
Mr. Sopha: The hon. Minister has no know-
ledge of them, but I am informing him of
them. I informed the authorities of the case
of Bryns and Dionne a year ago, and they
said they would give me an answer but I
have never had one yet. Now I give the hon.
Minister this additional one.
To review what I said. I simply do not
understand as a member of this House, nor
do I understand as a solicitor of the Supreme
Court, why the officials or the people respon-
sible for the unsatisfied judgment fund, if
they can save a dollar— if they can save a
dollar by putting the risk or demonstrating
to a court that the risk is properly the respon-
sibility of an insurance company— that they
do not bend every effort, every effort to do
it.
What was the result of that case? The
result of that case was the saving of about
$24,000 to the fund. In this way, that at the
trial Mr. Justice Ferguson found that Gray
was the true owner—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Then right was done!
Mr. Sopha: But through no assistance of
the unsatisfied judgment fund, through no
assistance whatsoever.
The position— let me just go on and refer to
that— the position taken by the fund by E. H.
Silk, QC, who appears by local agent at the
MARCH 8. 1962
937
trial, their position was a completely passive
one.
I go on to add, sir, that they had not been
in touch with Devassige, for whom E. H. Silk,
QC, appeared, from the time he went to jail
—he was sentenced for criminal negligence
causing death— they had never seen him from
the time he went to Guelph, to which in-
stitution he was sentenced for one year, until
the morning of the trial. The solicitor who
appeared for him on the record at the trial
did not even have an interview with him that
day of the trial. He was completely, I might
add, in the hands of the insurance company's
lawyers. He was completely in their hands.
He came there as an auxiliary and an adjunct
to assist them in the defence of statutory
violation in that their insured Gray was not
the true owner of the vehicle and Devassige
took the stand and testified to that set of
facts in their endeavour to get out.
Now when large amounts of public money
are involved— the $2.8 million that the hon.
Minister is asking for this year— when large
amounts are involved, one with a consider-
ably greater feeling than curiosity can see in
the employment of counsel by that govern-
ment, by your government— and the hon.
member for York Centre (Mr. Singer) asked
to have tabled the amounts that were paid
in the employment of outside counsel; I
would not dare trust my memory to remember
how much they were, but they were very
substantial sums indeed.
One notes in expropriation proceedings
and that type of thing, where the interests of
the province are at stake, that that govern-
ment will hire the very best counsel that
they can find on Bay, Adelaide and Richmond
Streets— the very best, the leading law firms,
are hired. I have asked before and I ask
again, in the administration of this fund, I
know of no single case where, in a stout and
spirited defence of the action, this govern-
ment—through the hon. Attorney-General or
his department or anyone else— has ever gone
out and got leading counsel to defend.
There is, truth to tell— the hon. Attorney-
General does not like to hear this, but it is
true— that normally in the defence of these
actions E. H. Silk, QC, appears on the record
and they hire a local Tory law firm which
may or may not be competent, may or may
not carry on much other motor vehicle litiga-
tion practice at all. The business is farmed
out to them and all hon. members need to do
—I do not want to mention my good
friend from Sudbury— but all hon. members
need to do is look at the public accounts,
at page U-7, half way down the page, and
see one of the leading Tory law firms in
Sudbury.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Ask the hon. member
for York Centre (Mr. Singer) how much his
law firm received federally—
Mr. Sopha: Alongside a leading Tory law
firm from Hamilton—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the question-
Mr. Sopha: I did not ask a question.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: There was a point
raised by the hon. member.
Let me say this, that in paying out the
monies from the fund to our department,
there is an average time required, at the
moment, of 14 days which I regard as too
long. Steps will be taken to shorten that
time and expedite the issue of these cheques.
The 14 days— during the period that I have
been connected with the department— have
been required to check the sufficiency of the
documentation or the judgment or whatever-
the authority is, to comply with the law and
authorize the payment out.
Now, on this subject the hon. member's
colleagues and ours— and the committee itself
—brought in some findings which are set
out in the book which you have. This report
was brought in last December. Some of us
were somewhat involved in the month of
January on other matters and—
Mr. Singer: Not too successfully.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, we were
involved; achieved success. The position is
this, that the administration— firstly, the ad-
ministration under the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) bears a solid front with respect
to this matter. The legislation, of course,
that we are going to come up with in respect
to the implementation of this report will be
one which bears the entire support of the
Cabinet and of this government, including
my colleague, the hon. Attorney-General.
There is no dissension or disagreement of
any kind as suggested by the hon. member
somewhat earlier. And I think there would
be no secret in the fact that the operation
of the fund is going to be placed entirely
under The Department of Transport and
with the entire co-operation and assistance
of the hon. Attorney-General. When this
bill is brought down in a matter of a very
few days— and I am trying to get it down
as quickly as I can— there are only 24 hours
in each day as far as I am concerned, but
938
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we will get this down. I have in mind the
time factor of getting the bill printed and
into hon. members' hands so that it can be
considered and looked at, and so on, so
there will be an adequate debate on the
subject.
Mr. Sopha: I am very glad to hear from
the hon. Minister that what I advocated last
year— that this fund go under one depart-
ment—is in fact going to be effected by this
legislation. It is a very progressive step.
Nor did I, Mr. Chairman, suggest that there
was any dissension between him and the
hon. Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, though
I might add that the hon. Attorney-General
is a man with whom it is not difficult to
have dissension at any time. But I imagine
the hon. Minister gets along with him better
than we do.
I do not apologize for bringing these
matters to the attention of the House. A
search of the files of those two cases will
reveal that what I said is absolutely correct,
and I hope when the hon. Minister does get
it under his department that new vigour
will go into the administration of this thing
so that public monies are paid out of it only
after it is determined that an insurance com-
pany is not really on the risk. Now, it is
not the proper place to say that the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr, Robarts) promised this,
that the second interim report of the select
committee on automobile insurance would
be debated, an opportunity would be given
to debate it, I know him to be a man of
his word and I would think that, before the
conclusion of this session of the Legislature,
such an opportunity will be provided, be-
cause I do want to seize the opportunity to
try to demonstrate— and I could not per-
suade the select committee to include it in
its report apparently— to try to demonstrate
that the legislation respecting the motor
vehicle accidents in this province, that that
legislation is heavily biased in favour of the
insurance companies, and accordingly is
heavily prejudicial to plaintiffs, I can show
that.
All the rights and privileges that are
given insurance companies to add them-
selves as third parties, to plead statutory
violation of policies, is just as if the insur-
ance companies wrote the legislation. I
think they had a heavy hand, through some
pressure group perhaps, in putting in some
of the phraseology.
I add that there are some insurance com-
panies, like All-State and State Farm, that
are not in the business of paying claims at
all. Those two companies in particular are
in the business of fighting lawsuits. They
want to fight lawsuits, they love the courts,
and they will use every legal trick and every
legal chicanery that is available to them
through pettifogging delaying tactics to
avoid the payment of just claims upon the
policies of the motor vehicle, that the vehicle
was in the possession at the time of the
accident of Devassige with the consent of
Gray, the true owner, and therefore judgment
went against Gray and the company had to
stand behind him as the registered owner
and indemnify him. The unsatisfied judg-
ment fund, which a few months previous had
in prodigal fashion been willing to pay out
$10,000 of the public money, along with the
insurance company, got out of the matter
with the payment of their own solicitor. I can
demonstrate also that they do that. They do
it throughout the province.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, this is
far removed from the subject. This is a
matter of The Insurance Act when it comes
under some other department's estimates.
But it demonstrates the co-operation and the
spirit of helpfulness and kindness that exists
and that we try to generate here. Let me say
this to the hon. member. If he will get hold
of me tomorrow and tell me what he has got
in mind, I will even take time out to discuss
it with him before I finalize the bill over
the weekend.
Mr. Sopha: Well, that is very simple,
because then I need only provide the hon.
Minister with a copy of the brief that I pres-
ented before the select committee and it is all
contained therein.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I will dig it out
myself.
Mr. Sopha: I wish the hon. Minister would
dig it out and read it and perhaps take out
some of those invidious sections around sec-
tion 220 of The Insurance Act that give the
insurance companies of this province so much
latitude in actions that are brought by people
who are injured on our highways. And those
are the remarks I wish to make with respect
to the unsatisfied judgment fund which, apart
from my criticism, has been a wonderful
mechanism in this province to compensate
people who would not otherwise get a nickel
from improvident defendants.
It was a very progressive step 10 years ago
or so when it was brought in, and I think, was
the leader in this country. I am not one of
those not able to exercise my larynx to say
some kind things about this government. One
can afford to say kind things about it as one
MARCH 8, 1962
939
can afford to say kind things of the person
who is on his deathbed and going to his great
reward, and that is the spirit in which I
say it.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr. Chair-
man, I would not have got up to speak on
this issue if it had not been for the hon.
Minister saying that he was so lenient and
wanted people to express themselves freely,
or words to that effect. I would like very
much to ask a question on water safety.
Will that come under main office? I do not
know where else you could put it, you cer-
tainly cannot put it under the other items.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Bukator: No, it is not a different mat-
ter. It does come under the provincial
government and I can assure you that that is
where that belongs. I just do not want to
be off-base the first time I am on my feet
this year.
You can recall a year ago when we had
that tragedy in Niagara Falls when a man
and his family lost their lives going over the
rapids— the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
(Mr. Macaulay) would remember that case
very well, he is well acquainted with the
river. Now, I had something to say about
that matter at that time. There were many
delegations and many people concerned about
this because there were many people using
the Niagara river for boating purposes, both
for fishing and taking their families out
on a Sunday. This man had his family out.
His motor failed him above the intake at
Chippawa, and they were lost in the rapids.
It was a tragedy that we will remember there
for a long, long time.
I suggested to the parks commission at that
time— I am awfully sorry that the chairman is
not here— that they purchase a vehicle, a
boat, with two people to man the boat, and
if they had had that at that time this tragedy
would not have occurred.
I was talking to the manager of the parks
commission and he suggested to me that
this matter was a federal matter, such as you
have suggested, Mr. Chairman.
I find that the lands to the international
boundary have been leased to the federal
government by the parks commission, simply
because the Hydro wanted to dig out these
intakes for their power project. So the land
comes under the direct jurisdiction of the
the Niagara Parks Commission. Under those
circumstances we felt— the people of the city
of Niagara Falls, the mayor, his council, the
reeve and council of Stamford township.
among many others throughout the province
—that some kind of a safety measure should
be brought about.
They decided that the proper way to handle
this thing would be to get the surveyors out
— tlie surveyors and the engineers of the
Hydro and the army corps on the American
side— to install some kind of cable or safety
measure across the Niagara river. This at that
time did not make sense to me as a layman
because it would have been too costly and
too hard to handle. I suggested that they
buy a boat with two men to man this
apparatus. I am not criticizing the hon.
Minister here, I am giving him an "out," I am
showing him how he can add this to his pro-
gramme and provide the necessary safety for
the people who use that river.
The natural harbour there is the intake to
the Chippawa creek; there is a little bay
there with a light and with a place to moor
their boat and intercept the boats that do
get into difficulty at that point, which would
be about a mile and a half above the falls.
This is the answer to the problem, and why
I tell the hon. Minister that it is simple to
handle this problem; because I, at one time,
was acquainted with two people who rowed
out into the Niagara river, out beyond the
Canadian boundary, picked up three
youngsters off a raft with a row-boat and
rowed back into the intake and saved their
lives. It is just how simple this thing can be
handled.
As a matter of fact, when I was on the
parks commission several years ago, I
suggested to them at that time that they
purchase a boat, and give it to the volunteer
fire department of the village of Chippawa to
man, because they are quite expert in those
waters; they know them well. I remember
the item at that time would have cost
approximately $1,000. The parks commission
stated to me that, because they did not care
to purchase a unit for a group of people and
have them man it, they thought at that time
that they themselves might buy a boat, have
it on the river front and man it with their
own staff.
Four or five years have passed by and
nothing was done. The tragedy came about
and again they talked about this matter
last summer and again in the fall and nothing
did come about.
I suggest to the hon. Minister that this is
the way to handle this problem. I would like
very much to appeal to the hon. Prime Minis-
ter (Mr. Robarts) himself. If your department
does not handle this thing maybe the Hydro
940
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
will. If the Hydro feel that they do not have
anything to do with this thing maybe the
parks commission should. They encourage
tourists to come there to use those waters, to
come down into that area and spend their
money. I recall that, not long ago, a
youngster came into one of our tourist estab-
lishments along that river which is being
maintained by the parks commission— a boy
12 years of age. He fell off his raft, and the
boy drowned, simply because there were not
the proper precautions to inform him of the
treacherous and dangerous waters. After that,
a sign was put up. They always close the
door after the horse gets out.
I would like at this particular time to get
an expression from the hon. Minister of
Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay) in this
particular case— not economics and whatever
the case may be— because he is acquainted
with our problem; or the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) himself, who could direct one
of the departments to provide this unit for us.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, the
matter that the hon. member raises was re-
ferred to briefly earlier.
The primary responsibility with reference
to safety at sea, as the subject is called, does
rest with the federal government. Now, the
hon. member may be closer to a solution to
his problem than he thinks. Contrary to some
of the things that are said— I think facetiously
—on his side of the fence about what we do
in the departments of government, some of us
do try to keep well informed of developments
involving such matters as these.
There has recently been announced a de-
cision of the federal government to form and
constitute a Canadian coastguard. That is
something that we have been after for a
long time. It is this type of function that
the Canadian coastguard would include in
its scope of operation, because the American
coastguard has a similar pattern of safety for
protecting dangerous waters and special
situations such as this. While it has nothing
to do with the provincial Department of
Transport, I can assure the hon. member I
will certainly be glad to discuss it with my
federal counteri^art when I see him next in
the next week or ten days.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to pursue this a bit further. I did not make
myself too clear to the hon. Minister. Those
lands that I speak of—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, this is
out of order!
Mr. Bukator: I am not out of order, Mr.
Chairman. This it not a federal matter, this
is on provincial lands that come under the
jurisdiction of the parks commission and the
Hydro.
An hon. member: This is not under 2001.
Mr. Bukator: Then tell me where it is,
because I want to discuss this matter again.
I am not going to accept this stall that the
hon. members opposite, from time to time,
try to impose on us. This comes under either
the Hydro or the parks commission. They
should protect the people they invite into
that area.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to revert to the matter that the hon. member
was discussing.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 33
ONTARIO
Heaisilature of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty^Sixth Legislature
Thursday, March 8, 1962
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis; Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 8, 1962
Estimates, Department of Transport, Mr. Rowntree, continued 943
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 975
943
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT
( continued )
On vote 2001:
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chair-
man, at the supper adjournment I was on
the point of saying that I can sympathize
with the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha) in the difficulties he had in two
cases he cited, which involved the unsatis-
fied judgment fund and accident claims
generally. I believe, sir, that the fundamen-
tal reason for the difficulties he encountered
—and for difficulties that many others have
encountered— is that the unsatisfied judg-
ment fund has been almost a complete flop,
as far as dealing with the problem it was
designed to deal with is concerned. I think
this was obvious several years ago to every-
body except the government and, I would
judge also, the hon. member for Sudbury, who
indicated that he considered it satisfactory.
It would appear now that fact has also
become obvious to the government or, at
any rate, to the select committee which was
appointed by this Legislature and which
consists mainly of government members.
This committee has presented an interim
report, as we know, in which, in effect, it
recommends— and we will wait to see to
what degree the government adopts its
recommendations— that the unsatisfied judg-
ment fund be departed from entirely, or the
principle lying behind it be departed from.
The committee recommends that the
name of the fund be changed to the Motor
Vehicle Accident Claim Fund, and I may
say, Mr. Chairman, that this is much more
than a mere change of name. The sugges-
tion for a change of name is appropriate be-
cause it is indicative of a recommendation
that the principle underlying the unsatisfied
judgment fund be radically altered. The
principle the committee recommends is, shall
I say, half of a government-sponsored pub-
lic automobile insurance plan. It proposes
that in future, payments be made without
court proceedings, out of the fund simply
Thursday, March 8, 1962
upon the claimant satisfying the administra-
tors of the fund that he has a just claim. As
far as the claimant is concerned, it now
becomes an administrative proceeding. The
government, either directly or through
agencies will hire its own adjusters and
adjusts claims which are then settled on an
inadequate basis, I would suggest, out of
the motor vehicle accident claims fund—
or they could be on an inadequate basis—
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Trans-
port): How can the hon. member say "inade-
quate" when the legislation has not been—
Mr. Bryden: Well, I am now going purely
on the basis of what is in the report. If I
gave the impression I was talking about the
legislation, I would like to withdraw that.
I had stated earlier that we would have to
wait and see to what degree the govern-
ment accepts the committee's recommenda-
tions; but as far as the committee's
recommendations are concerned, it proposes
an entirely new principle of settlement of
claims out of the fund, and on the basis
which they propose it is my submission
that the procedure is inadequate to a cer-
tain degree. However—
Mr. J. R. Simmonett (Frontenac-Adding-
ton): How would the hon. member know
that?
Mr. Bryden: Well, I know what is in this
report.
Mr. Simonett: Well, I know, but how
would the hon. member know it is inade-
quate?
Mr. Bryden: Well, I am suggesting that,
on the basis they have suggested, it could
be inadequate in some degree. It is, how-
ever, an important and a radical departure
in principle, from the principle of the un-
satisfied judgment fund. It is one that I
personally welcome because I have always
—especially in dealing with the government
opposite— worked on the principle that half
a loaf is better than no bread and this is
a sort of half-way measure towards a pub-
lic automobile insurance plan. The hon.
944
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Minister has stated that he is planning to
bring in legislation shortly and I do not
wish to get into too much discussion at this
stage on this particular principle. One
labours somewhat at a disadvantage in not
knowing what the hon. Minister's legisla-
tion is, because we cannot be sure just what
we will be able to discuss at that time.
However, I have no doubt that in discussion
of the principle of his bill we will be able
to deal with the whole principle of pro-
tection of the public against damages from
automobile accidents. There is one phase
of the matter, however, which I would like
to deal with to some extent at this time,
because I believe that it will not be covered
by the hon. Minister's bill. This is the
matter of the fee paid by a driver who can-
not demonstrate to the licence-issuing au-
thority proof of financial responsibility. This
is a matter which has already been dealt
with by regulation.
I think it is regrettable, Mr. Chairman,
that this matter should have been dealt
with by regulation without any opportunity
for debate in this House. It, too, represents,
in effect, a totally new departure in prin-
ciple. It is far more than an administrative
decision which could quite properly be
handled by regulation. In my opinion it
introduces an entirely new principle which
I think should have been debated in this
House before it was implemented. The in-
crease in the fee that the uninsured driver
must pay from $5 to $20—
Mr. Chairman: This comes under vote
2004.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Chairman, I sug-
gest to you that after we have had a very
lengthy discussion-
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member is talk-
ing about fees now.
Mr. Bryden: Well, I am talking about the
fee, if you want to call it that, Mr. Chair-
man. I am not even sure that is the proper
designation for it, but I am talking about
the money that a motorist, who cannot
demonstrate proof of financial responsibil-
ity, has to pay to the licence-issuing author-
ity. It is a straight matter relating to the
unsatisfied judgment fund. The money that
he pays goes into the unsatisfied judgment
fund. I do not know what branch of the
department handles the administration of
this fund, but I assume from the fact that you
permitted a lengthy discussion of the matter
under this vote that administration is under
the main office. I assure you, sir, that I am
talking exclusively about the administration
of the unsatisfied judgment fund.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Let the
hon. member talk. He will say it anyway.
Mr. Bryden: Oh, I will certainly say it.
The point I was trying to make, Mr. Chair-
man, is that the increase in this amount of
money from $5 to $20 is tantamount to
establishing a system of compulsory insurance
in this province. A payment of $20 is puni-
tive. It is a penalty, in effect, for failing to
carry insurance and, as I say, that— for all
practical purposes— makes it compulsory in-
surance. In fact, the figures which the hon.
Minister himself gave today bear out my
contention. All but a trivial minority of
those who have renewed their licences for
this year, have demonstrated that they have
purchased insurance. In fact, I saw an article
in the Toronto Daily Star of today to the
effect that this has proved to be a real
bonanza for the insurance companies, their
business has gone up something like 30 per
cent.
Mr. Simonett: Does the hon. member
believe that?
Mr. Bryden: I see no reason for not
believing it. The hon. Minister's statement
indicated a substantial increase and the article
in the Daily Star based ostensibly on figures
received from The Department of Insurance
and from insurance companies, was that their
business had gone up about 30 per cent.
Now, whether the figure of 30 per cent is
correct or not really does not matter, the
point is that it necessarily must have gone
up very substantially.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): There is no
need for accuracy.
Mr. Bryden: This is typical of the facetious
sort of comment of the hon. member for
Sudbury (Mr. Sopha). The point is that the
business of the insurance companies has in-
creased substantially and it does not really
matter the precise amount by which it has
increased, that can be determined at a proper
time. But it clearly is having the eflFect of
compelling people to insure. It is a penalty
which forces them to insure.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, that
is not entirely accurate and let us face the
issue squarely. On the one hand you would
have compulsory insurance or a state socialized
form of insurance, and, quite frankly, the
position of our government is that we support
the free enterprise system. We are dealing
MARCH 8, 1962
945
with two entirely different concepts of the
subject.
There is something else to remember, how-
ever, and it is this. There is a substantial
difference between what one gets for $20
and what one gets for a larger payment from
an insurance policy, and let us recognize
that. But the room for the $20 situation
covers a very important gap where somebody
does not believe in insurance, somebody does
not use his vehicle more than six months in
the year, or does not leave certain rural
areas. Certainly this whole report changes
the concept of our whole approach to this
thing.
Obviously, in the increase from $5 to $20
which the committee recommended, and the
party of the hon. member was represented
on that committee and, I believe, the report
was unanimous, we have simply implemented
the unanimous report of a committee. Quite
frankly, the results are exactly what I think
everyone expected.
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Just on
a point of order, I would like to clear this
up. The report was not unanimous, I did
not agree with some parts of it.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I am sorry, it was not
unanimous. The hon. member for Hamilton
East has corrected me.
But the point I am trying to get at is
that, frankly, we could have a very interest-
ing debate on this but I think it would be
more to the point if we had it deferred until
the bill implementing the report comes in in
a matter of a few days. I will tell hon.
members it is going to be one of the most
advanced operations of its kind in this
country, and, indeed, on this continent. It
is going to be a streamlined operation of
which even the party of the hon. member
for Woodbine will be proud.
Mr. Bryden: I do not believe the question
of a fee of $20 will be dealt with in the bill,
or will it?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It has been dealt with.
Mr. Bryden: This is what I am talking
about.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: But it will be open to
discussion, because maybe next year it will
go to $25 or back to $15.
Mr. Bryden: This could be, I do not know.
I am merely making my submission, and I
think that the hon. Minister's comments bear
it out, that the increase to $20 is tantamount
to compulsory insurance. He is satisfied with
the tax, he is perfectly entitled to be satisfied
with whatever he likes.
This has had the effect of inducing almost
everybody to buy insurance from private com-
panies, so I think we are on common ground,
at least as to the result. As to whether or
not we agree with the method of doing it, that
is different. But the result is— and I would take
it that the hon. Minister's statement bears me
out— that we now, for all practical purposes,
have compulsory insurance in this province.
Interjections by the hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. gentleman from
Middlesex South (Mr. Allen) says it is the
cheapest insurance one can get. This is
the other point I wanted to make about it.
It is not insurance at all. There is no
insurance protection for the person who pays
the $20.
In my opinion, if the report of the com-
mittee is implemented there will be a sub-
stantially greater measure of protection than
there was in the past for the victim of an
automobile accident, but there is still no
protection whatsoever for the person who
pays the $20 plus $1 on his licence fee
into the unsatisfied judgment fund. I would
suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if we are
assessing people at that rate, we might as
well take the next stage and consider a pro-
gramme to provide a person who has to pay
that amount of money with insurance pro-
tection. The $20 figure is getting very close
to the amount of money for which a person
can buy the insurance protection envisaged
from some private company. As I recall it,
the proposal of the select committee was that
the maximum liability on the fund should be
$20,000, $40,000 and $5,000, I do not know
if the bill will contain that particular provision
or not—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It might even improve
on it.
Mr. Bryden: Well, it might improve on it,
but I can only take it on the basis of what
I know at the present time, which is in the
committee's report. And as far as a victim
is concerned, he may now— or when the
legislation is enacted he will presumably be
able to— claim damages up to those limits
of the fund, but the person who pays the $20
is still liable for everything that is paid out
of the fund in respect to an accident for
which he is held responsible. Yet for $20
some companies will give at least some drivers
insurance protection to those limits, in fact,
better than those limits and for most drivers
the fee would not be very much more.
946
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Co-operators' Insurance, for example,
in regard to the most favoured class of
drivers, will provide coverage of $20,000,
$40,000 and $10,000- which is a little better
than that recommended in the report— for six-
monthly premiums of $10, two premiums per
year of $10 each. All I am saying is that
some drivers can now get from a private
company— which has all the costs of acqui-
sition—insurance protection up to the limits
proposed here for the fee that the govern-
ment is now demanding and for which they
get no protection at all. I would suggest
to the government that if they are now
thinking in terms of fees of that magnitude
they should go a step further; set a level of
payment that will cover the claims according
to tlieir calculations, and simply provide the
insurance protection to the driver as well
as to the victim of the accident. That seems
to me to be a sensible, logical extension.
I may say that I object to the principle of
compulsory insurance as such. My friends on
the Liberal benches are entirely in favour of
compulsory insurance or some of them are
at any rate. I have said that the hon. Minister
has brought it in by the back door and I think
quite illegitimately by regulation rather than
by decision of this House. I would say that
compulsory insurance, as such, is even more
objectionable than the old unsatisfied judg-
ment fund principle which has now been
abandoned. I say that it is wrong for the
state to use its coercive powers to force
people directly or indirectly to buy something
from someone else who is making a profit out
of the transaction. I do not see why one
should be forced to contribute to somebody
else's profit. If the government is of the
opinion, and I am, that all drivers should
have the insurance protection up to some
reasonable limit for the benefit of the public,
then I believe it is the responsibility of the
government to provide that protection at cost;
that is at the actuarial cost of covering the
claims plus whatever is required for admin-
istration. This would mean that the motorist
would pay substantially less and if we are
going to compel him to do something, then
we should let him have it at cost.
Mr. Simonett: What is cost?
Mr. Bryden: I just defined it a minute ago,
so I will not bother repeating it for you. If
we had a public plan in which the insurance
coverage was supplied at cost, the price
would be considerably lower than is now
paid on average to private insurance com-
panies. The private companies are paying
out in claims less than 60 cents on every
dollar they are collecting on premiums. There
is a margin of better than 40 per cent that
goes to acquisition costs of various kinds
and administrative costs. Under any public
universal plan those costs could be reduced
very substantially, probably to somewhere
between 5 and 10 per cent. This would be
of benefit to the motorist and, as I say,
if the government is now taking the position
or anybody is taking the position that the
motorist be compelled to insure, then it is
their duty to give it to him at the actual cost
of covering the claims and administering the
plan.
An hon. member: At no profit?
Mr. Bryden: The hon. member has asked
"at no profit?" No, I do not think the gov-
ernment should make a profit out of such
a plan. I think they should probably have
suflScient margin to provide adequate reserves
but they should not compel anybody to buy
from some other person. The hon. member
for Sudbury stated this afternoon that in his
opinion the insurance law of this province
was loaded in favour of the insurance com-
panies and against the claimants. Yet his
party, or some hon. members of his party,
want the government to use its coercive
powers to throw everybody into the hands
of the insurance companies, and in fact the
government has for all practical purposes
done that, because we are now in their hands.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Are you for or against compul-
sory insurance?
Mr. Bryden: Since the hon. leader of the
Opposition has asked the question I will
explain it for him in terms that I hope even
he will be able to understand. I am in favour
of a public automobile accident insurance
plan similar in its basic principles to the
workmen's compensation plan. This is ad-
mittedly compulsory insurance but of a very
specific type. It is not the kind of compul-
sory insurance which says that one must have
insurance but one has to go to some insurance
company to get it. Under my proposal, the
motorist will have to pay a fee and in con-
sideration of that fee both he and the public
will get certain protection. Now, I think
there is a fundamental difference in principle
there, and I would like to make it clear that
I am in no sense in favour of compulsory
insurance in the way the Liberals have been
talking about it, or in the way which I sub-
mit the government has now introduced it
by the back door.
One of the hon. gentlemen has just said
that . when the government starts paying
claims we are in trouble. Well, one of the
MARCH 8, 1962
947
recommendations of the select committee on
automobile insurance is that under certain
circumstances the government should start
paying claims or they should be responsible
for the payment. They may hire outside ad-
justers to handle the matter but they will be
responsible for the payment. So we are
accepting that particular principle already.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to call atten-
tion to another difficulty which arises from
compulsory insurance in the sense in which
the Liberal party and others have been talk-
ing about it. With insurance through private
companies one still has all the problems or
can have all the problems of going to court
to obtain settlement. Any victim has to deal
with his claims, or would have to deal with
his claims in exactly the same way as he now
has to deal with them. I would like to call
attention to statements made by Chief Justice
McRuer earlier this year at the opening of
the winter assizes of the Supreme Court of
Ontario. Chief Justice McRuer made such
statements as the following. I am now quot-
ing from the Toronto Daily Star for January
9, 1962:
Our present procedures relating to auto-
mobile insurance have made the Supreme
Court a great adjustment bureau for motor
accident cases.
He complains quite vigorously at the courts
having to spend so much of their time dealing
with automobile accident claims. He makes
the further point that these claims cannot be
satisfactorily dealt with in the courts. The
Toronto Globe and Mail of January 12, pub-
lished the text of part of Chief Justice Mc-
Ruer's remarks and I would like to read these
remarks as reported in the Globe:
There is, however, one thing that I am
convinced of and that is that our present
method of settling claims for injuries sus-
tained in automobile accidents is more of
a guessing game than administering justice.
In the first place, we have to depend on the
recollection of witnesses who have been in-
volved in an accident or seen an accident.
They are asked to state with precision the
details of an event that happened in a
space of a second or two and an event that
was entirely unexpected. In addition they
are asked to relate these details in a court-
room sometimes two, three, and I have
known, four and five years after the acci-
dent.
The witness is asked to tell you when
he looked to the right as he was approach-
ing the intersection and he says 100 feet
from the corner and he is asked when he
looked to the left and he savs 75 feet from
the corner and he tells you where the other
car was or was not when he looked. The
evidence is related as if someone was stand-
ing with a stopwatch and a director to
measure the time, the distance and the
angle of sight. And the courts are asked
to give judgment on this sort of evidence.
There are cases I know where there
can be no question as to liability but
more often than not both parties have been
negligent, and then the court or a jury is
asked to make another guess and that is to
decide the respective degrees of fault in
percentages. I can say with some convic-
tion that I never preside over an auto-
mobile accident case that I have any real
feeling of administering justice according
to law.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is a most
regrettable situation when the Chief Justice
of the-
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is about the
administration of justice; I represent The
Department of Transport.
Mr. Bryden: I am talking about a problem
in the administration of justice which arises
in connection with laws that the hon. Minister
administers. And because of the inadequacy
of his laws-
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001.
Mr. Bryden: Well, I am dealing with vote
2001. I am talking about it in relation to
the laws which we now have, with regard to
financial responsibility and the unsatisfied
judgment fund, and I am pointing out that
these laws— or rather their inadequacy— are
creating a serious problem in the administra-
tion of justice in this province to the degree
that the Chief Justice felt compelled to call
attention to it—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: This is completely
irrelevant to the vote before us, and I ask
you to so rule, Mr. Chairman. I have already
assured my hon. friend and colleagues that
we will have an ample debate on this.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Chairman, on the
basis of the hon. Minister's assurance that it
will be possible to discuss this matter when his
bill is before the House, I am quite prepared
to leave it at that for the present time. I
would merely like to reiterate that there now
becomes very little justification and logic for
the type of fund he is administering. I am
suggesting to him that he should give con-
sideration before he brings his bill in.
I have no doubt that it is in its final stages
948
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of drafting, but I am suggesting that he
should now give consideration to following
through to its logical conclusion the principle
which apparently has been adopted in part.
He has now, in effect, adopted a compulsory
insurance plan. I suggest to him that he
should go the whole stage and establish a
public plan which will eliminate the diffi-
culties in the administration of justice to
which Chief Justice McRuer called attention.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001 agreed?
Mr. Singer: No, no. Mr. Chairman, I want
to say a word or two about this. Mr. Chair-
man, I have listened with very great interest
not only to the remarks of the hon. member
for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden), but to a couple
of interjections from the hon. Minister. Let
me deal first with the hon. member for Wood-
bine who I think is so far off the beam. As
usual he has not properly read this report, and
I do not think he reasonably understands it.
Mr. Bryden: That may just be your point
of view.
Mr. Singer: Well, that may just be my
point of view, but I listened very carefully to
him and I sat on the—
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He is
expounding what the hon. member for York
Centre (Mr. Singer) was expounding when he
was seeking the leadership of the Liberal
Party.
Mr. Singer: Well, now, the hon. member for
York South wants to make a speech for me
too. I thank him very much. Now with his
permission, may I continue? I thank him very
much indeed. Now between the two of them
they recognize that they have misinterpreted
what is before the House in this report, and I
think they have misinterpreted really which
direction they are attempting to go. First of
all— and perhaps at this point, we should
bring the hon. Minister in— there is a sub-
stantial difference between compulsory insur-
ance and state-nm insurance. There can be
compulsory insurance without having the
state or the government run it all.
Now Mr. Chairman, for myself and for
many of my colleagues here, we believe that
the 7,500 men at least who act as agents in
the insurance field, and the thousands of
people who depend upon them, have a right
to earn a living as long as they are providing
a reasonable service. And we are not anxious
to get the government into this insurance
business unless and until it is proven that
private industry cannot run it properly itself.
Now that is point number one. I think this
is very important, and I would be interested
to know if my colleagues here on the far left
really believe that these thousands of insur-
ance agents and the people who are dependent
on them should be put out of business.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member put
them out in the hustings.
Mr. Singer: I think this is very important
and I think we should hear about this. And
I think the people of the province should hear
about this.
Mr. Bryden: Does the hon. member want
an answer right now?
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I would be
interested, too, in hearing my informed friend
from Woodbine explain to us how— even in
the great province of Saskatchewan— you can
operate insurance without having some pro-
vision to take care of drivers of stolen vehicles,
drivers who break the law and out-of-state
drivers, unless you have something— no matter
by what name you call it— similar to the un-
satisfied judgment fund.
Now this is another sort of big smoke-
screen that they spread in the hope and
expectation that people will not understand
what they are saying, and believe that they
have the panacea for all diseases. I think,
too, Mr. Chairman, that some of us should
have a very careful look at what they really
do in Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan they
have several ideas which I think have sub-
stantial merit and they do provide a certain
measure— and the hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Allan) knows I have talked about this in
the committee, and I have talked about it to
him out of the committee— that I think has
substantial merit in providing some form of
compensation for liability without fault.
Now they have gone to a very minimum
stage to do this in the province of Saskat-
chewan. Their limits, in fact, are substantially
lower than the limits that are presently in the
province of Ontario. It is interesting to note
that when we had on the select committee
my good friend, the hon. member for Oshawa
(Mr. Thomas) and later his successor from
Hamilton East ( Mr. Davison ) we did not hear
this thing expounded at very great length.
We did not hear, in this recommendation,
about moving from $5 to $20— this sort of
an objection.
But they did go along on this general para-
graph on page 4, and I think this is most
important, because certainly I agree with the
provisions of the paragraph on page 4 of this
MARCH 8, 1962
949
report, and when the committee reconvenes
I am going to argue along these Hnes in the
hope that I can convince the committee that
this is a better system. The paragraph says
this, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is impor-
tant enough to read it into the record:
It is specifically understood that certain
members of the committee have signed a
report on the understanding that the rec-
ommendations of the majority are a step
forward.
I do not think that there is any hon. member
of this House who can honestly say that the
recommendations as contained in here are
not a step forward, and can be implemented
easily by legislation in this session— or I
suppose by regulation, because the $20 matter
was implemented by regulation rather than
by legislation. These members want it under-
stood, and I say I am one of these, that they
believe in the principle of compulsory insur-
ance and expect the committee will be re-
convened to consider compulsory protection
for the people of Ontario.
I think this is most important, Mr. Chair-
man, but I do not think anything is to be
gained by the oversimplification that my
hon. friend for Woodbine attempts to
make. Nor, on the other hand, by the over-
simplification that the hon. Minister attempts
to make. I hope I did not detect in the hon.
Minister's remarks— when he said that next
year it may be $15, or $25 or $35-that he is
prejudging, or presuming to prejudge what
the next recommendation of the committee
will be because, if this is what the hon.
Minister implied, then I take very serious
issue with him. I am sure I must have mis-
understood the hon. Minister—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes, I would think so,
and I would also say that I hope the members
of the committee would also have an open
mind to deal with the facts as they are at
the time when they next meet.
Mr. Singer: I accept that assurance and I
am sure that when the committee reconvenes
we will have this discussion. We will have it
in a sensible way. At a later date when we
get on to debating what is in this report, I
will have some other remarks to make, but
I thought that it was reasonably important at
this time, Mr. Chairman, to correct what I
thought were some very serious misstatements
of fact made by the hon. member for Wood-
bine. I would even go so far as to say they
were misrepresentations as to what had
actually taken place.
Mr. Chairman, I thought that it would be
important on this vote— I do not know whether
I am in order on this vote, or whether it
should be a later one— to talk about a couple
of things I spoke about last year. One was
the question of compulsory inspection of
automobile vehicles and the other was the
question of compulsory testing of drivers
over a period of time. I am sure that all hon.
members-
Mr. Chairman: Order. This is not on 2001.
Mr. Singer: Is this a later vote, Mr. Chair-
man? All right, I will let this vote go and
I will rise on the next vote.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, coming as I do from a municipality
that is completely surrounded by water, I
was very pleased to hear the hon. Minister
mention the fact that the federal authorities
will be looking into the problem of water
safety on international waters. The city of
Windsor was so disturbed with the dangers
involved that, on September 11, they passed
the following resolutions, and I bring it to
the attention of the hon. Minister at this
time to urge him to press on the federal
authorities the seriousness of the problem.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: This matter was dealt
with before dinner.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, all right, I
will pass from that.
Mr. Chairman: That is not on vote 2001;
that is a federal matter.
Mr. Newman: That is quite all right, but
the representation made by the city of
Windsor was to the provincial government
so that they could impress upon the federal
government the importance of the matter.
Mr. Chairman: Order. This is not on vote
2001, this is definitely a federal matter.
Mr. Newman: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I
will go to another item then, and that is the
idea of a Canada-wide insurance card. We
all understand and realize the fact that an
Ontario motorist, failing to produce a separate
insurance card while in the provinces of
Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia in the event of
an accident, could possibly have his vehicle
impounded.
Now the Canadian Automobile Association
recommends that the provincial authorities co-
operate with the other provinces in establish-
ing this type of an insurance card system. In
fact, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce—
950
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Might I tell the hon.
member that I recognize the problem he is
raising. There is some merit in it and we
have been working on it for some many weeks
back, to try to achieve some order and
simplification of this problem as it now exists.
It requires bringing into agreement some ten
different provincial authorities, and some other
related problems. But we are working actively
at it and I had a meeting as recently as this
week on the subject and will have another
one on Wednesday of next week.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, how am I
to know that the hon. Minister is actually
working on it? Had I known that, I probably
NN'ould not have brought this up at this time.
However, I would still like to mention to
him that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce,
in their policy committee meeting, did
recommend that the government make
representations to other provincial govern-
ments in order to reach an agreement which
would provide for a single, all-Canada
liability card.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Chairman, I had some questions of the hon.
Minister with respect to this particular vote.
One of them deals with the annual report—
the last one I have available— and the partici-
pation which The Department of Transport
takes in the Emergency Measures Organiza-
tion. Would the hon. Minister tell us how
much of the money in this budget is directed
towards this operation? How many personnel
are involved in this? And maybe a little bit
about how The Department of Transport
participates?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The Department of
Transport participates very actively in that
programme. We are not a spending authority
in that connection and as I understand it the
Emergency Measures Organization is now
attached to the department of the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) and any
budgetary allowances will come from that
source. We do provide personnel and we
have personnel who receive part of their
remuneration from the Emergency Measures
Organization, two people. Our officials are
active in the EMO, as it is called, in the
spheres where their knowledge and talents
may best be utilized.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr, Chairman, may I
proceed with my questions on this estimate?
I note under the breakdown of organizations
which is shown in the annual report a legal
branch. I wonder if the hon. Minister would
tell me how many personnel make up that
branch and if he would advise us as to the
cost of the legal branch operation.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The legal branch as
presently constituted— and I use that phrase
advisedly, having in mind some other matters
we discussed earlier today— as presently con-
stituted consists of two barristers and solicitors
and one secretary; permanent and temporary
staff of three, involving salaries and a small
allowance for travelling expenses and actually
a minimal— and I think that is the only word
I can use— minimal allowance for maintenance
and operating.
In summary, the salaries are $20,100, in-
cluding the provision for the normal civil
service increases; travelling expenses of $250,
maintenance operating of $500; for a total
item chargeable to this vote of $20,850.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: In checking through
the public accounts I noted that they showed
several thousand higher than what is given
for fees, assuming that they are legal fees.
Are there legal fees as well? In other words,
how much does the department spend in out-
side legal aid?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member
heard the debate which went on earlier
today, that while under the fund in essence
the payments out are made by Transport as
of this moment, the legal work has been done
by another department of government and
that other department of government from
time to time retains outside agents and pays
them fees. I would say they would largely
be attributable— if they are under our public
accounts of Transport— they would have to
with the fund as we know it.
In addition to that, for instance for the
coming year, we estimate payments under
item six to agent solicitors, $55,500; and
medical examinations of $8,000; credit reports
$10,000; settlement committee allowance of
$3,000. The work of that committee, the hon.
member may know, has been invaluable to
us. A group of outside experts offer advice
to the department or the solicitors as to the
efficiency or merits of any of the quantum
involved.
I would like to mention those three gentle-
men, Messrs. Cameron Mitchinson, Hugh
Gilchrist and Fred Cox. These men have
worked diligently and faithfully for a token
honorarium. This has been of great help to
the work of the government.
There is a miscellaneous allowance of
$8,500, making a total of $85,000.
Mr. Bryden: Which item is that, Mr.
Chairman?
MARCH 8, 1962
951
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That would be zero
four, item six.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, the
reason I asked the question: I am wondering
whether or not we would not save money by
having our own legal department do this
work. It seems to me that when we engage
these outside firms we pay for overhead, we
pay for advice, which should be available in
our own departments. The hon. Minister
has mentioned that part of this work is done
by another department of government.
This is one of the things that I was speaking
of this afternoon; I think there could be
savings by reorganization of this particular
field. I think we should endeavour to do this.
I do not think it should be necessary to
engage several outside firms because I think
we are paying for overhead that we need not
necessarily pay for. , , , , ,^
Mr. Chairman, I will use the floor if I
might, I have some more questions on this
vote. Last year I asked the hon. Minister
several questions with respect to the pay-
ments from the unsatisfied judgment fund.
I wonder if he could tell us for instance: out
of the payments that have been made, what
percentage is the amount paid out to the
entire amount of the judgment? Are there any
figures to indicate to the House the amount of
judgment which was not payable because they
were in excess of the limits of the fund?
Thirdly, arising out of that, what I am trying
to find out is how much it would cost in
additional payments to that fund in order to
pay the entire amount of judgments rather
than the limits that there have been in the
past? I think last year the hon. Minister told
me he would be able to answer after the
select committee brought in a report.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes. I will try to
answer the question in this way.
I cannot give the hon. member the exact
figures at the moment, but they will certainly
be available for the debate on the bill in
connection with the accident fund. There
is a direct relationship between any new
limits that might be established with respect
to the fund and the number of, shall we
call them, uninsured owners or participants
in the fund.
This leads on to the activity of this legal
department and the various points the hon.
member has raised, these have a very direct
interconnection each with the other. They
are all being taken into account with respect
to the new legislation which will be brought
in. Increasing the limits of the fund— which
obviously we are going to do, there is no
secret to that— is designed, as recommended
by the committee, to take care of that
situation and to reduce it to as low a degree
as possible.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I
think that is quite acceptable. I would like
to see those figures. If they will be presented
at the introduction of the bill, then I think
that will give us the same information.
There were a couple of reports on sur-
veys which I brought up last year, which
had been conducted by the department of
the hon. Minister; one had to do with the
accident ratio of drivers with different back-
grounds; the other had to do with a study.
I think the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
—then the hon. Minister of Education— made
a comment about a road survey which would
be available to us. It was not just quite
clear, but I understood that it dealt with
the effect of various vehicles on the road
and what they were doing to the road. I
wonder if the hon. Minister could give us
any further information on that?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I think the study
report the hon. member is referring to had
to do with the tri-axle matter which we dis-
cussed last year, and at that time I referred
to the survey being made in Illinois. It was
called ASHO, the Association of State High-
way Officials, having to do with roadbeds
and various standards of road construction
and the effects of various loads and axle
bearings and differentials of that sort. That
report from ASHO has not been handed
down as yet.
I must say that the tri-axle deal we dealt
with last year has worked fine.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, I am very
pleased that it has. I raised the matter last
year simply because I had had representa-
tion from those who thought that it would
not. But the report I refer to is the one by
the hon. Prime Minister, the statement
that he made when dealing with these. I
think it was on page 972. I have not got
the page but it was a statement by the hon.
Prime Minister that the department was
conducting an extensive survey into the
recommendations— I think it had to do with
the financing of the roads as well— which
would be forthcoming, and that the results
in the report would be available to us. I
can look that up.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I am instructed that
possibly the matter to which the hon. mem-
ber is referring is a study by Professor Mac-
Donald of the University of Toronto in
952
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
connection with personal behaviour insofar as
accidents are concerned and having to do
with the sources and causes of accidents.
That report has come in this week in one
single copy and I have not seen that report
nor did I know that it had been received.
There is no reason why it cannot be mimeo-
graphed and tabled right away. And I
would be glad to do that.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Would the hon. Min-
ister advise us when we might expect to
see this highway finance study, which has
been mentioned for two or three years, and
the report of the hon. Minister in this House?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I take it the hon.
member is referring to the one having to
do with distributing highway costs among
users or adjacent property owners and the
population generally, and industry, and
municipalities? That study is going on. As
a matter of fact, it is a very active matter
and is occupying the attention of The
Department of Highways engineering and
research division as well as almost the
entire time of our own transport research
division.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, did the hon.
Minister say it would be available to us
and did he say when?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It has not been final-
ized, but I would be happy during the
course of the debate in the next few days-
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Does the hon. Minis-
ter expect it will be finalized within the next
few months?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I doubt it very much,
and I have some knowledge of the material
that they are gathering and the involv-
ments of the statistics which are being
secured. I doubt if that report could pos-
sibly be completed, with the subject matter
that has to be correlated, before the end
of the year.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I have
just a couple more questions. With respect
to the survey which was conducted, I asked
last year if it would be made available. I
think it had to do with a survey which was
made to determine whether or not the vari-
ous propaganda of the department and the
methods of sending it out were the most
effective. The reason I wish to ask the
question is because I know somewhere in
the public accounts there were some many
thousands of dollars paid out to some of the
advertising firms. I wondered if these pay-
ments were in accordance with the recom-
mendation of this survey? I wondered if
this was part of this whole programme.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Before answering the
question, is the hon. member referring to
the fact study survey having to do with the
distribution or dissemination of information
from The Department of Transport to the
public?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I can
look the matter up in last year's Hansard and
explain definitely, but as I understand it, it
was a survey which was conducted by the
department, and the hon. Minister and I had
a difference of opinion. I asked the hon.
Minister if it would be made available to
the hon. members and after questions back
and forth, he said that he would take it under
advisement. I think it was a study which
was to determine whether or not the method
of getting the information out to the public
was a satisfactory one.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes, I recall that situ-
ation and I would be pleased to speak on it.
Our research branch did a study in connec-
tion with drivers' opinions of Ontario's high-
way safety propaganda and the demerit point
system. The study had to do with a sample
survey of Ontario licensed drivers with two
main objects: the first was to gauge in-
directly the effectiveness of the safety propa-
ganda carried out by the highway safety
branch. To this end drivers' opinions, and
so on, and the relative efficiency of the
various propaganda media were obtained.
The second object was to discover motorists'
understanding and opinions of the driver
demerit system introduced April 1, 1959. We
secured the assistance of an organization
called Canadian Facts Limited. They have
had a considerable amount of experience in
acquiring this type of information and
assisted in the correlation of the answers
secured.
Now, I must say, Mr. Chairman, that we
are having to feel our way in the work that
our safety branch is doing, whether it be
through volunteer organizations, safety
councils, chambers of commerce, schools, or
indeed children in kindergartens and nursing
schools. We are constantly trying to assess
and appraise the effectiveness of our own
work because, frankly, there are not enough
hours in the day to do many of the things
that we would like to do. And so there is a
genuine interest on the part of our safety
branch to try to adopt the most effective
mearts of communication on one hand and to
drop those ideas or methods of promotion
MARCH 8, 1962
953
which appear not to be producing the best
results.
This is a matter that is constantly before
the Deputy Minister, and we have a
committee within our own department on
publications which deals with this matter and
acts as a check balance on the subject.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Is the hon. Minister
tabling a copy in the House, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: There is no secret
about it. I had not intended to.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, before we leave the main office
estimate, the hon. Minister, on a number of
occasions, has referred to his research depart-
ment or staff. Unless it escapes me, I cannot
see any specific reference to research as an
es'.imate, or as a vote. May I ask what size
of a research group has he within the
department, and secondly, is this group large
enough to proceed with that area of research
that I dealt with in my introductory com-
ments this afternoon, and is he planning
to do so in the next year?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The research group,
as you indicated earlier, was one of the
foundations around which the new depart-
ment was formed. At the present time, it
consists of some 14 staff members, including
permanent and temporary staff. There is a
seasonal casual staff, that we would like to
provide for, of five.
Now this group, at the moment, as I said
a few moments ago, is deeply involved with
this study of highways finance and that is a
pretty important subject. But this group also
does engineering research. We have qualified
engineers and we work— quite frankly, I do
not think it is proper for me to indicate and
name the project. I might tell the House
and the hon. members that this division and
branch works with The Treasury Department
to evolve methods of seeing that we collect
the appropriate fuel tax in connection with
vehicles and trucks. We have some very,
not just interesting but important, develop-
ments from that side.
In addition to this, the branch is headed
by highly qualified economists. Part of their
direct duties for the department are to keep
the department informed of all developments
in other jurisdictions of every nature and
kind insofar as transport is concerned, to see
how those innovations or changes are work-
ing out and to keep in touch with the officials
of the other provinces in Canada; particularly
with respect to certain matters where Ontario
may appear to be in a bit of a squeeze.
I have reference to the supervision of com-
mercial trucking by our neighbourhood prov-
inces on either side and our neighbours to
the south of us. They have highly developed
systems of rate regulation in connection with
truck rates and I think at one point earlier in
this debate the hon. member made at least
an oblique reference to— at least the hon.
member for York South did— he made
an oblique reference to this general area.
We are trying to keep constantly abreast of
exactly what this situation is and how the
shippers and the carriers in Ontario are being
affected by our Ontario law as it presently
exists, and by the impact of the influence
from Quebec on the east, Manitoba on the
west and the United States and the inter-
state commerce commission on the south.
This is a very important matter, and it has
greater significance at this particular time in
view of the recent publication of volume 2
of the McPherson report and particularly
Professor Curry's comments as well.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask, Mr. Chair-
man, one further question? Has the govern-
ment completely dropped the unanimous
recommendation of the toll-roads committee
with regard to weight-distance tax, or is it
part of this whole highways finance study
that the government is now engaged in?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, on the
question of a weight-distance tax, there is
nothing new about it. I am going to come
right out and tell the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) that I think it is the
most just way of charging the shipping public,
or the trucking or shipping industries, with
respect to the use of the roads and highways
in any jurisdiction that could be found.
Mr. MacDonald: It was unanimously
recommended by the committee!
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes, and I say to the
hon. member that I agree with it. But the
thing that holds us back is the cost of adminis-
tration. I might tell the hon. member that
this whole subject is constantly before me as
Minister through this research branch which
keeps in close touch, particularly with the
State of New York, on its cost of administra-
tion—I think it is New York State— and what
variables or efficiencies they have been able
to work out. That is not a dead issue. It is
one of these things that is before me as the
Minister every week.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to follow up on the particular point with
which the hon. Minister was dealing. I would
954
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
judj^e from what he said as to the activities
of his research brancli that they are pre-
occupied in the main with problems relating
to revenues to be raised from motor vehicles
in the province and more eflFective and more
efficient, and perhaps fair, systems of raising
revenue. I would judge further that those
very important activities in which they are
now engaged would leave them little, if any,
time to deal with some of the broader ques-
tions raised by the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald), that is the whole
question of studying more efficient ways of
providing transportation within the province-
transportation in its broadest sense. The hon.
member for Wentworth (Mr. R. C. Edwards),
tliis afternoon suggested that the department
should be abolished, I must say that I dis-
agree with him entirely. I think it-
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, I suggested that it be
abolished, but 1 did not suggest that the
work of the department should be abolished.
Mr. Bryden: Well he suggested—
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I object to hon. mem-
bers on my left taking it out of context. We
are not on both sides of the issue at all.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. gentleman need not
get himself into such a flap. He suggested
that the department be abolished. I certainly
assume—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I must say there are
times when I think the New Party has a lot
of sense in what it says.
Mr. Bryden: I assumed that he intended
that the functions should be distributed. But
I would suggest that on the contrary, in my
opinion, the activities of the department
should be greatly expanded. I am not in
favour of the abolition at all. I think it is
very false economy to save a few thousand
dollars in administration on the one hand
and involve oneself and the industry of the
province in perhaps millions and millions of
dollars of expenditure because of inefficient
transportation.
The hon. Minister has said that he thinks
we have a good idea. I would merely like to
ask him if he thinks there is any possibility
that some considerable amount of the energy
of the department could be devoted to con-
sidering this matter in the coming year.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I think in all fairness
to the suggestion it has merits and, quite
frankly, we will look into this situation with
a view to advancing that suggestion.
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort William): Mr. Chair-
man, there is one matter I would like to bring
before the House and that is the case where
a person gets into an accident and through
really no fault of his own has a judgment
against him. In this particular case the—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Does this have to do
with the unsatisfied judgment fund?
Mr. Chappie: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We are not talking
about it any more tonight. We are on the
votes, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chappie: We are on vote 2001, under
which I understood we could talk about the
unsatisfied judgment fund, so I figured that
perhaps I could—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I think it might be
better if we deferred it until we get to the
legislation surrounding the fund and then we
will be armed and will give the hon.
members a full debate on it.
Mr. Chappie: This has to do not only with
fund, but with the department of the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) as well and—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I cannot answer for
him, and I think the Chairman should rule as
I have requested.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I, too,
was of the opinion that we had not passed
beyond the general introductoiy comments
with respect to the first vote. And I would
like to make a few brief comments. I will
make them as briefly as I can, and support
the position that my colleague, the hon. mem-
l)er for Wentworth ( Mr. R. C. Edwards), made
this afternoon. I thought he made a wonder-
ful exposition of the position that he took
and did it very intelligently and understand-
ably. I think he took the position that this
was not a personal attack.
But I say to the hon. Minister that all you
have to do is take these estimates, and yovi
can see at once that the position of my hon.
friends to the left is wholly untenable. There
is nothing in these estimates but that which
relates to highways. We say now, and we
have said for the last several years, that this
department— and I hope the hon. Minister
understands me; I am taking the same posi-
tion as my hon. friend did and not relating
this personally to him— as a matter of policy,
has been wholly unimaginative. It has not
seized the opportunity that exists in Ontario
MARCH 8, 1962
955
to take advantage of air travel, water travel,
road travel and commuter and train travel
in the province of Ontario, and co-ordinate
them as a unit.
What we are saying is this. We are spend-
ing money for purposes that were being
handled by The Department of Highways
and The Department of the Attorney-
General before. These votes introduce noth-
ing new whatsoever. The other departments
were doing exactly this. There is no demon-
stration that a new and imaginative pro-
gramme has been enunciated or is being
undertaken. And it is because of that that
we say, in all truth, that it is time to call
a halt. We would like an imaginative pro-
gramme undertaken; we would support one,
but we do say that there is no evidence here,
and therein is where I quarrel with my hon.
friends to the left.
Mr. Chairman, reference was made to a
meeting with the hon. member for Victoria
(Mr. Frost) a year ago or two years ago. I
think I am free to say exactly what took
place at that meeting. Mr. Donald Gordon
made a very simple proposition— and a very
hardheaded businessman he was in making it
—that what you require here in Ontario,
particularly in the Metro area in respect to
urban or urbanite transportation, commuter
service in this area, is a hardheaded transport
czar.
Now, make no mistake about it, you have
to co-ordinate taxis, buses, underground
travel, subways and your train transportation
within a radius of 100 miles of Toronto. This
is where the provincial government can take
a lead. And let no one tell me that this is a
federal matter any more than they can tell
me that travel by water is a federal matter.
The most prominent authorities in this land
contend that the water problem has not been
solved; and one of the things that the de-
partment could do would be to determine
what responsibility, what authority the pro-
vincial government has in respect to travel.
It has not been solved at all and The British
North America Act has not been effectively
tested in accordance with the land.
I am simply saying this, Mr. Chairman, to
those who placidly say— and the hon. mem-
bers to the left did say it— it is federal in
authority. The simple fact, Mr. Chairman,
is that this very important matter has never
been effectively tested in the courts and I
suggest to you that there are cases in the
courts now that may result in revolutionary
ideas in respect to these problems. But we
in this Legislature should take the initiative
and I suggest to the hon. Minister that he
use his authority and his influence to bring
to the attention of the courts some of these
problems in respect to waterways.
But now let me get to commuter problems.
It seems to me—
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister without Port-
folio): Does the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion want to state a case?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, a stated case or
whatever, sir, to the courts, to settle on
some of these problems. I think Mr. Justice
Gale, for example, is vitally interested in
this very problem right now in respect to
Lake Huron. And there are others who feel
very strongly that this problem has never
been efiFectively determined. I think we
should, because we are going to have to meet
it some day.
Now in respect to commuter service, I
suggest to you that within 25 years there
will be an effective co-ordination of all our
commuting services within a radius of 100
miles of all Metropolitan Toronto. Now, that
is not a federal matter. I suggest to you that
the railway companies— both railroad com-
panies—would co-ordinate and co-operate
with the department of the hon. Minister.
Mr. Gordon said so in the meeting that was
referred to.
He would rent lines to you for given
periods of the day. He would rent equip-
ment; but he wants somebody in charge. He
does not want a multitude of people exercis-
ing a multitude of different ideas. This is
good business and this is hardheadedness, but
this is what Ontario needs today. And this
is what we expect of this department. Let it
step a little bit into the unknown; let it go
beyond the conventional; let it do the thing
that is foreseeable in the course of the next
25 years. Let it begin now. The depart-
ment as it is functioning now is nothing more
than an administration extension of The
Department of the Attorney-General and
The Department of Highways.
I have the greatest of confidence in the
hon. Minister as an administrator. He is doing
as good a job as anyone can do, but I suggest
to him that the government has not given
him the authority, the encouragement and
the go-ahead that it should, because what we
want— and what the hon. member for Went-
worth (Mr. R. C. Edwards) wanted and said
explicitly this afternoon— is that this depart-
ment be used in an imaginative way to do
the job of co-ordinating all the facilities of
transportation that are required over the
period of the next quarter of a century. And
it is not being done, Mr. Chairman.
956
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Rowntrec: Now who said this
was not being done? The only thing the
hon. leader of the Opposition makes me think
of is this— that old maxim that you cannot
approbate and reprobate at the same time.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, now, Mr. Chair-
man, I say this: It was Galbraith, I think,
who created the phrase, "work fast". He said:
"Legislators and politicians are inclined to
make a statement, suggest a proposition and
interpret it to be fact." What the hon. mem-
ber has said is not going to make regional
planning come into being. What my hon.
friend to my left has said is, research will
not do this job; my gosh, we have had enough
research. But we have all the facts necessary
now to make some constructive decisions and
it is the hon. Minister who has the responsi-
bility at this particular juncture to do the
hardheaded decision-making judgment.
Mr. Chairman, we want action; we do not
want any more research. Certainly a limited
amount of research is required but we have
the facts. We have enough information. We
have enough information to start to take the
positive step that will do something about
co-ordinating all the facilities of transporta-
tion that I mentioned.
And, Mr. Chairman, with that thought I
heartily endorse what was said earlier by mj^
good friend, the hon. member for Went-
worth (Mr. R. C. Edwards), and I reject the
proposition that we would destroy the con-
cept that I have tried to enunciate here. We
are for it, and we are going to bring it into
being, but it will not be brought into being
by using this department as an adjunct of
The Department of the Attorney-General
and The Department of Highways. The
simple fact is that Parkinson's law is
applicable in these instances. If we permit
the hon. Minister to go on and do a good
administrative job of highway zoning, then
we are denying his ingenuity and denying
him the opportunity to exercise the type of
leadership that the people of Ontario are
looking for in this particular department at
this time.
Mr. Bryden: It is not entirely clear to me
how the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr,
Wintermeyer) expects that the department's
functions will be expanded when the depart-
ment is abolished. That escapes me entirely.
We have been taking the position that the
department functions should be greatly ex-
panded into a new area. I take it that the
hon. leader of the Opposition has come
around to our point of view. Even though
he hates to admit it, I am glad to see that he
is now supporting it. I would suggest to
him, however, that it is by no means as
simple as he suggests.
One of our great troubles, both in the
metropolitan area and beyond the metro-
politan area, is that we have no co-ordinated
plan of transportation, and I think it is high
time that we had one. I will not, Mr. Chair-
man, dwell on that particular point because
I have had for some time a resolution on
the order paper dealing with this subject.
I am always an optimistic type, I always
hope that perhaps some day the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) may call that resolu-
tion for debate and I will discuss it more
fully then.
However, I am happy to note that the hon.
leader of the Opposition, even though he does
not seem to fully realize it, is now coming
around to what I think is the constnictive
approach to the work of this department,
which is, namely, to expand it into a very
important, indeed, an all-important, new
field.
There is one question I would like to ask,
Mr. Chairman. May I ask which vote covers
the question of control of vehicle noise? Does
that come under the vote we are now dealing
with, or does it come under some subsequent
vote?
Hon. G. C. Wardrope ( Minister of Mines ) :
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say a few
words about the talk of the hon. leader of
the Opposition ( Mr. Wintermeyer ) a moment
ago. He seemed to me like a young man in
a great hurry.
Now when we consider this Department
of Transport and the time that it has been
operating — four years — and what it has
accomplished, I think that it is another
indication of the way this government gets
things done. As we go along these highways,
Mr. Chairman, and see the tremendous
advances in vehicle safety; the way there has
been driver control brought in, 97.5 per cent
of the motorists in this province now carry
insurance— actually the hon. Minister will find
it is almost 100 per cent, I imagine— all these
different things have been done, Mr. Chair-
man, in four short years; a department raised
and safety brought to a high standard.
Now, just leave it to this government,
Mr. Chairman. Hon. members will find that
probably what they are suggesting tonight
to be done all at once— get the airplanes
and the boats and the cars and everything
else all into one pot— Mr. Chairman, I would
say that is ridiculous talk. It is emblematic
of what the Opposition at times say. They
MARCH 8, 1962
957
know they will never have any authority to
do it, so they can say it.
I wish to compliment the hon. Minister
and his stafE on the tremendous strides that
have been made in this field in the last
four years. Many things have not been
brought out tonight. I come from an area
where they are drawing 70 and 80 foot long
tiling on these highways. There are many
safety factors of that kind that the hon.
Minister and his department have to correct.
In every instance they have made it possible
for operations to be carried on that ordinarily,
under The Department of Highways probably,
would not be possible.
This is a department that is making great
strides. It is making a great impact on the
safety record of this province.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to add those few
remarks after that very great speech that the
hon. leader of the Opposition made about
getting everything in at one time. Do not
forget, Mr. Chairman, that they are not
kidding the public a bit in talking about
these great things and doing them. We
will do them properly as they come up, one
by one.
I wish to compliment the hon. Minister
and his staff very highly on this report he
has brought in. I think we have debated it
enough in foolish terms. Now let us get on
with the business and get the estimates
through.
Vote 2001 agreed to.
On vote 2002:
Mr. Bryden: Is the hon. Minister prepared
to answer the procedural question I asked
a moment ago as to what vote the question
of noise comes under? With these children
over here, Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear what
the hon. Minister says.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: My answer to the
question is that it does not necessarily come
under any vote. The Act itself provides for
any municipal anti-noise by-laws to receive
the approval of the department.
With respect to the report of that com-
mittee which was tabled yesterday, I have
already assured the hon. members that there
will be adequate opportunity to debate that
subject at an appropriate time.
Mr. M. Belanger ( Windsor-Sandwich ) :
Under vote 2002, I would like to ask the
hon. Minister if he happens to know the
niunber of hearings that were held by the
Ontario transport board outside of the city of
Toronto during the past year and in what
centres?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, I could
probably get that information in a matter of
a few moments. The report of the Ontario
Highway Transport Board has been trans-
mitted to the hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr.
Yaremko) this morning, but he was engaged
in other business and not in the House. It
had been my hope that the report would
have been tabled in the House before the
orders of the day today.
The number of hearings generally runs
around between 2,500 and 3,000 a year and
they sit largely in Toronto, sometimes in
two panels. On other occasions, according
to the exigencies of the situation and the
balance of convenience of the witnesses, the
parties will attend and hold hearings in other
parts of the province, including the lakehead,
northwestern Ontario, western Ontario and
so on.
Mr. Belanger: Thanks.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know whether the hon. Minister happened
to have noticed in the official publication of
the automotive transport association an
account of a recent bankruptcy that had or
might have reference to the Ontario transport
board. It was the bankruptcy of the Forins
Transport Limited in St. Catharines. It
apparently paid 9.3 cents on the dollar when
it was declared bankrupt, but the condensed
statement at the time of the bankruptcy, one
quotation from it read as follows:
The company has no assets except for
the operating licence which vests in the
shareholders.
Then they go on to point out that very
shortly afterwards there came before the trans-
port board a request on behalf of one Gibscoe
Transport Company for an interim PCV
licence "for the haulage of trailers and their
contents of Forins Transport Limited". Now
the interesting thing is that the president of
the bankrupt company was one J. K. Henry,
and the new company that got the interim
PCV licence, in effect to carry on the business
of the bankrupt company with trailers that
did not exist according to the statement when
they declared their bankruptcy, is also one
J. K. Henry, who is general manager of Inter-
State Building Products, who in turn own
and control Gibscoe Transport.
So we had a bankrupt company with a
president and it had nothing to haul. But
suddenly the Ontario transport board gives
a licence to another company which is
owned by the same man. Now the question
they ask here, and I think quite rightly, is
958
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
if, as the current president of Forins Trans-
port Company, the company has not assets,
whose trailers are Gibscoe hauling? And the
concluding paragraph is:
Unfortunately, the Ontario trucking in-
dustry is plagued with too many 10-cent
on the dollar deals. Some industry sup-
pliers have cut out tlieir fancy crediting.
The government should take a real hard
look at the current situation and refuse
to approve sales or transfer of licences
unless creditors are satisfied in full.
I want to ask the hon. Minister if he is
aware of this particular instance, which was
spelled out in the 88 obligation; to what
extent it is a wider problem because, un-
wittingly or otherwise, the transport board
is an accomplice in permitting the continua-
tion of the business of a company which
has declared itself bankrupt and unloaded
its debts on the creditors.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, the
point that the hon. member for York South
has raised is a very important one and is one
that concerns me very much.
In answering this question, may I divide
my answer into two parts: First, the situa-
tion where a bankruptcy occurs of some
individual or limited company which holds
a PCV authority, which is a valuable asset.
Now let us assume the situation where a
buyer comes along and offers to buy the
licence from the trustee. The position I am
trying to establish for part one of my an-
swer is that the sale of the assets of the
bankrupt company, including the licences
is, as far as we know, at arm's length to
some purchaser.
Now in that situation, the policy has been
that the purchaser should have every oppor-
tunity of acquiring that licence and having
it transferred to him. The reason for that
is that it is probably the largest asset that
the bankrupt company has, and will pro-
vide the greatest proceeds to satisfy the
creditors. It is not the bankrupt owner that
we are concerned about. It is those creditors
who might only get nine cents apiece. Now
nine cents is a pretty low figure, but
not unusual in a bankruptcy, and you have
to look closely at the facts and see just what
gave rise to the situation, and so on. But
we are concerned with the position of credi-
tors, and while I do not know the details of
that particular instance, I do know that I
have referred two similar cases, where com-
panies got into financial trouble — I have
referred, in my capacity as Minister both
instances back to the board for a re-hearing
and a review when the facts could be put
on the table.
Now, coming to part two of the question.
As to any bankrupt operator— and this is my
view as Minister— as to any bankrupt opera-
tor going into bankruptcy and then com-
ing along under another name and buying
out at a few cents on the dollar, it is im-
moral, improper, and I do not intend to
countenance it. I shall look at the legisla-
tion immediately. This was the subject of
a discussion at a meeting with the chairman
of the board yesterday. That is the prin-
ciple in this case, and if the legislation needs
to be remedied, to implement the type of
policy that I have stated I believe in, it will
be done at this session.
Vote 2002 agreed to.
On vote 2003:
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on this vote,
there are a couple of points that I raised
last year in which reading through Hansard,
page 955, we did not seem to get too far
and I think they are worthy of repetition.
Perhaps as an introduction to these I may
say this. I am sure that the hon. Minister
is aware of the rather unique record in
highway safety that was achieved by the
former governor of the state of Connecti-
cut. It was a record that was probably
without parallel in highway safety in the
whole of the North American continent. It
was recognized by the voters of the state
of Connecticut and subsequently recognized
by President Kennedy when he accepted
the governor's eminent qualifications and
elevated him to an important post in his
cabinet.
Now it seems to me as I have studied
what they did in Connecticut, that the se-
cret of their success was strict, impartial and
frequent enforcement, and it is my opinion,
Mr. Chairman, that what we lack—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Almost unreasonable
enforcement in the case of Connecticut.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister will have a chance to reply after I am
finished.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No, but in the spirit
in which we are talking, you could have
your licence suspended there for one single
conviction of speeding.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I think this is
something that the hon. Minister may con-
sider to be unreasonable. However, the fact
is that the voters of the state of Connecticut
MARCH 8, 1962
959
did not consider it to be unreasonable. In
fact, after the governor had had his first
term in office, he was elected by what
political observers down there called for
the first time a political fluke. He went back
and sought re-election, and was re-elected
by the greatest majority that any governor
of Connecticut was ever given.
An hon. member: On the one issue?
Mr. Singer: On the two issues. This issue
and building more highways. The two of
them together, and this also was reflected in
the accident statistics in the state of Connecti-
cut. It may be that the hon. Minister con-
siders it unreasonable, but it had two effects.
One was that it was politically successful,
which is the one that many of us look to as
an important one— many members of the
House. And the other thing was that it re-
duced the incidence of accidents and deaths
and injuries, and this is a most important
thing.
Now I do not think that what was done in
Connecticut was unreasonable. I think that
it was a great step forward and along these
lines, I wanted to get the hon. Minister's idea
about what has been talked about in the
press for the last few ays. Does he propose
to relax the disqualifications under the points
system? There was a newspaper story. It was
not really attributed to anybody. It seemed
like a sort of flyer, but the hon. Minister
is the one who can tell us. Is it proposed to
relax the disqualification of people like travel-
ling salesmen from three months to one
month? Perhaps we could deal with that
one first.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, before we deal
with that, let me say to the hon. member for
York Centre (Mr. Singer) that when he refers
to the governor of Connecticut, I would like
it made amply clear that I neither intend nor
desire, nor will seek to run for the office of
governor of Ontario. But—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No, it was a very
interesting thing. One of the things that
happened to our party last fall has made us
stronger than ever.
Mr. Singer: Has the hon. Minister looked
at those by-election figures recently?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Now there are several
things to look at when one refers to Connecti-
cut. Everything is relative and has to be
taken in its right perspective.
First, Connecticut is a relatively small state,
an area in which the supervision and adminis-
tration required is substantially different from
conditions which generally exist in Ontario. I
am not saying they are impossible, I do not
say that at all, because I will agree with the
hon. member in his remarks that there is no
absolute answer to these questions. We have
to discuss them rationally and take all factors
into account, in trying to achieve the result
which I think all of us in this House want to
achieve, and that is an improvement in the
accident picture.
Now let me make it abundantly clear to
the House that the reason that the merit
point system was reviewed during last
summer and fall was because it had been in
operation, as of last April 30— that is April
30, 1961— for two years, and that was the
first period against which we felt sufficient
statistics had been gathered on which to base
a reasonable or intelligent conclusion.
Now, it is not my intention to do anything
that will weaken the demerit point system
because it has worked very well. In fact, it
is going to be toughened up with respect to
two types of offenders, namely, those driving
while under suspension and hit-and-run
drivers. The penalties for those offences are
going to be increased.
To make the system work— and I think I
might take a few minutes and just deal with
this, because there is no secret about what I
propose to do— there are going to be offences
that might vary. We can only deal in
multiples of one, and where the ratio of
importance appears to us really at 2.5 or 2 or
something like that— I do not know, but that
could be. But, in any event, it would appear
to us that the letter at six points and the
interview at nine has had a very salutary
effect on those involved.
But some of them accumulate these points
at too rapid a pace and the time left after
they have had the letter and/or the interview
is not sufficient at 12 points for them to
benefit from the lesson they have learned.
And it may be that perhaps the points total
should be increased to 15, with a general
increase of some of the other offences by one
point in some instances— the total would be
15— and with a tightening up in the other
areas, to which I have referred.
We are talking about suspension arising
from accumulation of points. There is another
serious group which I regard as the knock-
out group, the charges and suspensions of
which are automatic arising from motor man-
slaughter, dangerous driving, drunk driving,
960
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
impaired, and matters in that serious cate-
gory. Now for that group I have no sympathy
whatever, none whatever. But for those
whose hcences are suspended where those
serious offences have not been involved and
where there has been no liquor involved, for
those other suspensions arising from an ac-
cumulation of points, I think we have to take
a hard look at what the consequences are
arising from the three months' suspension.
The consequences would appear to be
these, and if the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer) and his hon. colleagues
wonder what we do with our time, I spent
a considerable amount of my own personal
time this past year on this very subject. It
would appear that the hardship from a three-
months' suspension arises in this fashion, that
it is not the offender who is affected but it
is his wife and children. The average em-
ployer will find alternate employment for a
period of one month, but in the case of
three months it is too long a period and in
too frequent and too many instances the
offender loses his source of employment. The
real victims of that catastrophe are the wives
and children who are involved.
I have not come to a conclusion about
this and I am simply answering a question
raised by my hon. friend. I do not want to
precipitate a debate on this because I have
not come to an absolute conclusion on this
as yet myself. But I want to be fair and tell
hon. members what is in my mind.
Where there is no liquor involved and
where those serious offences are not involved
and where the driving of a vehicle is required
to earn a living and where a wife and children
may be involved, maybe the three months
is too long in that circumstance. I do not
think that that would constitute a weakness
of the point system.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I cannot quarrel
with the hon. Minister when he says he is
having a very careful look at all these
circumstances. I think that is most important
and most appropriate. But I do think that if
the time has come for the changing of these
regulations for the considerations that the
hon. Minister has outlined, that there should
be great care exercised in making sure that
one person is not treated in one way or
another in a different way, that he make
fish of one and fowl of another.
In other words, it may be that in the less
serious category a three months' suspension
across the board is too much, that perhaps it
should only be one month, that the one
month would be effective. But I think very
great care, extreme caution, should be ex-
ercised in saying that in the group that are
going to be suspended, be it one month or
three, that because one happens to be involved
in driving his car as part of his employment,
that he should be treated differently from
somebody else who has done the same thing.
I think if we categorize the offences rather
than the persons that it would be fairer,
because I think there is a very serious danger
in that once we start making exceptions that
the line between the exceptions is very hard
to draw.
How do we know that "A" needs it for one
month, and "B" should have it for three? I
have no objection, and I am sure if the hon.
Minister comes down with a reasonable
differentiation between categories of offences
and they apply to all people who fit in those
categories, I do not think he is going to
hear very many complaints from those of us
on this side. But I think there will be—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is the problem
that is giving me trouble right now.
Mr. Singer: But I do think it is most
important that, once the categories have been
established, all people who come within those
categories be treated in the same manner.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to refer to
two other subjects. One was the subject, as
I said, that I dealt with last year, and that
was the question of compulsory vehicle in-
spection. Since the debate of the first esti-
mate of the hon. Minister, he and I and a
number of hon. members of the highway
committee journeyed to the inspection centre
on Highway 401. Interestingly enough,
neither the hon. Minister's car nor my car
got through the inspection line and got a
stamp of approval. These were two cars of
comparatively recent vintage, but they
showed minor defects in both our vehicles.
I only say this by way of indication that
there are many cars on the road, that there
must be thousands of cars on the road, that
have defects; many of them much more
serious than the defects that were discovered
in the hon. Minister's car or my car. This
brings me back to the statistics which I
quoted—
Hon. Mr. Rownti-ee: I wish the hon. mem-
ber would not say that too loudly, I am
trying to sell it.
Mr. Singer: Well, I am sure the hon.
Minister has had it fixed since that time.
The statistics that I quoted last year in-
dicated, I thought to some reasonable extent.
MARCH 8, 1962
961
the incidence of accidents that took place
because of defects in the vehicles. The hon.
Minister will remember that I quoted
statistics from the city of Vancouver which
indicated some of the results of compulsory
vehicle inspection. Might I then ask the
hon. Minister if there are any plans to make
vehicle inspection compulsory or to expand
on what is presently available through inspec-
tions provided by his department?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The answer to that
question is that we do have a major pro-
gramme being lined up, to which I made
reference this afternoon, when we will have
five mobile units manned by teams travelling
across the province working with municipal-
ities and local safety councils. It will not
be on a compulsory basis, but it will be on
a voluntary basis.
We hope to make the visit of these vmits
to the various centres and municipalities the
occasion of Safety Week. This will commence
as soon as the snow and ice is off the road
and people can walk around and stand around
without being in zero weather and, Easter
being late this year, immediately after
Easter they will probably be on the road.
Depending on the response that we get
from that programme this summer, particu-
larly by the time we sit next fall, we should
certainly have had sufficient experience to
determine the next step in this programme. I
agree, quite frankly, that vehicle inspection
is of major significance in any safety pro-
gramme, but we have a practical problem.
Rome was not built in a day. I cannot
build buildings in every town and so on
across the province. But if I can get suffi-
cient support and a reasonable support from
the public, then it puts me in a good position
to advance the programme and go to the
Treasury Board for the hon. member knows
what.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am most
impressed with many of the things the hon.
Minister has been saying today. This marks
for me a real departure from some of the
things we have heard in other departments. I
believe what the hon. Minister says when
he says that he has a sincere belief in the
importance of vehicle safety and that he is
prepared, as a result of these new steps, to
look very seriously at the question of com-
pulsory vehicle inspection.
There cannot be any quarrel with the
results that have been achieved in the city
of Vancouver as a result of compulsory
vehicle inspection. It is not something that
can be set up over-night, but I accept, with
great pleasure, the hon. Minister's assurance
that they are going to expand the programme
they presently have and over the summer,
or in the fall, have another very careful look
at it. Next year we will have another little
talk about it, perhaps in these estimates.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: There is one point that
I have overlooked which is also significant.
That is that we could extend vehicle inspec-
tion on a compulsory basis right now on a
selective grouping. I omitted to refer to that,
and it might be that all vehicles over a
certain vintage could not be registered with-
out there being a safe certificate in the
owner's possession. We have a grouping
now, as you know, with respect to school
buses. That school bus programme had
more significance to us, and was more impor-
tant than the public knew because it was out
of that school bus compulsory examination
that we gained the experience and trained
our staflF to go on with what the hon. member
and I are talking about today.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, to be absolutely
fair, the school bus compulsory inspection
was brought about by a tragedy, and I hope
that it is not necessary that we have another
series of tragedies to get really down to the
basics in this matter.
The third point that I wanted to raise,
Mr. Chairman, was this, and it was another
point that I dealt with last year relating to
the compulsory testing of drivers. As the
hon. Minister knows, there are categories
where there is compulsory testing. The hon.
Minister's predecessor used to announce from
time to time that a new system of licensing
was going to come in. We were going to
get licences issued on the birthday anniver-
sary of the person who was getting the
licence. This was to give opportunities for
more careful examination of the licences as
they went out; more orderly procedure in
the department and more opportunities to
check. The results of tests of applicants for
driving licences, the figures as I would call
them, are that one in three fails in the tests.
I do not know how closely that can be re-
lated to those presently driving on the road,
whether one in three is capable or incapable.
I suggest to the hon. Minister that there are
not any such statistics available, and that the
only way that there might be some available
is if there is some compulsory and periodic
check. I do not think it is reasonable to
suggest that every driver be re-examined
every year, but as I mentioned last year, per-
haps once every five years in an orderly
rotary system. I think that this would do a
962
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
great deal for improving the calibre of
drivers, and for cutting down on what we all
abhor, this great accident toll.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member is quite right. There have been
numerous statements about the question of
the renewal of licences on the anniversary
of one's birthday at three-year intervals. In
fact I have made that statement myself on
many occasions. It may be of interest to
the hon. member and he must understand
that we have 2.3 million drivers in the
province, with over 2 million registered
owners and just imder a million transfers
of ownership or changes of address. We
have substantially over five million individual
entries and the department has reached the
limit of its manual capacity.
This means that to keep our record system
up to date and to provide for the future we
must go into the machine business. From
those machines will come the information—
when you punch the right button— which will
bring down the people who require this
re-examination at such interval as may be
determined at the time it is initiated.
We could not get that going last year,
so it was talk, but in this year's plan we
propose to spend, in Transport, $270,000 in
mechanizing the department. We are already,
we hope, getting under way to prepare for
the transposition of the information from
each of those 4.3 million onto cards which
can be digested by these machines. It will
take about a year and a quarter to accomplish
this and it would appear that the system
which we both agree upon is desirable and
will become effective. I am not stating
the interval of re-examination, but that will
become effective in January of 1964.
Mr. Singer: And this will be compulsory
for all drivers over certain intervals?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: There will be a
transition period. By that time I hope I am
still here and I will be trying to do the
best job I can.
Mr. L. Quilty (Renfrew South): Mr.
Chairman, in keeping with the hon. Minister's
opening remarks, the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) has issued orders that safety
belts would be installed in all departmental
vehicles. I first of all want to commend
the hon. Prime Minister on this and I would
like to state that in recent radio broadcasts,
and in the papers, we have been told that
many of the safety belts being offered for
sale do not fulfill their purpose. Has the
hon. Minister any standards that he would
insist on for the departmental safety belts?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: There are no standards
set out at the moment, but if it is apparent
that the public is being fleeced on a matter
which involves human life, and accident
potential, you may have my word that I
shall take the appropriate steps to see that
the promoters and entrepreneurs and dealers
are not permitted to get away with it.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to suggest to the hon. Minister there is
already a substantial degree of evidence that
many safety belts being put on the market
today are less than adequate. One thing
that is worse than no safety device is a safety
device that does not work because it creates
a false sense of confidence. But the Con-
sumers' Union, at the suggestion of the
division of special health services of the U.S.
Public Health Service, conducted a study of
safety belts commonly on the market in the
United States— and much the same brand is
on the market here. It published its results
last October and I would like to draw these
results to the attention of the hon. Minister,
I may say that the Consumers' Union had
in previous years conducted tests of safety
belts but these tests were all what are called
static tests. The Consumers' Union is not
satisfied that they are sufficient and decided
in its latest effort to conduct dynamic tests.
In order to do this it had to go to Sweden
to find suitable equipment, but it made an
arrangement with the National Institute for
Material Testing in Stockholm to test safety
belts on the market in the United States.
One interesting fact that comes to light is
that this Swedish agency was very reluctant
to test any of the safety belts that the
Consumers' Union put before it because it
considered all of them to be unsatisfactory.
In Sweden a safety belt is acceptable only
if it has a shoulder or chest harness. The
Consumers' Union states that the tests both in
Sweden and in this country indicate that such
belts, when properly made and installed, can
give far more protection than a lap belt alone.
So we start from the proposition that all or
most of the devices that are now offered here
are unsatisfactory to some degree.
But even eliminating that consideration and
taking the lap belts, without any considera-
tion of the basic inadequacy of all of them,
the Consumers' Union submitted all that are
commonly available in the United States to
the dynamic test which was available with
this Swedish equipment. It found a sub-
stantial number were totally unacceptable and
a good many were not very good. And I may
say, Mr. Chairman, that included in the belts
that v/ere considered quite unacceptable were
some that were put out by tlie automobile
MARCH 8, 1962
963
companies; not in all cases or in many cases,
but in some cases.
I think that this is particularly regrettable.
As a matter of fact I purchased safety belts
with the last car I got and I just assumed
that the belts, made by the manufacturer
himself, would be quite suitable. I found
that the ones I got are so-so; they are not
good, but they are better than some which
the manufacturers are putting out.
Another problem is that different models
of the same brand of belt can have greatly
varying degrees of performance. Within the
same general brand name, you have a range
all the way from top standard, as far as
American belts are concerned, right down to
unacceptable, so tliat it is very confusing to
the public to know exactly what sort of belt
to buy.
One of the difficulties has been that until
very recently the manufacturers all resisted
the notion of having safety belts in cars.
They have now accepted it. In fact, I believe
that on the new models they have at least
provided as standard equipment the fittings
on which one installs belts.
However, they have resisted in the past and
I think that one of the great problems that
all administrations are up against in improving
highway safety is the fact that manufacturers
seem to be far more interested in spending
money on ways and means of putting new
fins or new pieces of chrome on cars or
otherwise appealing to irrational consumer
preferences, and very, very little on study
of safety. If manufacturers would spend a
fraction of the money on safety that they
spend on some of these other things, I think
problems of government administrators would
be simplified.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree; Would it assist the
hon. member if I say that apparently my
own department is far ahead of the Minis-
ter in what it does from day to day? Appar-
ently the department has already been in
touch with the Canadian Standards Associ-
ation with a view to establishing some
acceptable standard which would lead to
some marking device or some sort of ar-
rangement which might very well have the
whole solution to this problem.
Mr. Bryden: ^Vell, I think perhaps that is
a solution. Several states in the U.S., I be-
lieve, now require that belts sold to their
residents must be able to pass the static test.
As I understand it, California is the only
one at the moment which requires a dyna-
mic test which is, I believe, a much more
.satisfactory test. But I think it is imperative
that at the very minimum the government
should at the earliest possible date bring in
regulations setting minimum standards for
belts which will be permitted for sale in
Ontario. I would feel that they should go
further and require that belts meeting cer-
tain acceptable standards should be com-
pulsory as standard equipment in all cars.
Whether they are willing to go that far or
not, I think at least they could protect the
public, or that section of the public that
wants to buy safety belts, by at least insur-
ing that the belts on the market will serve
the purpose for which they are designed.
One other matter I would like to inquire
of the hon. Minister, and this may be the
appropriate vote: Is his department giving
any consideration to the problem of exhaust
fumes emitted by motor vehicles? 1 believe
that there are now suppressors that can
help to reduce the incidence very greatly.
The hon. Minister of Energy Resources (Mr.
Macaulay), at an earlier stage in this sitting
of the House, indicated that in his opinon
exhaust fumes were an important factor in
air pollution in cities.
Certainly there are other studies to that
effect, and fumes may be an important fac-
tor in lung cancer and other diseases. I
would think that it would be desirable, if
even partially satisfactory devices have been
discovered, to require manufacturers to
install those devices on the exhausts as
standard equipment.
I did start with a question and then a
long explanation. Perhaps the hon. Minister
may see fit to answer the question?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The department is
keeping in close touch with various bodies
which are conducting active research on this
subject. At the moment, having in mind the
reciprocal arrangements which exist with
respect to motor vehicles in the various
jurisdictions, the question of enforcement
in any one isolated jurisdiction of any par-
ticular by-law raises some very serious com-
plications and problems. We feel that suffi-
cient research at the moment has not yet
been done in other North American cities,
nor are there enough cities on the continent
—we have to think in terms of the continent
—whereby any legislation could be enforced
at this point. It is a matter that is before
the department constantly and it could very
well be that even if certain developments
materialize that even next fall we might
feel prepared to advance something which
would be effective.
I am sure the hon. member will under-
stand that legislation must not be enacted
964
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
just for the sake of enactment; it must be
good legislation, at least legislation in which
we believe and legislation which has a fair
chance of being reasonably enforced for the
purpose for which it was enacted.
Mr. Belanger: On vote 2003, item No. 4, I
remember the hon. Minister saying a little
while ago that it was hard to assess the way
they were spending the money for safety
publicity. Now I would like to stress to the
hon. Minister that last year I happened to
be in the highway safety meeting and a
film was shown which could be used in the
schools. In fact I was interested in getting
the film to be shown to about a thousand
patrol boys from the city of Windsor as they
were at that time having some gatherings
where this could be done. It was enjoyed to
quite an extent and was very beneficial.
Unfortunately we could not keep the film for
an extensive time because the department
wanted it back.
I would like to suggest to the hon. Minister
that if he has other types of safety films
that could be used in schools, that perhaps
if he were to send to the various schools a
list of these films it would be quite a help to
them. Very often we try to find out where
we can possibly get some of these films to
promote safety among school children and
invariably we have to go to the United States.
If he would have a list of the films he
does have, and also a list of films he knows
can be found elsewhere in Ontario, this would
be appreciated by the schools to quite an
extent.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, there is
no problem there and we would be glad to
arrange for this infonnation to be sent to the
hon. member, and indeed to the various
schools, which he has suggested. As a matter
of fact our department has recently completed
a film library for this very purpose. Films, of
course, are very expensive items, bearing in
mind the various prints and copies in the
French version where they may be useful.
We have one $30,000 project this year which
is going forward. We find this a very efl^ective
method of arousing interest and of getting
the safety methods across.
Mr. Belanger: Mr. Chairman, I want to
make my point clear. I am not suggesting
to the department that they should get some
films made; all I am suggesting is that, if they
have a list of films to be had from different
sources in the province, they let the schools
know what they have and that these films
be made available in these locations or in
their department, because that is what we
would like to know.
I have another point that I would like to
mention. In his remarks this afternoon he
mentioned the "Elmer Safety Programme."
This programme has, I believe, been very
effective in promoting safety among school
children, especially children just starting to
school in the kindergarten up to grades five
or six. Again I want to suggest to the depart-
ment that they should give more encourage-
ment to this programme and perhaps let the
schools know about this programme. This is
something the department could do to
promote safety among the school children. I
think that it has been proven in the city of
Toronto here and we in the city of Windsor
also have put it in and it has proven very,
very effective. But let us get it across the
province, that is the point I am making.
I want to say also that for the past couple
of years I have mentioned the Ontario Traffic
Conference. Now, I would like to ask the
hon. Minister, when he contemplates traffic
changes, or changes for safety, which
organizations give him the greatest assistance?
I would like to ask that question.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I do not think I can
answer that question with a simple "yes" or
"no". The Canadian Highway Safety Council
and the Ontario Safety League operate in
different spheres from each other, but the
Ontario Traffic Conference operates in a
distinctly separate sphere. It operates more in
a technical way, having to do with technical
problems, the technicalities of police enforce-
ment, of by-law enforcement, of the mechani-
cal problems of lights and of installations and
of traffic devices.
As I said this afternoon, they are doing a
tremendous job and indeed my department
has used them during the past year and has
referred several problems to them. They
have been very helpful. But the Highway
Safety Council and the Ontario Safety League
operate in a different fashion and have
different types of programmes. Their pro-
grammes are more directly concerned with
individuals and groups representing the
public.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask the hon. Minister a
question. I believe last year in his estimates
he indicated that standardization of traffic
signals throughout the province of Ontario
was the responsibility of his department. We
knovv from travelling on some of the newer
highways, the traffic signal that is very, very
MARCH 8, 1962
965
easy to see. We turn off these highways into
our towns, villages and cities, and we find
the traffic signals are quite a bit smaller and
maybe a little harder to see and we have
some of our citizens having accidents, not
noticing these signals.
I know these devices are very costly to the
towns and villages, but I do realize it is a
hardship too, for some of our citizens when
they have accidents, where they lose their
licence, sometimes for 15 days, by going
through a red light, also having to pay
a fine and filling up some points on their
demerit system.
I would just like the hon. Minister to out-
line what has developed since last year in
bringing about the standardization of traffic
signals throughout the province.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the broad question I might say
in a friendly fashion to my hon. friend over
there that maybe he and some of us are
getting older each year and maybe that is
the explanation for us not—
Mr. Spence: That could be true.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: —and as the hon.
member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver) said the
other day, no doubt all of us secretly pine
and endeavour to check the passage of time.
However, subsection 14 of section 70 of The
Highway Traffic Act provides for standardiza-
tion of all signal light traffic-control systems
installed after April 9, 1936. It describes the
colours, it describes the way they shall be
mounted and suspended and their location on
the side of the roadway and in relation to
intersecting roadways and other matters. It
also sets a minimum distance of nine feet
below which the system cannot be installed.
We tried to standardize these things and
establish uniformity in all the municipalities
but we have to be reasonable and many of
these municipalities— I know of none that I
could cite as an example, but we are inter-
ested in preserving the autonomy of the
municipality— they have their own councils
and similarly they have their problems about
budgets and getting their estimates through
just as I have, and so on.
But sometimes, as the hon. member has
said, the cost involved is a factor, and some-
where down the middle of the line there is
a solution which must in the name of com-
mon sense meet the needs of the public and
the needs of the municipalities responsible
for it. I am sure that the good sense of the
elected representatives can meet this problem
effectively.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Chairman,
on vote 2003, under item No. 4, highway
jsafety publicity, I notice in the public
accounts—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Are we not on vote
2004 now?
Mr. Innes: No, no, vote 2003, highway
safety publicity. In the public accounts we
see items in the thousands of dollars— Kelly,
$89,000, McKim, $113,000. What main pub-
licity is the department involved in; what
are the main items, that the publicity is so
high-in the region of $325,000?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I am glad the hon.
member asked that question because in the
present estimates of this current year coming
up we are asking for almost $372,000 for the
advertising and the publicity total. This will
be made up in this fashion. We estimate
our requirements in newspapers at $24,900.
Miscellaneous publications at $2,000. We
estimate our need for outdoor posters and
transportation cards at $38,000. They have
been a very effective method of keeping the
safety subject before the public. Radio and
television have been extremely rewarding, if
such a phrase is suitable to this topic under
discussion. Radio and television, $59,000.
Road safety workshops, $28,000. We are
having four or five of them in the outlying
parts of the province. Displays, Canadian
National Exhibition and others, $7,000. Odd
pamphlets, drivers' handbooks, and so on,
$121,000; and campaign material $88,000.
It all comes to $371,000.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, I will tell the
hon. members. We do not even get any
personal marks out of it. Most of this stuff
which these fellows in my department pro-
duce, they do not even put my name on it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there is
one question I wanted to ask. I do not know
whether it comes into this estimate or not.
My attention was drawn to the fact that we
have an overall law in the province which
stipulates that vehicles must stop when a
school bus has stopped; and it is printed on
the school bus.
This is the case, that when you come into
a town— in one instance in one town which
I will not bother naming, they have a by-law
which, in effect, contravenes this. And when
the school buses come into the town they
actually have to cover up this printing. Now,
surely, this is not only an anomaly, this is
an absurdity, that the provincial law can be
966
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
contravened by a local by-law, necessitating
this kind of action when the matter of safety
is involved.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I suppose tliat tliis is one of those situations
where the phrase, the law of the mass
applies. Now the situation which was raised
by the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) is very important because we
are dealing with problems in built-up areas,
problems which are suburban on one hand
and on the other hand, problems and situa-
tions u'hich may involve vacant land, but
contained within the confines of the city.
Now this situation involves the application
of two different rules, and the problem is
that the motorisls and the school bus drivers,
where different rules apply— no one knows
where the rules start and finish, but it is
a legitimate problem and it is one that we
in government have faced. It is one which
arises from the normal growth and expansion
of our community, and the growth and
expansion of the province itself. And so on
that basis, it is the kind of problem of which
I hope we have many to face in the future.
Now, the solution will be implemented by
legislation and, having in mind the very
situation and trying to cut through these
limits and what jurisdiction you are in—
whether the school bus sign should be flipped
up or flipped down, and things like that— I
hope we shall secure approval for an amend-
ment to the Act dealing with school bus
lights, which will place the onus for flashing
the lights in the hands of the operator of
the school bus who, as a professional oper-
ator, will know the route he is on and which
zone he is in. When the school bus lights
flash, that is the warning for the following
traffic, or such traffic that is concerned, to
stop. It seems to be a simple cut-through,
and that is the type of thing that, when we
polish up the wording, I will be presenting
to the highway safety committee.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I have a few
questions to ask of the hon. Minister. What
part of the highways in the province of
Ontario are considered the most dangerous
from the accident point of view? Are there
any statistics at all? What highways from
what city to what city?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Is he speaking about
the technical category of Kings' highways?
Mr. Newman: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, I would have
to say that I could not specify them, but I
would be glad to secure the information and
send it to the hon. member. Probably the
King's highways of the 21 -foot-width type
involving sharp curves and so on— this is a
highways matter, as a matter of fact, in the
sense of design and construction. They are
trying to eliminate those situations, and one
of the tests of priority, which I believe The
Department of Highways applies in proceed-
ing with its work, would be the incidence of
accidents on any given road.
Mr. Newman: I thank the hon. Minister.
I will bring that up when we take up the
estimates of The Department of Highways.
Is there any control at all over the brightness
of the turn-signal of a car? In other words,
say the wattage of the lamp involved in
the turning? Must it be, say, 10-watt, 5-watt.
Any controls at all on that?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes, we do control
that, but we do not control it in the terms
which you describe. The Act provides for
the turning light to be visible at a distance
of 100 feet.
Mr. Newman: Is there any consideration
on the part of the department to the use
of an amber light as is common in Europe
for a turn-signal?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The question of
uniformity between Europe and the North
American continent with respect to lights and
other devices, equipment and traffic signs,
and so on, is, along with other matters, one
which is constantly before us. While, on the
one hand, there is a trend to do certain
things on the North American continent as
one zone, and in Europe on the other, still
the influence of the patterns which have
been established in Europe are gradually
coming over to this continent. With respect
to the colour of these turning-lights, I have
to say that this is one subject where the
manufacturers are looking at the European
system and are presently contemplating the
introduction of the amber light as standard
equipment on this continent, but I cannot
give any dates.
Mr. Newman: Thank you. Mr. Chairman,
one other question here. Has the department
ever considered experimenting with "scramble-
corners"? Corners at which the lights would
turn red for all directions and the pedestrian
could cross in any direction whatsoever. This
would facilitate the movement of traffic con-
siderably.
Hoh. Mr. Rowntree: Well, we have not,
as a department, experimented with this
MARCH 8, 1962
967
system of free-for-all within the four square
corners of an intersection, but other places
have, including Metropolitan Toronto, and
our department has observed the results with
a great deal of interest. Some of the hon.
members will remember the commotion that
took place at the corner of Bay and Richmond
Streets when for a period of, I guess, a year
this situation was permitted to exist. All I
can say is that confusion reigned supreme,
and if we think we have trouble with cross-
walks, let us leave this freedom, that the
hon. member is raising, alone.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, one other
question. Has the department considered
setting aside the yellow colour to be used
solely for school buses and prohibited the
possible use of that colour on trucks so that
a school bus could be readily identified by its
colour, or some colour coding of the bus,
then?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No, we have not.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I have
a couple of questions and one deals with
a matter which, I think, is important. It is
the matter of ambulances. I am wondering
if the department has done any research. I
understand that some areas are without
ambulance service partially because the high
cost of providing that service is beyond the
means of the municipality in which the
ambulance is situated. It seems to me that
if there is insufficient ambulance service, of
course, it could operate to the detriment of
people being injured in those areas.
It has been brought to my attention, as
well, that there are not in Ontario any
regulations which govern ambulances. I am
told that it is possible, for instance, to get
a station wagon and put a stretcher in it and
set oneself up in the ambulance business, and
perhaps the driver or the operator is not
qualified in first aid. It may not have such
equipment as oxygen and other things which
would be of extreme importance under cer-
tain circumstances.
I wonder if the department has consid-
ered this matter and whether The Depart-
ment of Transport anticipates any regula-
tions with respect to ambulance service;
whether or not they feel that it is impor-
tant, perhaps in certain cases, to even in
one way or another subsidize this service
to ensure that it is available throughout all
parts of the province. I wonder if there is
any thought, for instance, to licensing am-
bulances? I wonder if the hon. Minister
could tell us what his department has con-
sidered in this matter.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, I am
aware of the nature of the subject matter
to which the hon. member refers, but in its
essence the question of the operation and
the availability of ambulances is a munici-
pal matter. From the manner in which I
have dealt with my estimates, the hon.
member will understand that I am not en-
deavouring to slough something off in any
deliberate fashion. But I think the onus
properly lies in the municipal field, having
to do with the grant system and the respec-
tive needs, which differ from place to place,
for— I do not like the word "welfare"— but
it is probably comparable to the subject
matter we are talking about.
With respect to our highways themselves,
the programme of installing and equipping
Highway 401 with rest stations and so on
will be going ahead a pace in the immedi-
ate future. But in the meantime on certain
of our highways The Department of High-
ways does operate patrols constantly to
render assistance and first aid as the occa-
sion may indicate. It seems to me that there
was no criticism that should be levelled at
anybody who got into the ambulance busi-
ness by way of a station wagon converted,
because the reason some of these services
are not available to the municipalities is the
high cost of the custom-built ambulance
and the refusal of the local municipalities
to pay the rates demanded. So that if some
more practical albeit smaller unit were de-
veloped and utilized at a lower cost, Mr.
Chairman, then the solution might be some-
what closer.
We do not license as transport the opera-
tion of ambulances. We do give them the
right to use the red flashing light with fire
and police vehicles. I would have to speak
for myself on this matter. From my experi-
ence, anyone engaged in the ambulance
business as a professional is usually of a
very sincere and dedicated nature and some-
one who responds to the responsibilities
which his occupation requires.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, it
seems to me a good many municipalities,
particularly smaller municipalities, would
not be equipped to know what standards
they should insist on. It seems to me that
these are standards which should come from
the provincial level.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: If the hon. member
has any examples in mind, if he would kindly
refer them to me I will see that the neces-
sary advice, instruction and information is
made available to them.
968
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I am wondering, Mr.
Chairman, if we should leave the matter of
hospital standards and all these other stand-
ards up to the municipalities, it seems to
me that the provincial government does dic-
tate certain minimum standards. In bring-
ing it to the attention of the hon. Minister,
I do not have any particular samples and I
would be very foolish to state that I have
samples of certain municipalities which do
not insist on standards, other than to say
that the mayor of Hamilton was quite sur-
prised, some few years ago and publicly
said so, when he needed to go to the hospi-
tal in a hurry and was taken there in one
of these converted ambulances which he
felt to be inadequate.
I think the leadership should come from
the province, because I do not think in
many cases that the municipalities have
either the time or the staff or the money
to insist on these standards.
My hon. friend from York Centre (Mr.
Singer) has just advised me that there is not
any power in The Municipal Act to license
ambulances. This raises another point which
I did not know about. If that be so, I think
it indicates all the greater responsibility on
the province to see that something is done
about these standards.
I would like to raise the matter with
respect to education in the high schools:
instruction. I wonder if the hon. Minister
—I think last year he told us there were
some 48 secondary schools that now were
giving driver instruction at the high school
level. I notice it is a contentious issue par-
ticularly with the educators.
On the other hand I note in reading the
select committee report on highway safety
that this was one of the issues with which
they dealt extensively. The statistics that
seem to be coming through now indicate
that there is a considerably smaller accident
ratio among drivers that are trained in
these schools. I wonder if the hon. Minis-
ter would tell us what is being done in
the high schools to teach safety. How many
schools are now engaged in driver training,
and with respect to the ones which are not
engaged in driver training, would he tell
us what is done at the school level to teach
this matter of safety to the students in theory
if not in practice?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: At the moment there
are 57 schools in Ontario presently providing
courses in driver instruction in preparation
for their driver's examination test. During
1961, 11 schools started new courses. It is
anticipated that a number, an increasing
number of schools, will start courses in
September of 1962. This delay appears due
in part to a shortage of qualified instructors
and a major effort is being put forth to
interest suitable persons in taking this instruc-
tor's course, the next one of which will com-
mence in July of this year.
There are certain requirements for instruc-
tors: they must be graduates of some recog-
nized course for instructors in high school
driver instruction, and behind-the-wheel
instructors must be licensed by The Depart-
ment of Transport.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Would the hon. Min-
ister be able to tell us, for instance, in the
57 schools I think he quoted that are now
sponsoring this instruction, what percentage
is that of the overall number of secondary
schools in the province?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It is 57 out of 450
secondary schools in Ontario and that would
appear to be about 12 per cent.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, with
respect to the matter in the estimate for
grants, I see there is a grant here— there are
three of them in the highway safety branch,
and then I noted in referring to the estimates
of the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
there is also a grant there to the safety coun-
cil. Now the question I should like to ask is:
is there any duplication in these grants, are
they to the same councils and on what basis
are they granted and in what way do they
overlap with the grants in The Department
of the Attorney-General?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I would have to say,
Mr. Chairman, that I do not know anything
about the grants in The Department of the
Attorney-General. Now, I know and I am
familiar with the work of the three organiza-
tions which our department assists and I
would have to say my impression would be,
that there is no duplication with respect to
the hon. Attorney-General's budget or any
previous grants he has made. I think they
are separate subjects of a different type and
nature. I am instructed that any grants of
The Department of the Attorney-General are
not to the same organizations in which The
Department of Transport is interested.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I think
the earlier remarks made, amplified the
statements I made this afternoon about co-
operation. On the one hand he says he does
not know anything about the grants in The
Department of the Attorney-General, which
clearly states that they are for safety councils.
MARCH 8, 1962
969
I think this amplifies the statement about
lack of co-operation which I think appears
to exist.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member can-
not make a statement like that and get away
with it. I am looking at the estimates of
The Department of the Attorney-General, and
his grants have to do with local safety coun-
cils. There is no duplication there, or lack
of knowledge.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I would have to dis-
agree, of course, with the remarks of the hon.
Minister because I have here a copy of his
report. One of the matters which is dis-
cussed under this report is the extent of
co-operation which exists between his depart-
ment and the local councils.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Not necessarily by
way of money. We do not give any money
to local safety councils.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I am only pointing out that there is an over-
lapping of responsibility here. If safety is
the interest of The Department of Transport,
then I am wondering why on earth the hon.
Attorney-General is going around dishing out
grants to local safety councils?
I am suggesting that there is an over-
lapping here and that if it deals with safety
—and if I interpret the functions of The De-
partment of Transport correctly, it is their
responsibility to deal with these matters—
and I am surprised the hon. Minister did not
have more knowledge of the grants that are
in the hon. Attorney-General's department. I
do not wish to pursue it any further.
I just would like to ask a question with
respect to the matter of the increase in traffic
accidents and fatalities, I believe, which took
place this year. I wonder if the hon. Minister
would tell me whether or not there is any
relationship between those and the higher
speed limits which, in general, have been
proclaimed throughout Ontario over the past
couple of years. It has been a progressive
thing. I wonder if the hon. Minister has
any statistics dealing with this matter of
higher speeds and the frequency of accidents?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I would like to cor-
rect the hon. member. If he had listened
accurately and closely this afternoon he
would have heard me say that there was a
decrease in the number of accidents by 2
per cent in 1961 over the previous year.
There was an increase in the number of
fatalities and I have no knowledge at the
moment as to whether or not increased speed
is a contributing factor.
It is my opinion— and from tlie experience
I have gained in the department as Minister
and from my association with people who are
experts in this field-it is my personal and
private opinion that there is not necessarily
a direct relationship for which speed could
be given as the immediate and effective cause
or reason for the accidents. I do not think
we can be quite that precise. But my im-
pression is that we could not come to that
conclusion.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I sug-
gest to the hon. Minister that it is possible
to have statistics of where these accidents
occurred, to determine whether or not there
has been any increase in accidents in the
areas where the speed limit has been raised
in the past year. I do not think this is a
matter of opinion, I think it is a matter which
statistics should be able to tell us.
Now, with respect to listening to him this
afternoon, I would just like to get this little
parting shot in in answer to him. If we had
been given the accident statistics in time I
would not have needed to listen so closely
to him.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, before
you pass on to the next item, I would like to
ask one question of the hon. Minister, and
in order to abbreviate it I am going to take
the prerogative, if you will, of addressing the
hon. Minister directly. You are familiar, Mr.
Minister, with the Nepean problem and the
Marysville home and school situation. Now
I know this will not enlighten the House as
such but because of the hour I am going to
address the hon. Minister directly. Has any-
thing been done about that situation?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That was another
situation having to do with suburban develop-
ment, where people went into the suburbs
and lived on larger sized lots, which in total
did not constitute a built-up area, leading to
the speed limit problem. There was an acci-
dent down in Marysville last summer. In
fact, I think it was last June, yes, just before
the summer. It was a sad situation, requiring
effective changes in the legislation, and those
changes are being brought forward.
I think that now that has been raised— and,
after all, it is only 10.50 p.m.— I might take a
few minutes of your time, Mr. Chairman, and
refer to this subject because this is a good
example of the type of difficult, emotional,
heartbreaking problem that arises out of some
accidents. The situation was this: There
970
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
was a school bus which had loaded children
to take them home when school was finished,
and one little boy, as the bus pulled away,
went up to the driver and said he had for-
gotten his hat or his gloves or some such
thing as that, and prevailed on the driver
to pull off to the side to permit the boy to
get out and go back into the building to
get the gloves or whatever it was.
The boy got out of the bus, went around
the front of the bus and stopped and looked
up to his left, up the side of the bus, and
to the right. A car was coming on his left
so he stopped right where he was. In the
meantime, there was a little girl on the bus
who, having found that the bus was going to
stop for the reasons I have given, went up
to the driver and asked if she could go. This
was a perfectly normal request from a little
girl. She had left a jar of tadpoles in the
school and she wanted to run back and get
them.
So the bus driver agreed and she got out
and, as she got out the door, she did not do
what the little boy had done. She ran across
the front of the bus and across the road past
the little boy who was still standing there.
She did not look and she was killed, and the
speed of the car had nothing to do with it.
There was a question of probable civil
liability with respect to the flashing of the
lights. On the report of this sad accident
we immediately contacted the hon. Attorney-
General's department and an inquest was
held.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The point I wanted to
make was, do you consider it within your
prerogative to change the speed limit? Now,
I understand that the home and school group
in that area requested that the speed limit
in the school zone be reduced from 60 miles
an hour—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: There was no au-
thority in me as a Minister to make that
change. It has to be done by statute.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Do you think it is ad-
visable that you should have that authority?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, I am beginning
to wonder, maybe it should be. Although
from my experience of suspended drivers, in
which instance neither the department nor
the Minister has any authority to waive the
suspension, it is a very desirable position to
be in.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, is it fair to ask
whether you contemplate bringing into this
Legislature this session any legislation—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Legislation will be
advanced to change that situation based on
the Marysville experience which will be
applicable to all of Ontario.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, is it fair to ask
whether you contemplate bringing into this
Legislature this ses.sion any legislation—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Legislation will be
advanced to change that situation based on
the Marysville experience which will be
applicable to all of Ontario.
Mr. Wintermeyer: And permit a reduction
in the speed limit where that seemed advis-
able?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: I would like to ask the
hon. Minister a question with regard to the
appointment of licence issuers. I am sorry to
bring in a note of criticism at this stage of
the day, but after all they— the chief com-
missioner of liquor over here smiles, because
when we raised this kind of thing the other
day he polished his halo and said this govern-
ment had nothing to do with this kind of
thing. It was all done above the board. How-
ever, I want to read a couple of paragraphs
here:
For years motorists resident in the
Beaches district, in fact, those of the whole
east end of Toronto, have had only one
licence bureau from which to get their
licence. Unless, of course, they went out
of the suburbs or down-town. With the
appointment of Christ Stavero, a licence
issuer at 283 Scarborough Road at Kingston
Road, this picture has changed. In fact, it
was on the recommendation of Jack Harris,
the Progressive-Conservative candidate, that
this appointment was made.
I want to congratulate the hon. member.
He really got operating before he was in the
House. I have heard of defeated Tory candi-
dates who have control of the issuance of
patronage, but apparently this is a power that
one acquires immediately upon nomination.
The hon. Minister nods affirmatively. I
was reading from a journal that is published—
the Beaches Tribune of January 4, 1962. The
editor likely was at the meeting.
I am not going to pursue this, since we all
know it is part and parcel of the operations of
the government, but my question to the hon.
Minister is: how many issuers of licences are
there for example in the Metro area, and
what is the basis upon which they get their
remuneration? Is it a standard basis across
MARCH 8, 1962
971
the board? So much per licence, and if so,
what is it?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The situation is this.
The hcence issuers are commissioned agents.
They are paid the following rates of commis-
sion, which is standard across the province.
For a vehicle permit, 35 cents; for a driver
or chauffeur's licence, 15 cents; for a trans-
fer 15 cents; and an in-transit permit 10 cents.
In addition to that they are required to be
appointed as agents of The Treasury Depart-
ment for purpose of enforcing the sales tax
Act and are required to make certain reports
in connection therewith.
There are 19, I am told in the Metropoli-
ton Toronto area. This is a matter which I
have looked at very closely because we just
cannot put new appointees in one area, or in
some area, where they would like to be
appointed. It has to bear some relationship
to a "spread" system and a proper deal across
the area, or whether it is a county, or across
Metropolitan Toronto.
The other requirements are, and we are
laying down basic rules and standards. For
instance we still have in Ontario some of the
issuers writing licences in long-hand, which
in a small community is quite legitimate. But
with the number of new Canadians and the
odd spelling of many words, handwriting is
not a satisfactory method of making a record
for departmental purposes, or indeed for any
purpose of the like. Accordingly, I may as
well state these standards now publicly, these
issuers are required to remain open in accord-
ance with the local hours of business 12
months of the year and must be staffed. They
must not be locked up.
In areas which have a small population and
a small volume of business, such a commis-
sion operation is not lucrative and can only
operate in conjunction with, shall we say, a
dry- goods store or some other set-up. But
preferably, and for some years I am told, and
certainly as far as I am concerned, no branch
operator will ever be appointed again as
an issuer, because this operator has too much
information on his competitors and it is not
right.
Mr. Chairman, at no time, did I— I have
met Mr. Stavero, as a matter of fact I inter-
viewed him myself— but I would like to tell
hon. members that at no time did I person-
ally ever speak to Mr. Harris about Mr.
Stavero or ask his advice because I think I
am quite competent, with my department,
in finding where the correct locations should
be. That is our business and if we do not
know enough about where these locations
should be sited, then we should not hold the
positions we do. Now, I understand—
Mr. MacDonald: Do I get this correctly,
that he as the hon. Minister actually does
the interviewing and decides who is going
to get the—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I met Mr. Stavero, and
we called for a review of the entire eastern
district of Toronto to examine the population
and location factors. Mr. Stavero originally
wanted to locate in another position, but we
told him that we would not approve it. His
original location was in some place that was
not acceptable.
Mr. MacDonald: Did the hon. Minister
advertise, or is it handled through the civil
service commission?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No, it is not. They
make application to the department. I would
say the turnover of this sort of thing is at a
very low ebb and most situations arise with
the people in the towns across the province,
where the husband or the man who has been
doing it dies, we try to arrange, if it is
possible, to carry on and take into account
some of those personal factors.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to follow up on this point with the hon.
Minister, if it is all right. May I ask tlie hon.
Minister if it was pure coincidence that Mr.
Stavero, whom I take it was judged to be
the best qualified, best equipped person to
obtain this privilege, if it was pure
coincidence that, in the making of that deci-
sion, he is an active and prominent Conserva-
tive in the east end of Toronto? I believe he
used to be a Liberal, but for some years he
has been noted mainly for his activities on
behalf of the Conservative Party. I would like
to ask the hon. Minister if that was a factor
in his decision, as to the superior qualifica-
tions of Mr. Stavero.
I would also like to ask the hon. Minister if
Mr. Jeffrey, the publisher of the weekly news-
paper in which this report appeared, himself
quite a strong Conservative— I know him well
and like him very well— if he was totally
mistaken then in this particular piece of
information which he circulated in Beaches
constituency two weeks before the by-election
day, giving credit to the Progressive-Con-
servative candidate, or some measure of
credit for this?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I never heard of the
newspaper. I never heard of the publisher.
If I have met him I would not recognize him
972
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
again and I have never had any communica-
tion with him about what it was he put in
his newspaper.
Vote 2003 agreed to.
On vote 2004:
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Mr. Chairman,
the hon. Minister did give us the schedule
of rates in regard to plates and permits, and
so on. Do the issuers also get an allowance
for oflBce space?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No. That is the gross
commission payable-
Mr. Manley: They have to furnish their
own office space?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: They furnish the office,
supply typewriters and staff.
Mr. Newman: Do recommendations go out
from the department to the issuer of licence
permits to encourage him to stay open late
in the evening— say, possibly, late Saturday
night, especially now that there will be a
rush for licence plates? Does the department
recommend that they stay open in some
areas?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: They are supposed to
stay open in conformity with the local hours
during which the other businesses are open.
Now, this is a matter where a little common-
sense goes a long way. And since these
people are paid on commission, it is to their
own interest to stay open and supply this
service to the public, particularly at this time
of year. And if they do not do it, then they
are the ones, as well as the public, who suffer.
Now, to give you an example: Most agency
offices have agreed to remain open beyond
the usual closing hours during the last couple
of days if the need arises. This has not been
necessary during the last two years. The
extended office hours during the peak period
at offices which are staffed by our depart-
ment are as follows: Port Credit, Friday one
week, Friday the next week, 9 p.m. both
nights; Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday,
March 12, 13 and 14, 9 p.m. Oshawa, 9 p.m.
on both Fridays, March 2 and 9. Hamilton,
8 p.m. on Monday, March 12 and Tuesday,
March 13. It is not advertised but they will
do it as long as business warrants. In Strat-
ford, Friday, March 9, Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday, March 12, 13 and 14, 8 p.m.
And I think that is a good sample across the
province.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): There is one
question I would like to ask the hon. Minister
and that is in respect to weigh stations. How
many were guilty of overloading during the
past year, and how are the penalties Imposed?
Perhaps the hon. Minister does not have that
information.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I happen to have it.
While the information is bubbling to the sur-
face, the situation is this, that the weigh
scales are operated on what we call an audit
basis. No scale is necessarily open 24 hours
a day. It is a spot check, but a nicer phrase
is "operated on an audit basis" and that
describes it generally. All told, last year there
were over a million vehicles inspected through
our inspection service, and with less than
1 per cent of overload.
Mr. Thomas: What were the penalties im-
posed?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: By laying charges,
and one of the requirements with respect to
each of our inspectors, having regard to his
education, is that he goes to court and gives
the evidence, and so on. It is not economic
for these fellows to have to go to court very
often.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, do driver-
examination centres have set office hours?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes, they have the
regular civil service hours. They are civil
servants.
Mr. Newman: I would suggest that the
hon. Minister take into consideration that
possibly they be open or be staffed in some
way to enable individuals to try their tests
on a Saturday afternoon, because it is quite
difficult sometimes for an individual who
works till 5 o'clock, five days a week to
get down to an office centre for his test. And
if they were open Saturday afternoons it cer-
tainly would facilitate the opportunity of
taking a test.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We have looked into
this and I am satisfied that, while the point
is properly raised, to accede to the request
of the hon. member would only compound
the problems we presently have. People
would leave it to the Saturday and we would
be all jammed up with civil servants over-
worked on one day and doing nothing the
rest of the week. Driving an automobile is
a privilege, it is a life-time occupation and
privilege, and we will make appointments
for these people so they can arrange for time
off, which is little enough to do to get this,
privilege.
MARCH 8, 1962
973
Mr. Newman: Well, that is all well and
good but I have had complaints from my own
locality where individuals cannot get down
before the regular closing hours and are at
a handicap. They have to take time off from
work to get down, and I certainly think that
we can stagger working hours in such a
fashion so that we do not work the em-
ployees overtime, and still convenience the
public.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, just a
couple of questions with respect to these
abstracts on driving records. I wonder, are
they equally available to all those who apply?
I understand there is some discrimination on
the part of the department as to who is to
be charged and who is not. Who is entitled
to that?
I am thinking, for instance, of an insur-
ance company, perhaps in the course of
litigation and wanting to know something
about the driving record of a party on the
other side, or perhaps a solicitor. Is the
driving record freely available to everyone
who requests it— when I say "freely" I per-
haps used the wrong choice of words— is it
available to everyone who requests it, and is
the charge the same in all cases?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The answers are:
(a) yes and (b) no. (a) it is available— and
that is a good answer, it relates to the
question— but the (b) no, everyone is not
charged the same. No police authority is
charged for that information, but others are.
If the hon. member or I went in, we would
have to pay.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: With respect to the
item in the report of the hon. Minister— of
the 1960 report dealing with the checking of
bus schedules, to see that they comply with
those schedules— I think there was an article
in there. I am wondering what it meant by
that. Do they go out and check to make sure
that they are on time, or what is meant by
that?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: This is a department
function and it has to do with the scheduling
of passenger buses and inspection of their
operations to see that they are not operating
on a basis which necessitates constant abuse
or any abuse of the safety laws.
Mr. R. W. Gibson (Kenora): I should like
to inquire of the hon. Minister as to the
number of employees of his department
operating in the district of Kenora. I should
also like to know what functions they fulfil.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, in recent years
the northwestern part of Ontario has seen
great economic expansion, and I might say
on my own account outside this memo, that,
in spite of the nature of the representation
which the riding has had, this government—
under this administration and the previous
Tory administration-has continued with this
programme of capital works.
With the completion of the Ontario portion
of the Trans-Canada Highway commercial
vehicle operations into and through the prov-
ince have increased. As a result of this and
at the request of the transport industry in
the area, uniformed officers of the department
have been located in northwestern Ontario
to provide a similar service to that which has
been furnished for many years by the depart-
ment in the southern part of the province.
These officers have been trained to assist
the licensed commercial carrier, to protect
him from unlicensed competition, and to
assist the public generally. They are also
qualified driver-examiners. Officers operating
from our Dryden office service the Sioux
Lookout and Red Lake areas. Others
operating from the Kenora office cover the
Kenora and Rainy River districts, and I
make no reference. These have to do with
inspectors, driver-examiners, but not licence
or permit issuers.
Mr. Gibson: I should like to ask the hon.
Minister as to the number of uniformed
officers who are fulfilling these functions on
the highways we have heard of and where
they are located and what their names are.
I would like to advise the hon. Minister
that despite his remarks about the develop-
ment of northwestern Ontario and the func-
tions of his department in that area, I
served as an official of this government in
the capacity of assistant Crown attorney and
I happen to know, Mr. Chairman, that we
saw one official of the department in the
town of Dryden during the time I was there.
That gentleman served there for a period
of approximately one month and vanished.
I still live in Dryden and I do not know
where this person is or who is acting for
the hon. Minister's department as a uni-
formed official on the highway.
Let me add this point, sir. We have pro-
vincial police in Dryden who have been
performing the same functions for a good
many years and are still capable of fulfilling
these same functions with no additional cost
to the taxpayers of this province.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: We will agree.
974
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Gibson: What does the hon. Minister
know about it? He has not been up there
in a coon's age.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I have given the
explanation that the inspectors are on an
audit and traveUing basis and it is not in
the pubhc interests for me to disclose the
names of those who may or may not be
assigned to work in any specific area.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: If I was the mem-
ber up there I would know.
Mr. Ghairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: What estimate are
we on?
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2004:
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Chairman, on the ques-
tion of issuers of licences: is the hon. Minis-
ter acquainted with the fact that they have
a new one in Fort Erie? Is the hon. Min-
ister acquainted with that gentleman?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: There is something
strikes a familiar note up here but I can-
not—the message is not coming through.
Mr. Bukator: I will give it to the hon.
Minister very bluntly. The man happens to
be the president of the Conservative Party
in Fort Erie. He got the job of issuer of
licences, and do hon. members know who
announced the fact that he did get that job
—a member of the parks commission and a
hard worker in the Conservative govern-
ment. I had to read that in the paper.
Now I would like to know: is it not
proper to send the member in that riding
at least a confirmation of that fact before
we read it in the paper?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The answer to that,
Mr. Chairman, is that it is not necessarily
so. But so far as I am concerned as Minis-
ter, when I go around I try to give hon.
members on the other side a pretty gopd
shake whenever we have an opening in the
driving centre, whether it is in Brantford,
Cornwall, Walkerton, Niagara Falls. I usually
let hon. members opposite cut the ribbons
and buy them a free meal.
Mr. Bukator: I did not get my question
answered. But the fact remains that the hon.
Minister is familiar with the fact that this
gentleman was the president of the Conserva-
tive government.
An hon. member: The Conservative govern-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I do not know the man
at all. Could the hon. member give me the
date of his appointment? When was it?
Mr. Bukator: I do not recall.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Was it during my
term of office?
Mr. Bukator: I am asking the hon. Minister,
he has got his records before him.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I have not got that. I
will take notice of it and get the answer.
Mr. Bukator: He was a very capable Con-
servative. He did a good job for the hon.
Minister and apparently he is doing a good
job for him.
The question I ask is: is it proper for the
hon. Minister's department to send a ward
heeler with the information that he can
publish it to the paper before the member
gets it? This is tlie question I asked.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like
ask the hon. Minister a question that last year
we brought to his attention: that reducing
price of licences for farm trucks would serve
a great purpose for the agricultural industry,
also the truck industry. By looking at him
from this side of the House I thought we had
made an impression on him and I wonder if
he is going to take that into consideration at
this session.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: This is a rather
interesting subject that has been raised. I
have spent a lot of time this past year look-
ing into this question of reduced licences for
farmers, and quite frankly I find that in spite
of the references to other jurisdictions which
anybody may make, I can find no satisfactory
basis for reducing licences or issuing them
on a seasonal basis which would not immedi-
ately be invoked by the cheese processors, the
tomato growers, the carrot producers and
other specialized industries, including soda
pop and ice cream. As a result I do not see
how it can be done.
Further to this, there was reference by one
of the hon. members, and I am not sure
whether it was this hon. member who raised
the question or not, but someone referred me
to Michigan and what they did for the
farmers. Well, sir, I got an eyeful when I
got hold of the legislation—
An hon. member: They do it better over
there.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: They are just equal,
only they compute the fee on a different basis
MARCH 8, 1962
975
and they are better politicians than we are.
The fees in Michigan are within 50 cents
and $1 for farm trucks, the same as they are
in Ontario.
Mr. Innes: Mr. Chairman, I think about
two years ago the present hon. Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) asked about this.
He was quite serious about this situation and
said that he would do everything on his part
to bring it to the attention of his govern-
ment. He is now the Minister of Agriculture,
I want to know if the hon. Minister of Trans-
port shares his views.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I have the highest
regard for the hon. Minister. He and I have
many conversations about the business of
govenmient and usually we are in agreement.
Mr. Innes: In the public accounts for last
year I notice an item for fees to the extent
of $89,000. There are two firms Hsted here
and they account for about $9,000; the others
are $80,400. What would constitute $80,000
of fees?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That was dealt with,
I think, in the hon. member's absence.
Mr. Innes: No, it was not. This is in
motor vehicles administration.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is what was
answered. It had to do with fees on the
unsatisfied judgment fund.
An hon. member: Run through it again,
anyway.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: He said it was not
answered.
Mr. Innes: Out of $89,000, you break down
$9,000; there is $80,000 still not broken
down. I mean, in all fairness, is that the
way the hon. Minister wants to operate?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. I submit, sir, it was not dealt
with as asked by my hon. colleague. I asked
the question with respect to two fees which
were stated— there is an amount of some
$80,000, and I think my hon. colleague has
asked for the breakdown of that $80,000.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, this is the same
subject matter. I read this out and whether
the hon. member for Oxford was here or
not is not my responsibility. I will repeat
it for him.
I said what we were asking in 1962 with
respect to legal fees for the fund and payment
of medical examinations and credit reports,
and it came up to some $90,000. Now the
items to which I think the hon. member is
referring are made up of solicitors' fees—
$55,500; Crown attorneys and lawyers used
for prosecutions under The Highway Traffic
Act— $11,500; medical examinations $7,600;
credit reports $4,800; settlement committee
$3,000, and miscellaneous $7,700, for a grand
total of $89,800.
Vote 2004 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee
of supply rise and report it has come to
certain resolutions and ask for leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of supply begs to report it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Trans-
port): Mr. Chairman, it is too bad that
you kept us so long because if we had got
finished at 10:00 o'clock I was going to
invite all the hon. members of the House
out to a late supper.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we have the Budget
debate, the estimates of The Department
of the Provincial Secretary, which were not
completed earlier this week, and anything
on the order paper.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:30 of the
clock, p.m.
No. 34
ONTARIO
%m^Utmt of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Fpday, March 9, 1962
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $2.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
:a
>.^_,_
CONTENTS
f:
: Friday, March 9, 1962
Second report, standing committee on legal bills, Mr. Lawrence 979
Hours of Work and Vacations with Pay Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davison, first reading .... 980
Estimates, Department of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Citizenship, Mr.
Yaremko, continued 980
IVfotion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 1003
^i
a'«:i'l -i:^ \'l ^''^ V:i fv>'^"j".^»%«;tb^. .■Vii.'-.t «T>4iU'^i* V^i '\ytn'^.
979
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We welcome as visitors to
the Legislature this morning, as our guests,
students from the following schools: in the
east galler>', C. H. Burner and A. P. Wheeler
Public Schools, Scarborough, and in the west
gallery, Birchcliffe Public School, Scar-
borough.
I beg to inform the House that the clerk
has received from the commissioners of estate
bills, their report of the following case: Bill
No. Pr30, An Act respecting Hamilton Civic
Hospitals:
THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice MacKay,
The Honourable Mr. Justice McLennan
Osgoode Hall, Toronto 1
March, 6, 1962
Roderick Lewis, Esq., QC,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
Sir:
Re Private Bill No. Pr30, An Act respecting
Hamilton Civic Hospitals
The undersigned, as commissioners of estate bills
as provided by The Legislative Assembly Act, RSO
1960, Chap. 208, section 57, having had the said
bill referred to us as such commissioners, now beg
to report thereon.
Pursuant to an Act relating to the Citv Hospital
of Hamilton, Statutes of Ontario 1898, Chap. 43,
the City of Hamilton has heretofore owned and
operated three hospitals in the city of Hamilton.
The purpose of the present bill is to vest in a
corporate body to be known as "the Board of
Governors of the Hamilton Civic Hospitals", the
general management, operation and maintenance of
all hospitals now owned or hereafter acquired by the
corporation of the city of Hamilton.
We note that in the bill as presently framed, that
while the ownership of the hospitals is to remain
vested in the corporation of the city of Hamilton and
that by section 18 of the proposed bill they are
obligated to provide the board with working capital
and to pay operating deficits, that section 24 provides
that the board and not the city shall be liable for all
clainis, accounts and demands arising from or
relating to the management, operation or mainte-
nance of the hospitals.
It is our view that because under the Act, the
city and not the board are the owners of the hos-
pitals, that the bill should specifically provide that
the city should be liable for payment of any judg-
ment obtained against the board and for the payment
of the amount of any settlement made in respect of
claims against the board.
To accomplish this purpose we recommend that
Friday, March 9, 1962
section 18 (1) of the proposed bill be amended
by adding thereto the following:
In determining whether or not an operating
deficit has been incurred by the board within the
meaning of this subsection the amount of the
settlement of any claim, account or demand made
upon the board and the amount of any final
judgment obtained against the board, to the extent
that such settlement or judgment is not recover-
able from an insurer of the board, shall be paid
by the board and charged against the operating
revenues of the board.
so that the section shall read:
18. ( 1 ) The city shall, in each year, levy on
the whole of the assessment for property and busi-
ness assessment, according to the last revised
assessment roll, a sum sufficient to provide for the
operating deficit, if any, incurred by the board
during the preceding fiscal year according to the
financial statement reported upon by the auditors
of the city and shall pay over to the board the
amount of any such operating deficit on or before
the first day of May of the same year. In deter-
mining whether or not an operating deficit has
been incurred by the board within the meaning
of this subsection the amount of the settlement
of any claim, account or demand made upon the
board and the amount of any final judgment ob-
tained against the board, to the extent that such
settlement or judgment is not recoverable from an
insurer of the board, shall be paid by the board
and charged against the operating revenues of
the board.
We are of the opinion that the provisions of the
said bill as amended, are proper for carrying its
purpose into effect and that it is reasonable that
such bill should be passed into law.
We have the honour to be, sir, your obedient
servants.
( signed )
F. G. MacKay
J. L. McLennan
Commissioners of estate bills
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George), from the
standing committee on legal bills, presented
the committee's second report which was
read as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the following
bills without amendment.
Bill No. 61, An Act to amend The County
Courts Act.
Bill No. 62, An Act to amend The County
Judges Act.
Bill No. 64, An Act to amend The General
Sessions Act.
980
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Bill No. 65, An Act to amend The Judica-
ture Act.
Bill No. 66, An Act to amend The Juvenile
and Family Courts Act.
Bill No. 67, An Act to amend The Surro-
gate Courts Act.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. 63, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE HOURS OF WORK AND
VACATIONS WITH PAY ACT
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend
The Hours of Work and Vacations with Pay
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
a point of information I would like to raise
and direct in the first instance to yourself;
perhaps you would like to direct it to others
subsequently. About one year ago, a bust of
the late Agnes Macphail was presented and
there was a ceremony in this House, which
most of the hon. members I think will recall.
At that time the hon. Prime Minister of the
day (Mr. Frost), stated:
The bust will be displayed here in the
Parliament buildings where it will take its
place with other leaders of our land, leaders
in the past, as a tribute to Miss Macphail
and to remind us of the extraordinary con-
tribution she made to the progress and well
being of this country over a period of
many years.
My question is: Where is that bust now?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): To
whom is the hon. member addressing the
question?
Mr. MacDonald: I am addressing it to the
Speaker of the House and he can pass
it on to whomever is the appropriate person,
because I am curious to know where it is,
having been assured by the hon. Prime Minis-
ter it would get an honoured place. It has
since disappeared.
Mr. Speaker: I will make inquiries and have
the information next week.
Orders of the day.
House in committee of supply; Mr.
Brown (Peterborough) in the chair.
K.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF THE
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
(continued)
On vote 1601:
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Mr.
Chairman, I do not know if this comes under
the vote; it is in connection with the research
of the citizenship department. Can I go
ahead? I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
Minister could perhaps clarify a little bit
more for us what these research projects will
be for which he is asking extra funds? When
he was bringing in the estimates in the House
before, I think, to summarize it, he was say-
ing that this was in order to research the
priority of needs of newcomers. I felt that
was perhaps a somewhat vague interpretation
of what the research was going to be. Further
on he said it would be to establish what is
the fall-out in language classes, and I would
appreciate knowing what the projects are.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): I
have not got the complete memoranda with
me, Mr. Chairman. I did outline to the House
that the department, in the fulfilment of one
of its assignments in co-operating witli
organizations, that one of the chief ones, will
be a project of which I gave some detail. I
had thought the hon. member had been pay-
ing attention to it, but I mentioned the special
project of the International Institute and this
is a co-operative research project.
The co-operating agencies are the Laidlaw
Foundation, the MacNamara Foundation, the
Federal Citizenship Branch and our own de-
partment. They will assist in the operation of
a special branch at the International Institute,
whose job will be to study the welfare needs
of the newcomers, to acquaint them with the
services of all community agencies, especially
those financed by the United Appeal and if
necessary to recommend such changes in the
pattern of services as may seem necessary in
order to draw these newcomers more fully
into the total life of Metropolitan Toronto.
The projects will be more or less followed
up in this manner: There will be some $2,500
available to the International Institute wel-
fare project; $1,500 to the study of assist-
ance in vocational guidance; $1,000 for the
television language research; $1,000 in respect
of the Ontario Welfare Council, and the
MARCH 9, 1962
981
balance for any special projects that may come
along in the course of the year.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. The other question I have asked
before is about the fall-out students in these
language classes. The hon. Minister had
mentioned that he did not keep the figures
of the attendance of newcomers to language
classes. I wonder, sir, since that time has the
hon. Minister thought of doing some research
on this; is this something he wanted to check
into further? Could I also ask if there is not
an arrangement with the various school boards
that, if a class for teaching English falls below
a certain attendance they do not get a grant
from the hon. Minister? In that way he would
know the number of fall-outs.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As I intimated last
time, I do not think that we keep that type of
statistics. I do know that last year there
were over 2,000 certificates for those who had
completed their courses, but I will check to
see if we do keep a statistical survey of how
long the people attend.
My own position is this, as I outlined to
the House the other day, that our chief
purpose is attracting the students to the
classes. We are spending a fair amount of
time and a fair amount of effort and, I think,
a fair amount of money to let these people
know of the classes. The department and I
personally stress over and over again, through
every media that is available, the necessity
and the value of the English classes. We do
our best to make the classes as attractive as
possible but, as I say, a great many things
come about after a person has entered the
class. The student may obtain a job on
another shift; maybe family circumstances
change; we are up against the same thing
that confronts any adult educational pro-
gramme.
The classes are kept until they drop to a
minimum of six persons, which we believe is
really a very reasonable figure.
Mr. Thompson: In connection with the
number of ethnic language papers that the
hon. Minister receives in his office, I would
presume that he does have some kind of an
interpreter service when he is receiving these
in the very few languages that he himself
does not read. I am, therefore, interested in
knowing, does he interpret these language
papers and, if he does, for what purpose?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The papers are read
by me for exactly the same reasons that any
newspaper is read by any individual, as a
source of information. It has been my experi-
ence, having read these newspapers, some of
them all of my life, that there are matters of
information about activities within the com-
munities, an expression of opinion by the
editors, news reports of matters that take
place which are not covered by the press of
our province— the dailies, and weeklies. In
some cases the matter will be covered to a
greater extent.
We do within the department translate, as
a matter of course, any of these newspapers.
We are fortunate that within the department,
and outside of the department within the
government services, there are now people
who can understand almost any language that
is spoken or written in Canada. This is a
tremendous change which has taken place in
recent years within the government services.
Subject to the time available for the staff,
which is a comparatively small staff and has
a tremendous job on its hands, the staff, if
they have time available, just very cursorily
glance through those newspapers in the lan-
guage with which they are familiar. If there
is any matter which they believe should be
brought to the attention of the Minister,
they do so. It does not happen too often, but
it has happened on occasion.
In turn, I read some 12 newspapers more
thoroughly when time permits me. They are
brought in and once a week I set aside an
hour and glance through anywhere up to
100 pages of this material. If I can under-
stand every word of an article, I let it go at
that. However, there may be a special article
in which I want to be more intimately in-
formed than I am enabled by my own trans-
lation and then I can request the relevant
person within the department to make a
translation for me so that I become familiar
with it.
We do not have the type of translations
that the hon. member will be familiar with,
that has been available in Ottawa for a great
number of years where, I believe, the news-
papers are translated in total for the use
of the various departments. We do not have
such facilities, and indeed, perhaps at the
present time there is no such need.
Mr. Thompson: I appreciate the answer.
I notice that the hon. Minister reads 12 news-
papers but he gets 40 newspapers in differ-
ent languages. I would not imagine he could
read a newspaper in Byelorussian; perhaps
he can, I apologize. Take another language,
such as Croatian.
These are paid for by the department I
presume? As I understand he reads these
982
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
personally and if he wants something of in-
terest he will ask one of his staff to trans-
late it. Is it possible for anyone other than
the hon. Minister himself, and I am think-
ing of someone such as myself, if I saw
something in which I might be interested
in one of these newspapers, can I use the
interpreter services of the hon. Minister's
department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, many
of the newspapers which we receive are
sent to us free. I will tell the hon. member,
when I was a private member of this House
I subscribed for and paid out of my own
pocket for about 15 newspapers every week.
Not only the ethnic languages, I also fol-
lowed the practice of subscribing to the
Guelph Mercury^ the Oshawa Times, the
Milton Champion, the Sudbury Daily Star,
the Atikokan newspaper— I subscribed to
those personally in order that I might as a
member be more familiar with all parts of
the province and not just to have the view-
point of the Toronto dailies. I feel that the
ethnic newspapers have a contribution in
that role too.
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry to belabour
this. I see the distinction in what the hon.
Minister would do as a private member, and
I myself also subscribe as a private mem-
ber to papers; there is the distinction in that
role and in being a Minister of the Crown,
when one can get translations of these
papers.
I am interested in just clarifying, I think
the hon. Minister has actually clarified for
me, the point that he have translations by
civil servants. As the hon. Minister has said:
he has translations about items in which he
is interested. I think the translations might
be available to more than himself, if it is
only on the basis of personal interest that
he has these translations.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say that I have
only had the necessity to request two articles
to be translated in the last three months. I
think we do not have the staff and do not
have the funds for that type of thing. It is
fortunate that I am able, as I say, to read
most of the newspapers that come to us.
Mr. Thompson: My last question is in
connection with the need for two liaison
officers, two extra liaison officers. I notice
that the hon. Minister's explanation for this
estimate was that these two liaison officers
would do an extensive amount of travelling
for the department. I wonder if the hon.
Minister would clarify just what will be the
purpose of their travelling. What will they
be doing?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The department is
presently able, because of its location, to
carry out its responsibilities only within the
metropolitan area of Toronto and vicinities
easily accessible. We feel that the work of
the department should be extended through-
out the province. Prior to the community
programme branch section coming to the
department, the community programme
branch had representatives throughout all
of the province and the individual officers
of that department scattered throughout the
province were able to devote a certain per-
centage of their time, 10 or 15 per cent, to
making all the necessary contacts with the
principals of schools in relationship to our
teaching of English classes, and were able
to keep in contact at times with the local
community groups. But since the transfer
that will be coming to an end. Those field
officers have still been carrying on at our
request in that way, until I believe May 1
and then it will end.
We feel there is a great need for this,
to have a number of field officers. We have
treasury board approval in the estimates for
two such officers. One would service about
11 counties, roughly in a line between here
and Georgian Bay, and the other would
service some 10 or 11 counties east of that
line. There would still be a very large area
in the eastern part of Ontario and the north-
ern part of Ontario with which we will not
have as direct contact as we would like, but
as our programme is extended throughout
the province I would imagine that I would
be returning to this House for further re-
quests in that line.
Mr. Thompson: Well, sir, I would like to
ask the hon. Minister if he feels that the
community programme branch, which has
a number of ofiicers across this province
and which has been carrying out this work,
has not been doing it satisfactorily because
of the onus of work over the past year, and
is this why he has to duplicate this particu-
lar area by having the liaison officers?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is no duplica-
tion of any kind. The Department of Citi-
zenship has expanded its programme along
the lines as outlined by myself and in some
ways following out some of the suggestions
of the hon. member. Indeed, if we were to
carry out the functions of all levels of gov-
ernment which the hon. member spoke
about, both municipal and federal, we would
have to have a staff at least five times as
MARCH 9, 1962
983
large as we have now. We feel that the
work which the department is doing is having
a salutary effect within the metropolitan area
and the benefits of that programme should be
extended through other parts of Ontario and
that will be done. The community programme
branch has its own field of activity which I
think it will carry out in as admirable a way
as it has in the past. We have taken over
certain duties. We are expanding the work
of the department above and beyond what
was done in the community programme
branch. As a matter of fact, I will recall to
the hon. members of the House, Mr. Chair-
man, that by reason of the transfer of the
comparatively small staff and the fusion of
that staff with the section of the department,
it is my personal belief that the work of citi-
zenship in this province made a tremendous
stride forward. With the same number of
staff from an administrative point of view
we were able to tackle more and accomplish
far more than they were in separate units.
Mr. Thompson: Sir, could I ask a question?
I understood the community programme
officers had been emphasizing the citizenship
role on a broader basis than just with new
people who have arrived. They have been
doing this through a number of voluntary
organizations for a great number of years and
they have quite a proud record in it. The
hon. Minister has said that he does not want
to refer to immigration; he was talking of
citizenship. But in all of the programme I
hear nothing of the native-born Canadian,
of the young person who is arriving at the
age of 21 who was bom in this country. I
do not see anything except an emphasis on
new people who have come to Canada with
respect to citizenship. Is it his approach to
broaden out into giving an emphasis on
citizenship in other than just with immigrant
groups, and if so what would he do?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chainnan, citizen-
ship is citizenship regardless of who the
individual is, and it is our task to bring
the principles of citizenship to as broad a field
as possible. Our primary consideration at the
present time naturally falls with those who
are newcomers to Canada, but our approach
to that is only based on the fact that the
department has, within its staff, men and
women who are especially trained to deal
with the matter of citizenship in relationship
to newcomers. But the principles of citizen-
ship remain the same.
Now, the community programme branch
deals with such things as leadership training,
community recreation and co-operation with
community groups in general. Its function in
relationship to newcomers is dealing with
these people as residents of a community who
can participate in leadership training and
the recreational programme. Ours for the
moment is a little more speciaHzed.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if the hon. Minister
would advise me of the latest report which
has been issued of the Liquor Control Board.
What is the latest report that has been tabled?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Liquor Control
Board does not fall within the special juris-
diction of the Provincial Secretary. If there
was one tabled the most recent one would be
noted in the votes and proceedings of the
House.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, would
not the Liquor Control Board report be tabled
through the hon. Provincial Secretary?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The report was tabled
by the hon. Minister from St. Andrew (Mr.
Grossman) for the period March 31, 1961,
and it was tabled by him last fall.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I re-
ceived neither the 1960 nor the 1961 report,
and I wondered if it had become the pohcy
not to distribute them to the hon. members?
But, in any event, I should like to ask a
question in this matter, and ff this is not the
proper place to discuss it, I wonder if you
would tell me, Mr. Chairman, where I might
raise the question.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know what the hon. member's question is.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I wonder if the hon.
Minister would let me ask the question and
then advise me.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I am pointing out to the hon. member that
the hon. Minister without Portfoho (Mr.
Grossman), the chief commissioner, tabled the
report ending March 31, 1961, in the House
last fall. It is available to the hon. member.
So far as my recollection is concerned the
hon. member will be receiving the report in
due course when it is printed the same as
has been done in the past. But, Mr. Chair-
man, this is a matter which does not fall
within the purview of these estimates.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, you
will recall that earlier in the session the hon.
Prime Minister advised us that we would
have the opportunity to discuss the operation
984
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the various departments of the govern-
ment under the estimates. I was of the
opinion that since the hon. Provincial Sec-
retary tabled reports or has in the past this
has been the department in which we
would discuss the matter of liquor policy,
that this would be the opportunity for the
Opposition to discuss this matter. Now if
this is not tlie right place, I wonder if some-
one would tell me where I might discuss the
matter?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, if the hon. member has any ques-
tions of any board or commissions, we have
a committee on government commissions at
which we would have present the chairman
of the Liquor Control Board, and this is the
place and this is the form that is used to go
into the functions of these various boards.
They all appear there, the Racing Commis-
sion, and the Water Resources Commis-
sion, Hydro and so on. That would be the
proper place for the hon. member to ask
any question he may want to raise about the
functioning of the commission.
Now, the hon. Minister without Portfolio
(Mr. Grossman) is chairman of the Liquor
Control Board and if the hon. member has
any questions that he wants to address to
him, I suppose it could be done. He could
either put them on the order paper or ask
him before the orders of the day, but cer-
tainly it does not come within the estimates
of this department because the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary, of course, has a report of
every department of government, in his func-
tion as Provincial Secretary.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Chairman, now that we are
into this question, I would submit to you
that I cannot agree with what the hon. Prime
Minister has just said. It is true, of course,
that we can talk about Hydro, we can talk
about the other commissions in this partic-
ular committee called the committee on com-
missions. But there must be, Mr. Chairman,
I suggest to you, an opportunity at some
time in this Legislative Assembly to discuss
all questions relating to all aspects of pro-
vincial government; and in particular rev-
enues and expenditures of certain facets of
the government.
Now, surely, there must be aflForded the
hon. members of this Legislature the oppor-
tunity to debate this very important question
of liquor at some time during the legislative
session. I am not of the mind that it neces-
sarily has to be done under this estimate,
maybe there is another estimate, but what
the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. R. C.
Edwards) is asking for is to be advised when
this particular matter can be debated.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I can only say that the
procedure and rules of the House provide
two places where we may touch on any
subject we want. One is the Throne debate
and the other is the budget debate. Now
what the hon. member is looking for, I
assume, is an opportunity to cross-examine
somebody about the functions of the Liquor
Control Board. I suggest the place to do
this is in the committee on government com-
missions. This is traditional; it has been done
on every other committee or commission of
government.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr, Chairman, I agree
with the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
that under the purview of the two debates,
namely budget and Throne, hon. members are
permitted to talk about anything under the
sun, that is an ancient parliamentary rule.
But there is another basic rule of the House
and that is that the hon. members of the
Legislature are permitted to examine into and
question the fiscal operation of all depart-
ments of the government and all the sub-
divisions of the various departments. Now
certainly one of the subdivisions of some de-
partment of government must be the Liquor
Control Board and I submit—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No!
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Prime Minister shakes his head and says no.
If that be the case, then I think it is time that
we determine right now that an opportunity
should be afforded. Just because he feels that
the discussion is not proper here or under
another estimate does not invalidate my argu-
ment at all. It is my recollection, Mr. Chair-
man, that in years gone by, we have always
debated this particular question of liquor
under the hon. Provincial Secretary's esti-
mates.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No!
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, we certainly have
been permitted to comment on it.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Not in detail, Mr. Chairman. The hon.
members who were at the committee on
government commissions were always
privileged to, and always did, go into all the
details-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, exactly
whnt is the hon. Minister afraid of? Certainly
MARCH 9, 1962
985
we have been before the committee. We have
been before the committee on many things.
But I want instructions as to when we can
debate this matter in this Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, I will
speak to this for a moment. There is no
desire on my part to limit the debate about
liquor or any other matter. I quite frankly
do not see just where this thing can be de-
bated in this House, other than in the two
debates I have mentioned. This is where I
think it should be debated. However, I will
be happy to check into the rules of the
House and see what can be done about it. At
the moment, I just do not see a solution to
the problem but I am quite prepared to look
into it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I just want to pursue
this to a conclusion, Mr. Chairman. I am
prepared to accept the hon. Prime Minister's
suggestion, provided he give this House the
assurance that if the rules do permit we will
not be precluded from reopening these very
estimates. In other words, I do not want
the suggestion to be made a week hence that
the proper place—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I certainly would never
give an undertaking that the Opposition can
reopen these estimates, because there is no
item in these estimates that deals with the
Liquor Control Board. All I am saying is I
will attempt to make some sort of an arrange-
ment whereby these matters can be debated,
that is all.
Mr. Wintermeyer: In the Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to point out that one of the
difficulties in this matter is the fact that the
committee on government commissions, and
also the committee on public accounts, hardly
ever meet. According to my recollection—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is quite false.
Mr. Bryden: We started this session of the
Legislature in November, Mr. Chairman, we
are now into March. There was a recess, of
course, but we are now into March, and
certainly the committee on public accounts
had at most one meeting, and the committee
on government commissions, nine. Both of
those committees, Mr. Chairman, are com-
mittees where the Liquor Control Board
could be discussed.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-DuflFerin): Mr.
Chairman, on a point of order, the hon.
member has mentioned the committee on
government commissions. I happen to be
chairman of this committee and no one has
asked me to arrange a meeting. As chair-
man, I have made arrangements for the
committee to meet on March 21— these
arrangements being made some time ago.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order!
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I would remind you,
sir, that during the first session of this Legis-
lature, an entire afternoon and part of an
evening was given over under these esti-
mates to discuss the matter of the liquor
control policy of this province. I would
remind you, sir, that under that session we
ranged the complete field, we had the op-
portunity to discuss the policy of advertising
as it applies in this province and I suggest
to the hon. Prime Minister-
Mr. Chairman: Order! The hon. member
heard when he could discuss this.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, do I not
have the opportunity to put my suggestion
to you? Certainly I should be able to make
my point. I will abide by your ruling, sir,
but I suggest that it is not proper to not
allow me to continue to make this point.
I suggest to you, and through you to the
hon. Prime Minister, sir, that there is a
precedent that has been established in this
House. It was permitted for a full day dur-
ing the first sitting of the Legislature and I
think that it is out of order—
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
I bet the hon. member is on his feet more
than I am.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I am getting tired of
the interruptions from the hon. Minister of
Mines, Mr. Chairman. I do not interrupt
him while he is speaking—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I never get a chance
to speak.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I leave
it at that and I suggest that the hon. Prime
Minister reconsider this. I wonder if he
would reconsider it in view of the precedent
that has already been estabhshed in this
Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, per-
haps I can throw some light on this. The
hon. member is quite right. Actually the
986
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
chairman of tlie Liquor Control Board in this
House at every session presents a speech
on the operations of his board, either dur-
ing the Throne debate or during the budget
debate. I am at this time preparing such
an address for the budget debate. At that
time I am sure any questions they have in
mind they can ask and they will get their
answers.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I have given the hon.
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
my assurance that I will make some arrange-
ments for this to be debated. I can only
point out to hon. members that since the
House last met we have an hon. Minister
of the Crown who is chairman of the Liquor
Control Board (Mr. Grossman). In other
words hon. members cannot compare the
situation this year with the situation last
year.
If they go back into history, if they go
back to the time when I first came into this
House, the chairman of the Liquor Control
Board was always a Minister without Port-
folio and answered in the House. I do
not know this morning, when asked in the
middle of these estimates, exactly how or
in what form he spoke or how it was set
up. I am quite prepared to find out. The
liquor question in my opinion should be
debated here just as freely as we debate
matters of highway safety, welfare or any-
thing else. There will be a complete, frank,
full discussion. Now I cannot make it any
clearer than that.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) has indicated that he is willing to
look into this, but may I just draw to his
attention another variant on this same prob-
lem that we have argued with for years and
I think we came up with a solution. At
least I hope we have a solution. For years
the Opposition complained that on Hydro
there was a report made as part of the
Throne speech, but there was no opportu-
nity to discuss the detail across the floor of
the House in the fashion we feel is neces-
sary, and I think a significant body of pub-
lic opinion feels is necessary.
The hon. Minister of Energy Resources
(Mr. Macaulay) a year or so ago indicated
that he was willing to consider Hydro as
part of his estimates and we have since
had a full discussion of it. My feeling is
that this resolved the problem.
I am supporting the plea of the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
and others because I think this is exactly
what we are seeking here. Each of these
bodies, the liquor commission and Hydro,
have budgets that are far bigger than the
majority of departments and therefore I
think it is a legitimate proposition that we
should have full scope across the floor of
the House for the kind of questioning that
we normally have on estimates. This, I
understand, is what the hon. leader of the
Opposition is pleading for and I support
his plea.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on vote 1601,
most of the attention of the House so far
in the discussion of this very important esti-
mate has been directed to the citizenship
function of the department. That is as it
should be; it is a very important function
of the department. However, the depart-
ment does have other functions as well,
which I think should be considered.
There is one in which I am particularly
interested and that is the administration of
The Companies Act.
In last year's session I expressed my views
on that Act. I will not repeat what I said
at that time, except to call attention to what
I consider to be a very unsatisfactory situa-
tion. The Companies Act of this province
can readily be used by a person who wishes
to shield his activities or to escape from his
responsibilities.
As we know, anybody who really is just
carrying on a private business can become
incorporated and thereby enjoy the advan-
tages which are quite substantial of incorpor-
ation by getting, I think it was Mayor
Whitton of Ottawa who said, any two of his
sisters, or his cousins or his aunts, to associate
with him as shareholders. He can then
become incorporated with three people— two
of them just being his own nominees and
mere extensions of himself as far as the busi-
ness is concerned— he has what amounts to
a private business, but he enjoys the limited
liability that The Companies Act provides.
On the previous occasion— a few days ago
when we were discussing citizenship— there
was considerable attention drawn to the prob-
lem, and I think it is quite a serious problem,
of new Canadians being invited to come to
this country and then in some instances being
subjected to most vicious exploitation when
they get here, particularly in their role as
employees. I do not need to go all through
that, we are all familiar with the blow-up that
happened in Toronto last year and the very
serious exploitation which gave rise to it.
MARCH 9, 1962
987
I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that The
Companies Act and the way in which it is
phrased and is administered, is a contributing
factor to the problems in which some of
these new Canadians found themselves. Some
of the people who were exploiting them most
viciously were people who were sheltering
under the protection of The Companies Act
of this province.
In other words, they set up what was
really a dummy corporation. It was just a
private business, but they were in the position
where their liabilities were limited; they
risked little, if any, of their own money.
They saw an opportunity where they hoped
they might make a quick profit with very
little investment of their own by getting into
the sub-contracting field in the building indus-
try. They found in many cases that their
little scheme did not work out quite as well
as they had thought so they went into bank-
ruptcy.
I am not expert on the laws of bankruptcy,
but from what I have seen of the results I
think they need some tightening up. How-
ever, that is not the function of this Legis-
lature, it is the function of the Parliament
of Canada.
These men hired workmen, usually immi-
grants, who were not too familiar with our
ways, customs or laws. The men accepted
employment in good faith expecting that they
would be paid for their labour as they were
entitled to be. But then the employer through
his dummy company went into bankruptcy
and the worker would collect perhaps a few
cents on the dollar on the wages and other
benefits owing to him. Within a relatively
short period of time, within a few months,
the person who really had cheated them— I
admit he had not legally cheated them but
there it was— he was out from under the bank-
ruptcy and he could set up in another com-
pany. It is the easiest thing in the world,
I would judge, to be incorporated as a com-
pany in this province and I suppose in any
province. He could just set up in a new
company free of all his obligations, having
cheated the workmen out of their wages,
and start all over again.
I may say that this difficulty arises not only
in relation to the exploitation of labour, par-
ticularly of immigrant labour. I think it is
a factor in the very difficult and perplexing
situation we have in many of our municipali-
ties at the present time where some people
are driving trucks through municipal by-laws.
In fact, I think it was stated by the investi-
gating commission in the town of Mimico
that the developers had pretty well taken
over the running of the building department
in Mimico.
Again the provisions of The Companies
Act permit irresponsibihty. A person can get
into the position where he can escape his
just obligations and if he is caught in one
instance he wiggles out and sets up under
a new name, he becomes a new personality
and starts all over again.
I submitted to the hon. Provincial Secretary
(Mr. Yaremko) last year that this sort of prob-
lem should be looked into. I do not imagine
that my suggestion was given any considera-
tion at all, but that does not mean that it is
not a serious problem. When I raised the
matter last year the answer of the hon.
Provincial Secretary was that under the law
any company or any person— and it really is
an individual in most cases of company in-
corporations in Ontario— anyone who incor-
porates, and therefore enjoys the provisions
of The Companies Act with regard to limited
liability, must include in the name of his
company the word "limited". This is a warn-
ing to any person dealing with him or dealing
with his so-called company that he enjoys
limited liability.
Now this, I imagine, is a very grave warn-
ing to workmen who may not even be able
to speak our language and certainly know
nothing about our laws. It is certainly no
warning to them that they should be careful
in dealing with the fellow, and should make
sure that they get their wages cash on the
barrelhead. Unfortunately a great many of
them did not get their wages at all. I think
it is regrettable that laws of the province in
one phase should assist those who wish to
evade at least the spirit of the law in other
areas, and who wish to evade just obligations.
I think that it is very unfortunate in the
specific matter of the regulation of the con-
struction industry. I have already suggested
in this House and others have— in fact, there
is a resolution on the order paper to this effect
standing in the name of my hon. leader (Mr,
MacDonald)— that there should be provision
for licensing of all contractors and subcon-
tractors in the field. I think that is neces-
sary, and I think it is also necessary to take
a hard look at The Companies Act and at
these provisions which allow three people
to get together to incorporate a company.
I do not think there is any sense to that
provision at all. Three people getting together
to incorporate a company should be able to
carry on, if they are genuinely three in-
dependent parties which is rarely the case,
under some other arrangement. The privileges
of legislation like The Companies Act should
988
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
be made available only to substantially larger
aggregations of individuals who wish to
engage in some sort of joint enterprise.
I would venture to suggest that if an
analysis were made of the records of The
Provincial Secretary's Department it would
be found that a majority-and probably the
overwhelming majority— of companies that
have been incorporated with three share-
holders consisted of what were really just
private businesses or partnerships. Either
one or two of the three shareholders were
not true shareholders at all; they were simply
nominees, somebody's secretary or somebody's
mother or wife. I think when the law is
being abused in that way we should take
a look at it.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence ( St. George ) : Are we
still on vote 1601? I was quite interested
the other night when the hon. member for
Wentworth (Mr. R. C. Edwards) was last
speaking on this estimate. He was leaving
the impression of being critical of the waste
of the taxpayers' money and he tied in with
this an innuendo that perhaps there was too
much being spent on the statutory vote 1601
in relation to Ministers without PortfoHo.
I do not know whether I am in order on this
particular vote or not, but my question relates
to the salary of the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer ) .
My impression is that that is a statutory
vote. My question to the hon. Minister is in
three parts. First, why is not the salary of
the hon. leader of the Opposition shown as a
statutory vote on the main office vote?
Secondly, what is the total amount that the
hon. leader of the Opposition receives in
regard to salary and expenses? Thirdly, in
the accounts for last year there is a name
B. Upper; the amount is $6,999.96. What
services does Mr. B. Upper provide to the
government of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, before
I come to the hon. member's question, I
should like to make a remark or two about
the remarks of the hon. member for Wood-
bine (Mr. Bryden).
Mr. Chairman, the province of Ontario can
be well proud of its Corporations Act. The
Corporations Act of Ontario is being followed
PS the model Act for all provinces of Canada,
which will be considering the adoption of a
uniform Companies Act modelled after our
Act. The basic reason, the basic idea behind
the limited company was established well
over 100 years ago— and, I may say in
England— and really formed the very basis
for the economic expansion of Britain and
then to the Commonwealth common law
countries.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member
say that the privileges of limited liabihty
should only be extended to large corporations.
Mr. Bryden: I did not say large corpora-
tions, I said larger groups of individuals.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Larger groups of
individuals. Well, Mr. Chairman, for the
knowledge of the hon. member, almost 80
per cent of some 60,000 or more companies
operating in Ontario are the small individuals,
the small shopkeepers, the small operations,
up and down the length and breadth of this
province, who— I suggest to you, Mr. Chair-
man—are as much entitled to the advantages
of the concepts of limited liability as any
of the large business corporations of this
province.
I invite the hon. member to go to our
pubhc search offices and get out the names
of all of these private companies and then
visit for himself the fine— and there are tens
of thousands — business operations being
carried on in this province with the advan-
tages of limited liability.
I would bring to the attention of the House,
Mr. Chairman, that there are certain juris-
dictions, Michigan for example— and I believe
in the old country now they are considering
the adoption of the one-man corporation
where you will not need three individuals to
form a corporation, but one person can in-
corporate himself or create the entity, the
concept of a corporate personahty with the
advantages of such a legal person.
No one decries more than I do the fact that
certain individuals might shirk their respon-
sibilities in carrying out their obligations to
their workmen or to their suppliers in
instances that have occurred in recent years.
The provisions of The Bankruptcy Act are a
federal responsibility and it is my under-
standing that the Canadian Bar Association
is making representations and the matter will
receive its review to curb any abuse of the
provisions of The Bankruptcy Act, which also
were devised in many cases to assist the small
individual who, through no act of his own
or no wish of his own, has fallen into bad
circumstances.
I do bring to the attention of the hon.
member, provisions of section 73 of The
Corporations Act of the province of Ontario.
It reads as follows:
The directors of a company are jointly
and severally liable to the clerks, labourers,
servants, apprentices and other wage
earners thereof for all debts due while they
MARCH 9, 1962
989
are directors for services performed for the
company not exceeding six months' wages
and for the vacation with pay included for
not more than 12 months under The Hours
of Work and Vacations with Pay Act and
the regulations made thereunder, or under
any collective agreement made by the
company.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the question of the
hon. member for St. George (Mr. Lawrence)
in relation to the two votes, 1602 and 1606:
Mr. Boyd Upper is employed as executive
assitant, I believe, to the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer). His salary,
which is designated by the hon. leader of the
Opposition, presently stands at $9,000, but
the hon. leader of the Opposition is in a
better position than I to outline in detail, if
he so desires, the duties on an all-year-round
basis of Mr. Upper.
In relationship to the honorarium paid to
the hon. leader of the Opposition— the total
amount to which he is entitled, as a member
of this House— the provisions are $5,000 and
$2,000, and then by virtue of his office to
$12,000 and $2,000, making a total of
$21,000.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to comment on the observations of the
hon. Minister and the comment of the hon.
member for St. George (Mr. Lawrence).
Mr. Lawrence: I was not making a com-
ment, I was asking a question.
Mr. W. B. Lewis (York-Humber): Mr.
Chairman, can we have the answer from the
hon. leader of the Opposition?
Mr. MacDonald: May I speak without inter-
ference? Is the hon. member for York-
Humber chairman of the committee here?
Mr. Lewis: I believe I have the same
privileges as the hon. member for York South.
Mr. MacDonald: And I have the floor.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do
not want to get into the argument at the
moment; that has become a theme with the
Opposition group, with regard to the effective-
ness of the contribution of the hon. Ministers
without Portfolio in the government. But
what I am very disturbed about is, that if
there was an innuendo in their comment, then
there is also obvious innuendo in the question
that the hon. member for St. George (Mr.
Lawrence) has raised— because it is in the
nature, in my view, of a cheap counter-
attack which he himself, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman, I assume that I will be given an
opportunity to reply to this attack, will I?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, since I
was mentioned, I would like the same oppor-
tunity.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the point
of the whole question and the innuendo
involved in it is to throw doubts on the
wisdom and the validity of the amount of
money that is now being provided to the
Opposition ranks. Clearly there can be no
other purpose when you are queried as to
the amount of money that was voted.
Now, on this general proposition, Mr.
Chairman, I want to say something. I do not
happen to be in the position at the moment
of the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer), but I want to say that it was
a scandal that this province did not, until
two years ago, place a person whose position
historically in any legislature is as important
as the hon. leader of the Opposition, at least
in the category of the back bench member of
the Cabinet. And that is all that happened a
year or two ago, because I submit, Mr. Chair-
man, and anybody—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: We did it, though.
Mr. MacDonald: Fine, you did it, but you
did it only after years and years of pressure
and the whole implication of the question
asked by the hon. member for St. George is
to undermine this move. I give this govern-
ment credit for moving in the right direction,
but I am disturbed by a younger member who
normally takes a more enlightened and pro-
gressive approach to this— Mr. Chairman, if
the hon. member wants to answer, I think
he will have an opportunity to deal with it
later.
This government has moved in the direc-
tion, I think, of meeting the situation in a
better fashion than has been done in the
past. But I think they have taken only a
step in that direction. I reiterate that I think
the hon. leader of the Opposition is not only
as important in the history of parhamentary
government, the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion is infinitely more important than two-
thirds of the members of the Cabinet. Be-
cause, with out an effective Opposition, you
do not have parliament in the British tra-
dition.
990
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An hon. member: Why does the hon. mem-
ber not move over?
Mr. MacDonald: I am not moving over
with them. I am defending a principle and
I sometimes wonder whether the people op-
posite could recognize a principle if they
met it walking down the street in broad
daylight. Now, I would just like to go one
step further, Mr. Chairman, not to provoke
or disturb or irritate this government beyond
pleading that they move further in the direc-
tion that they are going. It is always thrown
back at us that we in the Opposition have
the right to use all of the government depart-
ments and their research staflF and so on and
I do not for one moment want to be unduly
critical of the fact that they do not co-operate
with us, because normally they do, but it is
the nature of the situation that the govern-
ment and hon. Cabinet Ministers and even
government members have a better oppor-
tunity to use the whole machinery of govern-
ment for their purposes.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Fine, Mr. Chairman.
Somebody interjected and said "This is what
the people wanted; they elected the govern-
ment." Fine. But the people also elected
an Opposition and at the present time, per-
haps it would be salutary for government
members to remind themselves that the votes
represented by the Opposition at the moment
are more than the votes that they represent.
And, therefore, as a claim on the public
purse—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I challenge that.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister of
Mines (Mr. Wardrope), as usual, would be in
error. Well, Mr. Chairman, as a claim on
the public purse, if the public business is
going to be fulfilled, I think that not only
the present amount of money should be spent
for the Opposition groups— both the official
Opposition and the group that I happen to
be leader of at the present time— but a larger
amount of money should be made available.
Any government— if you will face it, in your
heart of hearts— will acknowledge it is going
to be only as good as its Opposition. It is
going to be saved from a lot of its follies by
an effective Opposition which reveals those
follies before they generate into something
more than just a folly. We have had too
many experiences and documentations of that
kind of development in the last five or six
years.
The reason I rise is not to defend the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer)— he can defend himself, and he can
defend the salary that goes to Dr. Boyd
Upper— but I am rising to defend a principle
and I am shocked and surprised that the
particular hon. member who got up should,
with the innuendo in his question, start to
undermine what I would like to believe he
himself supported— the idea of giving more
resources to the Opposition so that they can
fulfil their job.
So if we are going to debate this, and I
think we should debate it, I hope we will
debate it on the level of recognizing what
parliament and legislatures need if they are
going to be able to do an effective job.
Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, I welcome
the attack by the hon. member for York
South on me.
Mr. MacDonald: It was not an attack.
Mr. Lawrence: It was not an attack? What
was it? He mentioned the word-
Mr. MacDonald: On a question of priv-
ilege, Mr. Chairman. I am getting a little
weary— and I think the public is getting a
little weary— of differences of opinion that are
immediately construed as personal attacks. I
have gotten up and disagreed with the views
of the hon. member for St. George (Mr.
Lawrence). Now let him get up and dis-
agree with my views, but do not let him say
that I am attacking him personally.
Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, I do not
intend to disagree with the views just ex-
pressed by the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald), and if he would keep
quiet for a minute he would learn that. But
I just used the words "cheap attack on me."
I used those words because I wrote them
down as he mentioned them a few moments
ago in referring to me. I deprecate that
type of language in this House. I deprecate
it very much, and I have said so publicly
in the past, and I would like to say it to the
hon. member who uses those terms in relation
to me, right now.
Now, let us take it back in chronological
order. Perhaps the hon. member was not
here the other night when the hon. member
for Wentworth (Mr. R. C. Edwards) first
brought this matter up, but there was cer-
tainly a slur, an innuendo, left at that time
by ihe hon. member, and I hope I am being
fair to him. He stated at that time, or left
MARCH 9, 1962
991
the impression at that time, that this govern-
ment was wasting the taxpayers* money
because of the statutory amount shown in
this vote that we are now supposed to be
discussing.
My point in rising was twofold. First of
all to bring to tlie attention of the public that
there is no statutory amount shown in this
vote for the salary and expenses, which are
more than for any hon. Minister without
Portfolio and which is paid to the hon. leader
of the Opposition. That was my first attempt
and I think, thanks to the hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald), the public's
attention has now been directed to that. It
is something that is not mentioned very often
in this House and I think it should be,
because I think it is a good thing and I agree
with it. But I am also getting a little bit
tired, with this small group over there
especially, and this slightly larger group
there, continually yelling and yelping and
bellyaching about the services or the lack of
services provided to them for research work
in this House.
I agree that services should be provided.
I agree with that, but I think it ill behooves
the hon. leader of that party, that small
party there, that minority group there, and
that hon. leader who is, after all, a back-
bencher and has no more rights than I have
in this House, to stand up and use the words
and the language and the tone and the
innuendo he has now used, especially in
relation to me. I agree that there is a role
in this House, and in every parliament, for
the Opposition. My own doubt is that per-
haps in this House the Opposition is not
playing that role the way they should be,
but that is a matter of opinion.
My second point in bringing this up at
this time is to point out that there are far
more services provided to the hon. members
in the Opposition by the government and
thus the taxpayer, by this government, not
by any previous Liberal government but
by this government, these people. These
services are not provided to the backbenchers
on the government side and they should be.
Now when the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) continually complains
—may I point out that the people sitting
behind him have far greater services provided
by the taxpayer than we do on this side.
Mr. Bryden: What services do we have
provided?
Mr. Lawrence: They have far more steno-
graphic services, they have far more facilities
for interviewing clients and having research
done for them—
Mr. Bryden: No facilities for research, we
do our own!
Mr. Lawrence: And they are a minority
group, a very small minority group and for
any hon. member on the Liberal side to stand
up and make criticisms of the paltry amount
paid to the hon. Ministers without Portfolio
just irks me no end. It irks me no end,
because on that side at least they have a
research assistant. We do not. There are
no services and facilities provided for the
backbencher on the government side.
My plea is I agree with what they have.
Perhaps they should have even more. But
do not criticize us, for heaven's sake, for
standing up and attempting to make the same
sort of plea that they have been making.
Also, I would like to have the hon. member
for York South apologize for saying that this
was a cheap unwarranted attack.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, may I
start off first of all by thanking the hon. mem-
ber for correcting the inference that he
obviously left. Whether or not it was intended
I do not wish to comment.
I would like to talk a little bit about this—
Mr. Lawrence: I said it was not intended.
Take my word for it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I shall
be very happy-
Mr. Lawrence: Just a minute, Mr. Chair-
man, I am sorry, I did not hear this last
briUiant, witty remark. The hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) speaks into
that microphone all the time without stand-
ing up. If he has the guts to stand up and
say something, then say it so we can hear it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, to the
hon. member: if he says it was not intended
I accept his word.
Mr. Lawrence: Thanks too much.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: But I would like to
talk a httle bit about the principle which
has been raised as a result of these comments,
and I am going to use some words, and they
are calculated words, they are intended, sir.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well chosen, I sup-
pose.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: That will be for the
hon. Minister to decide himself. They will
not be windy anyway. I do not intend to
get imbroiled in temper here, sir. This is
992
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a matter which I have complained about since
I came to this House, I am going to continue
to complain about it until it is corrected.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that in
view of the amount of estimates and the
budget which has been brought down by the
hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan), the
amount of money which is available to con-
duct the oflRce of the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) shows nothing
more nor less than a contempt for the Opposi-
tion on the part of the government of the
day. I suggest to you, sir, that the amount
of money-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I have the floor and I
am going to keep it until I am through. I
suggest to you, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: Could we have a little
order!
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: We are too polite, that
is the trouble.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I do
intend to be polite, but I intend to be firm.
I will repeat that in my opinion the amount
of money which is available shows contempt
for the Opposition and for the people who
sent them here.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Perhaps they deserve
it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I would further state
to you, sir— I was going to use another word
and tell hon. members that it was miserly and
I think it applies and I think when I am
through they will agree with me that it does
apply.
The hon. member mentioned the salary
which is available to the chief executive assis-
tant of the hon. leader of the Opposition. The
amount has been quoted. I think the hon.
members of this Legislature should know
the total amount of money which is available
to the hon. leader of the Opposition to per-
form the very important function of govern-
ment, if our way of life is to continue. This
is not a laughing matter, I would assure
the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope).
This is a matter at which I think the public
of this province would rebel at if they knew
the facts and I intend to put them on the
record. I have the permission of the hon.
leader of the Opposition to put them on the
record. He is permitted out of a billion
dollar budget, the total sum of $18,000 to
run the office of the leader of the Opposition.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Plus-$18,000 plusi
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Someone has suggested
plus nine! I think the hon. members of this
House should know that the $9,000 comes
out of that $18,000, so I will correct that in
print right now.
This is the money which is allotted to the
leader of the Opposition to employ the various
help that he requires in order to do the re-
search work, in order to carry out the
functions for which he is charged and which
affect every citizen of Ontario. This amount
of $9,000, which is left after paying a chief
executive assistant, is the money that is
available to employ stenographic help, to
purchase the supplies that are necessary in
an office and to do all the other activities
which are required by the Opposition.
Now I think it is no secret on this side of
the House that the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Wintermeyer), being the type of a
man that he is, has personally reached into
his own pocket in order to supplement these
amounts to carry out the function of govern-
ment which is charged to him.
This being the case, Mr. Chairman, I
submit to this House that the amount of
money which is available to the leader of the
Opposition shows contempt for the Opposi-
tion. Is it any wonder we feel that perhaps
the growth of the Cabinet should stop, and a
little bit more money be made available to
the Opposition? The leader of the Opposition
does not have a limousine and a chauffeur to
drive him around as do the minor officials in
the Cabinet and in the government; he does
not have access to these facilities. The
suggestion has been made that in my original
statement I was misleading the public when I
stated that there was a waste of the taxpayers'
money. I would say this, that the amount of
money which is available to the Opposition
is in itself a waste of taxpayers' money be-
cause it inhibits the work of that Opposition
and prevents them from having the facilities
to bring to light the faults of the government
as is their traditional responsibility and is
the wish of every citizen of this province.
Mr. Chairman, since we are dealing with
this whole subject I would state that it is
necessary for private members on this side
of the House to infringe upon the limited
resources available to the leader of the
Opposition. If they wish to do any work
themselves, if they wish to interview anybody
from their constituency, and it is not once it
is many times, I have seen this honourable
gentlcfnan give up his office in order to make
it available for members of this House to
MARCH 9, 1962
993
conduct the business which is rightfully theirs
when they are sent here elected in the first
place. And all because they happened to be
back-bench members and do not have any
facilities whatsoever in which to do that work.
I am pleased that this matter has been
raised in this Legislature and it is my hope,
my hope, Mr. Chairman, that the press that
is here today will report these remarks and let
the people of the province find out what
really is going on, and then I think the situa-
tion will be corrected. I think when that
mass of public opinion does comes forward—
and I am certain that it will come forward-
when this matter is brought to their attention
the situation will be corrected.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: There are several
matters which have come to light in this
discussion. I was rather hoping that the hon.
member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver) would
rise to his feet and defend the position taken
by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. R. C.
Edwards) by revealing to this House the
very liberal treatment that was given to the
Opposition the last time this Opposition party
had an opportunity to deal with an Opposi-
tion. For the benefit of the hon. member for
Wentworth— and I listened to him and
perhaps he does not need to listen to me
but he might keep silent— he might be
interested to know that the last time the
Liberal Party had control of these matters
they gave the leader of the Opposition an
additional $1,000 per year, no stenographic
help whatsoever, one small office, and a
statement by the leader of the party that
that would be all the Opposition would ever
get as long as he led the party.
This, for some of the newer members in
this House who perhaps are not aware of the
history of some of these things, I thought
might be of interest. Now it is this govern-
ment under my predecessor, which has broken
down this vindictive attitude that was held
by the previous Liberal administration. Two
years later these services are derided in this
House as they have been derided by the hon.
member for Wentworth this morning, but I
do not think they were derided at the time
these were provided for his leader because
he was— I think he was— quite happy about
them. But two years make a difference.
Either that or the hon. member for Went-
worth does not know his history.
I would also point out that in this building
we are very cramped for space. I could go
on and tell you some of the problems of The
Department of Education, which is situated
in this building, where we have had to double
up, take corridors and put in partitions in
order to create office space. There is not a
doubt in the world that as the government
has grown this building has remained the
same size and it is the central building. The
Legislature is here where the public meet
and we are utilizing every square foot.
Particulars of this can be discussed in the
estimates of the hon. Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Council), but I am sure he would
be delighted to point out to the hon. members
what use is being made of office space.
I rather doubt that the hon. member for
Wentworth would care to have an office over
in the East Block, or downtown, or over at
the corner of College and Bay where we
might be able to arrange some additional
space, but in this House space is at a
premium. In this building the facilities for
the hon. members have been improved
gradually over the years. The hon. member
for Wentworth has been in the House a
relatively short time and perhaps he does not
know. I mean he has complained on numerous
occasions about the facilities available to him.
He has no basis of comparison to know what
facilities used to be available. I do not know
what he expected when he was elected. There
are many, many men who have served their
constituents well and looked after their ridings
with the facilities that are available and
without finding it necessary to get up and
complain and whine about the facilities every
time they spoke in this House.
I am simply saying that we are doing
the best with the facilities we have available
in the House. I think that at least the
Opposition has nothing to complain about if
they compare the treatment they are getting
with the treatment they handed out the last
time they had an opportunity to hand out
treatment. I think these things must be borne
in mind and we must get this whole picture
into its proper perspective.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: And they would do
the same thing again.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to make some remarks. Of all the
hon. members of this House, and I say this
very sincerely, the hon. member for Went-
worth was the last one who should have got
up and made the statement he did because,
only last Friday, he made this statement
which is on page 739 of Hansard, about the
hon. Ministers without Portfolio:
I believe the salary to those people is
$2,500, per year. Now, they are nice people.
I like the Ministers without Portfolio, but
I do not think they are doing very much.
994
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I will tell the hon. member the reason why
that came about. Only two years ago I was
appointed Minister without Portfolio in the
beginning of 1958.
Members downtown, senior members of the
law profession, everybody I knew, thought
that I was getting full ministerial pay. They
said: "What does the Minister without Port-
folio entitle you to?" I said: "Well, it must
entitle me to the initials after my name of
W.P." They would say: "What does that
stand for?" I said: "Without pay."
I came up to this Legislature 52 weeks
a year, or as many weeks as there was a
meeting of Cabinet and it was almost once
a week. It reached the time when I was up
here two days a week. It reached the time
when I was up here three days a week,
without getting a single extra penny in salary;
and no other Minister without Portfolio was
paid.
Not only that, but I discovered that having
become Minister without Portfolio I could no
longer use the members' stationery and
had to pay for all the stationery, business
cards and all my correspondence out of my
own pocket. That year it was somewhere
in the neighbourhood of $400. I had no
secretarial staff, except that the secretary to
the Cabinet very kindly permitted me to use
in an emergency his own secretary to dictate
a few letters in the course of a week.
In my nine years as a private member I
never used the stenographic services of any-
body in this building. I paid for all this out
of my own pocket in my law office downtown.
I will say this, that it was brought to the
attention of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) who was preoccupied with the
affairs of the province, that hon. Ministers
without Portfolio were called upon to do a
tremendous amount, serving on various sub-
committees of Cabinet and individual assign-
ments, and it was meet and proper that they
should receive pay. I do not believe that the
time— having been a Cabinet Minister without
Portfolio— I do not believe that the time that
is spent by the hon. Ministers without Port-
folio is compensated for by the amount that
they obtain and it ill behooves the hon.
member for Wentworth ( Mr. R. C. Edwards )
to make such aspersions.
I do not question the salary which is paid
to the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer). The hon. leader of the Op-
position knows better than anybody in this
House how many days in the course of a
365-day year he spends in this House. I spend,
subject to the holidays, every single day. I
have closed my law practice up. I have no
other income except what I obtain as a
Cabinet Minister and I do not like it, year
in and year out, and I didn't even as a
private member not in the Cabinet, when
members of the Opposition cast aspersions
or innuendoes on the salaries paid to the
members of^ the government in charge
of the administration of a tremendous depart-
ment and with tremendous responsibilities in
respect to the policies and the expenditures
of monies.
I do not begrudge a single penny which is
given to the hon. leader of the Opposition
in his personal capacity or for his staff or
for the hon. members of the other group in
this House. Mr. Chairman, no other prov-
ince, no other province in this country, in
this nation of ours, is as generous with the
hon. members of the Opposition as this gov-
ernment.
Mr. Bryden: None other has a billion
dollar budget.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Now we will just make
a comparison.
Question 1 to the provinces of Canada:
does your government pay the salary of the
secretary of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion and, if so, how much? British Columbia:
yes, $3,200. Alberta: no. Saskatchewan: yes,
$253 per month or $570 annually. Manitoba:
$550 annually. Ontario: at that time it was
$4,000. Hon. members know what the
present salary is. Quebec-
Mr. MacDonald: What date is this for?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is a couple of
years ago when we were considering this.
Quebec: $4,000. New Brunswick: no.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon.
peddling history, not fact.
Minister is
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am just bringing the
hon. member up to date on what the situa-
tion was.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister is not
up to date.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member can
correct me.
Question No. 2: does your government
make provision for the services of an execu-
tive assistant or assistants or economists in
the Opposition oflBce, and if so what do they
receive as salary?
Quebec: $7,500 a year. New Brunswick:
no. Nova Scotia: no. Prince Edward Island:
no. Newfoundland: no. British Columbia t
MARCH 9, 1962
995
yes, $5,000 a year. Alberta: no. Saskatch-
ewan: no. Manitoba: no. Ontario: then
$7,000, presently $9,000.
Does your government provide mainte-
nance for the Opposition office by way of
stationery, typewriters and other supplies
and, if so, how much?
Quebec provides office space and supplies,
no amount given. New Brunswick, the same.
Nova Scotia, the same. Prince Edward
Island, only during the session. Newfound-
land, the same as Quebec. British Columbia,
the same. Alberta, the same. Saskatchewan,
the same. Manitoba, the same. We in
Ontario then provided office space plus $2,000
for supplies. The total amount now is $18,-
500, and it is within the discretion of the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr, Winter-
meyer) to dispose of that amount as he sees
fit.
I will not go into the question any further
although I have some other statistics. But
I say this categorically: no province in
Canada is as generous with the personal
income of the leader of the Opposition
or with the facilities provided for the
members of tlie Opposition or for a minority
group. They do not even come near. We
are in the tens of thousands and they are in
the mere hundreds.
And I say this, I am surprised that the
hon. members supporting the government
have put up with their own facilities so long.
I was fortunate because I had a law office
downtown and I had a secretary available
to me whose salary I paid for completely out
of my pocket. Every letter I dictated on
behalf of my constituents for 10 years was
paid for out of my own pocket-
Mr. Bryden: Does the hon. Minister tliink
that is good?
Hon. Mr. Yaremkb: No.
Mr. Bryden: Then why does he not do
something about it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: But it ill behooves a
member of the Opposition to claim that
others are getting advantages that they have
not got.
Mr. Bryden: Nobody claimed that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They did. I say this
to the supporters of the government, as a
private member I did not have available to
me not even one minute or one page of the
research facilities of this government in nine
years. I did all my own research. Let the
hon. member for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) get
up and tell the House, does he make, as I
did as a private member of this House,
all of the research himself, does nobody
supply him with any of the material?
Mr. Bryden: I will be glad to get up and
tell the hon. Minister all about it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I suggest to the hon.
supporters of the government: gentlemen, if
there is anybody that is hard done by it is
they. I have been in those offices that they
share together. I have not been in the
offices of the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer), I do not know how many
square feet he has, but when I see 17 and
20 government members with one telephone
available to them in a private office, they
are the men who are being hard done by,
and perhaps it is because this government
is so generous with the Opposition that they
have not had the advantages.
Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, may I state
to the hon. Provincial Secretary, sir,
when he asked this rhetorical question
and wonders how much longer the hon.
private members on the government side are
going to put up with this situation; may I
say: just stick aroimd, not very much longer.
It is in this mood that I have asked these
questions, not with any innuendo or impres-
sion that I feel the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Wintermeyer) is being overpaid or
in any regard such as that. Just one further
thing with the figures that the hon. member
for Wentworth (Mr. R. C. Edwards) brought
down. I am afraid I did not write them down
as fast as he was giving them, but did he state
that as well as the salary and expenses of
$21,000, which the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion gets, there is an added amount of $18,000
available for his staflE? Thank you.
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Chairman, as the Minister
possibly more responsible for supplying these
things than any other hon. Minister, I thought
perhaps the House might be interested to
know just what the hon. members of the
Opposition have, and what space the govern-
ment members have.
When I came into this House ten years ago,
as far as I know, I have never been in the
Opposition headquarters over here, but I
think there was one room with possibly an
annex to it. The CCF Party had one room.
Now I do not know whether I have been too
kind to the Opposition or not, but since being
Minister of Public Works I have felt that they
had a rightful place around these buildings.
996
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and I have endeavoured to help them out as
much as possible.
I still do not know how many offices there
are out there on that side, but I think there
are about three more than there were when
I became Minister of Public Works. And
another office that they have not mentioned
here this morning at all— and I can only go
back ten years in this House, but I have
understood that t^he members of the Opposi-
tion outside of the leader of the Opposition,
Mr. Chairman, about the only office he had
was where one hangs one's coat out here.
That was what was supplied to the members
of the Opposition years ago. But upstairs
on the fourth floor, this government has even
gone so far as to supply the Liberal Party
with a caucus room.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Connell: It is more than any
other party ever had in Opposition, and they
are taking up space there that could well be
used for office space of which we are so short.
Now the CCF Party, in addition to their
room down here— which is about the prime
space in this building in my opinion— they
have another office up on the third floor and
each of the members of #ie New Democratic
Party has a desk and telephones to himself.
Of our people over here, there are about
15 hon. members who have to be in one
office. They have one chair and no secretarial
stafi^. Now I might go on and add this: the
Opposition are critical of us for not planning.
I do hope to have some announcements about
our Queen's Park extension, but going back
to what the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr.
R. C. Edwards) said the other day with regard
to planning, I announced a year ago— and I
hope he will not be telling me right after this
that it was his idea to supply space for private
members, but I do hope that in the final
analysis, when we get our planning done,
that in this north wing where The Department
of Education is now, we are going to have
offices, as I mentioned a year ago, somewhat
similar to those in Ottawa.
Now, whether it will be one or two or three
members to an office, I do not know. But that
is in our plan, so I hope the Opposition will
give this government a little credit for a little
foresight. We have done a great deal, there
is more to be done yet, and we will get it
done.
Mr. Bryden: This has been a challenge to
me; do I not get a chance to answer? Mr.
Chairman, the hon. Minister challenged me to
get up and say—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of informa-
tion, that is all I wanted to know.
Mr. Bryden: If it is of any interest to the
hon. Minister, and presumably it is or he
would not have asked the question, I do not
get any research assistance from anybody, I
do my own research; I write my own speeches
and prepare my own material. I think a
member is entitled to get some assistance.
It is fine to say that the backbenchers on
the government side have no research assist-
ance, which is true, but let us bear in mind
that the government itself has behind it all
the resources of the public service to provide
information for it. And the backbenchers on
the government side do not have the same
sort of load to carry as members of the
Opposition who have to try to keep up with
the government that has hundreds of
thousands, indeed millions of dollars' worth
of facilities behind it.
Now, as for the hon. Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Connell), I would like to say
that I personally appreciate what I think
has been a very genuine effort on his part to
recognize the problems of private members,
particularly on this side of the House. I
think he has done the best he can in a
difficult situation, but let us face the fact
that the situation is very unsatisfactory.
The hon. Minister referred to what he
called an office that we have on the third
floor. Well, it is a piece cut out of a corridor,
it is not an office. It is true that we have
some desks that were taken out of storage
since they were surplus for civil service
purposes. We managed to get one each for
our members, but our hon. leader still has
no private office. Any visitor who wanders
in for any purpose whatsoever comes directly
into the place where the hon. leader's desk
is situated. I think any person who has a
heavy load of responsibility is entitled to
some privacy and to some opportunity to
carry on his work in private and to have
callers sifted out as between those who really
need to see him and those who can see other
people.
I do not think anybody on this side of
the House has ever suggested that the back-
benchers on the government side have been
well dealt with in this matter. In fact I
have wondered for the longest time why they
have put up with it. I never saw such a
pusillanimous bunch in my life. They have
no facilities at all. I admit with the very
inadequate facilities we have we are a little
better off than they are, but I would suggest
to you, Mr. Chairman, that you could go the
length and breadth of this continent and you
MARCH 9, 1962
997
would not find any business anywhere that
would fail so completely to provide people
associated with it, who were considered to
have responsibilities, with resources to carry
on their work.
A member of the Legislature, if our theory
of government means anything, has a respon-
sible position. Yet he does not have the
facilities of a clerk in the public service and
I think that is a disgraceful state of affairs.
The hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) has
said that there are difficulties, that there are
problems of space, with which I agree. But
I think that the time has come when the
hon. members of the Legislature should get
some priority. I think other space outside
this building can be found for government
departments that are now located in it, and
all or most of the building can be turned
over to the work of the legislative assembly,
a very important, in fact the central part of
which is the work of the hon. members of the
legislative assembly.
I think sometimes that we are considered
to be perhaps a little lower down the scale
than grade 1 clerks as far as importance is
concerned. Maybe that is the fact, but if
it is, then our whole theory of government is
wrong and we have been telling the people
lies for years. I think that it would be proper
to say that this building, or as much of it
as is required, should be turned over to
provide the members with facilities, with
offices. Not elaborate offices, but at least
private offices where they can carry on their
work.
I appreciate the plan which the hon.
Minister of Public Works has in mind, but
I would like to see something more than a
plan.
Hon. Mr. Connell: The hon. member
wanted this building torn down a year ago.
Mr. Bryden: I would like to see a more
efficient building here and then none of these
problems would arise, but I am assuming
the hon. Minister will not accept my excellent
advice on that, so I am suggesting he takes
what he has— the government take what it
has— and make it available in the first instance
for the members and find other suitable
accommodation for departments that would
necessarily be displaced.
His plan, as far as I can see, is for some
time in the remote future. For all we know
he may not even be the Minister when it
comes time to implement it. But I am con-
cerned about the situation right now, and I
would like to see better facilities right now
for the Liberal members, for the New
Democratic members and for the long-
suffering multitude on the backbenches of
the Conservative ranks. I would be glad to
stand up and be their champion; in fact, I
would even be willing to try to organize a
union for them.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): We do
not want that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to read something that will make the
hon. members of the Opposition happy to
some extent. I am talking about the official
Opposition.
Mr. MacDonald: Obviously we have a little
political coup in the making.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have a little clipping
here. Now, I do not know the date of this
but it is within the last year, I believe. And
it would be interesting to note that the period
referred to is for more than four decades,
that is for more than 40 years— I want you
to guess, see if you can figure out where this
province is before I let you know.
The clipping reads:
Opposition Gets Offices at Public
Expense
For more than four decades the Sas-
katchewan Liberal Party has maintained a
spacious provincial headquarters in a down-
town office block in the capital city even
when a Liberal government was esconced
in the legislative building.
That is the office of the Saskatchewan Liberal
party.
The other day the Liberals vacated their
premises, lock, stock and barrel and big
trucks carted off tons of files and other
office trappings to the legislative building
itself.
Now Ross Thatcher, Saskatchewan's
Liberal leader, puts his feet under a desk
a few doors away from the lair of [the
then] Premier T. C. Douglas. This cosy
arrangement stems from complaints voiced
by Mr. Thatcher about—
—and remember this is a 40-year period we
are talking about.
This cosy arrangement stemmed from
complaints voiced by Mr. Thatcher about
the alleged shabby treatment of the Oppo-
sition.
And who gave the shabby treatment? The
Saskatchewan CCF government. After four
decades-
Mr. MacDonald: And who corrected it?
998
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let us see what made
Mr. Thatcher so happy.
He says: "Premier Douglas agreed to
oblige and two adjoining offices were made
available."
Compare that with the facilities Ontario's
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) has.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Yes, have
a look at it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I continue:
As far as Mr. Thatcher and the Liberal
Party are concerned this arrangement has
its practical dollars and cents value. The
Liberal Party will save the tidy sum of
almost $10,000 annually.
Now, how does that, with the provision of
office space and one secretary compare with
the faciUties available for the hon. leader
of the Opposition here?
Mr. Bryden: Is this not a somewhat bigger
province?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will say what Mr.
Thatcher says:
For the moment, Mr. Thatcher indicates
he will settle for less. The placing of a
researcher of his choosing on the Opposi-
tion staff at public expense.
Mr. Chairman, we not only have done for
the hon. leader of the Opposition of this prov-
ince what has made Mr. Thatcher evidently
quite content, we have gone far beyond and
we have included even a very generous pro-
vision for the other minority group.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, it is a
matter of personal privilege on which I wish
to speak. I did not intend to say a thing
but it does seem to me in view of the manner
which this debate has taken, and the politi-
cal undertones that have been present, par-
ticularly in the latter parts of the debate,
that I should make this statement.
For myself and my personal salary, in that
respect I do not want to comment. There
will be those who will say it should be lower
or those who might think it should be higher.
I assure you I will never ask on my personal
behalf for a penny. I only make this point,
Mr. Chairman, that prior to the time that I
was required to divest myself not only of a
legal practice but of other substantial income,
I had a far greater income than I have now
personally.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: So did I; so did we all.
Mr. Wintermeyer; Exactly, and to the hon.
member for St. George (Mr. Lawrence) I
would say this: that I bear him no animosity
whatsoever in the way this thing was raised.
But now that it has taken the course it has,
and the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
has suggested that we were complaining and
whining, let me say this: I am not speaking
for myself. That is the only point I want
to make.
I am speaking for the role— as the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) so
aptly put it— the role of the Opposition in a
parliamentary system. I am speaking for
every hon. member in this House, and I think
the hon. member for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden)
was perfectly right when he said that if we
do not appreciate the signfficance and the
importance of membership in this House, and
in all parties, and on all sides, then we are
failing in our duty and we are negligent
because we are not doing as good a job
as we should. This is the year 1960. We
talk about education—
An hon. member: The year 1962.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, we are in the 60s.
We are talking about educational costs that
are a hundred times what they were sup-
posedly in the years gone by. Project that
thinking into this role and you get some
idea of the costs of nmning this Opposition,
for example.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the point I
want to come to. This is the point I hesitated
to bring up but I think it is important for
the people of Ontario that they should know
and that they do not go away with a mis-
conception of what this is all about.
There is $18,000 provided for the Opposi-
tion offices and that is taken up basically
with three salaries. The salary of Dr.
Upper— which has been mentioned several
times— and the salaries of two stenographers.
The balance of about $2,500, just about
$2,500, is available for telephone calls, for
research, for stationery, for all the other
multitudinous items of operating an office of
the nature of this office. I can assure hon.
members that that $2,500 is not nearly suf-
ficient to pay for the costs that we have
incurred in that operation year by year.
Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in this fashion
because there may be others in the future
who will occupy this position and I think
I can speak for the position and not for
myself. I can tell hon. members that I am
in the fortunate position, due to no fault of
my own, where this does not necessarily mean
MARCH 9, 1962
999
an extraordinary problem to myself, but for
the role of the Opposition it is a real problem.
The cost of operating that office, together
with my official function, will be in the
neighbourhood of $100,000 by the end of
next year that I have been required to put
into this job.
I have not said this publicly before, but if
we are going to debate, if the merit of this
thing was debated here today, then I make
an appeal to the goodness of the people
opposite to look to democracy, to look to the
dignity of this House, to look to the efficienc)'
and the well-being of the House. It is not
effective as it should be and the money is not
available to the individual hon. members and
to the hon. members opposite to my left and
to this group, that is required to perform the
effective job that is required to be done on
the part of the people of Ontario.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that if the
people of Ontario knew the costs of this type
of thing they would willingly spend this
money for more efficiency and more effective-
ness. I regret the manner in which this
debate has proceded by making reference to
what has gone on 20 or 30 years ago. That
is immaterial. Comparing this budget with
Saskatchewan is absolutely irrelevant. Com-
pare it with New York, compare it with the
states and the jurisdictions of government
that are comparable to this government and
I think you would find, Mr. Chairman, that
the situation that prevails here is that facili-
ties are not available for private members,
for the Opposition groups, to perform the job
that the people of Ontario expect.
They do not expect that these positions be
available only to those who may, due to cir-
cumstances, be in a position where they can
personally undertake these expenditures.
They expect that government funds be used
for this purpose.
It is for that reason that I rise, Mr. Chair-
man, a matter of regret on my part, but I
think in view of the manner in which this
debate has taken place, I mean in the tone
in which it has taken place, it is imperative
that this record be put clear and be made
known and that something be done about it.
I very much appreciate the observations
that were made by the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald). I think he spoke
with a genuine appreciation of the dignity
and significance of the role of the Opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that all
hon. members take the opportunity to read
what Churchill said about the Opposition,
what Lord Simon said, what brilliant parlia-
mentarians have said. They said it really is
the keystone of our democratic system, more
than any other part of Parliament, and I
believe that.
I am not speaking of my person. There
are others who could perform this function
more ably than I. But for the institution and
for the position, I unhesitantly get up and
make this appeal.
Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, would the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) permit a question?
As the one who led the thing off and started
it off because I was irked at the words of the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. R. C.
Edwards), I gather from what the hon. leader
of the Opposition now says, that he com-
pletely repudiates those innuendoes the other
night from the hon. member for Wentworth.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I see that the hon.
leader of the Opposition nods his head
affirmatively.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
say a word or two on this subject. Several
years ago when I came here for the first
time I must confess I was disappointed, and
even shocked, at the lack of facilities pro-
vided for a private member, sir. Hon.
members may recall I complained very
strongly at that time.
The facilities are less than adequate now,
but in all fairness I think we should recog-
nize a number of improvements have taken
place. The indemnity has been increased,
the expense allowance has been increased, the
dining-room has been improved, so that at
least we can take a person in for a sandwich
without being totally ashamed.
The committee rooms have been greatly
improved and we are advised and assured by
the government through the hon. Minister of
Public Works (Mr. Connell) that we will be
given adequate office space in the education
wing when a new building is built across the
street. Those plans are more than tentative,
of course, because the property across the
street has been acquired and the old build-
ings standing on that property are being re-
moved. When the new building is built space
will be available here and I am confident
that the private members will be given
the office facilities and the secretarial help
that they require.
There is certainly justice in the complaints
that were made here today, but in fairness to
the government we have to recognize these
five very important improvements that have
taken place in the last two or three years. It
1000
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
seems to me that the complaints which have
been registered should be moderated because
of those improvements.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am a
little astounded at the methods employed by
the Opposition here.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): What kind
of ofBce does the hon. Minister without Port-
folio work in?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: A pretty good oflBce.
Does the hon. member object to that?
Mr. Bukator: To the hon. Minister, yes, I
certainly do.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. member
object to me having an office?
Mr. Bukator: I just say, what kind has he
got?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, this is
just the point I am trying to make. First the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. R. C.
Edwards) gets up and he makes some rather
underhanded charges, and as a matter of fact
pointedly asks the press to pay attention to
what he is saying and he hopes they publish
his comments. He goes along on the same
thing he started last week when he made some
comment about tlie Ministers without Port-
foHo doing nothing and getting $2,500 a year.
I meant to comment on the kind of work
Ministers without Portfolio do, but the hon.
Provincial Secretary (Mr. Yaremko) has done
a very good job of explaining that. I hope
the hon. member for Wentworth feels some-
what ashamed of himself for the comments
he made about that.
But we go along in the debate and of course
there is some umbrage taken at the attack
made on the Ministers without Portfolio,
and it creates some heat in the debate. Then
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) gets up trying to throw some cold
water on this heat. He suggested perhaps we
should be discussing this in a calmer light,
something should be done for all the hon.
members; and some other hon. member made
some comments— I think it was the hon.
member for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden)— that
hon. members here are treated "lower than
clerks," as if they were "lower than clerks."
I suggest the reason why members of Parlia-
ment generally are not treated and do not
treat tliemselves as well as they should is
because they are afraid to, because of the
method by which pohtical charges are hurled
about recklessly and the impression this
leaves with the general public.
The hon. member for Wentworth should
remember that when he makes charges like
this: "that Ministers do nothing and they
get paid too much," that there are thousands
who feel the same way about members of
Parliament generally. They have an impres-
sion that members of Parliament do nothing
but draw their breath and their pay, and it
is because of these wild charges that the
public gets this impression. The average
person in this province, in this country, does
not realize the amount of public service, the
amount of time put into public service by
members of Parliament.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bruce
(Mr. Whicher), in his speech on the budget
the other day, also made some comment
about Ministers without Portfolio. Now, I
presume the hon. member for Wentworth
does not suggest that a Minister with a de-
partment should not be entitled to a car.
I presume he does not mean that. Does he
believe that?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, if you
would allow me the floor next I would be
pleased to answer that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would the hon. mem-
ber answer the question?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I think it is not a
matter, Mr. Chairman, of answering out of
context.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Answer yes or no-
does he believe the Minister in charge
of a department is entitled to a car? Does
he believe that? This is the sort of question,
Mr. Chairman, when it is directed at a
Minister and the Minister answers in that
fashion he is accused of evasion. I asked a
direct question which could have been
answered yes or no.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I think there are too
many cars and chauffeurs available in this
province. Does that answer the hon. Min-
ister's question?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, it is
an evasive answer.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: It is the same way a
Minister answers, that is what the hon. Min-
ister suggested.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be prepared
at any time, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am
concerned, to justify to the public my use
of a car. In case there is some doubt about
it- Olid that is the reason really I got up—
in case there is any doubt about it, the
MARCH 9, 1962
1001
Ministers without Portfolio, unless they are
in charge of a department, do not have a
car and chaufiFeur assigned to them. The
hon. member may have given this impression
to the public and I want to make sure they
do not have this impression. They do not
have a car and chauffeur assigned to them.
If the hon. member is going to insist that
a Minister with a department, a Cabinet
Minister in this great province— he keeps
telling us what a large province it is, and a
great budget and so on— if the hon. member
does not think that a Minister of the Crown
in charge of a department is entitled to a
car, then perhaps he ought to talk to the
hon. member at his left who, as the reeve
of North York, was the first reeve to get
himself a car and a chauffeur. I think a
Minister of the Crown is at least as busy as
he was as a reeve.
Let me add to what the hon. Provincial
Secretary has stated. I have been in my
insurance office since my appointment as a
Minister— in the first year, as a Minister with-
out a department— I was in it about three
hours a week. Since I have been put in
charge of a department I have been in my
oflBce for about 20 minutes to pick up some
documents. I do not like to go on and start
bringing out a bleeding heart about how
much this job is costing me or anything of
that nature. All I am suggesting is the hon.
member for Went worth is not doing himself
any justice, or this legislative assembly any
justice, or any of the hon. members any
justice, or the Opposition any justice, he is
not doing them justice at all, by hurling
these charges around because they put all
elected members in a bad light. As far as
the public is concerned he is giving them the
impression that all of us here are getting paid
too much. As a matter of fact, the hon. mem-
ber for York South could be accused of
that too, because he put on a political play
a couple of years ago when the indemnities
were increased. He did not think we should
get this increase in indemnity. He put all
sorts of qualifications on it, giving the
impression to the public that we were getting
paid sufficiently, and therefore the addi-
tional indemnity was not earned and was
not deserved.
If we want to keep these debates on a
high level, let us begin them at a high level
and they will remain that way, not start them
off with reckless charges, making us all look
bad in the eyes of the public and causing
the hon. leader or someone else to get up on
the opposite side and say, "Now, why can we
not discuss this on a logical basis and do
what we know is ri^t? Let us not hurl
around any political charges."
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, first
of all let it not be said, sir, that I am throw-
ing any innuendoes, for I am prepared to
make positive statements, I am prepared to
repeat them at this time, and I am pre-
pared to be heard anytime or at any place
on this issue. I have been talking since this
session of the Legislature on the matter of
economy. If you want to know what I think
and if hon. members opposite want to know
what I think, I will tell you. I think in too
many cases we have been spending money
like a bunch of drunken sailors. I am con-
cerned about it.
In my remarks with respect to the hon.
Ministers without Portfolio, I indicated that
the taxation went up 20 per cent in this
province last year. With respect to the hon.
Ministers without Portfolio and I made it
clear— and I make it clear again, I do not
make any personal charges, I simply believe
—that the theory of Parkinson's law is in
effect in the present Cabinet, I think it is
growing beyond the need of individual Min-
isters. It is adding to the cost of government
at the expense of the taxpayers of this prov-
ince.
Mr. Chairman, one of the hon. gentle-
men opposite suggested that I should be
ashamed of myself. Let me make it abun-
dantly clear I am not ashamed of myself;
I believe in what I am saying and I am
going to go on saying it notwithstanding the
attacks which have come from the other
side.
An hon. member: What did the hon. mem-
ber's leader say?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, if my hon.
leader is ashamed of me and as the hon.
member suggested, if my leader said this,
I was not in the House-
Mr. Singer: He said no such thing.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I am sure he will
tell me privately if he said that, but I doubt
if he said it.
Mr. Singer: He said no such thing and
the hon. member knows it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, with
respect to the remarks that I made— that I
hoped this would get in the press— I repeat
them, I hope they do, I hope that the re-
marks of one of the hon. gentlemen opposite
get in the press when he suggested that the
]002
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
NDP members— and these were the words
—even have a desk.
I hope that gets in the press. I hope the
public knows that some hon. members even
have a desk. Because outside of this little
—what is it, about two and a half square feet
—this is the only desk space that is provided
to me. So I hope it does get in the press.
Now with respect to the question which
was asked by the hon. Minister from St.
Andrew (Mr. Grossman), he suggested that
my hon. friend to the left had a car when he
was elected chief officer, when he was elected
as reeve of North York. How he can apply
that to this principle is beyond my com-
prehension. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I
am quite happy to say what I think and if
there is anybody who thinks I am casting
innuendoes, if they will ask me to clarify
my position I shall be delighted to do so.
This is a principle, Mr. Chairman, that
is very important. It has been supported
already by one backbencher on the gov-
ernment side and that is the principle
that the Opposition in any government is
just as important as the role of government.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to a little
lesson in history which was so kindly given
to me by the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts), let me remind this House that I was
not even voting in those days. I am not
interested in the history of this province, I am
interested in the future of this province and
that is what we are here for.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, there is
a principle here and the principle is simply
this: we are elected to represent the people,
we are entitled to a certain limited amount of
facilities. I say that the facilities which are
provided are not adequate. It seems to me
that those opposite say that the facilities
which are provided are adequate, in fact they
stated that they have been very generous.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest their generosity
does not go far enough. I suggest that the
people of the province are suffering because
of the inadequacy of these facilities and I
suggest that the constant theme which seems
to come from the opposite side every time we
suggest something progressive, referring back
almost two decades ago to the government of
that day, is invalid. I think it is hardly, shall
I say, in good taste, by the—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I am
not going to be thrown off by the remarks of
the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope)
at all. If he wants to go on interrupting, I
am prepared to stand here and wait until he
is finished, because I believe in that principle
and I am not going to let it go until 1 have
had my say.
Mr. Chairman, it has been said by some of
the hon. members opposite that they get my
point. Now if they have my point, I will
stop talking, but I intend to bring the matter
up again next year and the year after that
and as long as I am here until such time as
the situation is corrected.
Mr. Singer: I want to say a word or two
on this, Mr. Chairman. I had no intention
of getting into this debate at all until the
hon. Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gross-
man), who has appointed himself as my
personal historian and critic, could not resist
a few remarks directed at me. Now I would
like to say this to the hon. Minister, I would
invite him to come up into my riding with his
car, take the Conservative nomination and
let us have a go at the next election. Let us
have some voters decide this personal
vendetta.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wanted to know if a
reeve can have a car, why a Cabinet Minister
cannot. Is there anything wrong with that
question?
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I share with
my hon. colleague from Wentworth (Mr.
Edwards) and with my hon. leader, the
criticisms that they have put voice to this
morning.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is any
secret that we on this side of the House
believe that in the 22 Cabinet Ministers
the government has and the seven or eight
others whom they have on the boards of the
ONR, the water resources commission, the
hospital commission, and on and on, that they
have some 30 or roughly a half of their
hon. members paid substantially more than
all of the hon. members of the Opposition.
I do not think it is any secret that this gov-
ernment, when they put about 30 of their
members into these categories, stand in very
poor comparison with, say, the Cabinet of the
United Kingdom, some six of whom ran the
war effort in the United Kingdom; the Cab-
inet of the President of the United States,
some 10 of whom seem to be able to run
that country. The point we are making is
that tlie government does not need 30 people
at extra pay to run the province, to run it
efficiently. This is a valid criticism and a
good criticism.
MARCH 9, 1962
1003
This business of cars is something that the
hon. Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gross-
man) thought was a great issue. It had not
been raised within my hearing on this side
of the House, but he brought it up so let
us deal with that for a minute. It is rather
interesting to note, and the hon. Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) said— his tone
certainly implied— is it not amazing that a
reeve should have a car and a chauffeur. Now,
let me say this, the township of North York
is the second largest municipality in Ontario.
It has a greater assessment than any other
municipality except the city of Toronto. The
reeve of that municipality who serves without
a board of control— and when the estimates
of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr.
Cass) come up we will have something to say
about boards of control and so on— and who
is the sole administrative officer, is the only
representative on the Metropolitan council.
The job of the reeve of the township of
North York— and my friends from Scarborough
and Etobicoke will agree with me on a
similar style for the job of a reeve of the
township of Etobicoke and Scarborough— is
one without parallel within municipal govern-
ment in this province of Ontario. The voters
of the township of North York accepted this
decision that I made and accepted the same
decision in my successor.
Now, if there was any criticism to be made
about the reeve of the township of North
York having a car, that surely should lie with
the voters and the municipal council of the
township of North York. The only reason
I deal with this at all, Mr. Chairman, is to
show that it is typical of what emanates
from the government benches on every occa-
sion of this sort. It is a smoke screen and
a series of red herrings to try to becloud the
issue. They will not face up to it, they will
not acknowledge that they are doing wrong,
and they will not respect a member from this
side.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I rise
on a question of privilege. I just want to get
it clear for the record that I made no charge
that the reeve of the township of North York
was not entitled to a car. I pointed out that
the reeve had a car and certainly a Cabinet
Minister does just as much work as a reeve.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the commit-
tee rise and report certain resolutions and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks for
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday we will sit at 2:00
o'clock and have a night session. There will
be no night session Tuesday night. We will
go on with the estimates of The Department
of Mines on Monday at 2:00 o'clock.
In moving the adjournment of the House I
move that we—
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) give us a tenta-
titve schedule for next week so we will have
an idea of what estimates are likely to be
called?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: This is the problem I
mentioned a week ago of attempting to give
any firm forecast. I never know when we
are going to have a debate such as we had
this morning, if it may be termed a debate,
and therefore my timetable may not be
exactly as planned. In any event I will
attempt to get on next week with the hon.
Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) and with
the hon. Minister of Energy Resources and
Economics and Development (Mr. Macaulay).
In addition to that we have the Budget
debate and, of course, there are all the mat-
ters on the order paper, any one of which I
may call.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1.05 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 35
ONTARIO
%m&Utmt of (j^ntario
[
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty^Sixth Legislature
Monday, March 12, 1962
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $2.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, March 12, 1962
Ontario Energy Board Act, bill to amend, Mr. Macaulay, first reading 1007
Statement re Niagara Falls water diversion, Mr. Macaulay, 1007
Estimates, Department of Mines, Mr. Wardrope 1008
Hospital Services Commission Act, bill to amend, third reading 1034
Public Hospitals Act, bill to amend, third reading 1034
Ontario Code of Human Rights and to provide for its administration, bill to establish, third reading 1034
Certain lands in the town of Gananoque, bill respecting, third reading 1034
Crown Timber Act, bill to amend, third reading 1034
Lakehead College of Arts, Science and Technology Act, 1956, bill to amend, third reading 1034
Notaries Act, bill to amend, third reading 1034
Judicature Act, bill to amend, third reading 1034
Training Schools Act, bill to amend, third reading 1034
Greater Oshawa Community Chest, bill respecting, third reading 1034
City of Belleville, bill respecting, third reading 1035
Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Incurables, Toronto, bill respecting, third reading 1035
Village of Markham, bill respecting, third reading 1035
Township of Nepean, bill respecting, third reading 1035
High school board of the township of Nepean and the Collegiate institute board of the city of Ottawa,
bill respecting, third reading 1035
Young Men's-Young Women's Christian Association of Cornwall, bill respecting, third reading 1035
Ontario Water Resources Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, second reading 1035
Department of Municipal Affairs Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, second reading 1035
Ontario Municipal Board Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, second reading 1038
Mental Hospitals Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 1040
Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation Act, 1949, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second
reading 1040
Private Sanatoria Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 1040
Local Improvement Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, second reading 1040
Jails Act, bill to amend, Mr. Haskett, second reading 1040
Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, second reading 1040
Public Parks Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, second reading 1040
Metropolitan United Church of Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second reading 1040
City of St. Catharines, bill respecting, Mr. Morningstar, second reading 1040
City of Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second reading 1041
City of Ottawa, bill respecting, Mr. Boyer, second reading 1041
County of Essex, the town of Leamington and the public utilities commission of the town of Leam-
ington, bill respecting, Mr. Parry, second reading 1041
High school board of the city of Sudbury and the Neelon-Garson and Falconbridge district high school
board, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second reading 1041
Town of Richmond Hill, bill respecting, Mr. Mackenzie, second reading 1041
Township of Wicksteed, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second reading 1041
Township of Etobicoke, bill respecting, Mr. Lewis, second reading 1041
Notices of motion 1041
Department of Education Act, bill to amend, reported 1042
Agricultural Societies Act, bill to amend, reported 1042
Bees Act, bill to amend, reported 1042
Co-operative Loans Act, bill to amend, reported 1042
Horticultural Societies Act, bill to amend, reported 1042
Village of Erie Beach, bill respecting, reported 1042
Town of Hearst, bill respecting, reported 1042
Ontario Co-operatives Credit Society, bill respecting, reported 1042
Town of Oakville, bill respecting, reported 1042
City of Windsor, bill respecting, reported 1042
City of Ottawa Separate school board, bill respecting, reported 1042
Ontario Registered Music Teachers' Association, bill respecting, reported 1043
Recess, 6 o'clock 1043
1007
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2:00 o'clock, p.m. .
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Again we are very glad to
have visitors to the Legislature, and today
we welcome as our guests students from the
following schools: in the east gallery Queen
Mary Public School, Peterborough and in the
west gallery Oak Park Junior High School,
Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD ACT
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend The Ontario Energy Board
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): This is a bill which amends The
Ontario Energy Board Act to clarify the rate-
fixing provisions.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
a question which I would like to ask the hon.
Minister of Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay)
which may be related to what he has just
introduced.
My question is: is the energy board going
to delay decision on the rate base application
of Union Gas until the Langford commission
has reported whether cushion gas in storage
areas is a legitimate factor in rate base cal-
culation?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Speaker, I in-
quired this morning from the department as
to when the Langford committee's report
Monday, March 12, 1962
would be available and it was thought that
it would be available in several weeks. I
understand from the energy board that it is
unlikely that the decision of the energy board
would be given much before June and there-
fore the Langford committee report will no
doubt be available before that time.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the hon.
Minister a supplementary question, Mr.
Speaker? Are we to have the Langford
report before this session concludes?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I hope that is so.
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I would like to announce to the House that
I have asked the hon. Provincial Secretary
(Mr. Yaremko) to request The Department of
External Affairs at Ottawa to take the neces-
sary steps to withdraw the application of
Ontario Hydro to the international joint com-
mission relating to the diversion of additional
waters at Niagara Falls.
I spoke on this matter— I think it was in
the fall, perhaps in the winter session-
explaining the application which was then
before the international joint commission
pointing out that it fell into three parts. One
of these parts dealt with the application to
study whether more water could be with-
drawn for the purposes of creating hydro
electricity at Niagara without destroying the
beauty of Niagara Falls. In the meantime—
and I pointed this out at that time in the
House— the policy of the government was that
no further water should be withdrawn if
there was any possibility of affecting the
beauty of the Falls by so doing.
Since then, the Lewiston plant of the New
York Power Authority is now coming into
operation and is withdrawing more of its
share of the waters. The construction is go-
ing ahead with the control dams in the upper
regions of the Niagara River. Until experi-
ence has been gathered from these two
separate construction undertakings, it is
advisable not to go ahead with this study in
relation to withdrawing any more water from
the Niagara River at Niagara Falls.
Therefore, I have asked the hon. Provincial
1008
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Secretary, as I said, to make application to
the department in Ottawa to withdraw this
part of the application before the international
joint commission. I am quite confident that
the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr.
Bukator) would like to make some comment
on this, because he has been most interested
in it.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to comment on the de-
cision of the energy board in not withdrawing
any more water from the Niagara River.
I have had many organizations— the council
of Niagara Falls, Stamford Township, and
everybody, as a matter of fact, in the Niagara
Falls riding— I have had many letters sent to
me pertaining to this very matter and I am
going to commend the hon. Minister of
Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay) for taking
this stand. I appreciate the fact that he was
good enough to let me know about this de-
cision before he presented it to the House
this afternoon.
I feel I would be remiss in my duties to
the people in my riding if I did not thank
him for making this decision. I know a lot
of work was done on it, Mr. Speaker, and I
know that it required a lot of heart-searching,
I would say, to make this decision. I find
they have done right by us and we appreciate
it.
I was wondering, by way of a question, if
the hon. Minister has felt there is a possibility
—and I know that he cannot answer this
immediately— of building a dam down in the
narrow part of the Niagara River? There is a
drop-down of about 18 or 20 feet of water
below the Falls. Quite a reservoir of water
could be built behind that and could possibly
supply the power being sought immediately
from the Falls, without destroying the natural
beauty in any way.
This is a point worth considering. I do not
do this very often, as hon. members know, I
am not that type; but in this instance I think
the government is worthy of recognition for
the decision it has made.
Mr. Speaker: Since the Speaker was asked
a question last week, I would like to say at
this time that the bust of the late Agnes
Macphail has been located and when a
pedestal is obtained, it will be placed in a
suitable position in the Parliament buildings.
Orders of the day.
House in committee of supply; Mr. K.
Brown in the chair.
ESTIMATES,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES
On vote 1201:
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that it
has been my privilege to present to this
House the estimates of The Department of
Mines. This has become my duty as the
result of the death, last autumn, of my
friend and colleague, James Maloney, who
for three years had occupied the post of
Minister of Mines with dignity and distinc-
tion. Mr. Maloney's passing is a personal
sorrow to me and, I know, a great loss to
the Ontario Legislature.
Since my appointment, Mr. Chairman, to
The Department of Mines, I have had very
good reason to be thankful that I inherited a
staff so well-trained in their duties, and so
helpful in passing on their knowledge, that
my initiation to my duties has been made
much easier than it otherwise might have
been.
During 1960 the production of minerals in
Ontario reached an all-time high. The total
value was only slightly under $1 billion.
Although there was a drop of about $35 mil-
lion in the total for 1961, it was still the
second best year in history, and the reduction
is more than accounted for by the loss in
uranium markets. The Review of Activities
in 1961, which I tabled here last week, con-
tains a great deal of information which I
commend to the attention of hon. members.
I must confess to a feeling of concern,
common to all residents of northern Ontario,
a concern that there seems so little apprecia-
tion, due to the lack of information, in this
southern part of the province, of the vast
importance to the whole economy of that
relatively sparsely-populated 90 per cent of
the land area of Ontario that lies north of
North Bay.
Some 18 per cent of Ontario's total pro-
duction comes from the primary industries
—agriculture, mining, forestry, fisheries and
trapping. Now in 1959— the latest year for
which I have the figures— agriculture was
credited with 6.5 per cent of the total pro-
vincial product, closely followed by mining
with 6.4 per cent, forestry, 1,2, and fishing
and trapping 0.2 per cent.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that these compari-
sons are very revealing. Agriculture and
mining are far ahead of the others, with
only one-tenth of one per cent dividing them.
Even that small gap is seen to be closing if
we go back one year, to 1958, when the two
MARCH 12, 1962
1009
industries represented, respectively, 7.7 and
5.5 per cent of the total.
With the growing urbanization which
Canada and Ontario are experiencing, every
year more of southern Ontario's lush agri-
cultural land is being lost to industrial use and
what we could term suburban sprawl. That
is a matter of simple observation that would
come as a shock to any former resident of
these parts who returned after an absence
of a few years. A drive through the Niagara
peninsula, for instance, or north, east or
west of Toronto would offer all the evidence
needed that our farm lands are shrinking at
an alarming rate.
I feel that I must carry these comparisons
still further in support of my assessment of
mining as the most vitally important of all
our primary industries, an industry that de-
serves, and must have, the support, under-
standing and co-operation of this Legislature
if it is to continue to thrive and have the
enormously important part in our economy
that it is equipped and ready to have.
So, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence,
I would like to draw the attention of the
hon. members to some statistics concerning
our exports. Ours is a trading nation— the
fifth biggest trader in the world— and it is
scarcely an exaggeration to say that our
national life or death depends upon the
success with which we maintain our present
markets and develop new ones.
In 1960, Canada's exports of minerals
totalled $2,167 million. Exports of wood
products and paper were valued at $1,592
million, and agricultural exports totalled
$831.5 million. Thus, Mr. Chairman, it will
be seen that, on the national scale, our
mineral exports are far ahead of the other
primary products. Unfortunately, I do not
have this breakdown of exports by provinces,
but since Ontario's mineral production is
more than 37 per cent of the total for all
of Canada, it is certainly safe to say that
mineral products would not suffer in any
comparison of the relative importance of
exports on the provincial scale.
Mr. Chairman, if we go back to 1958—
the latest year for which comparative figures
are available— we learn that Ontario's primary
forest production— carrying it to the point at
which the timber is sold in the form of
logs-in that year was $110,138,000. In the
same year our mineral production was $801,-
280,000.
Mr. Chairman, I hope I need not tell this
House that I make these comparisons not
with any idea of down-grading our other
resources industries, which, of course, are so
important to our economy and essential to
our way of life, but only to put things in their
proper perspective, and to emphasize the
fact that mining is far and away the most
important primary industry in this country
today— in point of dollars.
I would like to see us put first things
first and frankly, I do not think that in this
province that has always been done and is
not, in all respects, being done yet.
In support of this contention, I will refer
to the report tabled here a few days ago by
the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr.
Spooner), and compiled by the Public Lands
Investigation Committee, established in 1959.
This committee, under the chairmanship of
Mr. J. F. McFarland, Ontario's mining com-
missioner, was made up of Mr. H. C. Rickaby,
then Deputy Minister of Mines, and Dr.
M. E. Hurst, the director of the geological
branch, as representatives of this department,
with Major-General Howard Kennedy, a
consultant to The Department of Lands and
Forests, as vice-chairman. The other lands
and forests representatives on the committee
were Mr. F. W. Beatty, the Surveyor-General
of Ontario, and Mr. J. S. Yoerger, an assist-
ant Deputy Minister. Members appointed to
the committee from outside the government
were Mr. John Beattie, the Executive Director
of the Ontario Mining Association and Mr.
J. J. Rankin representing the Prospectors and
Developers Association— and to these two
great associations I pay tribute because they
are of such great assistance to this depart-
ment.
It is readily apparent, Mr. Chairman, that
this was a committee of real experts in their
various fields. They arrived at the recom-
mendations incorporated in their report only
after exhaustive investigations, hearings held
at several points throughout the province, and
the study of a great mass of briefs and docu-
ments submitted by interested individuals
and organizations.
Let us look briefly at the committee's
findings, Mr. Chairman. The report points
out that, of the 412,582 square miles of
land and water that make up the area of
Ontario, only 2,360 square miles of mining
land are shown on the tax roll as having
been alienated from the Crown, or about one-
half of one per cent of the area of Ontario.
More than double this area, 5,238 square
miles, has been set aside as park land.
An interesting projection of present trends
shows that if the present rate of alienation
for mining purposes and the cancellation of
mining claims continue at the present rate.
1010
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it will be 102 years before the area of
alienated mining claims equals the present
total area of provincial parks.
That is all very well. Certainly this prov-
ince needs and benefits from our great wilder-
ness areas and unspoiled recreational lands,
but, at the same time, let us take a look at
the comparative values and the revenues this
province realizes.
Figures compiled by the Dominion Bureau
of Statistics and The Ontario Department of
Mines* statistician, as they appear in the
Canada Year Book for 1957-1958, and the
Economic Survey of Ontario, in 1956, show
that the gross revenue per acre from mining
land was $357.49, for a net revenue of
$165.43. That compares with $53.08 and
$30.53 for agriculture, and $2.91 and $1.83
for forestry in the same period.
Surely it is self-evident, on the strength
of these figures, that the mineral industry is
deserving of all the support that the govern-
ment can give it— support not for the mining
interests so much as for our whole economy,
which depends on it for so much of its
strength.
Again, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize
that I have no quarrel with those who would
like to take full advantage of our natural
resources other than the minerals in the
ground. I realize perfectly well how essential
are our forest industries, and how large a
part pulp and paper exports play in our
financial well-being, as is evidenced in my
own area. I realize that our great natural
parks provide many tourist dollars, and pay
real dividends in the health and well-being
of our own people who find rest and relaxa-
tion in them.
But, Mr. Chairman, what I do contend—
and it is a contention with which the land
use committee agrees— is that there can be
multiple use of a great deal of this land.
I quote from the report:
Mining operations seldom use all of the
surface of the mining lands owned and
leased. If all phases of the economy are
to be developed, and inasmuch as the only
sound economy is a diversified one, then
provision should be made for multiple land
use. In other words, no single natural
resource should be permitted to exclude or
prohibit the development of another. Min-
ing differs from all other industries inas-
much as the miner must look for wealth
which is often buried beneath the surface
of the land; furthermore, mining can only
be carried out where ore bodies occur.
That is the end of the quotation.
Taking that at its face value, the commit-
tee felt that any mining enterprise should
hold surface rights only to the extent that
these are necessary for successful conduct of
the operation; but, on the other hand, it
surely means, too, that where valuable min-
eral is known to exist, tliere should not be
an automatic exclusion from whole areas as,
under present conditions, there is in some of
our provincial parks. Provided that all
proper safeguards are exercised to protect the
surrounding territory, I can see no reason
that mining and forestry, or mining and
recreation, cannot exist side by side.
Again I quote from the report:
The committee believes that the multiple
use principle and the wise and proper use
of the natural resources go hand in hand,
and recommends that the concept of mul-
tiple land use be applied in provincial
parks.
Mr. Chairman, I referred in my opening
remarks to the annual production value of
nearly $1 billion recorded by Ontario's min-
ing industry. I should now like to add that
in 1961 it required 86 separate mining opera-
tions—some among the world's biggest, others
not so large— 122 quarries and 731 clay, sand
and gravel pits to make up this tremendous
total.
Altogether, and this is very important, Mr.
Chairman, to my way of thinking, the indus-
try gave direct employment to more than
52,000 people. These 52,000 people with
their families and dependants would, if
brought together, settle a city bigger than
Hamilton, and so certainly their status should
be considered important in anything that
affects our national or provincial well-being.
A great many people, residents of this
province, if asked about the products of our
mineral industry would very quickly show
that they have little or no conception of its
diversity. They might name gold, silver,
nickel, copper, iron and ^u•anium as the min-
eral products and bog down there. Actually,
there are very close to half-a-hundred prod-
ucts of our mines, oil and gas wells, quarries
and pits, all adding their share to the grand
total.
I was up in Goderich the other day, Mr.
Chairman, and went through the Sifto salt
plant. What a tremendous operation that
is. I had never even known that salt was
taken out in quantities such as 450 tons a
day, employing some 200 men. The salt was
coming out from underground, on belts trav-
elling very quickly, and most of it was going
over to the United States to be placed on the
roads. I always thought of salt as on the
MARCH 12, 1962
1011
breakfast table. But there certainly is a
great diversification in this mineral industry.
Perhaps it would be wise for me, in refer-
ring to the great value of our mineral produc-
tion, to point out that this is not by any
means all profit. It is a fact that in some
years there is no great gap between operating
costs and production total.
In 1961, when it happened that the spread
was greater than for most years, with pro-
duction slightly under $1 billion, the indus-
try returned to the economy some $730
million in the form of capital plant expendi-
ture, payroll, electricity and fuel, equipment
and supplies, Workmen's Compensation pay-
ments, federal, provincial and municipal
taxes, and all other operating costs. From
the remaining 25 per cent must be found
the funds for research, plant expansion and
dividend payments.
Insofar as this government is concerned,
I would point out that The Department of
Mines— unlike several other departments that
render equally essential services to the
people of the province— is a revenue-produc-
ing branch of the government. That is to
say, each year the revenue accruing to the
Treasury from the various operations super-
vised by The Department of Mines exceeds
the operating expenses of the department
by a very wide margin. In the last fiscal
year, for example, the total paid into the
consolidated fund through royalty or pro-
duction taxes, the issuance of miners'
licences, leases, and from other sources
amounted to $18.32 million, while the total
of ordinary expenses for operating the de-
partment was only $1.58 million. That is a
ratio of about twelve to one— certainly, I
think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, a good
return on the investment.
With that in mind, and in consideration
of the very great importance of the mining
industry which my department serves, and
for which I have the honour to speak in this
House, I have no hesitation, whatever, in
asking the hon. members to approve the
expenditure necessary to enable us to carry
on our programme for the forthcoming year.
We are going to need somewhat more
than is usually necessary for the next fiscal
year, and, as the hon. members will see, the
total of ordinary and capital expenditures,
including $13,000 statutory expenses, amounts
to $3,105,000. I have no hesitation in asking
for this increased sum and, indeed, I am
proud that we will be in a position to render
the additional services that will make it
necessary. I intend to explain this more
fully as I deal with the individual votes.
The main office of the department is the
centre of the administrative services. It
handles all operations that are not other-
wise allocated to specific branches, includ-
ing accounts and mine assessment, publicity
and certain special committees. The total
estimate for main office expenditures, as
shown in vote 1201, is $371,000, plus $12,-
000 statutory. This, it will be noted, is
$173,000 less than the main office allocation
for the present year. This is accounted for
by the transfer of the publications offices,
including the cartography section, to the
geological branch.
Included in the main office vote are the
costs of operating the office of the mining
commissioner. The commissioner, Mr. Chair-
man, fulfils a unique position in the govern-
ment. He adjudicates disputes between min-
ing interests with a minimum of formality
and expense. During this calendar year the
commissioner has held hearings in Toronto,
and at several other points throughout the
province, and has issued some 1,300 orders
and judgments.
The geological staflF of the department is
made up of highly trained speciahsts in the
geological sciences, men dedicated to this
great work of mining, who are concerned
mainly with mapping the geology of the
province, and in providing prospectors and
the mining industry generally with maps
and reports as an aid in the search for, and
development of, its mineral resources. In
addition to the Toronto-based staff, resident
geologists are maintained in the principal
mining areas of the province. Their chief
function is to acquire and make available
the same sort of information on a more
localized scale.
While a great deal of valuable work has
been done in past years by the department's
geologists, Ontario's land area which is
amenable to mineralization, is so vast that
most of it has never yet been mapped
geologically, and to do so at the present
rate would require more than 130 years.
With that in mind, two geologists were
added to the staff last year, and we plan to
acquire the services of five more in the coming
fiscal year. I might add that these gentlemen
are very hard to get because they are highly
skilled men with specialized knowledge.
In addition to this, an agreement entered
into with the federal government is doing a
great deal to speed dissemination of knowl-
edge about our mineral potential. In accord-
ance with this agreement, a whole programme
of airborne geophysical surveys is to be
carried out until, in the course of the next
1012
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
few years, the entire province will be flown.
Ground reconnaissance surveys will sub-
sequently be made of the more interesting
areas picked out in the survey.
So far, the first two phases of the over-all
flying programme have been completed. In
1959 the first phase, covering a monumental
60,000 square miles in the extreme north-
western part of the province, was flown.
This was the biggest such project ever con-
ducted anywhere in the world. Last year,
another 35,000 square miles were flown to
cover the area stretching eastward from the
Manitoba boundary to a point some miles
west of the lakehead, and north from the
United States boundary to the parallel of
latitude 53° 30'. The resulting maps have
already been issued.
During the coming fiscal year we intend
to complete the third phase of the pro-
gramme to cover another 35,000 square miles,
mainly north from Lake Superior. If hon.
members will consult a map— and these maps
are available for anybody— they will see that
this comprises a very great part of the entire
province.
It is obvious that until the information
which is obtained, either by these surveys
or by the more conventional ground methods,
is made available to the public, it is of little
practical value. Therefore, a concentrated
effort is being made to have the maps and
reports containing the information compiled
and printed with the minimum loss of time.
This, in turn, calls for additional personnel
for our cartography section which is made
up of highly skilled specialists in the art of
map drawing.
It is in order to ensure the maximum co-
ordination of effort among geologists, editorial
staff and cartographers, that all publications
personnel have been transferred from the
main office establishment to the geological
branch.
Our estimate of total expenditures for the
geological branch in the coming year is
$843,000, as set forth in vote 1202.
We now come to vote 1203 which calls
for a total expenditure of $268,000 for the
maintenance and operation of the mines
inspection branch. This branch, whose
engineers are graduates in specialized fields,
with a successful record of service in private
ir>rlustry prior to their entry into the service
oi: The Department of Mines, is responsible
for safety regulations and other factors con-
nected with the operation of mines.
Here I would like to state that the safety
record that was established in Ontario's
mining operations last year was one in which
we can take pride. There were, throughout
the year, 2,852 accidents reported, including
25 fatalities. This represents a fatality rate
of 0.23 per million man-hours worked, a
decrease of 40 per cent from the previous
year. The rate of non-fatal accidents was 26
per million man-hours, a decrease of 13 per
cent from the 1960 total. Now, Mr. Chair-
man, we all know and feel that while any
industrial accident is to be deplored, and the
department and the industry cannot rest upon
their laurels, the improvement is certainly
cause for gratification.
I might just mention the uncertainty in
this, Mr. Chairman. I was up in the Hollinger
Mine three weeks ago, down in the 4,500-
foot level, and this morning or last night a
miner was killed in the very spot that we
were in, from some loose rock falling. Those
are things which one cannot foresee; it is the
uncertainty of the industry; but it is to be
deplored and we assure you, sir, we are doing
everything we can to prevent those deplorable
conditions happening.
In addition to the staff in Toronto, engineers
are located at seven other points throughout
the province in centres convenient to the
mining areas.
Included in the inspection branch estimates
is $1,000, set by statute for the purpose of
maintaining an account to defray the cost
of mine rescue stations. Eventually, of course,
all monies expended for this purpose are re-
funded by the mining industry.
The cable testing laboratory, operated by
the inspection branch, provides an important
and highly specialized service to the mining
industry. The Mining Act requires that
lengths of all cables used in mine hoisting be
subjected, semi-annually, to tests in this
laboratory, to ensure that their strength is
such as to provide a sufficient margin of
safety for the loads they are called upon to
bear. The estimated cost of operating the
cable testing laboratory for the coming year
is shown under vote 1204 as $55,000.
As a fee is charged for each test, this cost
is normally recovered directly from the indus-
try. The Department of Mines is collabora-
ting with the Ontario Mining Association in
a long-term research project having to do
with the non-destructive testing of wire ropes.
Again, I wish to compliment them, and thank
the Ontario Mining Association for the great
help they have given us during the past year
and their assurance of continuance of that
help during this year.
The department's half of the cost is de-
frayed under the same vote for the cable test-
ing laboratory.
MARCH 12, 1962
1013
Also covered under vote 1204 is the opera-
tion of the provincial assay office. The total
cost of this important phase of our operations
will be $88,000 during the forthcoming fiscal
year. The assay office provides a vital service
to prospectors and exploration and mining
companies in giving a scrupulously accurate
assay of the mineral content of rock and
mineral specimens submitted for analysis.
Although fees may be charged for this work,
according to a fixed schedule of charges, by
far the major part of it is done free of charge
on the basis of coupons issued upon the re-
cording of claims and the performance of
assessment work. The details of this coupon
system are set out in The Ontario Mining Act.
The third part of the department's opera-
tions covered under vote 1204, for the labora-
tories branch, is the operation of the Timis-
kaming Testing Laboratories at Cobalt.
During the last four decades the TTL has pro-
vided an important service to the cobalt and
silver mines of that historic old mining camp.
In the laboratories, the ores are sampled and
their mineral values are detennined. After
sampling and assaying, the ore or concentrate
is shipped by the laboratories to smelters on
behalf of the producer. We estimate that
operating costs during the coming year will
total $85,000, the same amount as was bud-
geted for the present year. The greater part
of this sum will be returned to the Treasury
in the form of fees for services paid by the
mining companies.
The Damage by Fumes Arbitration Act
provides that an arbitrator be empowered to
investigate all claims of damage due to fumes
emanated by smelters and similar operations in
the province. The arbitrator inspects and
appraises the damage and, if possible,
arranges to settle the matter without a formal
hearing. Nearly all claims are settled in this
manner, but he does have the power to
arbitrate and assess damages. In the event
that his finding is disputed by either party,
the matter can be appealed to the Ontario
Municipal Board.
This year the people of Ontario and The
Department of Mines lost the services of a
very great gentleman, its arbitrator, Mr. R. H.
Murray, who retired in June after 37 years
of faithful public service. Mr. Bruce R.
Dreisinger has succeeded Mr. Murray as
sulphur fumes arbitrator. Like Mr. Murray,
he will maintain his headquarters in that
great city of Sudbury.
The cost of operating this office, covered
under vote 1205, is $30,000, just as in the
present year.
The final item of ordinary expenditure is
$353,000 for the mining lands branch, covered
in vote 1206. This branch, numerically the
largest in the department, administers The
Mining Act in.sofar as it pertains to the dis-
position of Crown lands for mining purposes.
The province is divided into 14 mining
divisions for the purpose of handling the work
related to the staking and recording of mining
claims. Twelve mining recorders and their
staffs are enabled to handle this work be-
cause the work of two divisions is handled
from each of two of the division offices.
Mining claims inspectors are located at six
points throughout the province. Their prin-
cipal function is to assist the recorders and
carry out inspections of mining claims as
required. The mining lands branch is respon-
sible for the collection of a large part of the
revenue paid into the consolidated revenue
fund by the department.
Mr. Chairman, I have covered all the
ordinary expenditures which are foreseen by
my department for the next fiscal year. There
remains one item of capital expenditure to
be dealt with.
Since the institution in 1951 of the mining
and access roads programme, well over 500
miles of new roads, in 61 separate projects,
have been built to open up large and poten-
tially rich areas of our northland. No one
who is conversant with the vast potential of
this part of the province, and the crying need
for easier and better communications, can
question the great worth of the programme.
In the decade that the programme has been
in operation, the returns have been out of all
proportion to the cost, not only in the form
of enhanced mining activity, but also in the
development of our forest resources, tourist
and recreation facilities, and improved living
conditions for the people residing in isolated
areas.
The advantages have been still more
widely spread since the institution in 1959 of
the federal-provincial roads to resources pro-
gramme through which the Canadian and
Ontario governments share the cost of agreed
projects designed to provide access to and
development of whole regions in hitherto
inaccessible parts of the province.
So far under this programme, five major
projects have been undertaken. Two have
been completed and the other three are well
advanced toward completion. Altogether
more than 300 miles is involved in the pro-
jects so far approved.
To carry on this important work in the
coming year, Mr. Chairman, I am asking tliis
House for a total of $1 million. Three-
quarters of this-$750,000-will be matched
1014
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
by the Canadian government as its share of
the roads to resources programme. The other
$250,000 is earmarked for construction under
our own government's mining and access
roads programme.
And now, Mr. Chairman, I will be very
glad to get my staff if the House wishes to
carry on with the estimates as laid out.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chair-
man, it being Monday and, in a sense, turning
over a new leaf and starting a fresh week,
there is no better way— if one wants to start
o£F in a spirit of humanitarianism— than to
follow the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Ward-
rope) because, affable, pleasant and courteous
fellow that he is, it is very difficult not only
to get angry at him, but to become critical
of him. And I observe, sir— if my opinion is
shared by most of the hon. members of the
House, as I am sure it is— I observe that we
are not the only ones to think that about
him. I was just recently noting in an
editorial in the Northern Miner, which of
course, is the voice of the mining Industry,
that as recently as January of this year they
had this to say about the hon. Minister of
Mines:
In his first appearance before a mining
audience in his new capacity as Ontario's
Minister of Mines, the hon. George C.
Wardrope demonstrated that either he is
a keen student of Dale Carnegie or else
he has an innate ability to win friends
and influence people. We incline toward
the latter since his obvious sincerity is one
of his most endearing qualities.
Now I do not know whether the hon.
Minister of Mines has any relatives in high
places in the Northern Miner, and I do not
know whether he would consider it defam-
atory to be called a student of Dale Carnegie,
but I submit that it sums up adequately the
feelings of most of us— in fact, all of us—
have about him.
Having said that, I would beg leave to
say by way of generality that the chief
complaints the Opposition could make about
The Department of Mines is the fact that
the department is so insignificant in the
hierarchy of government. Without going
through all the estimates, I venture to say
that there is no department that has less
money voted to it than the little over $3 mil-
lion that this House is asked to vote for a
department which produces a billion dollars
of revenue, of real income, for the province,
and in the words of the hon. Minister him-
self, "provides employment to 52,000 people
directly engaged," and therefore sustenance
and maintenance for all of those dependent
upon those 52,000.
The hon. Minister sums it up— as his pre-
decessor did in the debate last year— by say-
ing that this figure would people a city about
the size of Hamilton. Although I note— and
I would never go so far as to say that the
hon. Minister was not the architect of the
words he used— but I noted that his pre-
decessor in the office last year at page 575
of Hansard, said that the number of people
directly involved in mining was 60,000. That
figure has fallen 8,000, I take it, in the inter-
vening year. However, we will not stop to
argue about that.
I do say, sir, and I beg leave to repeat to
you, that in the organization of government
and in the creation of the hierarchy, I dare-
say The Department of Mines is viewed as
something in the way of a poor relative. For
proof of that fact one need go no farther
than to make a comparison of the amount of
money sought last year by tliis department
and the amount of money that is sought this
year. One will see that, in contradistinction
and in direct opposition to all other depart-
ments of the government, where in each
single case, I believe— subject to correction
by someone who has made a closer study
of it than I— in each case in the other de-
partments they are asking for more money,
and the amount of money either varies from
a relatively small amount or, to listen to the
hints of the hon. Minister of Education (Mr.
Robarts), in the field of education the
amount they are going to ask for is going to
be quite a dramatic increase over last year,
and so in The Department of Municipal
Affairs, notwithstanding the general trend in
government, and the growth of the empires
and the hierarchies, in the other departments,
this department is seeking from the House
$331,000 less than it asked for last year.
Apparently, that fits in with the general
view of the role of the departments of those
hon. members of the front bench who are of
the Treasury board and, I daresay, the view
of the rest of the hon. members in the first
two rows, who comprise the executive
council. Now, it might be appropriate, at
this time, to pin down that decrease, and the
decreases generally, to be sought or to be
allowed to occur in the access and mining
roads branch. There is somewhat less of a
decrease in the appropriation of monies to the
main office of the department.
The hon. Minister said that 90 per cent of
the land area of this province is north of
North Bay. I had always thought that it was
80 per cent, or four-fifths of the land area of
MARCH 12, 1962
1015
Ontario was north and west of the French
river— but we will not quarrel about that.
He could be right, and if it is 90 per cent,
then indeed the importance of that area is
even more significant than I had previously
thought. He numbered the access roads that
had been built during the 10-year period
since the programme was initiated. I think
he said something in the neighbourhood of
500.
Well, in that vast area, sir, comprising the
overwhelming percentage of the land area of
the province, 500 roads would not make
much of an impression. Just conjuring up
in my mind's eye the situation in the im-
mediate neighbourhood to the great industrial
centre from which I come, I cannot think of
any significant building during the past 10
years of mining, or for that matter any other
type of access roads.
I have given myself occasion, sir, to com-
plain in the House before, and in the pres-
ence of the hon. Minister of Lands and For-
ests (Mr. Spooner) who unfortunately— oh
yes, he is here, he has surrendered his seat,
and I am delighted he is here. His depart-
ment in league, I think, with The Depart-
ment of Mines, saw fit to build the road
from Chapleau to Foleyet to connect up with
the road from Timmins to Foleyet which,
by sheer coincidence— now mark you, Mr.
Chairman, by sheer coincidence, Timmins
being the home base of the hon. Minister
of Lands and Forests— that road was given
a high degree of priority, and linked up
Foleyet, as I say, and Chapleau.
We in the largest centre in northern On-
tario, the greatest numbers of population
concentrated in a relatively small area of
the north, we who in moments of exuber-
ance and high spiritedness, beg leave to
refer to ourselves as the capital of the nortli
—and we do not get a great deal of criti-
cism or opposition for so referring to Sudbury
—we have felt for a long time that one of the
greatest priorities was the building of the
road from Sudbury to Timmins.
However, at least, the hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests has himself never felt in
such a companionate frame of mind that I
have ever heard him in this House, or for
that matter anywhere else, endorse the
early building of that road. I believe the
first stimulus and request for the building
of that road came in the year 1924, the
year, incidentally, in which I first saw the
light of day. Various groups of people,
various organizations, ever since 1924, have
made their pleas to the various governments
of this province for the opening up of a
highway artery from the one great urban
centre to the other great urban centre.
Now, I can safely say the hon. member
for Victoria (Mr. Frost), who was here
a little earher, but has now left the House
—I can safely say from memory and without
the very fastidious way in which the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald)
does by referring to newspaper clippings
and other documentary evidence — I can
remember with little effort, that the hon.
member for Victoria, when he had imposed
upon him the burden of leading this prov-
ince, that at least on four occasions, perhaps
more, while in Sudbury, he told the good
people of Sudbury, he told the representa-
tives of the press, he has told anyone else
within earshot, that the building of that
road from Sudbury to Timmins would com-
mence very shortly.
I think that one time he even went so far
as to stimulate the then Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Cass) to put little amounts
on the estimates for the conducting of a
survey as to the route that would be taken.
I know this, that every time the request
has reached the point of being a bit inflam-
matory, from the point of crisis, the pre-
decessor of the present hon. Prime Minister
would always announce, right at the most
effective and strategic moment, that "we have
decided to build the road, and a start to the
road will be made shortly." That always got
the headlines in the Sudbury Star.
It could be the forgetfulness that always
attended that announcement had something
to do with the loss of confidence that the
people of Sudbury have not only demon-
strated in the Conservative Party in this
House, but have unswervingly demonstrated
toward their fellow party members who now
have control of the affairs of the nation
as a whole at Ottawa.
However, as long as I am a member of
this House, I shall, whenever opportunity
is given to me, address the government and
beg in reasonable and moderate fashion for
the early start of construction of that road.
I say this to sum it up. Sudbury has far
more contacts with southern Ontario than
it does with the great hinterland possessed
of vast and unknown treasures; it has virtu-
ally no contact by way of highway artery
with that vast area at all. Balanced entirely
on an east-west access, we have Highway
17, which comes through from southeastern
Ontario, proceeds west to Sault Ste. Marie,
and beyond; we have the Trans-Canada
Highway; we have highway connection with
Parry Sound in the south. But to the north.
1016
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and to the great hinterland, there are no
highway arteries at all.
It always seems to me, and to every-
body else in the Sudbury basin who thinks
about it, that there is an impelling sense of
urgency to do something about opening up
that area to the north, linking the two major
urban centres and inviting the expansion
and investment of capital in that area in
order to unlock the riches that abound
therein.
Now, generally speaking, I plead on be-
half of the building of one road. With
respect to the building of access roads in
northern Ontario, I say the sum of $1 mil-
lion is a mere pittance and will go virtually
nowhere in the exploration of the great area,
or in the stimulating of people to go in
there and invest their money. Many of my
lion, colleagues, no doubt, will want to
address some remarks, and probably of a
more specific nature than that.
Mr. Chairman, consideration of access
roads leads one to an examination of the
whole problem of transportation so far as
it relates to the mining industry in northern
Ontario. We in the Liberal party— and in
particular the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer) in this House— have ad-
dressed remarks to the effect that, short of
persuading the present government to do it,
when given the responsibility of office it will
be part of our policy to subsidize transporta-
tion, if necessary, in any form, for the open-
ing up of the great area of north and
northwestern Ontario.
I mean no offence to the hon. Minister,
and I am sure he will take none, when
I recall that one night in the House when
the hon. predecessor of the present hon.
Prime Minister was absent for a space of
time and this very matter was being de-
bated—it was at the time or near the time
I recall that the then hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost) was presenting his brief to the Royal
commission on transportation— the hon. leader
of the Opposition advocated that in order to
stimuate economic development and persuade
industry, both primary natural resource indus-
try and secondary industry to locate in north-
ern and northwestern Ontario, he advocated
that subsidies, if necessary, be given to the
carriers.
Many hon. members will recall that the
hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) who
at that time, of course, was Minister of
Reform Institutions, got up and, in his very
charming, ingratiating manner, argued with
some vehemence— I recall well, he spoke like
a man possessed of an ideal— and he advo-
cated in stentorian tones that such a policy
and such a programme was the very thing
that northern and northwestern Ontario
needed— subsidies to transportation.
Of course, he was right, and I recall that
the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Frost)
returned to the House just to hear the tail
end of this and I do not think he actually
heard any of the eloquence of the hon. Min-
ister of Mines. I do not know whether any-
one told him what he had said or not. I hope
not, because he was a man known to be
quite fierce on occasion about such things.
But I remember the then hon. Prime
Minister getting up and saying— in fact I
do not think I exaggerate in saying, perhaps
some of my hon. friends will corroborate me,
that he pounded the table, he pounded his
desk: "As long as I am responsible for
the leadership of the government, there
will be no form of subsidy for any form of
transportation in this province."
Hansard will record his words. He said:
"As long as I am responsible there will be
no subsidy to any form of transportation."
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) has
taken over now.
Mr. Sopha: As the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) says, he is gone
now. He is gone but he is not forgotten.
And there is a new regime, a new direction,
a new group in control. The time might
be ripe for them to reconsider such a dog-
matic and entrenched position as the former
leader of the government took with respect
to subsidies because, certainly, as the hon.
Minister of Mines knows from his very area,
the people whom he knows well and person-
ally, who are leaders of industry in that area,
have very, very different ideas about the
effect upon the stimulation and expansion of
the mining industry of the high cost of freight
rates in northwestern Ontario.
I see as recently as January 18, 1962, in
a newspaper, known no doubt to the hon.
Minister of Mines, and called the Atikokan
Progress— it must be a Liberal paper to have
a name like that, it must support the Liberal
party— under the heading "Crippling to Iron
Ore Movement" and the sub-heading "Raps
Freight Rate Boost" there are these state-
ments made and I will read them very briefly.
A 20 per cent increase in iron ore freight
rates, imposed last year by the Canadian
National Railways, could be crippling to
the Steep Rock iron range, E. A. Hebditch,
president of the Atikokan Chamber of
Commerce, contended Thursday evening,
January 11.
MARCH 12, 1962
1017
Mr. Hebditch, in his inaugural address
at the monthly chamber meeting, noted
that Atikokan is solely dependent on the
iron ore industry in an economic sense "and
this problem cannot be taken lightly by the
chamber of commerce." He noted that
the freight increase had been a factor in
a decision by Caland Ore Company Lim-
ited to suspend underground operations.
Industry sources said that the 20 per
cent increase, instituted last May, had
resulted in a jump of 33 cents a ton in
the cost of handling ore by tlie railway.
The rate from Atikokan to the ore docks
at Port Arthur had been $1.45 a ton with
an additional 19 cents for dockage charges.
Mr. Hebditch said that Steep Rock Iron
Mines Limited and Caland Ore are able
now to ship from open pit mines, but
would be faced with a problem when these
reserves, capable of being mined much less
expensively than by underground methods,
are exhausted and the companies find it
necessary to get iheir production from
underground.
"We must be vocal and make our prob-
lem known," said Mr. Hebditch. "We can-
not allow unfair freight rates to cripple
our own economy."
That is the quote directly from him. Then,
on another score:
Mr. Hebditch said that a road pro-
gramme for the area must be pushed with
vigour. It was imperative that the Atiko-
kan-Fort Frances highway be finished as
soon as possible and "we need more co-
operation from the chambers around us."
Well, perhaps we will hear from the hon.
member for Rainy River (Mr. Noden), the
cliairman of the committee on mining, on
that score. But in better words than I can
use, borrowing the words of Mr, Hebditch,
the problem is articulated.
Another gentleman, well known to many
hon. members of the House, and known to
the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope),
and a gentleman much respected is Mr. Neil
Edmonslone, vice-president of Steep Rock
Iron Mines Limited. Quoting from the same
newspaper from an earlier edition there is
this report:
Northwestern Ontario needs freight rates
that will "make economic sense to tliis
area" and which "will permit us to thrive
and compete while permitting the railways
to do the same," said Neil Edmonstone,
vice-president of Steep Rock Iron Mines
Limited, on Wednesday, March 22.
-1961, I might add.
As the keynote speaker at a dinner
tendered by the Northwestern Ontario
Development Association and the North-
western Ontario Associated Chambers of
Commerce to Trade Minister Hees and a
delegation of other members of Parliament,
Mr. Edmonstone said that freight rates
constitute this area's biggest problem. He
added that power and roads follow close
behind.
Well, the thought springs to mind that we
on this side of the House have been known
to be somewhat vocal in our criticism of the
Ontario Northland Railway and for that I
do not apologize. I feel that our criticisms
have been justified and have been based upon
our knowledge of the premises on which that
railway serving the northeastern part of the
province was founded and built. That rail-
way of course was being pushed through in
1903 when the community which provided
me my birthplace was found quite by acci-
dent, by one of the men who was working on
the railway.
The idea of that railway, in its founding,
was to provide a developmental and explor-
atory road, to the northeastern part of the
province. Generally speaking, over the years
since its founding, we at least on this side
of the House feel that the attitude has been
one of how much profit we can make from
it. Those responsible for its administration
and running it have quite lost sight of the
original intention of its founders and have
looked at the balance sheet as being the
important assessment of what the railroad
does for that part of the province, which it
is supposed to serve.
Not only have its freight rate structures
imposed a burden upon those in agriculture
—because all of the supplies used in agricul-
ture, such as imported nitrate fertilizer and
the seed grains and imported cattle, shipping
their products, all imposed a differential price,
both in purchase and sale, over that which
their competitors in the southern part of the
province are forced to pay— but so it is also
in the mining industry with regard to the
shipment of ore concentrates, imported
machinery and every other item that is
necessary to have transported by a carrier.
I would not want to pass over examination
or reference to the Ontario Northland Railway
without making some mention of the
announcements that have been forthcoming
from the government about the development
of iron ore properties in the Kirkland Lake
area and expansion of railroad facilities by
the Ontario Northland Railway. We, of
course, to the extent that these announce-
ments are realized in concrete form in the
1018
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
future, on this side of the House applaud and
welcome those developments. I must ask this
new administration to have a close look at
that railroad in order to determine whether
it is carrying out its functions from the point
of view of being developmental rather than
from the point of view of being purely a
business venture.
The hon. Minister was speaking about the
access roads. I want to say this: He talked
about the vast potential of our part of the
province. Of course, I might say this without
seeming to be either a sneering sceptic or a
cynic, that we in northern Ontario have heard
that speech many times. We have heard
visiting politicians— and they are usually
politicians who do not reside in northern
Ontario— who come into the north and usually
make a speech about the vast potential of the
great area. To this date that is just about
what it is— the vast potential.
I remember the last time I heard the un-
equalled oratory and eloquence of the hon.
member for Victoria (Mr. Frost) when he
visited us in June of last year upon the
occasion of a testimonial dinner for the
hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Belisle),
a man who has served the area well and
ably for a number of years. He, the former
hon. Prime Minister, was the guest speaker
at that banquet. It is one of the few times,
I might add for the edification of my hon.
colleagues, that I, as one of the Opposition,
was recognized to the extent that they even
allowed me to approach the head table. They
did not just allow me to, they gave me a
seat at it. Of course, it cost me five dollars-
five dollars for my wife to go and partake in
the festivities and the merriment and the
enthusiasm attending the testimonium to the
hon. member for Nickel Belt, my colleague.
Maybe they will give me one.
In any event, the former hon. Prime
Minister made the usual speech about the
vast potential of the area. We are not so
much interested— it is like Sir John A.
Macdonald heard at one time about the
speeches about the British connection a
generation or two ago when the fashion was
to make speeches about our British heritage,
the common law and Rule, Britannia and that
sort of thing. Through the passage of time,
of course, opinions moderate to some extent
and Sir John A. Macdonald said some time
near the end of his life that it was about
time they threw all those speeches in the
waste basket and thought up a new theme.
So it is with the speeches about the "vast
potential."
I do not often take the time of the House,
Mr. Chairman, to refer to my own con-
stituency, but where I do articulate some
words about its nature I imagine that I could
be very glowing in the tribute that I would
pay to that great industrial centre. Sudbury
is not the hinterland, it is a very civilized
and advanced and developed community. It
is populated by a young and vigorous popu-
lation whose average age of population is six
years below the national average.
In other words, to live and work in Sudbury
you have to be a young man. It attracts
young men because only young men can per-
form the very exacting labours that are re-
quired in moiling in the ground for the base
metals that we produce. Certainly the com-
munity is a leader in at least two other
important aspects, one of which is that it
produces more metal for sale on the mai*kets
of this country and abroad than any other
community in the country.
A great proportion— one never is able to
find out, but I would venture to say that
something approaching a third— of the mineral
wealth of the province is produced in the
Sudbury basin. The companies that carry
on the business of mining there are of course
unequalled anywhere in the world for the
advanced state of their technology. Not only
their technology of mining— and they have
in many important respects shown great
innovation and great inventiveness in the
methods of mining— but also in the realm of
safety. To work in a mine in Sudbury it has
ofttimes been said that it is not so important
how much mineral, how much ore is pro-
duced during the day as it is that the worker
works safely in producing it.
I relate back, and I do not think I am
unfair in going back to my earlier statement,
that this department, in being voted a little
over $3 million insofar as exercising any
leadership in the technology of mining, the
answer is it does not.
I daresay that it would be rare for any
of the large mining companies of this province
to approach The Department of Mines of
the province to get advice or assistance on
mining technology. On the contrary, I
imagine the flow of information is the other
way; that if The Department of Mines wants
to know anything about mining it goes to the
leaders in the mining industry and asks them
how it is done, if they are willing to tell, and
whether they are or not I could not possibly
answer.
But my purpose is not to deprecate, my
purpose is to plead. I plead in respect of an
industry that produces $1 billion of income
for the people of this province. I say with
such an important industry— and that, after all.
MARCH 12, 1962
1019
is one-sixth of the total production of the
province, I think the gross national product
of Ontario is about $6 billion; if the mining
industry produces $1 billion of it then that is
one-sixth of the total produced in that area
itself— in such an important industry as that,
I say this department should exhibit leader-
ship in mining technology and research and
be a fountain of advice for those smaller mines
at least, which are not able to aflFord any re-
search, with respect to the adoption of appro-
priate techniques for the extraction of ore
from the ground. Looking over the estimates
one can see that other than geological surveys,
safety, assaying and some concern with
sulphur fumes, that is about the limits of
the scope of this department. I think it is
about time, Mr. Chairman, that the govern-
ment had another look at the department and
made up its mind whether it should not
occupy a more important slot in the heir-
archy than it now does.
I wanted to say a word, sir, about Elliot
Lake. I note in the state of the union message,
if I may so characterize it, more properly
called the economic statement of the hon.
Minister of Commerce and Development (Mr.
Macaulay), he had this to say:
The value of Ontario's mineral output
in 1961 was estimated at $948 million. A
decline from the previous year, when it
stood at $983 million. Substantial gains
were made by several minerals, particularly
iron ore, nickel and zinc. As was to be
expected, production of uranium, although
still ranking second, experienced a consider-
able decrease from $212 million to $157
million.
In other words, the decline in the output
of uranium was about $60 million.
Mr. Chairman, you will recall that much of
the time of the House a year ago was devoted
to a discussion of the special problems of El-
liot Lake. Many were the pleas that emanated
from this side of the House to the government
to take strong and forceful action to do some-
thing about the situation there, and the threat
to that very important and very highly de-
veloped community.
I would be among the first to admit that
much of the mining community of Elliot
Lake are quite beyond the purview of this
government. I do not want to take the time
of the House to review all the arguments that
were made, but it is fair to reassert that we
on this side of the House have felt that there
was a strange lack of unity between the
members of the executive council here and
their counterparts in Ottawa, in view of the
fact that there appeared to be no concerted
action with respect to the alleviation of the
problem at Elliot Lake.
In the interval, one recalls that it was
discovered that a contract for the sale of
some $225 million, I believe I am correct,
worth of uranium was discovered to exist
between the government of the United King-
dom and the government of Canada. I read
in the press, and I get a copy of the Elliot
Lake Standard, published weekly, sent to
me in complimentary fashion by the pub-
lishers of that newspaper every week, and I
take the opportunity to follow developments
there.
It is interesting to note that since the
decline of the community there has been a
shuffle, a change of personnel of the board
of trustees that runs that community and now
one of the members of the board is a lawyer
by the name of Jewell, who has not been in
the community too long. He established a
law practice there, I think, two or three
years ago. It did not take him long to
become president of the local Conservative
association, and it was not long after he
was president of the local Conservative
association that he was appointed to the
board of trustees and, apparently, if one
follows the goings-on in that community
from the newspaper, that if—
Mr. J. A. Fullerton (Algoma-Manitoulin):
May I ask the hon. member a question? Did
the hon. member charge them $100 this year
for making a political football out of this,
as he did last year?
Mr. Sopha: I did not charge them $100
for making a political football out of any-
thing. I would be glad to do that for nothing.
I should not dwell too long, but I say that
Elliot Lake, the situation on the council level,
is such that if one is not a Conservative,
then so far as the fellow Jewell is concerned
you cannot get anything. I note that they
even went into the high school board recently
and fired the Liberals that had been serving
on there for two or three years, and replaced
them with Conservatives.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is incumbent
upon the government to look into this matter
of the contract which is alleged to exist
between the government of Canada and the
government of the United Kingdom because,
so far as I am aware up to this time, none
of the benefits of that contract have been,
in any way, reflected in an increase of pro-
duction in Elliot Lake. In other words, the
increased production necessary to fulfill that
1020
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
$225 million contract in Elliot Lake has not
been allocated to any of the producing
mines there at all. The same grim prospect
remains as existed at this time last year, that
with the completion of the present contracts
the community is still in danger of becoming
what we know in the north as a ghost-town.
One other matter on which I would like
to plead, with the kind indulgence of the
House before I resume my seat, is in
reference to a smelter at Cobalt. Now when
I speak of Cobalt, I speak of an area of which
the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) and
I are well acquainted. That is the only
thing the hon. Attorney-General and I have
in conmion, I think, and that is that we
both have an association with Cobalt. I can
recall, but I would not want to put a date
on it, that so far as the smelting and refining
of ores from Cobalt was concerned, as far
back as I can remember, the ores were
always shipped to Deloro. I do not know
when that started, but I imagine that it was
perhaps in the first two decades of the
present century, Deloro being a community
not far from Marmora in the county of
Hastings. All of the finishing off of the con-
centrates, at least, was done at the smelter
at Deloro.
I think it was two years ago, it might have
been a little longer than that, that the re-
finery and smelter at Deloro closed down. It
was certainly very recent and I recall tbat
some time around the beginning of the
second world war— or it might have been
during that time, it might have been shortly
after, I was away from my home town during
those years, but I think it was during the
second world war— the first efforts were made
for the establishment of a smelter and refinery
at Gillies, a little community about eight
miles south of Cobalt. In the intervening
years I remember that various groups— I
would not want to run the risk of putting a
name on the first one that started that
smelter, I think I remember it but I will
not bother to state it— but I do know that
various groups in the intervening years have
come along and made ineffectual efforts to
resuscitate the smelter project at Gillies. They
have never been attended with any success
and, so far as I am aware, that plant still
lies idle, as it has always been.
In the result, tlie producers in the Cobalt
area have been forced to send their ores to
the United States. Now that is an interest-
ing matter in itself, because in connection
with sending ores for refining to the United
States many hon. members of the House
will not know the details of some of the
struggles we have had in this country to get
the refining of ores established in Canada.
In respect of nickel ores, I think it was from
1890 to 1918 or so that the struggle went
on between governments and producers until
finally the major nickel company established
its first refining plant at Port Colborne,
whereas previously ores had been taken out-
side of Canada and had been refined in Ohio,
I believe.
It is important for the economy of our
country, and for the provision of jobs, of
course, that as much of the mining process
and refining as possible be done in Canada.
So, to go back to where I began, since the
closing down of the Deloro smelter the
producers in Cobalt have been forced to ship
their ores abroad to the United States to
have them smelted and refined.
Now, I earlier intimated to the hon. mem-
bers, Mr. Chairman, that futile attempts had
been made, attempts that resulted in failure,
to establish this smelter near Cobalt, and
they had all failed. My plea to the hon.
Minister, and on which I make my conclusion,
is that in respect of this development and in
respect of this plant that now exists, that
every effort ought to be made by his depart-
ment and— in fact ought to be made by the
government, ought to be made by the hon.
Minister of Economics (Mr. Macaulay), who
has exhibited such a recent and keen interest
in the development of northern Ontario— to
see what can be done by way of subsidization
or encouragement of the people who own
this plant at Cobalt, in an effort to see
whether it cannot be opened or cannot be
used for the treatment, the final treatment,
of the ores that are produced in that area.
I hope the hon. Minister will lend a sym-
pathetic ear to both my words, and, for that
matter, the words of the editors of the
Northern Miner. I shall not bother to quote
their editorial in support of that position
or in making that suggestion to the govern-
ment today. I wish to thank you, Mr. Chair-
man, for the kindness which you and the
other hon, members of the House have
demonstrated to me in listening to my few
remarks.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to begin where the hon. member for
Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) began and concluded,
with regard to this editorial in the Northern
Miner which referred in such laudatory terms
to the hon. Minister as being either a keen
student of Dale Carnegie, or else he had an
innate ability to win friends and influence
people. We all know the hon. Minister well
MARCH 12, 1962
1021
and we know that the latter undoubtedly is
the case. He has this innate ability to win
friends and influence people.
However, Mr. Chairman, I was rather
interested that the hon. member for Sudbury
dropped the quotation from the editorial at
that point, because as hon. members know
there is an old adage in the English language
that: "Flattery will get you nowhere." There
is no doubt in the wide world as to what this
flattery had as its immediate objective— when
the writers of the Northern Miner were
"pouring it on." Because they immediately
proceeded to propose that the government
should provide a subsidy to the present
owner of a refinery in this Cobalt area. They
even went further and suggested that maybe
this was an occasion on which the govern-
ment should cast free enterprise aside; step
in and establish the refinery itself.
Now, the hon. member for Sudbury came
back to this point. I want to come back to
it immediately and see if we cannot tidy it
up.
During a certain by-election a year or so
ago up in the Timiskaming area, the predeces-
sor of the hon. Minister of Mines, who was
flanked by his deputy Minister and two or
three other officials, visited the area and
there were numerous well-staged announce-
ments with regard to efforts emanating from
the TTL to meet the need for a refinery in
the area. Now, as so often happens, there
is a great deal of a build-up in publicity
in the by-election and the issue dies after-
wards. I am a bit curious to find out from
the hon. Minister of Mines where that project
rests.
However, I want to add a word of caution
—if I can be of influence with the hon. Min-
ister—just a word of caution to not necessarily
heed the last bit of advice from the hon.
member for Sudbury. Because the situation
here— I am informed, and I am certain that
I am informed reliably— is that the man who
now owns the present refiner}' and who
has it over-capitalized to a point away beyond
its real value, might well be interested in the
proposition of the government stepping in
and taking it over for perhaps a million
dollars. Then he would make a few more
fast bucks— he has quite a reputation of
having made many of them throughout his
lifetime.
So on the other hand I agree with the
hon. member for Sudbury that here is a
place where the government should step in.
I think they should follow through on some
of the promises of that by-election and use
the TTL, with its very high reputation in
the community, as the operative centre for
establishing a refinery in the area.
But I would repeat my caution, that I do
not think the answer to the problem is to
buy out at the highly over-capitalized figure
the present establishment owned by one of
the operators in the area. My information
is that one of the problems at the moment
is that the rest of the mining industry would
have no confidence in a refinery if it were
to be operated by the man who has this
over-capitalized venture at the moment.
I spell this out, with the request that the
hon. Minister should speak to this, because
in his inimitably affable fashion there were
a number of things he skated around in his
introduction to his estimates. I submit that
this is one item that he should deal with
and perhaps after I sit down.
I want to devote, rather briefly, Mr. Chair-
man, my introductory remarks on the esti-
mates to this whole question of revenues
in the mining industry. I would not bother
re-threshing a lot of old straws— maybe a
rather inappropriate metaphor to use in deal-
ing with mining— if it were not for the fact
there have been some most interesting devel-
opments in the last year, that I think make it
useful to review this whole situation.
For example, I was very interested, in look-
ing through the figures that became available
from the budget statement of the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan), to discover that
in the past year, despite the fact that we are
producing something approaching a billion
dollars in wealth from our mines, that once
again the amount of money we got in
resources revenues from the mining industry
was approximately $13.5 million. I will not
labour the point that we have made so often,
that this is a shockingly low figure as a
rental for resources that belong to the people
of Ontario and upon which the mining indus-
try is built.
Another question that I would like to ask
the hon. Minister, when he deals later with
the range of questions that have been put to
him, is what is the explanation for the fact
that in the coming year the estimates indicate
that The Department of Mines expects to
receive some $21 million, in excess of $21
million, in revenue from the mining industry.
Now, I am not aware, on one hand, of any
increase in mining royalties; I am not aware,
on the other hand, of any expected startling
increase in production in the mining industry.
Therefore, I am quite frankly puzzled as to
why there would be a jump of some 50 per
cent or better between the receipts this past
year from the resources, the mining tax, and
1022
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
what the government expects to receive in the
coming year. I would appreciate it if the hon.
Minister would give some explanation on that.
However, quite apart from what the
explanation for that is, let me proceed to
consider this whole problem of the fair level
of revenue to be raised from the mining
industry. In the first place, Mr. Chairman,
I think it is well for us to recall that the
mining industry is the recipient of quite a
range of assistance and subsidies from govern-
ments, both at the provincial and federal
level. As the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha) has pointed out, there are access roads
which are built specifically to meet the needs
of the mining industry; there is assistance for
the construction of new mines; there is a
three-year exemption from corporation tax
and, if we come back to the provincial field,
there is a total exemption from municipal tax.
In lieu of that there is a special tax on the
profits of the mines, and from this the govern-
ment returns grants to the mining communi-
ties in lieu of the revenues they would have
received as a municipal tax.
The grossly unfair aspect of this tax, Mr.
Chairman, it has always seemed to me, is
that whether or not these mines make a profit,
they seek and receive services from the local
municipalities. But if they do not make a
profit they do not pay any tax and therefore
the mining community has to spread out the
cost of these services to the mines over the
rest of the community. Now this is the kind
of favoured position that no other industry in
northern Ontario, or anywhere else, receives.
The forest industry, for example, is not in
that happy position of being exempt from
municipal tax and being able to escape any
tax in lieu of it, if perchance they do not
happen to make profits in any year. Likewise,
I think is is wise for us to recall that any
small business in the mining community, in
fact any business in the mining community, if
it has a tough year and does not make any
profit, does not escape its share of the cost
of municipal services in the community. And
yet the mining company does because it does
not pay the municipal tax; and if perchance
it does not make a profit, it does not pay any
tax to the government, so the grants in lieu
back to the mining communities are reduced.
I am a little intrigued as to why the hon.
member for Sudbury— who has already left
his seat— coming from a mining community,
would not have reiterated what is un-
doubtedly one of the valid and continuing
complaints of the mining communities,
namely, the fact that they are not getting this
municipal tax and not getting a fair grant in
lieu of it from the government. But he was
silent on that particular issue.
We have for some time in the CCF, and
in the New Democratic Party, been claiming
that there should be an increase in mining
revenues from the resources tax. I do not
need to repeat that claim now but I must
say that I was rather intrigued to discover
support for it— even if not in specifically the
manner that we have indicated but at least
general support of our plea that more
revenues come from the mining industry—
from no less a person than the hon. member
for Nickel Belt (Mr. Belisle) who I do not
think is in the House with us today.
I would like to draw to the House's atten-
tion that, on January 13 of this year, in the
Sudbury Star— again I was rather intrigued
that the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha) did not support the hon. member for
Nickel Belt on this— is he trying to play a
sort of cosy game with the mining companies
or what?
An hon. member: He was busy in the by-
elections— away from home.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, he undoubtedly
would have become aware of this because I
am sure he has at least a few other people in
his organization who would have drawn it to
his attention afterwards. However, let me
proceed—
The MPP Seeks New Mining Tax
Legislature Will Hear a
Recommendation
are the headlines in the Sudbury Star.
Interestingly enough this session has now
gone on for three months, from December to
March, and we still have not heard that rec-
ommendation from the hon. member for
Nickel Belt. Maybe he has been persuaded
to present it in the secrecy of the Tory caucus
where it got solidly batted down. Perhaps I
can present it on his behalf to the Legislature
at the present time. I will have to—
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): He'll
appreciate that.
Mr. MacDonald: I am sure he will appre-
ciate it, yes. I will have to rely on the
report in the Sudbury Star. Let me quote,
Mr. Chairman, from that report of January 13:
A three to five per cent profit tax on all
mining companies to finance northern road
construction was urged today by Rheal
Belisle, MPP for Nickel Belt. He said
this was not new taxation, in effect, but
equalizing of assessment refuting the special
assistance given in mines.
MARCH 12, 1962
1023
I am a little bit puzzled by that word
"refuting"— I imagine it means balancing off
what is special assistance that is given to the
mines in various forms— as I have already
outlined.
Speaking at a luncheon meeting of the
Ontario land surveyors of the northeastern
region at Memorial Hall, Belisle said he
would make his recommendation to the
Ontario Legislature at the next session—
And then there is a direct quote from then,
Mr. Chairman.
"If we are to continue, and we must
continue to build better and new highways,
we must have more revenue," said Belisle.
"It is only with new roads that northern
Ontario will develop and attract other
industries and will continue to develop
the province as a whole. We need the
Sudbury-Timmins highway, the Sudbury-
Chapleau road, and we need them now.
It is my contention that a 3 to 5 per
cent profit should be charged to all mining
who are, of course, making profits. I do
not think additional sales tax or corporation
tax is the answer. If the corporation tax
were increased many corporations would
have to close their doors or curtail their
operations and with the present employ-
ment situation we certainly do not want
that."
He added that the auto licence fees were
high enough. Belisle said that the province
contends that it is not getting as much out
of northern Ontario as it is putting in.
"This is one way to do it," said Belisle.
He pointed out that the mining firms were
getting government assistance in the way
of assistance on access roads, construction
to new mines and three tax-free years for
each new mine. He said the tax applicable
to new highway construction would give
the mining industry a better chance to
develop other mines. He added that 95
per cent of the materials and cars which
use these roads are provided by the mining
industry.
And then if I may interject for a moment,
Mr. Chairman, he made a statement which is
a direct steal from so many speeches of the
New Democratic Party that I am a little
surprised that he did not credit it to us.
This is his final paragraph:
He remarked that one mining company
recently reported a profit of $105 million
after taxes last year. "I say that 3 or 5
per cent tax on their profits would still
leave a great amount for distribution among
their shareholders," he argued.
That is the end of the quotation from the
Sudbury Star.
Mr. Chairman, I wish the hon. member
were here. In fact, on second thoughts, I
am not really surprised that he is not here.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): He is in the
woodshed.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, perhaps he is in the
woodshed, in the political woodshed. But
having made this plea, I just want to back it
up. For the moment I am not going to
particularly hang my case on an increase
in the resources tax on the mining industry.
One reason why we in the New Democratic
Party feel that this is the most equitable way
to raise more revenue is that the resources
tax becomes a cost as far as the industry is
concerned and therefore they can write it off
when they calculate their corporation tax
at the federal level. Therefore they get 50
per cent of a return, so to speak, or a credit
on it, because the corporation tax is approxi-
mately 50 per cent.
When I emphasized this point in the House
two or three years ago I remember that the
hon, leader of the Opposition disputed it,
and the hon. Provincial Treasurer acknowl-
edged that this is the case— resources taxes on
the mining industry are regarded as a cost
and they can be deducted as a cost when
calculating their corporation taxes. So it would
seem to me, assuming that the industry is
willing to acknowledge that more revenue
should be raised from them, that this is the
most equitable way of raising it. And this
is what we have been pleading for for years.
However, Mr. Chairman, I am not partic-
ularly interested in the means. I am raising
this once again because as the hon. member
for Nickel Belt has pointed out, there is
obviously a gross inequity in a situation in
which, as the hon. member for Sudbury has
pointed out, we have a desperate need for
more roads. And if the hon. member for
Nickel Belt is correct, that the government
is putting more money into the north than
it is getting out— I do not know whether this
is true or not, but I repeat his words— if
it is true then the case is all the more con-
clusive for the justice and fairness of this
government raising more revenue from the
mining industry.
And when you have it finally and con-
clusively underlined by the fact that here
is one industry that last year had $105 million
in profits after taxes, surely it is an equitable
proposition that this government should,
through resources taxes or special profit tax
or some other way, raise more revenue. And
1024
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
incidentally, if I may just pause here for
a moment, this is the simple point that we
were trying to make in the by-election that
apparently Senator Taylor talked about down
in Waterford when he argued that we were
going to be hurting some of the widows and
children who were getting their dividends
from the company.
Mr. Sopha: The company is going to invest
$75 million in capital expansion in the next
5 years. Now where are they going to get
the money if we take it from them?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. member wants to interrupt me with a
statement like that, he had better get some-
body who is a little wet behind the ears—
An hon. member: Well, he has somebody.
Mr. MacDonald: He has not. The interest-
ing thing in this connection— and I do not
want to go too far oflF because this really is
not in the mining estimates— is that we have
heard a lot in the last two or three years
about International Nickel and the amount
of money they have invested in northern
Ontario.
In fact, it is $180 million. And here are our
red-blooded, hairy-chested, free-enterprisers
who are developing a nation. The fact of the
matter is that the tax structure of this nation
has permitted this company to accumulate
somewhere $250 million and $300 million of
undistributed reserves in profits.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Invested in plant, too.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh no, no sir. They have
reserves of between $250 million and $300
million, so that the new development in
northern Manitoba can be paid for completely
"out of the sock," so to speak.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Why not?
Mr. MacDonald: "Why not?" the hon.
Minister of Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay)
asks. You know, there used to be a day that,
when a company was going to develop they
would maybe have 25 per cent of their re-
quirements and then would go to the capital
markets to get the money to do it. They
would mortgage their future and they would
pay it off. But we have had a tax structure
that has been so favourable that they have
now accumulated amounts to the point where
they do not have to go to the capital market.
It is this very point that has led Eric
Kierans— and I want to come back to this,
perhaps, in my budget speech a little later
because I think it is a very interesting one—
to muse on the rather interesting situation that
we have reached in a capitalistic economy
which does not need any more capitalists—
because they do not have to go to the money
market to get the necessary finances to de-
velop; they have accumulated it through the
internally generated reserves.
So, to come back to what you have in the
instance of the International Nickel Company
—and it is a classic case in our modem
economy— they have been permitted such
profits that they have all their investment
requirements without having to borrow a
single red cent. They have accumulated all
this because of our tax structure.
Now I repeat, Mr. Chairman, just before
I leave this point, that obviously anybody who
is interested in the future development of
northern Ontario and the economy of Ontario,
would be foolish to want to place an unfair
burden on any industry, including the mining
industry. But it strikes me that the case is a
conclusive one, particularly in some of the
giants of the mining industry— and Inter-
national Nickel leads in that category— that
there is a conclusive case for raising more
of the revenues, and I gladly join the hon.
member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Belisle) in say-
ing that this government should raise some
more revenue. If he is interested in getting
these roads, I wish I could get the hon.
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) to join too.
Perhaps, with some working within the Tory
caucus and a united opposition on this side of
the House we could get the government to
move forward to this.
Mr. Sopha: The hon. member will never
recruit me. He tried that in Kenora and it
did not work. They did not buy that in
Kenora.
Mr. MacDonald: Now, Mr. Chairman, I
just want to recapitulate before I sit down,
because there are a number of questions that
I have asked the hon. Minister, and one or
two more that I want to add.
First, I would like this up-to-date story on
the refinery in Cobalt. If I could capture
the hon. Minister's ear again, I would say
that there are a number of questions I would
like to put to him. I would like his up-to-
date story on the refinery and what, if any-
thing, the government plans to do in Cobalt.
Secondly, I would Hke his explanation why
the revenues from the mining royalties are
going to jump some 50 per cent in the coming
year when, as far as I know, there has been
no increase in the rate, and there is nothing
MARCH 12, 1962
1025
like that kind of increase expected in mining
production. I would like also to have him
explain why— and here I do join forces with
the hon. member for Sudbury— why, since
the federal government is willing to meet 50
per cent of the cost of access roads, and we
concede that there is a great need for the
development of access roads— why the govern-
ment is not stepping up its programme. I
do not need to spell out in any detail that
roads are the development behind which
comes all other kinds of economic develop-
ment throughout northern Ontario.
The final point that I wanted to raise with
the hon. Minister is with specific reference
to research in his department in two phases
of it, relating directly to the uranium indus-
try. Two or three years ago, I commented
in this House on the initial reports that had
come down on studies that this department
initiated with regard to the dangers from
radioactivity in the uranium industry, as far
as the workers themselves were concerned.
I am not going to repeat some of the quota-
tions that I put on the record that time, I
am sure the hon. Minister and his oflBcials
from the department are extremely familiar
with them. But some of them suggested a
very serious danger, particularly in the
accumulation of this radioactive force with
the workers.
Now, some three or four years have gone
by since that report first came down, if I
recall correctly— at least two or three years
anyway— and I am wondering whether the
department in its continuing studies has a
further report to make as to whether or not
they have concluded that there is no serious
danger to the workers, or whether if there
is a danger that there are counter-measures
that can be taken.
The second research point in relation to
the industry, that I am rather intrigued tlie
hon. Minister did not touch upon at all,
is the civilian use of uranium. It has been
my belief— a belief I have expressed in this
House in the past— that for quite some time
those who were interested in the development
of the uranium industry, placed all their hopes
in the use of uranium for the development
of atomic power.
Now this was an illusion that has been
long since dispelled, because the amount of
uranium needed for the development of all
the atomic power for which we can foresee
the need and the use in Canada is very,
very small. A few hundred pounds will
produce fantastic amounts of power. And
therefore my conclusion is that the future
of the uranium industry, like the future of
the nickel industry after the first world war,
depends almost completely on the develop-
ment of a civilian market.
Now, the nickel industry after the first
world war rescued itself from being some-
thing of a white elephant as it had been
developed to meet war needs and had a
productive capacity far beyond the civilian
market capacity. It rescued itself from that
position by a crash research programme, most
of which was initiated by the industry itself.
The result is, of course, today we find nickel
used in almost every conceivable kind of
product on the civilian front.
If the solution to the problems of the
uranium industry rests in somewhat the same
direction, I am wondering what efiFort the
government is making, in conjunction with
the industry, to step up the research so that
we can get a quicker use of greater amounts
of uranium.
Just to recall to the memory of hon.
members of the House, Mr. Chairman, you
will recall that it was pointed out a year
or so ago that, if the automobile industry
alone were to use uranium as an additive to
steel for an alloy which would have great
anticorrosive qualities, this would absorb
something like 13,000 tons of uranium a year
when our peak production in Canada was
in the range of 15 to 16 thousand tons a
year. In other words, the one industry— if
uranium were used to add to steel for a new
alloy— would absorb most of the productive
capacity back at our peak period of 1959 and
1960.
I have read reports of this kind of develop-
ment emerging. I would appreciate it if the
hon. Minister would indicate to the House
what the latest information is, as far as his
department is concerned, on the prospect of
the civilian use of uranium either in the auto-
mobile industry or in wider fields.
Mr. L. Quilty (Renfrew South): Mr.
Chairman, I have asked for a special privilege
from the hon. Chairman. While we are dis-
cussing The Department of Mines I, the newly
elected member for Renfrew South, would
like to tell the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr,
Wardrope) that we in Renfrew South appre-
ciate his tribute to the late Minister of Mines,
James A. Maloney; and I wish the new hon.
Minister, on behalf of all the people of
Renfrew South, the best of everything in
his new portfolio. Many of us disagreed with
Jim politically but I would say that everyone
liked him. Mr. Chairman, the hon. members
of this House knew Jim, as I did, to be a
rugged forceful man, some of them knew it
probably better than I do. Well, we have his
1026
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
rugged type of individual in our area. I would
also say we have other natural resources.
I have enjoyed the hon. Minister's eloquent
statement regarding our natural resources, and
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to inform the
House that we have in Renfrew South the
newly selected Miss Outdoor Girl of Canada,
in the person of Miss Isobel Gould, a native
of the town of Renfrew.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chair-
man, before the estimates of the department
are discussed, I would like to make one or
two remarks in regard to Elliot Lake.
The other week when the hon. Minister of
Mines (Mr. Wardrope) was speaking in the
Throne speech debate, during the course of
his remarks I made the interjection, "What
about Elhot Lake?" The hon. Minister told
me that everything was fine in Elliot Lake.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure it is.
Everything is fine in Elliot Lake for a few.
Twelve months ago last November I listened
to an address by the hon. Robert Winters.
He was speaking on the unemployment
situation in Elliot Lake and the Blind River
area, and he assured his audience that they
would come out on top in Elliot Lake.
However, Mr. Chairman, an examination of
the facts, I think, provides the truth of the
situation.
There were some people, Mr. Chairman,
who literally lost their shirts in Elliot Lake.
I know one individual who invested $350
in CanMet Mines, and when the spoils were
shared out by Rio Tinto and by Dennison,
this particular individual for the investment in
200 shares of CanMet got one share of Denni-
son worth around $10. Many, as I say, have
lost their shirts and many hard-working
miners in the Elliot Lake area have lost their
homes. But it is assuring, Mr. Chairman, to
know that Rio Tinto and Dennison share-
holders will garner all the profit and come out
on top.
The hon. Robert Winters was the Minister
of Public Works in the Liberal administration
and a colleague of Lester Pearson up to the
time of his defeat in 1957.
Mr. Sopha: Who was defeated in 1957,
Pearson?
Mr. Thomas: No, Winters. Then some two
or three months after, he became the presi-
dent of Rio Tinto Mines. Not surprising, I
suppose. In this connection, Mr. Chairman,
I want to read an extract from the Toronto
Daily Star of March 24, 1961, and I quote:
The federal government and the Liberal
Party have a lot of explaining to do on
why a $200 million uranium contract with
Britain, signed early in 1957, has not been
made public until this month.
Since late in 1959, when the United
States and Britain announced they would
not be taking up options to enter into
further purchase contracts, the uranium
industry and many miners and others de-
pendent on it for a livelihood, have under-
gone great hardship. Mines have closed
down; large areas of uranium communities,
like Elliot Lake, have become deserted as
the jobless moved on.
All this time, there existed this contract
with Britain for 24 million pounds to be
delivered in four equal instalments in the
years 1963 to 1966.
Why were the terms of the 1957 con-
tract not made public earlier? The contract
was signed on March 29, 1957, some 10
weeks before the defeat of the former
Liberal government. It was, therefore,
known to the Liberals. Why in particular,
has Liberal Leader Pearson, whose riding
takes in Elliot Lake, not brought it into
the open?
Robert Winters, now president of Rio
Tinto Mining Company, was Public Works
Minister in the Liberal government. Why
did he remain silent while his company
gobbled up a number of the small pro-
ducers who might have benefited from the
contract?
The contract was made by Eldorado Min-
ing and Refining Ltd., a Crown corporation.
Its president, W. M. Gilchrist, gives a curi-
ous explanation for the secrecy.
He says Eldorado didn't want to encour-
age those mines which were doing well in
the 1950's, but which were not necessarily
economic producers. Eldorado thought it
advisable to reduce the number of pro-
ducers.
It was obvious that the boom of the
1950's gave rise to some inefiicient opera-
tions and that there would have to be
a shake-out eventually. Eldorado's strategy
—for which the government must take
responsibility— was to hasten it by with-
holding the facts about the British contract.
The government told communities like
Elliot Lake it was doing everything it could
to help them. What it was not doing, how-
ever, was using this big contract to make
the inevitable transition in the industry as
orderly as possible, causing the least pos-
sible human hardship. Instead the Ottawa
attitude was to let the devil take the hind-
most, so that the contract would go to the
rest.
MARCH 12, 1962
1027
[One of the rest, it should be noted, is
Eldorado itself. It is a producer, as well
as a refiner and uranium trading agency.]
There has been ineptitude at the very
least. The Commons special research com-
mittee, where details of the contract finally
came out recently, must dig more deeply
into this. And no further time should be
lost in bringing the contract to bear on
the difficulties of uranium towns like
Elliot Lake.
Now, sir, it seems inconceivable that a
Cabinet Minister of the Liberal administra-
tion did not know what was going on in his
own riding. I can understand if he had been
a member of the Opposition. A member of
the Opposition quite well knows that there
are times when things happen in his partic-
ular riding that he did not know anything at
all about because it has been government
inspired. But the leader of the Liberal
Party, the hon. Lester Pearson, was the mem-
ber for this particular riding. Surely he did
know of the contract that existed between the
federal government and Great Britain. I
sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman, that in the
coming election, when it does come, that the
good intelligent people of Algoma will give
a great deal of thought to these facts.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Chairman, with respect to
the problem just raised, it may be that an
unnecessary amount of time should not be
taken here but on another occasion-
Mr. Thomas: Why not?
Mr. Wintermeyer: If the hon. member does
not object, then I will be very glad to carry
on.
I can only add, Mr. Chairman, what I
recall, and I am subject certainly to the exig-
encies of memory. My recollection is that
Mr. Pearson made a statement in this respect.
I think he pointed out the contract was
executed not 10 weeks, if I recall, but 10
days before the day in 1957 to which refer-
ences have been made.
Secondly, he specifically, as I recall, said
that he did not know.
I think we have to take this man's word
for it. This statement was made a year ago
and to suggest now, a year later, that he was
not telling the truth when he made that state-
men I think is a reflection on a distinguished
man in Canada and should not be made in
this House, unless something new is known
or added to what has been said heretofor.
This matter was thoroughly discussed a
year ago, and I think to the satisfaction of
almost everyone. An adequate explanation
was made and I know of no changes in the
interval which would prompt the hon. mem-
ber for Oshawa (Mr. Thomas) to bring this
matter to the attention of this House at this
time.
Mr. MacDonald: The agreement was made
in Bermuda and he was at the conference.
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort William): Mr. Chair-
man, I think that in northwestern Ontario
one of the most important industries we have
to develop is our iron ore industry. Unfor-
tunately, at the present time we find that
this industry is very much in the doldrums,
regardless of what anyone can say at the
moment at least. Back on October 13, 1960,
the former Prime Minister, the hon member
for Victoria (Mr. Frost), when he was in north-
western Ontario addressing the northwestern
Ontario Municipal Association, said this:
Iron ore purchased, valued at $25.3 mil-
lion last year is almost twice the region's
1958 output and 15 times more than the
total 15 years ago.
Now this may be so, but the mining in-
dustry in northwestern Ontario has found
that it has been depleted. It has reached the
point where if the markets are not available,
we find that costs, expenses over which the
mining company has not too much control,
are forcing the mining companies to contract.
The amount of iron ore which will be sent to
the head of the lakes is being depleted.
Because of difficulties in open-pit mining, the
people are trying to open up the Lake St.
Joseph area. I would like to repeat to the
House a short paragraph which one of the
high officials of the Steep Rock Iron Mines
Company has written in a letter. He says:
A further development in the Lake St.
Joseph area could be in prospect if rail
rates and other similar situations were
favourable. Involved would be an expendi-
ture of $100 million plus a town for at
least 3,000 people; a 68-mile branch rail
line; a $40,000 hydro installation; new
ships, docks, etc.; a new payroll would be
created for 1,000 men, in turn creating
employment and subsidiary industry for
5,000 to 8,000 additional persons.
As we all know, in northwestern Ontario,
our greatest chance of putting men to work,
of creating jobs, is to develop the mining
industry. I myself spent 10 years in the
town of Geraldton, which was originally de-
veloped by a gold strike in 1934. I was one
of the ones there. There was a great deal
1028
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of enthusiasm with these mines coming into
operation and production. Strikes were made
on many properties, many properties which
are today ghost towns. In that particular
part of the country there is only one mining
property left which is in production.
This is a very unfortunate development.
Here we have people, politicians, telling us
that in our part of the country there are
unlimited mining deposits and when it comes
to developing these products then we do not
have the amount of money necessary to de-
velop these areas. Gold itself, of course, goes
right back to the basic problem of low grade
ores which cannot be developed because of
the fact that the cost of labour, the cost of
putting the operation into force and also the
fact that the price of gold is at a figure at
which it is almost impossible to operate.
Of course, there are many mines in opera-
tion right now up in the Red Lake area and
in many areas in northwestern Ontario, but
these are operations where the mining veins
are sufficiently rich to make the operation a
profitable venture.
Our big problem with mining is not so
much the fact of trying to find the mines.
The problem is trying to operate the mines
in such a manner that we can put people to
work; this is the thing that we are interested
in. How are we going to employ people in
northwestern Ontario, or northern Ontario,
if we caimot have these mines operating?
We cannot fill the area with people unless
we find jobs for them in order to keep them
employed.
I think that the main function of this gov-
ernment is to assist. As far as I am concerned,
there are many ways in which we can assist;
and I believe that if these ways and means
of assistance can be looked into and de-
veloped, instead of taking a mining company
and saying: "Here, we are going to throw
more costs on you," as the hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald) has indicated
is the thing that should be done, I think
ways and means must be found to keep the
mines in operation so that we can get the
revenues in sufficient quantity to pay for costs
of material and machinery and underground
explorations that are needed to develop a
mine and make it worth while. At Hardrock
goldmines in Geraldton, they had to put
$1 million underground before they got a
nickel from this particular mine. This means
that the whole operation is terrifically costly,
and if the price of one's product is not
sufficient to make the investment worthwhile,
there is no earthly use of the investment
being made in the first place because loss is
the only thing that is definite as far as the
final result is concerned.
Votes 1201 to 1206, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 1207:
Mr. R. W. Gibson (Kenora): Mr. Chairman,
I am somewhat taken aback by the rather
rapid pace of events on this particular set
of estimates. I should like to say something
under the heading of "Construction of Mining
and Access Roads."
I am, as you know, one of the new mem-
bers and had the good fortune to be involved
in a rather interesting election campaign.
The first indication of what was to come
took place on the day of the Conservative
nomination convention in Kenora. Now on
the day tliat convention was held we had
a front page headline in the Kenora daily
paper indicating that the mining access road
to the Werner-Gordon Lake area would be
built immediately.
Mr. Sopha: I remember it well.
Mr. Gibson: Since that time my hon. col-
league in the federal House, who is also a
Liberal-Labour member, has made inquiries
in that house of Mr. Dinsdale, Minister of
Northern Affairs, and I am advised that Mr.
Dinsdale has indicated to this government
that the federal government considers this
as one of the projects falling under the
"Roads to Resources" programme. Just
recently, in this House, I asked the hon.
Minister of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow) what
the status of this road was, and I have re-
ceived the courtesy of an answer to the
effect that the matter was under considera-
tion; in spite of the fact that this was a
headline, as I have said, in the Kenora daily
paper.
One other thing, while I am on the sub-
ject. We have in our area another mining
centre at Pickle Lake. To this centre we
have no means of road access in spite of
numerous other election promises by hon.
members of this government. I suggest to
this House that something should be done
in our area, other than giving us promises
every four years. The hon. Minister of Mines
(Mr. Wardrope), who claims to represent
northwestern Ontario, knows full well of
what I am speaking, and I suggest to him:
let us cut out this nonsense of promises,
and produce facts.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Chairman, if I
might answer that. I wonder if the new hon.
member for Kenora (Mr. Gibson) thinks that
MARCH 12, 1962
1029
some $50 million spent up there is fooling
around? The promise was made during the
last by-election about the Werner Lake road,
and I think the hon. member knows, if he
will ask people up there, that the survey
gangs have been there ever since that
promise was made— getting the alignment of
this road, figuring out what it is going to
cost for bridge structures and other things.
I am very surprised to hear him talking this
way. That road is under way; it is one of the
many projects tliat have been built in north-
western Ontario by the mining and access
roads committee of this government.
Mr, Gibson: Mr. Chairman, in the first
instance, if such was the case why did not
the hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Good-
fellow) indicate that to me the other day;
rather than give me an evasive answer which
was, to say the least, insulting— just as insult-
ing to me as these promises were to the
intelligence of our voters in the Kenora dis-
trict by-election?
Let me add two more things if I may.
You will note that the last year's estimates
for mining and access roads was $1,550,000;
this year these are $1 million. Now there is
an indication right there—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: On a point of priv-
ilege, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Gibson: I have the floor; if I may be
permitted to continue.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order.
Mr. Gibson: Now, looking at the estimates
of The Department of Highways, we find the
same situation applies.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: This is Mines the
hon. member is talking about; we cannot—
Mr. Gibson: I just want to draw an anal-
ogy—looking at the estimates for The De-
partment of Highways the same reduction
of monies for northwestern Ontario is found.
That is what this government has to offer
northwestern Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: We cannot put one
road on top of another.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 1207 agreed to?
Mr. Sopha: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman.
Does the hon. Minister wish to say some-
thing? I want to add a word.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: No, that is quite all
right.
Mr. MacDonald: Did the hon. member
throw him off stride or did he have some-
thing to contribute? Why does the hon.
Minister not answer the questions that were
asked?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well, when the hon.
member speaks, it is quite all right with
me; they are all passed but one estimate.
I do not want to burden the House.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, in the fashion
of the man we do not see so much, just to
pour a little oil on troubled waters here.
This will please Mr. Reguly, who I notice
is not in his seat today, who chasteneth us
over the week-end.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment
about the hon. member for York South's
solution to the rather startling headline that
he referred to in the Sudbury Star in refer-
ence to the hon. member for Nickel Belt's
speech at Sudbury about additional taxation
of mining companies for the building of
access roads. I, of course, read that, sir, at
the time that it was made and I must say that
I was rather surprised by it.
I am not going to launch into any criti-
cism of my esteemed colleague from the
Nickel Belt, about it today but I just wanted
to point out— especially to the hon. mem-
ber for York South, Mr. Chairman— that
when one begins to speak about taxing min-
ing companies in order to pay for anything,
whether it be access roads or any other form
of special taxation, that, so far as northern
Ontario is concerned you are talking about
eight or nine companies.
If you start to talk about taxing their
profits, starting from the north, the com-
panies that make a profit, after you deal
with Dome, Mclntyre, Hollinger, INCO and
Falconbridge, GECO, Steep Rock— and that
is just about all of them so far as the great
bulk of mining activity in northern Ontario
is concerned— the greatest number of mines
do not make a profit at all. On the con-
trary, they are subsidized in their production
by payments from the federal government.
Mr. MacDonald: Why not start with these
then?
Mr. Sopha: I just want to put this thing
in its proper perspective. When you talk
about taxing mining companies you are talk-
ing about a very special, peculiar section of
the industry. I venture to say that more
people are employed in mines in northern
Ontario that do not make a profit, than are
employed in mines that do. But I have no
1030
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
figures to verify that one way or the other
but I just want to— for the purposes of the
record if nothing else— to say that any form
of special taxation in relation to the build-
ing of access roads is not, in the first instance,
the responsibility of the mining company, but
it is the responsibility of this government,
this department and The Department of
Highways, The Department of Lands and
Forests.
There is just one additional thing I want
to mention. Every year we hear this speech
from the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald), and if he does not make the
speech then the speech is parroted by the
hon. member for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden),
about taxing these resources industries. I
noted with some keen interest the other day
that the hon. member for Woodbine had
changed his tune a little bit about taxing
resources industries and he had begun to
talk about tax concessions for those engaged
in seasonal work. For a large part of his
speech he did not sound like the old bearded
socialist zealot, the old Fabian at all. He
sounded like the editor of the Financial Post.
Nowadays one cannot determine from what
a person says— in the nuclear age, the inter-
space age— one cannot tell from the jargon
just where he belongs. Socialists begin to
sound like the editor of the Financial Post,
as I say.
Of course, these people have tried this, they
have talked about it. I said by way of inter-
polation to the remarks of the hon. member
for York South because I wanted to assist
him— I always want to assist him, I always
want to inform him— I said when he was
speaking he talks about a company making
$105 million a year. Well, there is no such
company. I suppose the name of the company
that was referred to is International Nickel;
which did not make $105 million last year, it
made $88 million, which, to my hon. friends
to my left, is a difference of $18 million-
Mr. MacDonald: We did not say that.
Mr. Sopha: Eighteen million dollars would
not be that important— well, he may have said
it, but the hon. member underlined it. The
hon. member underlined it and did not correct
it. They remain socialists to this extent, that
the making of a profit is almost sinful, a
company is not supposed to make a profit. I
said to the hon. member that the same
company is investing $75 million in the
Sudbury basin over the next five years. He
seemed to allude to the fact, that they had
made previous announcements that they were
investing their money back into expansion,
and his attitude— the lilt of his voice almost-
seemed to suggest that there was some dis-
belief.
Now, if he wants to come with me the
next time he is in Sudbury to have a look at
the Clarabelle pit that is replacing, so far
as surface mining is concerned, the open pit
which has now been shut down at Frood, and
if he wants to— that accounts for $26 million,
if my memory is correct, the development of
that surface mining, the Clarabelle pit, that
sounds almost as if it could be in Bruce
county, Clarabelle, and $50 million, Mr.
Chairman, in the expansion of the iron ore
plant.
I do not come here with any special brief
for the International Nickel Company, but as
the member for Sudbury I am not ashamed
to say something on their behalf and to extoll
them in some measure either, because they
are a very progressive organization. Formerly
this iron ore was thrown out as waste and
they, through their own research facilities,
developed a process whereby they could save
this iron ore. They built a pilot project there
and found it to be extremely efficient in the
recovery of iron ore from what was formerly
waste. The operation can be so economically
feasible, financially feasible, that the company
announced a year or more ago that they
intended to expand the facility by the addi-
tion of a plant which will mean an investment
of another $50 million.
So it is easy for our friends to the left, Mr.
Chairman, to get up and say, "Well, this
monolithic corporation ought to be taxed
more." It all depends which way you look at
it, I suppose. On one hand the company re-
invests the money that it makes by -profit.
The end result of the adoption of the schemes
of our hon. friend would be the provision of
less jobs, the creation of less wealth and finally
the eradication of any incentive on the part
of these people whatsoever. I make no
apologies for saying those things on behalf of
the people and to state my position as being
one where I completely reject the insinua-
tions, the innuendoes, that our hon. friends
from the west like to— the best word would
be that they like to "spread."
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to comment on what has been said here.
It is obvious that the Liberal Party is seeking
its election funds for the next election and
they are going to get them in gobs.
Mr; Sopha: This, of course, is the usual
innuendo.
MARCH 12, 1962
1031
Mr. MacDonald: It is not an innuendo; it
is a fact of political life. Now, Mr. Chairman,
I rise, not to persist in the argument with
these hon. members because I was just under-
lining what a Conservative member of this
House has asked for. That is my significant
point, but he wants to climb into bed with
INCO and ignore what the Conservatives had
asked for, to the detriment of the community
where he works. However, could the hon.
Minister let me have a reply to the three or
four questions that I asked?
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Chairman, I—
Mr. MacDonald: Is the hon. member going
to let the hon. Minister answer the questions?
Mr. Troy: Oh, pardon me. I would not
substitute for him.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: There were several
questions which the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) asked, and I had
them all neatly tabulated, but when all the
different items went through unchallenged, I
thought I was through.
Mr. MacDonald: They are usually answered
before the items.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I thought I had
answered these questions in my talk before,
when I was presenting the estimates.
Mr. MacDonald: What would the hon.
Minister say about the refinery and the TTL
then?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: As far as the refinery
is concerned, we had many interviews with
the industry and with the present owner, as
you know. I find that in my department
and other departments of the government,
it is impossible to keep any secrets from the
Opposition. But we have had constant inter-
views with them, the industry asking that
the government take the refinery over and
run it. We have investigated the costs and
so on— there were some things said about the
present owner— and we were progressing
along some definite course which might reach
a conclusion satisfactory to everybody when
we heard from the owner that he was going
to carry on. I think that happened just about
four or five days ago.
We are hopeful that it will carry on
successfully and that the mine operators will
maintain their confidence in that plant be-
cause I think there is a young man in charge
of that plant who is a very knowledgeable
man. He has an excellent staff, and any work
that has been turned out has been well done.
We are watching it very closely and if it
looks as if it is going to shut down then I
will again step in, or my department of the
government will step in, and see what can
be done about carrying it on, because I do
think that we should not be shipping our ore
to the United States to be refined, I think
we should do it here if at all possible. But
it is under very close scrutiny by the depart-
ment and we are watching it very carefully.
Mr. MacDonald: There were two or three
other questions.
What is the explanation for the 50 per cent
jump in revenues from mining royalties this
coming year, when there is no increase in
rate or no prospective increase in production;
anything in that proportion anyway?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I was puzzled with
that question. I was wondering if it was
a misprint in the budget because we have
no record of those figures mentioned by the
hon. member for York South.
Mr. MacDonald: Page A-10, budget fore-
cast of ordinary revenue, fiscal year April 1,
1962 to March 31, 1963. I am sorry, Mr.
Chairman, it is my error. My eye went up
one column. My apologies, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: The apology of the
hon. member is accepted, I could not find it.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Chairman, on this vote 1207,
on access roads. As this House very well
knows, this programme was initiated by a
very fine gentleman, the late Welland
Gemmell of Sudbury. He saw the need for
these roads to open up the northland.
The base was broadened, I believe, five
or 6 years ago. The worth of those roads
is certainly known to anybody who knows the
north and the hon. Minister is from northern
Ontario. This programme has opened up
valuable timber land and valuable land for
agricultural settlement. It has given isolated
communities opportunity to have direct con-
tact with the outside world. In a word, it
has been a splendid development.
But I notice in these estimates that the
access road allotment this year is down
$550,000 from the current year. We heard
very much about the new look for northern
Ontario— is this the new look? Is this the
first step of the advisory council that has
been set up? Is this the first step in its
development, that we cut down $550,000
from the estimates? Is that the way the
government is going to increase the develop-
ment of northern Ontario?
1032
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
If that is the new look, give me the gay
nineties!
Mr. Gibson: I regret that in my initial
enthusiasm this afternoon I neglected to con-
gratulate the hon. Minister on the assumption
of his new portfolio. I should also like to
say that I agree with the remarks made by
the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha)
as far as the personal qualities of the hon.
Minister are concerned.
Th« hon. Minister, as hon. members know,
is from the same general area of the country
as I am. I am sure that we can be confident
that we will have no prevarication, equivo-
cation or avoiding of answers from this hon.
Minister.
With that in mind, I should like to turn to
item No. 1207. We have $1 miUion this
year for the opening of the north, an area
which is now heavily troubled with unemploy-
ment, as we all well know. We have seen also
that the highways programme is down by
the same amount, one-third. Now I am
wondering, Mr. Chairman, if this represents
something of the views or the hopes of north-
western Ontario of this government.
In particular I should like to ask the
hon. Minister when the tenders for the
Werner-Gordon Lake access road will be
called; when construction will start, and what
is the expected completion date? As I said,
the hon. Minister is a member from north-
western Ontario. I am sure that I will not
get the insulting answer that I got from the
hon. Minister of Highways.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: The first question
that was asked about the reduction in road
expenditures, in that area, of $4 million—
from $13 million to $9 million-I think that
is what the hon. member for Kenora (Mr.
Gibson) is referring to. The hon. member
must remember that the Trans-Canada High-
way is almost completed. There is some
paving and widening to do, and I know every
bit of it because I have been over it so
many more times than other hon. members.
But do not forget this: most of the rock
work and the very expensive construction is
finished.
Mr. Gibson: That is utter nonsense, and
the hon. Minister knows it.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well, what would
the hon. member do if he were the govern-
ment; just stick $13 million in unless he had
a place to put it? That is why the figure is
$9 million. This will cover the work neces-
sary; if more is needed the government will
provide it.
Let me say something about the mine
access roads grant being down from last
year. It is not the provincial contribution
that Ls down; it is the federal. It was cut,
I think, 50 per cent; that is why we put in
an extra $250,000 to make it $1 million. The
contribution of this government is up, not
down, and I would tell the hon. member
that we are holding consultations with the
federal government at the present time
to try to get more money and to see that
they give us more money in the future, if
that is possible. These things we are trying
to work out.
As for the Werner Lake road into Nickel
Mining and Smelting Company property. I
have flown over that road myself; I know the
difficulties. At the present time, as I told
the hon. member, a survey is going on— a
study of a very, very expensive bridge struc-
ture is being done— and I think the hon.
member for Kenora was told that the other
day by the secretary of the mining access
roads committee. I mentioned the secretary's
name to him, sir. If he had called him
he would have told him. This announcement
was made, it is quite true, at the time of the
by-election; but it was a factual announce-
ment, and at no time has this government
gone back on it.
But, mind you, these things take time, and
we have seen that the road from Manitoba—
for immediate purposes, to get the plant
and machinery in— is going to serve the
purpose. When we start, after the surveys
and the bridge structure are done, it is going
to take considerable time to get that road
finished. It is not a small matter. It will
cost about $2 million plus, but we at no
time have said that road was not going to be
built.
Mr. Wintermeyer: How many miles is it?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: About 22 miles to
build, I think. There are 30 miles already
built from Minaki into the southernmost end,
and then there is a small piece up at the
north end near the mine; but there are 21
or 22 miles of new road to be built.
Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, firstly, I should
like to say that there is presently an all-
weather winter road that was built by the
province of Manitoba to the Ontario bound-
ary. I believe that there has been a projec-
tion of this road into this mining area which
indicates that the Manitoba government, if
nothing else, had some foresight, something
that I suggest is lacking in this government.
If they can do it why cannot we do it?
MARCH 12, 1962
1033
I should like to reiterate my question, not
for my own personal benefit but for the
benefit of the unemployed in our area. When
will tenders be called and when does the
hon. Minister expect to have this project
completed?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: That is impossible to
say, because we do not know when this
survey is going to be completed. Let me tell
the hon. member something about the road
from Manitoba. The Manitoba government
did not build that road for that mine at all.
The hon. member knows that. That is a
fishing road and was built there-
Mr. Gibson: Let us have an answer to the
question.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Wait a minute, now.
These are facts that I am giving the hon.
members, and the hon. member for Kenora
knows that too. This road has been improved
by the mine itself and some $75,000 spent
on it, not by the Manitoba government but
by Nickel Mining and Smelting. Now re-
member that. The hon. member said the
Manitoba government had built this road in;
but we know all these factors. We have
worked very closely with the hon. Mr. Dins-
dale who is Minister of Northern Affairs in
the federal government and who is also
in that area; he knows the score and we are
carrying on these deliberations and we will
go ahead with this road; the hon. member
does not need to worry about that. But we
are not going to go in there to throw a whole
lot of money foolishly around, into a lake or
something, until we have the proper surveys
made.
Mr. Gibson: Mr, Chairman, may I rephrase
my question? When does the hon. Minister
anticipate the survey that is now under way
will be completed?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: The hon. member had
better ask the engineers.
Mr. Gibson: I would suggest to the hon.
Minister that that is his responsibility, not
mine.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am a
little puzzled at the haste with which we
galloped through the specific votes and then
had to plead for replies to questions that had
been asked earlier. I am also a little touched
by the confidence of the hon. member for
Kenora (Mr. Gibson) that the hon. Minister
will not equivocate and evade when a ques-
tion is asked him. I have tried now to get
answers on about four different occasions, and
there are two more questions I have asked
which the hon. Minister has ignored— ques-
tions with regard to research. What is the
government's present views on their continu-
ing research in the dangers of radioactivity
to the miners in the fields and, secondly,
what is the government doing, if anything,
on their own, or in conjunction with indus-
try, for the development of the civilian uses
of uranium?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well, I had them all
ready but the hon. member went through
them so fast it amazed me and I just bundled
my papers up.
Mind you, I am not joking about this,
l>ecause the hon. member's questions are very
good ones, and they are important ones. I
agree with that.
Radioactivity of the uranium mines. Since
the opening up of the uranium mines in
Ontario, the levels of radioactivity have been
measured at regular intervals in all working
places. The levels of radioactivity which
are controlled by ventilation have been held
very close to the tolerance recommended by
the American standards association. It is to
be remembered that our ores are low grade
in comparison with a large number of opera-
tions in other parts of the world, and conse-
quently levels of radioactivity are easier to
control.
Now, radiation in the Elliot Lake area is
well within safe limits. First, this a low
grade ore, and our ventilation and testing
programme and that of The Department of
Health and the Water Resources Commission
have reduced this danger in Elliot Lake to a
minimum.
Does that answer the question?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, it does— except for
this one point: the experts in the department's
report two or three years ago pointed out,
that we may keep our levels of radioactivity
below the level of tolerance, but the cumula-
tive effect of a level which is below the level
of tolerance may rise above the level of
tolerance. In other words, the danger is a
cumulative one.
I am not asserting this to be a fact. This
is a new field. The experts do not know
what the impact is going to be on the human
race. This may turn us all into monsters two
generations hence, or idiots or heaven knows
what, but the hon. Minister's answer ignores
this rather key point, if there is any validity
in it. While the level of tolerance may be
maintained the cumulative effect ultimately
will create as great a danger. I do not know
1034
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
what the experts, or what the hon. Minister's
own department, feel.
Secondly, the hon. Minister has still not
answered the question as to what this gov-
ernment is doing, if anything, alone or in
conjunction with industry, in the development
of the civilian uses of uranium.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: The hon. member has
brought out a good point about radioactivity.
I am sure that our men, hearing him speak,
will be alert and we will carry on with this
investigation to see that it does not get to the
point where it is serious.
Research with uranium and steels is
being carried on by the federal Department
of Mines and Technical Surveys. Although
more work has to be carried out we hope it
will fill the need for peacetime use of uran-
ium. We are constantly looking into the
peacetime uses.
On the contract that was mentioned this
afternoon I was talking to the hon. George
Hees not so many days ago and they were
hopeful that they would have that contract
before now, but it is a question of price and
also a stretch-out. They have not arrived
jointly at a satisfacory arrangement, but they
are very hopeful that it will be done before
long and we all hope the same thing. I
know the Opposition does, too.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, just one other
thing that I forgot. The hon. Minister may
be so kind as to give an answer to this. I
well recall last year that the hon. leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) inquired
of the then Minister of Mines (Mr. Maloney)
about the development of the ocean port
at Moosonee. In reference thereto, it is
peculiarly appropriate that he should have
inquired because we are all concerned about
the vast resources of iron ore that there
are in the Belcher islands, and I well recall,
also last year, that the then hon. Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Frost) replied, with respect to the
government's plans for the development of
that port, and I am happy to see the hon.
Minister of Economics (Mr. Macaulay) nod-
ding, because he remembers, too, when that
discussion took place.
Mr. MacDonald: It is part of his empire
now.
Mr. Sopha: It is? Well, perhaps, Mr.
Chairman, we could hear from the hon. Min-
ister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) or the hon.
Minister of Economics (Mr. Macaulay) or
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) in
the same way this year about the govern-
ment's intentions with respect to the develop-
ment of an ocean port at Moosonee.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Could I say to the
hon. member that I welcome his inquiry. I
was going to deal with this tomorrow in the
estimates of The Department of Commerce
and Development, and at that time table the
large report which has been carried out by
the federal Department of Mines and Tech-
nical Surveys, and to discuss these tomorrow,
if the hon. member would like.
Vote 1207 agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee of supply rise and report
that it has come to certain resolutions and
asks for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing, upon motions:
Bill No. 51, An Act to amend The Hos-
pital Services Commission Act.
Bill No. 52, An Act to amend The Public
Hospitals Act.
Bill No. 54, An Act to establish the
Ontario Code of Human Rights and to pro-
vide for its Administration.
Bill No. 55, An Act respecting Certain
Lands in the Town of Gananoque.
Bill No. 56, An Act to amend The Crown
Timber Act.
Bill No. 58, An Act to amend The Lake-
head College of Arts, Science and Technology
Act, 1956.
Bill No. 59, An Act to amend The Notaries
Act.
Bill No. 60, An Act to amend The Judica-
ture Act.
Bill No. 71, An Act to amend The Train-
ing Schools Act.
BiU No. Prl, An Act respecting Greater
Oshawa Community Chest.
MARCH 12, 1962
1035
Bill No. Pr3, An Act respecting the City
of Belleville.
Bill No. Pr4, An Act respecting The Queen
Elizabeth Hospital for Incurables, Toronto.
Bill No. Pr8, An Act respecting the Village
of Markham.
Bill No. Prl3, An Act respecting the Town-
ship of Nepean.
Bill No. Prl5, An Act respecting the High
School Board of the Township of Nepean
and the Collegiate Institute Board of the City
of Ottawa.
Bill No. Pr23, An Act respecting the Young
Men's- Young Women's Christian Association
of Cornwall.
THE ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES
COMMISSION ACT
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
AflFairs) moves second reading of Bill No. 77,
An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources
Commission Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS ACT
Hon. Mr. Cass moves second reading of Bill
No. 79, An Act to amend The Department of
Municipal Affairs Act.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, Bill No. 79 is the one that the
hon. Minister advised was self-explanatory—
and I suppose he gets that from the explana-
tory note which says that it is self-explanatory.
In the past, we have heard a great deal from
the former Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) and
other members of the government front
benches about the importance of local au-
tonomy. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me
that this bill is a real attack on all the prin-
ciples of local autonomy that the government
has been talking about for many years. What
in effect this bill says, as I read it in any
event, is that if an assessment has been made,
even if there has been an appeal to the court
of revision, county judge, or the municipal
board, and suddenly someone in The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs comes to the con-
clusion that this assessment is unreasonable,
the department can, of its own volition say,
"Let us cancel that all out and start over
again," and send in its own assessors.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know
what motivates the principle behind this. Is it
that the department has suddenly come to
the conclusion that municipal assessors can-
not do their jobs properly? Is it that the
department has determined now that there
will be a province-wide system of assess-
ment? If this is what the government has in
mind why does it not come out and say so?
At the session of the select committee on
municipal affairs to inquire into The Muni-
cipal Act and related Acts, there were a
number of suggestions put forward by the
members to the effect that the system of
county assessors was a good one and should
be extended. There was certain criticism
levied at the present legislation on the basis
that the only way of having a county assessor's
opinion apply throughout the whole county
was on the basis of unanimous consent of all
the municipalities in that county.
It was noted on the way by, that no county
had ever achieved that unanimous consent but
that the idea was a good one— that there
should be similar standards of assessment
throughout the whole county. And I submit
that this is a good and sensible idea even
though it has not been applied.
There was the additional question, and it
was raised by several witnesses who appeared
before the select committee and by several
members of the committee, that it was pretty
difficult to obtain assessors of competent
training because many of the smaller muni-
cipalities were unable to pay them sufficiently
high salaries; that there were not recognized
standards of training for municipal assessors;
that the department has not as yet, as they
have done with auditors, determined what the
qualifications are of certificated or qualified
assessors.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what puzzles me about
this, and what I think is a most peculiar thing
in the government's approach to this self-
explanatory bill, is that suddenly they are
throwing over this whole idea of municipal
autonomy; they are taking into the depart-
ment the right to completely discard an assess-
ment, even after it has been approved by a
court of revision or county court judge or the
Ontario Municipal Board. And they are sub-
stituting their own view. They can appoint
new assessors and do the whole thing over
again. I think the hon. Minister must give
this House the real explanation as to why
this very important departure from principle
is being taken at this time.
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
1036
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has, I think set forth very well, the arguments
and many discussions there have been before
the select committee of which he is a member,
and in many other places and the reasons
why a provincially equalized assessment might
be a sound matter from the viewpoint of
administration of certain things such as grants.
However, he has also said something which,
I believe, is still the policy of this government
namely, that this government does believe in
and does wish to respect municipal autonomy.
That is still a valid statement of government
policy so far as myself and my department
are concerned. I confirm what the hon.
member has said with respect to government
policy in that regard.
This particular section is a section which
does give— as the hon. member has pointed
out the Act is quite self-explanatory— it does
give to the department the right to have a
re-assessment where the department deems
necessary. Athough that is not in there I
can assure the hon. member and all hon.
members the department would never arbi-
trarily order such a re-assessment. Where the
department, in consultation with and, I am
sure, at the urging of, a local municipality,
feels that such patent inequalities, by reason
of certain appeals to the court of revision,
exist, in cases where some owners had
appealed and other owners with equally
good cases had not appealed, there could
be then a patent injustice and the basis for
the tax would be unfair and unreasonable.
I think that it is only right that this gov-
ernment should allow the local municipality,
at its request, to have a new assessment
made, not necessarily by government asses-
sors but by those acceptable to the munici-
pality as well as to the department. Then
in the current year all people would be
used properly; the tax basis would be the
same, the tax basis would be fair, the little
man as well as the big man would pay a
reasonable and fair tax.
That, Mr. Speaker, is in essence the reason
for this amendment. I doubt very much if
it will be used on very many occasions. I
can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon.
members of this House, that it will not be
used in any municipality where the local
authorities do not wish this assistance from
the department in order to have their people
used fairly.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon.
Minister where the initiative had come from
with respect to this piece of legislation?
Who has requested it? The hon. Minister
has said it is not likely to be used very
often. Would he advise the House under
what circumstances it would be used? Who
has outlined the reasons why this particular
piece of legislation should be brought forth?
Hon. Mr. Cass: Mr. Speaker, that is a fair
question, and yet to answer it would be
almost impossible in most cases because
until the case arises, it would be pretty hard
to say whether any particular municipality
would be one affected by this Act.
But I would say this that it arose in The
Department of Municipal Affairs and arose
out of the consideration of a situation, Mr,
Speaker, which would arise particularly in
those municipalities which are closely super-
vised by the department. I believe that all
hon. members are aware that since the
municipalities that went into supervision
during the depression have been released
from supervision by the department, there
are now only improvement districts under
the direct supervision of the department
and those municipalities which receive a
mining tax grant are also under a certain
amount of supervision by my department.
The officials of my department have be-
come concerned that in certain areas it
would be possible, and probably is so, that
an assessment made in tlie year before for
taxation, the next year could be badly thrown
off balance by many things, including ap-
peals which were successful by a small seg-
ment of the tax paying base. So as a matter
of concern to them, they recommended to
me, and I did to the government and to tiiis
House, that this power be given to the de-
partment officials so that, as occasion arises,
it may be so used.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. Minister would permit another ques-
tion that has occurred to me as a result of
his remarks?
Has the department no faith in the ap-
peals safeguards presently in The Assess-
ment Act? There are appeals to courts of
revision from there to a county court judge,
from there to the municipal board. Have
there been criticisms of the disposition of
these appeals? What in fact is being done,
Mr. Speaker, is to provide an appeal from
an appeal from an appeal. And here is a
new appeal which can be handled by the
department after the aggrieved persons have
exhausted three other sets of appeals.
I am surprised really that the hon. Min-
ister, apparently by introducing this Act,
shows such little faith in the decisions of
MARCH X2, 1962
1037
courts of revision or county court judges or
even his own Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. Minister said that this would rarely
be used. The question is: it can be used at
any time, and an appeal can survive three
stages — the court of revision, the county
judge or the board— and yet The Department
of Municipal Affairs can overrule the whole
thing. I just cannot understand why that
should be so.
Hon. Mr. Cass: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think
the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Thomas)
perhaps has taken the words of the previous
speaker and not thought for a moment about
them and the Act as presented. There is no
question about the excellent system of ap-
peals from assessment per se. Each year that
system of appeals works well, each year
assessment rolls are amended and varied
here and there by successful appeals.
The problem, which the last speaker, the
hon. member for Oshawa propounded, could
be answered perhaps by this: that in certain
areas, and it is quite evident in some of the
municipalities under supervision that I have
referred to, certain large taxpayers could
appeal their assessment. Smaller ones would
not appeal it, the large ones might be success-
ful in an appeal and be successful because
they had grounds of appeal that were reason-
able and which the court would see.
The other fellow, not having appealed, of
course would be stuck with the assessment
on a basis different from that which the
court of revision or the county judge or the
Ontario Municipal Board might rule on
appeal to be a proper basis of assessment.
Then we would have for the next year two
classes of taxpayers— those assessed on one
basis, on a much higher assessment, and those
one or two that had enough money and were
fortunate enough and smart enough to appeal
and have their appeal successful because the
facts backed them up. So that type of in-
equity, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of inequity
which this is drafted to prevent.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, may I
suggest to the hon. Minister that what he
has said just now makes a good deal of
common sense, and certainly adds to the
excellence and efficiency of operation; but
the phraseology of the Act is so much
broader. It would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that
in any instance this department is authorized
by the Legislature to overrule the several
judicial bodies that normally determine the
assessment of a given property.
I can understand that in a given situation
where one individual makes and succeeds in
an appeal, that others in order to be dealt
with equitably, who would, but for the fact
they did not appeal, be entitled to the same
remedy, should be entitled to it by virtue of
the Act of the department. Now why can we
not say just that?
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the phrase-
ology here is so broad and so all-inclusive
that understandably the Opposition is con-
cerned to know why and under what circum-
stances it is limited to the illustration that
has been made. I think we can phrase that
particular objective clearly and in simple
and direct language.
Hon. Mr. Cass: Well, Mr. Speaker, what
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer) has said is probably quite true;
but I would say two things with respect to
it. One is, of course, that I am quite sure
that any municipalities who have had deal-
ings with the officials of this department of
government, can rely on their common sense
in being sure that it is a necessity before any
action is taken. The second thing is that
this does not affect any rights of appeal
which now exist; and the only time that this
Act, as I was advised by my advisers when
this was being drawn, would come into play
would not be if the ordinary appeal were
successful and one man got a better deal
than another fellow; it would come into play
if such appeal affected the whole basis of
the assessment and the taxation in that com-
munity for the coming year. Now, if the hon.
leader of the Opposition has another question,
I would be glad to answer it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
do not want to labour this point unneces-
sarily, but let me read to you the phrase-
ology:
Where it appears to the department that
by reason of the revision or alteration of
an assessment roll in accordance with a
decision or decisions of the court of re-
vision, the county judge, or the board, the
roll as so revised or altered is inequitable
in respect of a substantial number of
persons shown on the roll, the department
may order that the entire roll as revised
or altered be set aside and direct a new
assessment to be made by such person as
it may designate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that
that does permit the department to interfere
in any decision of any of the three judicial
bodies.
1038
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Cass: Mr. Speaker, it does not
empower the department to interfere any
more than the present custom, which I de-
plore, of assessment commissioners. When
an assessment has been made for the current
year, and it is appealed to the county judge
or even the municipal board, before that
order is out, hardly, the assessor has the
right, and very often exercises that right, of
re-assessing, for the next year at the same
figure. That could also be considered an
interference with the ruling of a court.
We have no intention under this Act, Mr.
Speaker, to interfere at all. The judge's
order, the court of revision order or the
board order will stand so far as that assess-
ment is concerned. All that happens is that
there could be a new and equitable assess-
ment made thereafter.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I still cannot
understand—
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. members
will realize that we are going a little far, as
it were, in second reading. We are getting
down to details and cross-questions and so
forth. I think the hon. members realize that
the rules of second readings are that hon.
members speak once. However, that is
where hon. members can ask questions and
so forth, when we are in the committee
stage.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ACT
Hon. Mr. Cass moves second reading of
Bill No. 80, An Act to amend The Ontario
Municipal Board Act.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, while I recognize
that in second readings we generally should
debate the principle of the bill, as hon. mem-
bers look at this bill they will recognize that
there are three separate principles. I want
to address my remarks to the principle in the
third subsection of this bill, that concerning
the question of appeals from orders of the
Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of a substantial
diflBculty this government found itself in
when it attempted to work under the old
section 94 of The Ontario Municipal Board
Act. An incident arose before the municipal
board concerning a subdivision known as the
St. Andrew subdivision.
There were long and involved hearings on
the municipal level and before the municipal
board. The municipal board handed down
its decision which did not meet with the
approval of all of the people afiFected. A
group of them appealed under the old sec-
tion 94 to the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-
Council. For the first time, Mr. Speaker, I
believe since section 94 or its predecessor
has been in the statute books, on this occasion
the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council purported
to act under the old section 94.
The old section 94 allows the Lieutenant-
Governor-in-Council to act after there has
been a hearing and after there has been
notice. In this particular case I speak of,
there was no hearing and there was no notice.
Nevertheless, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-
Council purported to act and an order-in-
council was passed. The old section 94
allowed the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council
to approve, vary or rescind the order of the
municipal board.
Notwithstanding that, sir, the Lieutenant-
Governor-in-Council purported to refer the
decision, or portion of the decision of the
municipal board, back to the municipal board.
A further hearing took place before the
municipal board and it was brought to the
attention of the board by the solicitor for the
subdivider that in his opinion the attempted
action by the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council
was invalid because it did not fall within the
four walls of the old section 94. The muni-
cipal board at the request of this gentleman,
the solicitor, referred the matter to the court
of appeal for a decision.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, not-
withstanding the fact that the Lieutenant-
Governor-in-Council purported to act, and,
as I think I have pointed out, acted quite
improperly, there was no one from the
government present— there was no one from
the hon. Attorney-General's (Mr. Roberts')
ofiice present, there was no one from the
law arm of the government present— to argue
before the court of appeal of this province
that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council had
in fact acted legally and properly.
It is passing strange, at least, Mr. Speaker,
that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council
should act or purport to act within the terms
of the statute, and when these actions are
questioned before the court of appeal of this
province the government did not see fit to de-
fend the actions of the Lieutenant-Governor-
in-Council. However, this is what they chose
to do. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the
day before the court of appeal was due to
hear this questioned order-in-council the
Lif^utenant-Governor-in-Council had a new
order-in-council rescinding the one that was
MARCH 12, 1962
1039
to be reviewed by the court of appeal the
following morning.
Notwithstanding this, the court of appeal
carried on with their hearing on the first
order-in-council and it took them a very small
amount of time, a very few minutes to say
that in their opinion, their unanimous opinion,
that the first order-in-council was completely
and thoroughly invalid. In fact, one of the
learned judges said that he had grave doubts
about the second order-in-council but that
matter was not before him and so he was not
going to give an opinion on it.
Mr. Speaker, the government having gotten
themselves into that difficulty, are now
attempting to bail themselves out by chang-
ing that section. They acted improperly, they
were not prepared to defend their action,
their action was thrown out by the court of
appeal, and now they are amending the
section. Let us see what we have here.
At least in the old section 94 the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in this sort of
a case— an appeal from the municipal board-
was allowed to act after notice and on a hear-
ing, and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council
could do certain things. He could alter or
vary or rescind or confirm the order of the
municipal board. Now here in the first part
of section 94 the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-
Council, without a hearing, without notice,
completely unilaterally, can alter, vary or
rescind. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is some-
thing most unusual in this purported action of
the government where they are taking unto
themselves the right to confirm or vary or
rescind an order of the municipal board with-
out notice and without a hearing. These
orders can be and are in so many cases very,
very important. If there is any importance in
there being an appeal from this type of an
order, surely in equity and in fairness and in
reasonableness, if the government is going to
interfere with what has been discussed in a
municipality, what has been discussed before
a planning board, what has been discussed by
the Ontario Municipal Board— the govern-
ment's own appointed and impartial board-
surely, if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council
is going to interfere with this, he should keep
in what was in the old section 94, the right to
notice and the right to a hearing.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in subsection 2 of this
new section 94 there is the most unique pro-
vision. I just do not understand the purpose
of this at all. As I read subsection 2, every
order that has ever been made by the Ontario
Municipal Board for the period of six months
after this Act is passed is subject to an appeal.
Every order that the Ontario Municipal Board
has ever made can now be reviewed and can
be dealt with by the Lieutenant-Govemor-in-
Council without notice and without a hearing.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is an awful thing if
the government really means what they say
in this section. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the
government has a duty to tell the people of
Ontario why every order that was ever passed
and every decision that was ever made by the
Ontario Municipal Board should be open to
review for a period of sixty days.
Now then, if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-
Council does not act himself what happens?
He is given power to require the board to
re-hear the hearing on which they have
already given a decision. As you know, Mr.
Speaker, the municipal board already has
power to re-hear on a proper motion a matter
it has already dealt with. The matter comes
from the municipality to the municipal board
and they hear it and they give a decision.
Later if they determine that they should re-
hear it and they have this power and they
do, they hear it a second time. And if the
people who are concerned about this still are
not satisfied, they go to the Lieutenant-
Governor-in-Council and he can do one of
two things. He can change it without notice
and without a hearing or he can say, "I
am going to send it back to the municipal
board and they can hear it for a third time."
Mr. Speaker, very briefly, if it is important
that there be an appeal system from the
Ontario Municipal Board, surely the govern-
ment can do better than this new section
they have before us.
This brings us to the very important prin-
ciple as to whether or not there should be
an appeal from the Ontario Municipal Board.
We have heard from the hon. gentlemen
opposite for a long time that the municipal
board is impartial, not influenced. It decides
as it will in the best judgment of the very
able gentlemen who are the members of that
board. If this is in fact so, then why should
there be this sort of an appeal system? If
the government is satisfied with this sort of
a system should they not give security of
tenure to the members of the municipal
board?
Should they not hold office during good
behaviour, as the judges of our courts do, or
should they continue in office merely at
pleasure, as they do now? This whole idea,
Mr. Speaker, suggests to me that the govern-
ment is not concerned about the impartiality
of the municipal board. What is going to
be the reaction of the municipal board if the
1040
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
government acts under sub-section (b) of
section 1— and the board, having sat once or
twice, now sits a third time because the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council determines
that they re-hear what they have heard and
possibly have re-heard? Truly they are going
to get the idea very quickly that they have
no security of tenure, that the government
is not very happy with what they have
decided and they should do it all over again
and decide in the way the government seems
to indicate they should.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think
this section 94 is completely and thoroughly
inequitable, establishes a new and a very bad
and dangerous principle, and should not be
supported by this House.
Hon. Mr. Cass: May I just say that this
bill will go to the committee on municipal
law and at that time the hon. members will
have the opportunity of discussing it.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE JAILS ACT
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions) moves second reading of Bill No.
91, An Act to amend The Jails Act.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is
the opportunity that we will have to debate
the general statement put forward by the
hon. Minister about municipal and county
jails. I do not know whether the hon. Min-
ister would prefer it on this bill or whether
he would prefer it in his estimates.
Hon J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, there is an amendment coming in to
actually transfer the jurisdiction and that
would be an amendment to The Municipal
Act. I should think that would be the place
for the debate.
Mr. Singer: It does not matter, as long as
we get a chance.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MENTAL HOSPITALS ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves second reading of Bill No. 82, An
Act to amend The Mental Hospitals Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG
ADDICTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION
ACT, 1949
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves second reading
of Bill No. 83, An Act to amend The Alcoho-
lism and Drug Addiction Research Founda-
tion Act, 1949.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PRIVATE SANATORIA ACT
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves second reading
of Bill No. 84, An Act to amend The Private
Sanatoria Act.
bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
THE MUNICIPAL UNCONDITIONAL
GRANTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Cass moves second reading of
Bill No. 92, An Act to amend The Municipal
Unconditional Grants Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC PARKS ACT
Hon. Mr. Cass moves second reading of
Bill No. 94, An Act to amend The Public
Parks Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
METROPOLITAN UNITED CHURCH
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park) in the
absence of Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George),
moves second reading of Bill No. PrlO, An
Act respecting Metropolitan United Church
of Toronto.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Cass moves second reading of
Bill No. 90, An Act to amend The Local
Improvement Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF ST. CATHARINES
Mr. E. P. Momingstar (Welland) moves
second reading of Bill No. Prll, An Act
respecting the city of St. Catharines.
Metion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
MARCH 12, 1962
1041
CITY OF TORONTO
Mr. Cowling moves second reading of Bill
No. Prl4, An Act respecting the city of
Toronto.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF OTTAWA
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka), in the absence
of Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West), moves
second reading of Bill No. Prl7, An Act
respecting the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
ESSEX AND LEAMINGTON
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Mr. G. W. Parry (Kent West) moves second
reading of Bill No. Pr22, An Act respecting
the county of Essex, the town of Leamington
and the Public Utilities Commission of the
town of Leamington.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
SUDBURY, NEELON-GARSON AND
FALCONBRIDGE SCHOOL BOARDS
Mr. Cowling, in the absence of Mr. R.
Belisle (Nickel Belt), moves second reading of
Bill No. Pr25, An Act respecting the High
School Board of the City of Sudbury and
the Neelon-Garson and Falconbridge District
High School Board.
bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL
Mr. A. A. Mackenzie (York North) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr26, An Act
respecting the town of Richmond Hill.
bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
TOWNSHIP OF WICKSTEED
Mr. Cowling, in the absence of Mr. H. C.
Lyons (Sault Ste. Marie), moves second
reading of Bill No. Pr27, An Act respecting
the township of Wicksteed.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWNSHIP OF ETOBICOKE
Mr. W. B. Lewis ( York-Humber ) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr29, An Act
respecting the township of Etobicoke.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into commitee of the whole.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee of the whole, Mr. K.
Brown in the chair.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: The government notice
of motion No. 3 by hon. A. K. Roberts.
Resolved,
That, there shall be paid, (a) to the
chief judge, an allowance at the rate of
$5,000 per annum; (aa) to the judge of the
county court of the county of York, an
allowance at the rate of $2,500 per annum,
as provided by Bill No. Pr62, An Act to
amend The County Judges Act.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition ) : Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, should we not consider the bill section
by section first?
Mr. Chairman: That is not necessary.
Resolution concurred in.
Clerk of the House: The government notice
of motion No. 4, by hon. G. C. Wardrope.
Resolved,
That, the cost of establishing, maintaining
and operating mine rescue stations shall be
paid out of the consolidated revenue fund,
as provided by Bill No. 57, An Act to amend
The Mining Act.
Resolution concurred in.
Clerk of the House: The government notice
of motion No. 5, by hon. J. N. Allan.
Resolved,
That, every purchaser of certain tangible
personal property shall pay to Her Majesty
in right of Ontario a tax in respect of the
consumption or use thereof,
as provided by Bill No. 86, An Act to amend
The Retail Sales Tax Act, 1960-1961.
Resolution concurred in.
1042
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Clerk of the House: The government notice
of motion No. 6, by hon. J. N. Allan.
Resolved,
That, purchasers of admission to places
of amusement referred to in Bill No. 87,
An Act to amend The Hospitals Tax Act,
shall pay to the Treasurer of Ontario a tax
on the price of admission in the amounts
provided for therein.
Resolution concurred in.
THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 33, An
Act to amend The Department of Education
Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 33 reported.
THE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 70, An
Act to amend The Agricultural Societies Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 70 reported.
THE BEES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 74, An
Act to amend The Bees Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 74 reported.
THE CO-OPERATIVE LOANS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 75, An
Act to amend The Co-operative Loans Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 75 reported.
VILLAGE OF ERIE BEACH
House in committee on Bill No. Pr2, An
Act respecting the village of Erie Beach.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. Pr2 reported.
TOWN OF HEARST
House in committee on Bill No. Pr5, An
Act respecting the town of Hearst.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. Pr5 reported.
ONTARIO CO-OPERATIVES
CREDIT SOCIETY
House in committee on Bill No. Prl2, An
Act respecting Ontario Co-operatives Credit
Society.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. Prl2 reported.
TOWN OF OAKVILLE
House in committee on Bill No. Prl6, An
Act respecting the town of Oakville.
Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. Prl6 reported.
CITY OF WINDSOR
House in committee on Bill No. Prl9, An
Act respecting the city of Windsor.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. Prl9 reported.
THE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 76, An
Act to amend The Horticultural Societies
Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 76 reported.
OTTAWA SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
House in committee on Bill No. Pr21, An
Act respecting the city of Ottawa Separate
School Board.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. Pr21 reported.
MARCH 12, 1962
1043
ONTARIO REGISTERED
MUSIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
House in committee on Bill No. Pr24, An
Act respecting the Ontario Registered Music
Teachers' Association.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. Pr24 reported.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the commit-
tee of the whole House rise and report that
it has come to certain resolutions and to
report certain bills without amendment and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report that it
has come to certain resolutions and to report
certain bills without amendment and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Will the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) tell us what
the business of tonight's sitting will be?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): We
will go on with the estimates of the hon.
Provincial Secretary (Mr. Yaremko) and the
budget debate.
It being 6 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 36
ONTARIO
Hegisslature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Monday, March 12, 1962
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, March 12, 1962
Estimates, Department of Provincial Secretary and Minister of Citizenship, Mr.
Yaremko, continued 1047
Resumption of the debate on the budget, Mr. Connell, Mr. Hofifman, Mr. Reaume 1055
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Auld, agreed to 1062
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 1062
1047
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8:00 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
(continued)
On vote 1601:
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, might I speak for just a moment
before we get started? I want to straighten
up a question of procedure that arose on
Friday afternoon. If hon. members look at the
order paper, they will note that order No. 18
is the consideration of the report of the Liquor
Control Board of Ontario for the year ending
March 31, 1961. I put this order on the
paper to have a vehicle for debating liquor,
and anything hon. members choose to debate
concerning it, in the House. This will not be
called this week but I will feel free to call
it any time after the end of this week.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Well,
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts). I think this is
the obvious solution to this problem. It is
the one we resorted to with the Hydro
commission. I think it is the tidiest way to
handle the problem of debate on the liquor
commission too.
I need not say, Mr. Chairman, that the de-
bate on these estimates has been most un-
predictable and has covered many fronts. We
find ourselves switching back and forward,
but I want to go back to what is one of the
main aspects of this department's work prior
to the injection into it of the citizenship work.
I am referring to the incorporation of com-
panies and problems relating thereto.
Now my colleague, the hon. member for
Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) raised in the House
here what I think is, to any serious-minded
citizen in this province, an increasingly dis-
turbing problem, and that is the number of
occasions in which the public becomes aware
of the grossest kind of irregularities or
exploitations by companies, often leading up
to eventual bankruptcy. Some of the prin-
cipals involved disappear, and apparently
nothing can be done about it.
Monday, March 12, 1962
My hon. colleague suggested that there
should be some tightening up of the Act and
particularly that there should be some more
stringent supervision and regulation by the
department which establishes these companies.
I will have to congratulate the hon. Minister,
he gave a very smart political reply because
the hon. member for Woodbine made the
argument that, instead of permitting one
person in reality to set up a company—
because all he has to do is bring in an aunt,
an uncle, a brother or sister or mother, any
two others and set up the necessary three
directors— the rights of incorporation of a
company should be restricted to a greater
number of persons. The hon. Minister con-
strued this as restricting this privilege of
setting up a limited company for big corpora-
tions and the little fellow was going to be
deprived of it and he gave a very smart poli-
tical speech.
I want to come back to this, Mr. Chairman,
because I was thinking about it over the week-
end, particularly when I had an opportunity
to discuss related problems with farmers and
trade unionists. I say related problems be-
cause in my view what this Legislature does
through the department of the hon. Provincial
Secretary (Mr. Yaremko) is actually to delegate
certain powers when it incorporates a com-
pany. It grants to an individual, along with
other individuals, the right to set up a com-
pany which limits personal liability. It
thereby creates a new personality— if I may
use that term— the company itself.
It is true that this company has to report
periodically to the hon. Provincial Secretary's
department, but anybody who examines the
files will very quickly be reminded of the fact
that these reports are not necessarily done
when the law requires. When The Depart-
ment of the Provincial Secretary reminds
them of their laxity in not reporting at the
end of each year, this is sometimes ignored
and it goes on for a year or two and on
occasion after some time, The Department of
the Provincial Secretary then proceeds to the
point of withdrawing the charter from the
company.
What strikes me, Mr. Chairman, as rather
interesting— since this government would
1048
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
claim that it was administering the law evenly
to all groups in the community— is to pause
for a moment and consider the laxity with
which this government deals with the super-
vision and the inspection, if you will, of the
exercise of this delegated power when it goes
to a hmited company, and the growing con-
cern that this government manifests in the
delegation of power that it makes— for
example, to a group of workers who establish
a trade union or to a group of farmers who
establish collective bargaining through a
marketing scheme.
As a matter of fact, a year or two ago this
government became so exercised at what
farmers might do in using the power that was
delegated to them, that we passed Bill No.
86 which now makes it possible for the
government to intervene in the day-to-day
operation, dictating the amount of money
farmers will raise, dictating the amount of
money they will spend— or at least making it
subject to supervision— even making it possible
for the government to step in and establish
a trusteeship.
There is certainly a growing pressure from
certain quarters that there should be increas-
ing intervention in the exercise of power that
this Legislature delegates to trade unions.
Now in contrast to that, I ask the House
to consider for one moment what goes on
with regard to companies. There is the
grossest kind of laxity. I invite, for example,
hon. members of this Legislature some time
to read through the transcript of the Royal
commission which investigated the Dimen-
sional Investments in that so-called Hydro
land deal with the Indians in the Samia
area. We had the most incredible operations
of companies, behind the front of a company,
once it had secured the charter— not living
up to the law at all.
And, of course, the most striking example
is the one that was drawn to the attention
of the House in some detail just a week or
so ago by the hon. member for Dovercourt
(Mr. Thompson), this so-called Piggyland
scheme up in the Sunderland area, incorpor-
ated as the Associated Livestock Growers of
Ontario.
Now, hon. members, who may have
doubted some of the brief exposition of what
this company did when the hon. member
for Dovercourt referred to it last week, will
have had an opportunity in last Friday's or
Saturday's Toronto Daily Star to read a full
account of this company's operations in Pierre
Berton's column. It is just a factual presenta-
tion. Yet, without going through the whole
detail of it, the incredible thing here, Mr.
Chairman, is this, that here was obviously
the shakiest kind of financial arrangement.
When a certain Mr. Baun came in to operate
the scheme, he came to the conclusion that
they were "selling non-existent pigs for
vastly inflated prices." The company was
guaranteeing astonishing profits— a net of
$300 a year on an investment of $500—
"enough to make any real pig farmer rub
his eyes in disbelief," says Pierre Berton.
But then, on through the column— and I
am not going to take the time of the House
to list them— there were five or six attempts
on the part of this man who, for a short
time, was managing the farm and discovered
it to be the most flagrant kind of swindle;
five or six eff^orts on the part of this man to
arouse the police, papers, radio stations, The
Department of Agriculture. What really
amazes me is the only place he did not go
was the hon. Provincial Secretary's depart-
ment. I am almost persuaded that they
knew that was futile and would not achieve
anything.
But here is a man operating— and we are
told repeatedly through Pierre Berton's col-
umn—legally, and yet he swindles, inside a
year and a half, something like $1.8 million
out of a public who were led to believe the
whole scheme was sound by papers in whom
they had placed their confidence. In spite
of the evidence, the police and all of these
other responsible people would not act.
If you wanted any more proof, Mr. Chair-
man, that The Companies Act and its opera-
tion, and the granting of charters without
some more adequate supervision and inspec-
tion of what goes on once you have granted
that power, surely it is most conclusively set
forward in this most recent case.
I wonder whether the hon. Provincial Sec-
retary (Mr. Yaremko) can be persuaded not
to get up and give us another little speech
saying that he is defending the little fellow
who wants to get incorporated and have a
limited liability and he is not going to re-
strict this privilege to the big fellows, or
whether I can persuade him to share with
the House his thinking, his worries— I cannot
believe that he has not got some worries— as
to what is the legitimate responsibflity of
government which grants charters through
his departments— to see if we cannot bring
some end to the kind of thing that went on
in the Piggyland deal, or was revealed by the
Royal commission in the Samia deal.
I ask the hon. Minister whether he has had
any sober second thoughts after the week-
end, now that he has unburdened himself of
MARCH 12, 1962
1049
the political aspects of it, as to what, if any-
thing, he thinks might be done to avoid this
kind of abuse and exploitation of the public
under the guise of a charter that he grants?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to know that
the hon. member, leader of the NDP group
(Mr. MacDonald), has evidently had some
second sober thoughts over the weekend as
opposed to the hon. member for Woodbine
(Mr. Bryden).
Mr. Chairman, in relationship to the returns
that are required under The Corporations
Act, the law of the province of Ontario, at
present 87 per cent of the corporations whose
names we have on our records file returns.
In 1959 there were 52,590; in 1960, 53,000;
and in 1961, 55,000. A number of years ago,
approximately half a dozen, the companies
division was in a position to start clearing
their files of companies who had not filed
annual returns. In accordance with the law,
the Provincial Secretary has the discre-
tion to cancel for failure to file returns after
a period of three years. In the year 1956
there were over 2,700 such cancelled; in
1957, 1,700; in 1958, 1,000; in 1959, 2,100;
in 1960, 2,600; and last year, 3,800; for
not complying with the law. That is the
way that is being administered.
I bring to the attention of the House, Mr.
Chairman, that the marketing schemes, once
they are in effect, are compulsory; whereas
so far as companies are concerned it is com-
pletely voluntary on the part of the indivi-
dual whether he will participate in a private
corporation or in a public corporation. The
task of looking over the shoulders of some
60,000 or more companies in the province
of Ontario, to police them on the part of
The Department of the Provincial Secretary,
would be, I suggest, a task of money and
time and eff^ort which would outweigh the
abuse by a limited number of individuals
through the corporate scheme.
The laws of the province are stated in
The Corporations Act at present. The matter
was reviewed in detail by a select committee
of this House who devoted, I believe, some
two or more years to the study of the Act.
We are in continuous study of the Act to
bring it up to date. As the hon. member
will recall, we introduced legislation in this
House, last year, that would require the
immediate return to be filed in respect of
change of directors, in addition to returns
to be filed in respect of the redemption of
shares.
Because publicity is given to the fact that
people have made some abuses, these abuses
are not necessarily brought about by reason
of the fact that they are incorporated.
There is nothing to lead us to believe
that this man who had the Piggyland scheme
would not have done exactly the same, not
having been incorporated. The same thing
applies where other people do not, for ex-
ample, pay unemployment insurance or
vacation with pay. The same circumstances,
the same thing, could apply even if the per-
sons were not incorporated. The fact that
there is a corporation does not necessarily
give any added protection to the individual
except in the limited liability aspect; and to
do away with the limited liability aspect for
all corporations, in order to prevent the abuse
by the very small number, I think would
be setting back the commerce and industry
of this province over 150 years.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to pursue this very much longer ex-
cept to say that I am not completely satis-
fied that it is not possible, through changes
in the Act, to have more stringent regula-
tions which would close the door somewhat
to the kind of abuses that we hear of fre-
quently. That is one aspect. The second
aspect of the problem, even more shocking,
is that, even when people go out of their
way and spend a good deal of time and
efi^ort to try to bring gross violations to the
attention of authorities, they do not seem
to be able to get action. This is what we
had here in the instance of the Piggyland
deal, and in the instance of the— maybe not
in the hon. Provincial Secretary's depart-
ment, I will concede, because, as I said, I
do not think they ever came to his depart-
ment; they seemed to go to everybody else.
However, the other aspect of the question
is that if they cannot get response from the
authorities when a situation is brought to
their attention, then it seems to me that
there is great laxity; the administrative
functions do not roll into action even when
they are drawn to their attention.
The hon. Minister pleads that they can-
not have people looking over the shoulders
of 60,000 companies. Suppose I accept his
argument that for the moment nothing can
be done. Why cannot he get action when
people do draw to his attention gross in-
equities and exploitation in this instance?
If I may go back to the one he cites
about people, incorporated or otherwise, who
violate laws and do not give holidays with
pay and unemployment insurance and things
of this nature; that was rather a poor one
1050
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to raise, because once again this is the kind
of thing that was drawn to the attention
of this government before a select com-
mittee and the government refused to do
anything about it. Two years later they reaped
the consequences of their failure to act in
the kind of explosion we had in the con-
struction industry this past year.
However, I have drawn it to the atten-
tion of the hon. Minister once again and I
suggest we cannot tolerate this kind of
thing happening as frequently as it does
without examining whether or not there
is not a possibility for tightening up the
Act somewhat more than is the case at the
present time.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I just
want to say that since I have been Pro-
vincial Secretary there is no complaint that
has been brought to my attention in rela-
tionship to corporations that I have not gone
into. Some hon. members have on behalf
of their constituents brought certain matters
to my attention. If we have had power
under the Act we have acted under the
Act; and if we do not have the power we
have used our good oflBces to see that the
source of complaint was attended to.
I am sure that in complaints to the Deputy
Provincial Secretary, whose service goes back
many years, knowing the man that he is, I
cannot conceive of him or the previous Pro-
vincial Secretaries not having acted on the
complaint.
The hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) has gratuitously stated that the
making of a complaint would be "futile."
I suggest to him that perhaps the mistake
was that they did not come to us, because
they would either have received satisfaction
from us or they would have been directed
or advised what steps to take in this regard.
Votes 1601 and 1602 agreed to.
On vote 1603:
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr. Chair-
man, on vote 1603. Insofar as I have been
able to ascertain this is about the only place
in the estimates that we can discuss generally,
I hope, the question of electoral laws and
redistribution and that sort of thing. You
will recall, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, this matter was threshed out
in this Legislature either last year or the year
before and it was ruled by the chairman of
the day that the discussion on these matters
did not come in the estimates of the
Provincial Secretary, that there was ample
opportunity in the Throne speech and in the
budget speech, for debate on these things.
In this instance there will be also an oppor-
tunity on the motion that the hon. leader of
the House, the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) has in respect to the announcement
he made in connection with redistribution.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I do not know
whether it is a government policy to stifle the
sort of interchange that we can have only
on estimates and say that this kind of a
discussion is out of order.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order!
Mr. Singer: The hon. Prime Minister
introduced this bill.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, my
point of order is that there is no thou^t—
Mr. Singer: If we are not allowed to discuss
this with some responsible Minister, then we
are being muzzled, Mr. Chairman, and—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —there is no thought
of stifling it, there will be plenty of opportu-
nity during the course of this Legislature. If
the hon. member will only familiarize himself
with the rules and procedure of this House
he will find ample opportunity.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I would point out
that the ruling of the prior Chairman is in
no way binding on you. I simply suggest,
unlike the ruling of the Speaker, that you
are quite free to make a ruling in your good
discretion. I hope that you would do that.
Mr. Singer: I am talking about the election
officer. Is there anything more vital, Mr.
Chairman, to the welfare of this province
than proper election procedure? If we can-
not discuss it under the heading, chief elec-
toral officer, where then can it be discussed?
An hon. member: Go ahead!
Mr. Chairman: I rule it out of order, the
same as the previous Chairman.
Mr. Singer: Out of order?
Mr. Chairman: Yes!
Mr. Singer: For what reason?
Mr. Wintermeyer: You must give some
reason, Mr. Chairman. We are in no posi-
tion to determine whether to challenge your
ruling.
MARCH 12, 1962
1051
Mr. Chairman: The ruling is the same
as that of the previous Chairman.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, that is no reason,
Mr. Chairman.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: It is out of order.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
have one— I do not know whether tliis is in
the same category, I will have to bow to
your ruling— but I wanted to get some clarifi-
cation on an issue that comes under the chief
electoral officer who is responsible for the
publication of the ofiicial results of each
general election.
The point I want to draw to the attention
of the House is this: the hon. members and
the public will recall reading during the by-
election in Kenora public discussion of the
strange developments when, in the last two
elections there, in a number of polls that
happened to be predominantly polls in
Indian reserves there was almost a unanimous
vote in favour of the Conservative. I am
not going to go through the whole detail of
this in terms of the unanimous vote but there
is one that I would hke to draw to the
attention of the House.
Mr. Chairman: Order. This is the same
as the previous one.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, Mr. Chairman, just
a minute, let me point this out and you can
take it up next. There is nothing scheduled
for the order paper which will permit us to
discuss the publication of the election results
which are the responsibility of the chief elec-
tion officer— nothing at all. Now, why can it
not be raised at the present time?
Mr. Singer: Is the government afraid to
have this sort of thing discussed publicly?
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly. This has nothing
to do with future election procedures. What
is your ruling, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: It is out of order.
Mr. MacDonald: Out of order? For what
reason? May I ask, Mr. Chairman, for what
reason?
Mr. Chairman: Go ahead then.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a
point of order now.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Singer: Am I in order now, Mr. Chair-
man? Thank you. Well now, Mr. Chairman,
I am very happy to find that I am now in
order, so let me get on with some of the
things that bothered me about the election
laws of the province of Ontario.
When the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Ro-
barts) introduced the bill about redistribution,
I attempted to compliment him at that time,
but was ruled out of order, so let me say now
that I do compliment him.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I did not introduce the
bill, I only made a statement of intention.
Mr. Singer: Oh, the bill has not come in
yet?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No.
Mr. Singer: Well, when the hon. Prime
Minister made his statement, I complimented
him for enunciating the principle and I look
forward to seeing the bill. But I think, Mr.
Chairman, there is a very serious problem
other than the mere statement of the prin-
ciple. The principle was expressed by us
with a resolution standing in my name, but
I think it is most important that some real
consideration be given to the terms of refer-
ence which are going to be given to this
independent commission.
I think something of the utmost importance
has to be determined in ascertaining whether
or not one rural vote should be the same as
one urban vote. Is it reasonable and fair
that some members should represent four or
five times as many constituents as other
members? Is it reasonable and fair that some
urban ridings be a third of the size, in popu-
lation, of others?
Should there be any sort of a balance?
Should there be the sort of proportion that
the hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald) talked about last year, as they used
in Manitoba— 7-to-4, I think, is the ratio? Or
should there be some real representation by
population? That sort of thing is most im-
portant and I hope when the bill comes in
there is some form of direction to this inde-
pendent commission.
Then, Mr. Chairman, as we have been
discovering, there are great and serious in-
equities in the electoral laws of the province.
The question of expense is a very serious
matter. Recently, in the province of Quebec,
the government introduced certain legislation
which makes an effort to get at the whole
question of electoral expenses. Should there
be limits on how much an individual candi-
date can spend in an election? Should the
1052
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
government on behalf of all the people of
Ontario dispense certain monies, so much a
voter? Should there be a closer and better
system of determining whence come dona-
tions; a better system of reporting these
things?
In a recent by-election, a couple of which
resulted in recounts, it was very disappointing
—a great number of people disenfranchised
themselves because they put ticks on the
ballot instead of crosses. Surely it would
seem reasonable and logical today that if a
voter has indicated his intention, whether by
a tick or cross or in any way that can be
readily ascertained, that his vote should be
counted rather than not counted.
That sort of thing is of substantial impor-
tance. Might there not be some very sub-
stantial value in insisting that there be, on
the ballot, the political allegiance of the
various candidates, if they choose to put that
political allegiance on the ballot?
Surely that would be a substantial help?
The whole question of scrutineers being
part of the electoral machinery— should
scrutineers not be regarded as a permanent
part of the electoral machinery? Should the
government not pay for the hiring of scruti-
neers, representing various parties, on election
day?
I think it is most important, and my hon.
leader was enunciating this same principle
on Friday last when we were discussing
another matter— the expense of people staying
in public life, the very fantastic expenses
that can be incurred in elections. It is im-
portant that we have a real democracy where
people, notwithstanding their financial ability,
are able to stand for public office. And I
think it is incumbent upon the government
and all of us here to come forward with
some sort of suggestions to reorganize our
electoral laws, which really have not been
substantially changed for many, many years.
Is our system of enumerating the best
system? Or might there not be a permanent
system of registration?
An hon. member: How many hundreds of
thousands has the hon. member spent?
Mr. Singer: I have not added it up. A very
serious question again indeed, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, we have various types of
elections under the provincial law. We have
the provincial elections; we have votes under
The Liquor Licence Act— the laws seem to be
different. I know that in recent recounts
under The Liquor Licence Act the judge con-
ducting the recount came to the conclusion
that you could mark the ballot with a tick
in that particular election, but on a recount
in the provincial election a different judge
came to the conclusion that only a ballot
marked with an "X" was correct.
Then we have municipal elections. Surely,
Mr. Chairman, it would make some good
common sense if we only had one set of
election laws for municipal, provincial and
other elections, such as elections under The
Liquor Licence Act. Then there is the ques-
tion of the term of office for a returning officer
—is it reasonable? And there are certain bills
on the order paper, private members' bills,
trying to get at this problem of when by-
elections should be called. The government is
taking refuge— they are not the first govern-
ment to do it— but they have taken refuge in
the fact that there is no one to whom the
writ can be issued, because there is no return-
ing officer appointed.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We called the by-
elections.
Mr. Singer: Yes, this administration did; but
the previous administration was reluctant to
call the by-elections, and there is no time
limit. Does it not make some reasonable
sense, Mr. Chairman, that after a riding has
been vacant for a certain length of time— a
month, two months or three months— that it
should be mandatory that a by-election be
called?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. member should
not complain.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: When the hon. mem-
ber was in office he left one three years.
Mr. Singer: The hon. Minister of Energy
Resources (Mr. Macaulay) keeps on throwing
things at us that happened from 1943, on back
to the year 1934. None of us here, except my
hon. friend from Grey South (Mr. Oliver), was
a part of that government, and frankly the
rest of us here were even too young to vote
when all of these things took place.
I am not standing here, Mr. Chairman, to
defend the actions of the Hepburn govern-
ment. We are standing here to criticize
honestly and fairly the actions of this govern-
ment.
All of these things, Mr. Chairman, are
things that I think demand the government's
most serious and immediate attention. An-
other question that comes up is a little game
that is being played now in Ottawa. Is there
going to be an election in May or June or
Apiil or September? Might there not be some
very great merit in saying that an election
MARCH 12, 1962
1053
must come every four or five years, and it
liiust be on the first Monday of such and such
a month.
Mr. Chairman, to get the best form of
democratic government that is available, the
sort of things that I have dealt with very
briefly I think demand immediate examina-
tion. I appreciate the fact that I am able to
talk about this tonight. I have tried to talk
about it at previous times and I would like
very much to get the reactions of the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) to this type of
suggestion. I would hope that the hon. Prime
Minister would be prepared to say he is
going to appoint a select committee or an
independent commission to thoroughly investi-
gate these things and bring in some real
amendments to the election laws to make the
running of elections the most equitable and
democratic that they can possibly be in this
province.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, I can
only say that I do not object to this matter
being discussed here. I do not think it is
necessary to be discussed but I do not object
to it. However, in view of the fact that I
have given the House some indication of what
we propose to do and it will be debatable
when it is brought in, I will save my com-
ment for that time.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to support the conclusions of the state-
ment of the hon. member (Mr. Singer)
who has just taken his seat. Without review-
ing all of the points he has raised, some of
which I would agree with very much and
some of which I would disagree with, and
there are others that I think can be added,
it seems to me that all of these issues raise
the advisability of establishing some sort of
a body that can look at The Election Act
itself. I think I am correct in stating that
the last time we had a redistribution, which
was done by a committee of this Legislature,
a procedure which we are now going to for-
sake in favour of an independent commis-
sion—that is fine, but the whole question of
what amendments should be made to The
Election Act, I submit, might be the subject
of discussion in this House. Inevitably we
are going to have to come to grips with it
in a workmanlike way; it will have to be
in some sort of a committee. Therefore I
would reiterate, along with the hon. mem-
ber for York Centre (Mr. Singer) for the
consideration of the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) either now or later when he
introduces the matters of the House, whether
or not he is considering establishing a com-
mittee of the Legislature that will take a
look at least at The Election Act, even
though the redistribution is handed over to
an independent commission.
The specific point I would like to raise
with regard to the report is: one can specu-
late as to why all these unanimous votes
or near unanimous votes took place in the
last two elections on behalf of the Conser-
vatives in certain areas in Kenora.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): What
does the hon. member think?
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member can
speculate as well as I can.
However, there is one, Mr. Chairman,
that I think something more than specula-
tion—you do not need to speculate on it.
There is the poll in the 1959 election in
Bearskin where, when the votes were
counted, there were 103 for the Conserva-
tives, there were none for the CCF, there
were 6 for the Liberals, for a total of 109;
and yet when you look further you come
to a column that says the number of names
on the polling list was 99. Now that really
lets the cat out of the bag. I have had
the argument advanced that this was be-
cause more names were put on the voters'
list on election day but I find this just a
little bit difficult to take.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Will the hon. member (Mr. Mac-
Donald) mind the observation that it is
quite possible to have people added to the
voters' list, who have been left off, if they
are vouched for at the voters' poll? Did the
hon, member know that?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if the
deputy Prime Minister had not just bounced
so quickly— he was taking the words right
out of my mouth. I know this argument has
been advanced— that there were names added
to the voters' list. But I would draw to the
attention of the deputy Prime Minister that
this is the official report of the general elec-
tion published months after the general elec-
tion took place, and I find it just a little
incredible that the names which were added
on election day would not have been in-
cluded on the voters' list and therefore in
the official results.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, they are not.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I submit, if they
did not, it is time we approached this a little
bit differently. The voters' list is made up
of the names that were put on the voters*
list before election day and, obviously, those
1054
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who are added at election day. Mr. Chair-
man, I can recognize that this is the only
way the government is going to be able to
get itself oflF the hook on this and I would
submit that, in future instances, when you
have a permanent record of the number of
people who had the right to vote in that
area you should include at least those who
not only had the right to vote but did vote.
And their names should be on the record.
However, I will leave the matter there,
with this final observation— that I am not
persuaded, Mr. Chairman, that the kind of
thing of which there is such widespread
suspicion with regard to the Kenora riding
is confined to the Kenora riding. It is just
possible that on some future occasion I will
be able to document it, but until that future
occasion we will have to leave it.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chair-
man, since the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald) has raised this very vex-
ing problem, the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition has urged me to make known to the
House my personal knowledge of this
matter, and I should like to take the oppor-
tunity to do so. I observed, when I was
journeying up to Kenora, this phenomenon
in the returns of the general election in
1959. My research took me back to the
election of 1955 and I saw that a quite simi-
lar phenomenon had occurred; and, as the
hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) said
today, indeed it is a big province. I do re-
call getting on the train at one in the morn-
ing in Sudbury and at 9 a.m. I was only
at Homepayne; and there at Homepayne,
when I entered the dining car to have break-
fast, I met the smiling and benign counte-
nance of that very ingratiating and affable
fellow, the hon. Minister without Portfolio
from Huron (Mr. MacNaughton). I think he
was going on a skiing weekend somewhere,
and he and I journeyed westward all day in
this large province.
At 5 o'clock I got off the train at Sioux
Lookout, having discovered that the hon.
Minister without Portfolio was not very good
at cribbage and even worse at gin rummy. He
went on to Minaki. However, I felt it
incumbent upon me to pay a visit to the
returning officer, an Irishman by the name
of OTlaherty, who had performed that task
in 1959 and I am not sure whether in 1955;
I inquired what steps had been taken to
enumerate the Indian vote in the nine polls
to the north of Red Lake, starting from the
farthest north at Bear Skin, Trout Lake,
Pigangikum, Trout, Deer and Sachigo Bay,
Lac Seul, and he told me that as of that
date— and I think that was somewhere just
after Christmas— they had not yet enumerated
more than one or two.
I queried from him who was doing the
enumerating and I was given the name of a
man called Green. His name cropped up all
over the place after that time— George Green
of Red Lake. And I made inquiry— I had
made inquiry previously and here is the im-
portant point, where I intend to wax very
serious to treat a very serious subject. I had
inquired about police services, rescue work
and any other type of thing tliat required
the use of aircraft, and was told that, univer-
sally, The Department of Lands and Forests
had provided any aircraft services that were
required in those Indian reservations. I
inquired of Mr. O'Flaherty why the services
of The Department of Lands and Forests
were not used to enumerate the Indian vote
and in fact to take in the ballot boxes, the
election officials and generally to supervise
the taking of the vote.
At this point I must say, as a result of
correspondence between myself and the chief
election officer, Mr. OTlaherty and I ap-
peared to disagree. However, I think I may
be supported by another person who was
with me that at the time Mr. O'Flaherty told
me, in words that were not subject to any
equivocation or ambiguity, that he had been
instructed to give the job of the enumerating
and taking the vote to Green by the local
Conservative organization.
An hon. member: He had done it before
and had done a good job.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, exactly. Now just pursu-
ing the research a little further, I made the
chief election officer acquainted with these
things; just pursuing the thing a little bit
further I got in touch with The Department
of Lands and Forests officials and ascertained
from them that all during the time of the by-
election, the enumeration, and the taking of
the vote, there was available at Kenora, one
Otter aircraft— I believe capable of flying
six to eight persons. There was, at Sioux
Lookout, a Beaver aircraft, I believe capable
of flying an almost equal number of persons.
Both were equipped with skis ready for winter
flying, and I was told by The Department of
Lands and Forests officials that there was no
reason in the world that the aircraft could not
be available and the necessary personnel be
assigned to doing that.
However, in the result we were not too
unhappy. The Indians must have been some-
what influenced by our cries for justice, im-
partiality, fairness, honesty and integrity.
MARCH 12, 1962
1055
because in the result— my hon. friend from
Kenora will corroborate me— the Indians voted
276 for Gibson and 272 for Robertson.
Now there was just one other thing and
that will sum up the—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): I guess that enumerator was not a
Tory; he must have been a Liberal.
An hon. member: That is the end of Green.
Mr. Sopha: Of course, I do not use this
place as a forum to make any allegations
against Mr. Green at all. I think from the
point of view of appearances that in the
future it would be much better if an indepen-
dent person, or The Department of Lands
and Forests aircraft, were used, and that such
things appear to be done fairly.
Just one other thing, one unusual feature
of the Kenora by-election that falls within
the purview of the chief election officer.
Apparently the name of the Conservative
candidate at that time— and I speak only
now from the point of view of the nicety of
the language and doing things with elegance
—his initials were A. R., I think, B. K., or
something; but for many years I think, even
unknown to his mother, he had been called
"Pete." But nowhere in his Christian names,
those names assigned to him, and I suppose
registered with the Registrar of Vital Statis-
tics, is there the name Peter, Pierre or Pedro
or Pete. He was known throughout the
length and breadth of the districts of Kenora
and Patricia as "Pete", and it was the name
"Pete" that he insisted on putting on the
ballot paper.
Now we had a little argument about that,
and messages by radar, radio, telegram and
letter flew back and forth with the chief
election officer, and I think the chief election
officer was got out of bed one night to make
a decision about whether he could be identi-
fied as "Pete" on the ballot paper, and the
chief election officer ruled that he could be.
My plea is this: if we allow a man to put
the fairly respectable nickname of "Pete" on
the ballot paper when that is not his name,
where is it going to stop? Some men might,
by their wives, be called "Peaches" or
"Snuggles." I think I looked up the section
of the Act at the time and it says that the
candidate's name shall be put on the ballot
paper. Well, his name is his legal name,
not some of the names his wife calls him,
but his legal name. And I would urge upon
the chief election officer in the future that
these nicknames— that is a great Americaniza-
tion, you know, to be an American wheel
nowadays you have to have a nickname; you
have to be called, well, there are all sorts
of names— but we should not allow those
creeping Americanizations to infiltrate into
this British land.
Votes 1603 to 1607, inclusive, agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
the committee of supply rise and report it has
come to certain resolutions and asks for leave
to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report it has come to certain
resolutions and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Resuming the adjourned debate on the
motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
chair and that the House resolve itself into
the committee of ways and means.
THE BUDGET
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, mine has not been the
most frequent voice heard in this House over
the past ten years although three times in
this past week is somewhat of a record for
myself, and I trust that in rising tonight to
take part in this debate I will not add to your
problems in the delicate task of controlling
the decorum of this House. It may be that
some of the hon. members opposite will dis-
agree with some of what I have to say. This
is as it should be, but I feel that such dis-
agreement should be based on legitimate
difference of opinion, and not, as it all too
often seems to be, based on a certain pen-
chant to be disagreeable.
I have heard, both inside this House and
outside, the claim either stated or implied,
that this is an old government. To hear some
speakers on this subject, one would think that
hardening of the arteries had set in along the
Treasury benches. This is very amusing to
me when I think that there are only 22 hon.
members on either side of this House who
were here before the general election of 1951,
when the voters of Hamilton- Wentworth sent
me here.
There are only five Cabinet ministers who
were in the House before that time, and an-
other eight members of the Cabinet entered
this House at the same time I did.
We approach the twentieth year of good
1056
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Conservative government in Ontario, but we
approach it with only two Conservative mem-
bers who sat in the House before 1943, and
another half dozen who entered the House in
that year.
According to my rough calculations, the
average age of my colleagues who are direct-
ing the operations of this government's de-
partments is just a shade over 51 years. How
many large companies could boast such a
young management team? Some may have
a president in his forties, but you will usually
find a chairman of the board in his seventies.
Although I happen to be some 40 days
older than the chairman of this board, at 45
years of age, I am looking forward to quite
a few years before I take to the back fifty.
All of this may seem like a roundabout way
of introducing my remarks, but I think it is
worthwhile when marking anniversaries, or
thinking about the end of the Frost era and
the start of the Robarts regime, to look back-
ward as well as forward. Aften ten years in
this House, I cannot help but be impressed
by the great changes that have taken place
not only within the House but in the province.
This Parliament, as are all parliaments, is
always changing, and yet always the same.
When I came into this House, I was struck
by the way in which the hon. members
represented such a thorough cross-section of
Ontario. Many of the faces have changed,
and yet I feel that that representation is still
here.
It has been some years since I have taken
the opportunity to say something about
Hamilton-Wentworth and some of the prob-
lems it has faced and is facing. I shall leave
the broad field of municipal government to
my colleague, the hon. Minister of Municipal
AiFairs (Mr. Cass), and shall deal primarily
with the one nearest home— the town of
Dundas.
I would like to make it clear at the outset
that I am not seeking to take any personal
credit for the way Dundas has grown. Much
of my information comes from the office of the
industrial commissioner, J. C. Don, who has
done an excellent job of making the advan-
tages of the town of Dundas known far and
wide.
The story of Dundas is typical of many
towns and cities that have boomed in the past
decade. The area of the town has just about
trebled through annexation and the popula-
tion has jumped from 6,787 in 1951 to 12,790
last year.
I was very interested in the recently pub-
lished population figures for the province,
showing the growth over the past ten years.
The census showed there were 6,236,092
persons living in Ontario last year— an increase
of 35.6 per cent since 1951. The increase in
Dundas' population v^^as something over 88
per cent.
As I said, much of the growth of Dundas
was due to annexation, but it is interesting to
note that its growth was more than twice as
fast as that of the whole province.
Taking the growth from another angle, the
total assessed value of all property in Dundas
was less than $5 million, and the industrial
and commercial portion of this was a little
under $1.8 million, ten years ago. Last year,
the assessment had jumped to more than $18
million, or some three and one half times as
much as it had been a decade earlier, and the
industrial and commercial share of this assess-
ment had exceeded $5.25 million.
It is the opinion of some municipal experts
that a desirable balance in assessment in a
community is roughly 60 per cent residential
and 40 per cent industrial and commercial.
The above statistics I have quoted for the
town of Dundas show a similar picture to
what has happened in all too many commu-
nities across the province— the percentage of
industrial assessment has dropped from 36
in 1951, to a shade under 30 last year.
This trend was reversed last year, with
the ratio of increase in industrial assessment
being greater than that of residential. A
large part of this credit must go to the town
itself which established an industrial com-
mission in 1957. Since then, a number of
new firms have established in Dundas. I
will cite a few names, only to show the
variety: Canada Dry Ltd.; Screen Craft Pro-
cessors; Wentworth Cut Stone; and Knight
Industries — among 13 new industries that
were established in Dundas recently.
As I said a few moments ago, last year
established what we hope will become a
trend- the increase of industrial assessment
at a more rapid rate than residential assess-
ment. This is a great credit to the local
administration.
It has been obvious to anyone who has
been observing the Ontario scene for any
length of time that the Metropolitan Toronto
area has been attracting more than its fair
share of industrial and commercial assess-
ment.
I do not know why some municipalities
seem to be obsessed with the idea of bigness,
and I always get a laugh out of the grudging
way in which Toronto admits that Montreal
remains Canada's biggest city and shows no
signs of losing its lead.
MARCH 12, 1962
1057
From the number of problems that Metro
presents around here, I wonder that the area
politicians do not try to solve some of them
by discouraging growth instead of encouraging
it. I hope Hamilton and Dundas never get
one of these growth complexes and start
wanting to be "Number One,"
In any case, Dimdas has been engaged
in the same fight that many other small
centres next door to large centres have been
in.
Thousands of people want to live in the
smaller centres but, imtil recently, all too few
industries have been wanting to locate there.
The trade and industry branch of The Depart-
ment of Economics and Development and its
predecessors have been assisting, but the
magnet of Metro is too strong for most firms
to resist.
However, the province has not been sitting
idly by. In 1951, provincial grants to Dundas
amounted to $81,921; in 1960, these grants
had spiralled to $479,344.
For all of Wentworth county, grants in
1951 amounted to $3,466,061, while in 1960
they totalled $13,154,858.
For Dundas alone, the provincial grants
in 1951 amounted to about $12 per person;
in 1960, the population had almost doubled,
but the grants had still gone up almost six
times, to leave the grant per capita at about
$37,50.
In other words, provincial grants reduce the
municipal taxes in the town of Dundas by
$150 per year to the head of the average
family of four. This is compared to less than
$50 that those taxes would have been reduced
just 10 years ago.
I shall not go into the welfare and educa-
tion grants which have eased the tax burden
so much, but will leave those fields to other
speakers.
Of course, the best way to distribute wealth
evenly is through providing equal opportunity
to earn, rather than distributing handouts
from a central tax source. This government
has done an excellent job of redistributing
wealth between communities in the form of
grants, and has made a start toward distri-
buting the earning power of municipalities
through encouraging industry to locate in
smaller centres;
I believe it is a goal that can never be
reached— the smaller centres can likely never
have a relatively equal tax base— but the
imbalance can be reduced. This represents
a challenge both for the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs ( Mr. Cass ) and the hon.
Minister of Commerce and Development (Mr.
Macaulay ) . If our new economic council does
nothing else, encouragement of new industry
to locate in the smaller centres throughout
Ontario would be a major accomplishment.
I would like to turn now to the work of
The Department of Highways in Wentworth
county, and before I go any further I would
like to endorse what many other hon. mem-
bers have said in welcome to the new hon.
Minister of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow) to his
portfolio, and in thanks to his predecessor
for a job well done. Of course, I have done
this privately with both men concerned, but
it is not too often that a Cabinet Minister
has a chance to do this publicly.
Hamilton has long been the first large
city that many visitors from the United States
encounter when they come to Canada. There
will be more in the near future, with the
completion of the bridge at Lewiston, the
new highway linking the New York State
thruway with the Queen Elizabeth, and the
new skyway at Homer. The Burlington sky-
way has become an accepted part of our
landscape now, but I never cease to marvel
at the engineering feat and the smooth
traffic flow. You would have to have lived
in the Hamilton area to fully appreciate
what this skyway has meant to us.
Construction of this bridge accounts for a
large chunk of the astonishingly high total
expended by the provincial government in
the Hamilton and Wentworth area. I say
astonishing because I was almost floored
when I obtained up-to-date figures on what
had actually been spent here.
I hasten to assure the hon. Minister of
Highways that I am not complaining about
his department spending too much money in
the area that is nearest my heart. In fact,
as I drive around the area, I can see where
a lot more money can be spent to good
advantage. However, it is amazing that in
an area which is among the oldest in the
province, our dependence on motor vehicles
is such that we must still spend such large
sums to prevent the area's economy bogging
down in one large traffic jam.
Only six-and-one-half miles of new high-
way has been added to the provincial system
in this area, yet The Department of High-
wavs had to spend only a little less than $40
million for construction and maintenance of
the system within Wentworth county in the
past 10 years.
And this does not include municipal and
county roads in Wentworth on which a little
less than $37 million was spent. I ask the
hon. members to pause for a moment and
1058
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
think on that fact that-all told-$77 million
was spent on providing and maintaining roads
of one type or another in a single county,
over a ten-year period.
It makes me wonder whether we are driv-
ing the cars— or are the cars driving us? The
hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Rowntree)
is concerned with the problem of impaired
drivers; our new economic council might well
consider the impairment to our economy that
drivers are forcing us into by the unabated
pressure of the continued increase in number
of motor vehicles and increased use of these
vehicles. Since I drive some 35,000 miles
every year myself, I plead as guilty as any-
one else to adding to this pressure, but after
watching asphalt become one of the biggest
crops in Ontario— with acre after acre being
added each year, not only in our roads sys-
tems of the province, but particularly in
areas like downtown Hamilton and Toronto—
I wonder how long it can go on.
I have got a bit off my subject and perhaps
out of my depth in musing on the philosophy
of the motor vehicle. To get back to Went-
worth county, the area would have been in
difficult circumstances without the aid that
has come from the province. In 1951-1952,
the provincial subsidies going into Wentworth
totalled a little more than $800,000. Those
subsidies reached $2.3 million last year. The
total for the 10-year period was almost $15
million. This is a substantial sum, but if any
of the northern Ontario hon. members think
it is too much, I would ask them to drive
some of the concession lines in my county
and compare them with their own northern
roads.
There is under way in my riding— at least
the important part is in my riding— con-
struction of the latest in the "400" series of
highways. The Department of Highways likes
to call it No. 403— but I can assure them that
around Hamilton it will always be known as
the Chedoke expressway. This is one of the
most vitally needed urban bypasses yet un-
finished in the province. Its present take-off
point is Freeman's Corners at the Queen
Elizabeth way. It skirts or cuts through such
colourful areas as Snake Road, Mausoleum
Curve, Princess Point, Wolfe Island and
Cootes Paradise.
The part of the highway that is still known
as the Chedoke expressway is six and one-
third miles long and is expected to be com-
pleted in 1965 at a cost of about $14 million.
This will be a great boon to those motorists
who wish to bypass Hamilton. At the same
time, the new highway will cut through the
Royal Botanical Gardens, and it is with a
word about these gardens that I should like
to conclude my remarks.
The Chedoke expressway brings me, in this
speech, as it will bring hundreds of thousands
of visitors when it is completed, to the Royal
Botanical Gardens. I am afraid I am a most
inactive director of these gardens, but I would
like to compliment the men who have success-
fully worked against long odds to establish
at Hamilton one of the finest botanical
gardens on this continent. It is commonplace
for people in the arts and entertainment
world to complain that they have to go out-
side Canada for recognition, but the men who
have made the Royal Botanical Gardens must
feel like the proverbial prophets without
honour in their own country.
It seems to me that the botanical gardens
are more highly respected in the United States
than in Canada, and are better known outside
Ontario than within. The gardens were
started in 1941 and war hampered their
development. A second phase of development
started in 1947 which has quickly brought the
gardens international repute. A third phase,
I would say will start the completion of the
Chedoke expressway.
Combined with the completion of No. 401
highway and the other highways and bridges
of which I have spoken, a highways system is
being created which brings probably 10
million persons, on either side of the border,
within a few hours' drive of the gardens.
At first, the gardens were almost entirely
supported by bequest, and Hamilton money.
They still receive up to one-quarter mill
from Hamilton. In 1953, this government
stepped in and since that time $892,000 in
grants have been paid over. I am pleased to
see that there is another $100,000 in the
budget this year. This is a lot of money, but
it is not enough. There are 1,900 acres to
maintain and develop, and with no revenue
from admission charges the budget is stretched
as far as it can go.
Leslie Laking, director of the gardens, pro-
vides a definition of what a botanical garden
is:
A botanical garden is a hybrid type of
organization, combining some of the
functions of a university, a museum, and
an experimental station, with the infonnal
recreational aspects of a parks system. The
tools of a botanical >garden— its plant
collections— are so employed that they
exhibit great aesthetic appeal, along with
instructional and inspirational values, as
well as existing for their primary scientific
purposes.
MARCH 12, 1962
1059
Many of the hon. members will be aware
of the place that the seasonal gardens have
won in the field of horticulture. Experts from
all over the world have admired the iris dis-
play and the tulip variety garden. The rock
garden has become a landmark, since it was
established years before the Botanical Gardens
and incorporated into them. The children's
garden has attracted hvmdreds of youngsters
from nine to 16 years from the Hamilton
district and established in them a lasting
interest in gardening.
The trial garden is a late-comer where new
annuals are introduced and their performance
recorded. Last year, visitors were able to see
flowering plants which have since been given
all-America awards and will be introduced
next year.
The arboretum, being developed on a
magnificent 350-acre site on the north shore
of Cootes Paradise, is destined to become the
most important area within the Royal
Botanical Gardens. This is a long-term
development devoted to the culture and dis-
play of hardy woody plants. The site has
been prepared, roads and parking con-
structed, a lilac dell virtually completed, and
preparations made for the introduction of an
extensive demonstration hedge garden this
spring. This arboretum has been designed to
attract not only the professional, but the home
owner in search of information.
To me, what will be one of the most out-
standing features is the five wilderness areas
with nearly 20 miles of improved nature
trails. All in all, these botanical gardens offer
more variety and wider scope to a person who
just wants to spend a day outdoors than any
other single area in southern Ontario. Where
else can you find 1,900 acres without "No
Trespassing" signs on barbed wire fences, lots
of parking and superhighways to the entrance
so close to Metro?
In conclusion, I would like to extend to the
hon. members of the House two invitations:
one is to visit the Royal Botanical Gardens this
spring and see all the new developments for
themselves; the other is to encourage the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) and others
who may know someone with funds that they
would like to invest in the future to take an
especially good look at our botanical gardens.
Mr. P. Hoffman (Timiskaming): Mr.
Speaker, one of the most appealing aspects
of participating in this debate is the oppor-
tunity it gives me to express my sincere
admiration for the dignity and distinction
you personally bring to this high ofiBce.
During the last and present session, I have
been deeply impressed with the well earned
respect you have commanded. It is indeed
a pleasure to observe the esteem in which
you are held.
Your tact and superior judgment in deal-
ing with situations inevitably arising from
the diversity of opinion expressed in this
House would be difficult to emulate. I feel
that I speak for all members of the House
when I say that your position as Speaker
would tax the patience of Job and challenge
the restraint of William the Silent. Such
admirable qualities as yours, are, unfortun-
ately, all too seldom found and never fully
appreciated.
At this time, too, I would like to take the
opportunity of extending my congratulations
to our hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts).
Here, sir, I am sure we all agree, is a man
who will be acclaimed as one of Ontario's
outstanding Prime Ministers. To the newly-
elected hon. members of this Legislature,
my warm congratulations and best wishes.
I know that they will find it a full and
rewarding experience.
To the newly-appointed hon. Ministers of
the Cabinet, also, my congratulations. While
we are aware that the selection has been
difficult, we do feel that the hon. Prime
Minister has chosen wisely, but in the words
of a mother superior who prefers to remain
anonymous, may I quote:
Keep me from getting talkative, and
particularly from the fatal habit of think-
ing I must have something to say on
every subject on every occasion.
Release me from craving to try to
straighten out everybody's affairs.
Keep my mind free from the recital of
endless details, and give me wings to get to
the point.
And so, Mr. Speaker, as a member for a
largely agricultural area, I would like at this
time to extend my best wishes to the hon.
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart). We
are indeed pleased with the interest the
hon. Minister has shown in the agricultural
problems in our nortliern districts, and re-
spectfully draw to his attention several exist-
ing conditions which must be considered
for modification and correction.
As an editorial in the North Bay Nugget
recently pointed out, a tremendous amount
of southern Ontario's finest farm land has
been taken out of production, chiefly through
the construction of new highways and clover-
leafs, housing developments, industrial sites
and shopping centres— all part of the bursting
expansion of this part of the province.
1060
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
There are no new fields to be plowed
in southern Ontario— indeed, far too much
sub-marginal land is now being cultivated,
and this should be converted to more realis-
tic uses. New productive land is essential
and the only area in which it can be found
is in northern Ontario. As far as demonstra-
tions of productivity are concerned, northern
Ontario is ready to meet the challenge. For
80 years or more, northern Ontario farmers
have shown that, for quality and productiv-
ity per acre their farms need not fear for
comparison with farms in either southern
Ontario or in the Canadian west.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware
that the Timiskaming district is a highly
productive agricultural area— covering some
1,800 square miles of fertile farm land.
Though this region presents no problem inso-
far as growth of grain crops is concerned-
owing to late summer and early autumn
precipitation— the problem of successful har-
vesting and storage is serious.
Moisture in poorly dried grain reduces the
quality from grade 1 to grade 3, with a sub-
sequent loss in the Timiskaming district of
roughly $11,000 annually. Grain containing
only 2.5 per cent moisture content above the
maximum permissible, is responsible for this
loss, and I feel keenly that grain-drying
equipment is urgently needed in the Timis-
kaming area.
Recent statistics reveal that there are over
1.44 million bushels of grain produced in this
district. While we realize that all grain pro-
duced will not necessarily require treatment
of drying equipment, a safe margin of 25
per cent would give a minimum of 360,000
bushels of grain requiring this processing
annually. Recently the sale of several
thousand bushels of oats to a lumbering com-
pany in this area was lost because of excessive
moisture in the grain; and this is by no means
an isolated case. Inferior quality produce
is bound to result from lack of proper drying
facilities, and consequently places the farmers
of the Timiskaming district in an unfavour-
able marketing situation.
While the use of grain-drying equipment
is an entirely new approach in northern
Ontario, it cannot and must not be considered
experimental. Eighty per cent of the grain
in Essex and Kent counties is being processed
by this method. While the merit of such
equipment is recognized in and by these two
counties, it is my contention that such equip-
ment will prove ultimately to be more benefi-
cial in Timiskaming because of the greater
precipitation occurring in the northern dis-
tricts during the harvest season.
Mr. Speaker, we are aware that the hon.
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) is fa-
miliar with this existing condition and is most
anxious to arrive at a solution to the problem.
Accordingly, after giving thorough considera-
tion to all aspects of the situation, I respect-
fully offer the following suggestions as means
to that end. It is recommended that a suit-
able drying plant of sufficient capacity to
dry a minimum of 3,000 bushels per 24-hour
day be purchased and installed at the co-
operative plant at New Liskeard.
It is further recommended that The Depart-
ment of Agriculture examine and provide any
financial assistance necessary that may be
required by the co-op to finance the purchase
and installation of the equipment so badly
needed. It is recognized that the return of
some $15,000 as investment would not occur
in a period of less than five to 10 years.
However, because of the potential benefits
to the farmers in the Timiskaming district,
such calculated risk is well warranted.
In any event, it is my considered opinion
that the finalization of such detail can be
safely left with the hon. Minister and his
highly trained staff of technicians and com-
petent advisers.
Mr. Speaker, as mentioned at the beginning
of this report, the district of Timiskaming is
largely agricultural. Such being the case,
with the sole exception of a closely related
issue, my remarks will be confined to agri-
culture. Probably because of the geographical
location of our respective ridings it was
gratifying to learn that the hon. member for
Nipissing (Mr. Troy), in his debate on the
Throne speech, very recently approved, in
part at least, a thought that has been upper-
most in my mind for some time and which
I brought to the attention of the hon. govern-
ment members in this House at a recent
caucus.
You, sir, will recall that at that time, it was
my contention that a substantial or full pay-
ment of transportation charges should be paid
by the government on all fertilizer shipments
from the nearest manufacturing plant to the
farm where it will be used. May I digress
for a moment to point out that all farms
are, of necessity, operated under rather rigid
budget control? The purchase and trans-
portation of fertilizer are items of consider-
able importance, and generally the cost is
added together.
In brief, a farmer has a budget of, say,
any given amount for fertilizing, and must
reduce the amount of his purchase corre-
spondingly to cover shipment charges.
During the period 1957-1960, shipments of
MARCH 12, 1962
1061
fertilizer to the Timiskaming district
amounted to 484, 659, 792, and 960 tons
respectively, totalling 2,895 tons. As the
shipping points were not listed in this report,
the actual transportation charges cannot be
determined. However, it will be readily
recognized that the farmers of the Timis-
kaming district are being penalized to a very
considerable degree in comparison to the
farmer located in areas where fertilizer plants
are located. In a greater or lesser measure,
a like situation exists in the districts of
Algoma, Kenora, Cochrane, Sudbury, Nipis-
sing. Rainy River and Thunder Bay, and were
one to attempt to cover the whole situation
he would indeed be guilty of verbosity.
In summarizing, may I express my thanks,
Mr. Speaker, to the hon. members of this
House for their understanding of these vexing
problems presently confronting our farm
friends in the Timiskaming district. On their
behalf I ask the support of the hon. members
of this assembly with the hope that they will
be able to obtain the man-made equipment to
salvage their God-given crops, and secondly
that the government will absorb the cost of
the shipping charges of fertilizer to this area.
In conclusion, I again quote from the
prayer of the mother superior:
I ask for grace enough to listen to the
tales of others' problems. Help me to
endure them with patience.
Teach me the glorious lesson that
occasionally it is possible that I may be
mistaken.
Make me thoughtful, but not moody,
helpful but not bossy. With my vast store
of wisdom, it seems a pity not to use it
all— but Thou knowest Lord, that I want
a few friends at the end.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Mr.
Speaker, in an atmosphere of prayer and
friendliness, which I think is something that
we ought to have more of, there is one matter
of importance that I want to speak about, and
I do it with the object and purpose in mind
of not blaming anybody for anything. I am
really not mad at anybody. If errors have
happened in the past on the part of anyone,
that is not what I want to speak about now.
A year ago in April, there occurred a
strike at the Royal York Hotel.
Without assessing who may be right or
wrong— and I think if we are going to be
of any use at all in the final settlement of
this strike, we have got to be neutral, and
that is exactly what I intend to be— there is
no question in my mind, and I do not think
that there is any question in the minds of
any of the hon. members here, but that a
strike really does not help anybody.
I understand, as you all do, that there are
times that these things must happen. But
instead of a strike cooling off, it sometimes
gets hotter, and if we in this House who
are the top authority of the province, if we
speak about this strike in a heated attitude,
in a time of argument, instead of trying to
finally settle this strike, we may be adding
only more flames to that fire. We may find
ourselves having a hard time putting out the
ashes that will, I think, smoulder for a long
time after this strike has been settled.
There is no question in my mind, sir, that
there rests here in the hands of hon. members,
ample power to settle this strike. If there is
not ample power, then we as a body can
pass the type of Act which is needed in
order that this strike may be settled. I
think it would be well if we did everything
we could to take party poHtics out of this.
There have been a number of well meaning
men who have made some trials to settle
tiiis strike, and they apparently have failed.
I am going to offer a suggestion which I hope
will meet with the approval of the House.
I suggest that the hon. Premier of the prov-
ince (Mr. Robarts), the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) and the hon.
leader of the NDP Party-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South):
"P" stands for "party." "NDP," not "NDP
Party."
Mr. Reaume: Well, whatever you are. I
want to reiterate that the last thing I am
trying to do, is to get into any arguments
with anybody, even my hon. friend.
I think that these three men, these three
honourable men, should call a meeting in
the Parliament buildings, and invite to this
meeting the top notch officers of both the
company involved and the union. I am not
making the statement that they could, in the
course of a half-hour, bring the strike to an
end, but I am saying that I feel they can
pave the way.
These three men represent all the public
opinion in the province. Strikes either die
or breed pretty well on public opinion, and
I can think of no three men in the province
who can bring more public opinion to a
meeting than the three that I have mentioned.
I am pleading with the hon. Prime Minister.
I am not going to take any sides; I have
seen, in my day, many strikes the ashes of
which have smouldered for months and even
years after they were finally settled.
This is a strike that concerns all the people
1062
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the province. You always find one pattern
followed. The company takes the side, of
course, of the interest of the company.
On the other hand, the union— and quite
properly so— is fighting in the interests of the
union. But, may I ask the hon. members of
the House, who is fighting for the people,
all the people? Who is fighting for the
people of the province?
I should think— in fact I know— that the
former hon. Prime Minister of the province
(Mr. Frost) quite properly tried, the former
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Daley) made
some overtures and the present hon. Minister
of Labour (Mr. Warrender) made some over-
tures, and a member of the control board here
in the city has made a try. Apparently all
this has failed. Now where can they go? To
whom can the people appeal? To whom are
they looking?
Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that
there is no higher power in the province than
right here. I think not only that we ought
to be anxious to move forward and do some-
thing about it; I think it is a duty and an
obligation on our part. I certainly hope that
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) and the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) and the hon. leader of the NDP (Mr.
MacDonald) will join their hands, their hearts
and their minds. This might be the very first
time it ever happened, but I think that if
they do, and if they erase any semblance of
hatred from their hearts, if they will take a
neutral stand, if they will invite the heads
of the company and do not let them send
any office boys— and similarly invite the heads
of the union and have them send no office
boys— I think that, in this way, these hon.
gentlemen can bring back to us, they must
bring back, an answer. And if they have not
the power to settle it finally, at present, then
the House is now in session and the power
can be given them. An answer must be found
and I think by the help of God and the
efforts on the part of the three hon. gentlemen
that I have named, I think that they can
handle the problem and, by all means, keep it
out of politics.
Mr. J. A. C. Auld (Leeds) moves the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I had anticipated that there would
be more speakers available for the budget
debate, but apparently we have no one else
who is ready. Tomorrow we will go on with
the estimates of The Department of
Economics and Development. And we will
meet at 2 p.m. tomorrow and rise at 5 p.m.,
and I so move.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 9:40 o'clock, p.m.
No. 37
ONTARIO
legijflature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Tuesday, March 13, 1962
speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C*
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1062
Price per session $3.00, Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 13, 1962
Presenting Miss Edith G. Firth and Professor J. B. Conacher, Mr. Robarts 1065
Sixth report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Gomme 1066
First report, standing committee on mining, Mr. Noden 1066
Energy Act, bill to amend, Mr. Macaulay, first reading 1066
Planning Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cass, first reading 1066
Presenting report, Mr. Yaremko 1066
Statement re appointments to the Ontario Police Commission, Mr. Robarts 1067
Estimates, Department of Commerce and Development, Mr. Macaulay, continued 1068
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 1095
1065
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we wel-
come as guests students from the following
schools: in the east gallery the University of
Waterloo, Waterloo; Lynnwood Heights
Public School, Agincourt and Yeshiva Shlomei
Emunei Israel Private School, Toronto; and in
the west gallery. Power Glen Public School,
St. Catharines.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the proceedings of the day,
I would like to introduce two people to the
House. We are privileged to have with us
today Miss Edith G. Firth, who is authoress
of the documentary volume entitled "The
Town of York, 1793-1815", a copy of which
is on each hon. member's desk.
With Miss Firth is Professor J. B. Conacher
of the Champlain Society.
Before I introduce Miss Firth and Professor
Conacher who is here with her, may I point
out that this is the fifth volume in the Ontario
sponsored series born out of the arrangement
that the hon. member for Victoria and former
Prime Minister of Ontario (Mr. Frost) made
some half-dozen years ago.
The first volume in this series was "The
Valley of the Trent" by Edwain C. Guillet;
the second, "Royal Fort Frontenac" by
Richard A. Preston and Dr. Leopold Lemon-
tagne; the third, "Kingston Before the War of
1812" by Dr. Richard A. Preston; the fourth,
"The Windsor Border Region" by Rev. E. J.
Lajeunesse; and now, "The Town of York,
1793-1815."
In the course of preparation are two addi-
tional volumes. One is on the Muskoka-
Haliburton region and the other is on the
valley of the Grand River. Other volumes
dealing with other parts of the province are
presently in the planning stage.
Under the arrangements made with tlie
Champlain Society, the province pays for the
cost of publication which includes distribution
to the members of the Champlain Society,
plus an additional 1,200 to 1,500 copies of
Tuesday, March 13, 1962
the Ontario volume for public or general dis-
tribution. Printing and distribution are carried
out through the University of Toronto Press.
Miss Firth, this charming Lindsay-bom
authoress to whom we are paying our respects
today, is head of the Canadian history and
manuscript section of the Toronto Public
Library. Through several other works she
has established herself as one of Ontario's
leading authorities on early Canadian history.
Her newest documentary volume which deals
with the beginning of this great metropolis
and capital city of our province, represents
over three years of work on her part in
collecting and editing material from the
Toronto Public Library, the public archives in
Ottawa, the Ontario archives, and many other
libraries and historical societies in Canada and
the United States.
Miss Edith Firth has searched deeply into
the old records for her book, framing it within
the period of Simcoe's arrival in 1793 and
the time the news of peace reached York in
the spring of 1815. Her persuasive and lucid
style of writing, together with her meticulous
selection of relevant and supporting docu-
ments, is certain to receive acclaim.
It is a book which will appeal, not only to
the professional historian, but to all persons
who take an interest in the early traditions
and customs of our way of life in this prov-
ince. She graphically illustrates why York
was chosen for settlement in the first place,
the kind of community that was developing
and the eflFect of the War of 1812 on its social,
religious, and business structure. Many
interesting topics are encompassed in her
book, such as the problems of defence, com-
mercial development, local government,
administration of justice, communications,
politics, religion, and education.
In fact, many of tlie problems that are
bothering us today were problems of con-
sequence and moment in the life of the
province back in the days covered by this
volume. Thus this book entitled "The Town
of York" is a most worthy successor to the
four earlier works of this series prepared
under the joint sponsorship of the Champlain
Society and the Ontario government.
1066
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Dr. Conacher is the general editor of the
Champlain series and has at all times been a
continuing source of wisdom and experience
in developing these books. We deeply regret
that the editor of the Ontario series, Professor
White, who is at present doing historical re-
search abroad, could not be with us today.
Professor White was closely associated with
Miss Firth in the selection of content and in
making arrangements for publication with the
University of Toronto Press. We are deeply
indebted to all of them, and of course, par-
ticularly to Miss Firth, for their unselfish
devotion. We are grateful to all of you for
contributing yet another chapter in Ontario's
absorbing history.
Miss Firth and Dr. Conacher.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. G. E. Gomme (Lanark), from the
standing committee on private bills, presented
the committee's sixth report which was read
as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. Prl8, An Act respecting the Town-
ship of Nepean.
Bill No. Pr33, An Act respecting the
United Church of Canada.
Bill No. Pr34, An Act respecting the
Baudette and Rainy River Municipal Bridge.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. Pr30, An Act respecting Hamilton
Civic Hospitals.
Bill No. Pr36, An Act respecting the City
of Hamilton.
Your committee would recommend that
the following bill, having been withdrawn, be
not reported:
Bill No. Pr9, An Act respecting the
County of Halton.
Your conunittee would recommend that the
fees less the penalties and the actual cost of
printing be remitted on the following bills:
Bill No. Pr9, An Act respecting the County
of Halton.
Bill No. Pr33, An Act respecting the
United Church of Canada.
Mr. W. G. Noden (Rainy River), from the
standing committee on mining, presented the
committee's first report which was read as
follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. 57, An Act to amend The Mining
Act.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE ENERGY ACT
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources) moves first reading of bill intituled.
An Act to amend The Energy Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Energy
Resources): Mr. Speaker, this is a procedural
bill and clarifies a certain number of points
in the present Act. I think it would be far
better if we dealt with it on second reading,
and in committee, actually. It clarifies certain
definitions and deals with a number of pro-
cedural matters affecting the department's
administration.
THE PLANNING ACT
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend The Planning Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. F. M. Cass (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I might say that this
is a bill which introduces many improve-
ments, I should hope, to The Planning Act,
including recognizing the county as a desig-
nated municipality to allow for committees
of adjustment where there are zoning by-laws
without any oflBcial plan, and with respect to
certain procedural matters before committees
and before the Ontario Municipal Board. I
think that it also can best be discussed on
second reading and in committee. It will go
to the committee on municipal law.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): Mr.
Speaker, I beg leave to present to the House
the following:
The sixth annual report of the Ontario
Highway Transport Board of the province
of Ontario for the year ending December 31,
1961.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, may I ask my
hon. friend, the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts),
MARCH 13, 1962
1067
if arising out of the discussion in the House
last night in relation to the Royal York strike,
has my hon. friend issued an invitation to the
parties to come together on the invitation of
the Legislature as a whole? And if he has
not, does he intend to invite the parties for
that purpose?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have had
no notice of this question, but the answer
to the first half of it is no, I have not. In
answer to the second half, I have not given
any consideration to so doing.
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I wish to advise the House of the appoint-
ment of the chairman and two members of
the Ontario Police Commission, which is
established under the amendment to The
Police Act passed by this assembly in
December, 1961.
I am pleased to inform the House that His
Honour Judge Bruce J. S. Macdonald, OBE,
ED, QC, judge of the county and district
courts of Ontario, has accepted the full-time
appointment of chairman of the commission.
He will be on leave of absence from his
judicial responsibilities.
He will be joined by Major-General Her-
bert A. Sparling, CBE, DSO, CD, who will
retire shortly as General Officer Commanding
Central Command of the Canadian Army,
and Mr. Thomas J. Graham, who is well
known to the hon. members of this House
and who has had very broad experience as
an officer of the Toronto Police Department,
as a municipal councillor and as a public
spirited businessman. Both of these gentle-
men will serve on the commission in a part-
time capacity.
When the legislation establishing this im-
portant commission was before the House
during the fall, I said that we intended to
appoint a body that would be outstanding in
ability, experience and integrity. I am sure
all hon. members will agree with me that
this objective has indeed been met in the
gentlemen who have accepted appointment.
I may say that I am delighted with the per-
sonnel of the commission. They have under-
taken a large and vital responsibility and I
am confident that they will do a very good
job for the people of Ontario.
Hon. members will recall that their powers
and duties, in the broadest sense, are as
follows:
1. To inquire into any matter relating
to the maintenance of law and order in
Ontario.
2. To insure that local municipalities,
responsible for their own policing, dis-
charge that responsibility by providing ade-
quate and proper police service within a
municipality.
3. To inquire into the administration of
any police force or the conduct of any
police officer.
4. To suspend or terminate the appoint-
ment of any special constable.
5. To supervise the operation of the
Ontario Provincial Police Force and to
enter into agreements, with the approval
of the Attorney-General, to provide local
municipalities with provincial police service
where the circumstances warrant it and at
an agreed fee.
6. To report each year to the Legislature
upon the affairs of the commission.
In short, the commission, in addition to
supervising the affairs of the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police, will play a general watch-dog
role over law observance and enforcement
in Ontario, to the end that our province will
always be an unhealthy place for crime and
criminals.
Judge Macdonald has a lengthy and distin-
guished record in the field of criminal inves-
tigation and prosecution. He was bom in
Nova Scotia in 1902. He graduated from the
University of Alberta and studied at Harvard
Law School, being called to the bar of
Alberta in 1927 and of Ontario in 1928. He
was city solicitor of Windsor from 1930 to
1937 and served as counsel for Windsor in
the amalgamation proceedings in 19v35.
Judge Macdonald became an officer of the
Essex Scottish Regiment in 1929 and was
commanding officer of the regiment from
May, 1943, until July, 1944, with the rank of
Lieutenant-Colonel. He led the regiment
during its early fighting in Normandy. From
August, 1944, until May, 1945, he was the
Canadian member of the Supreme Head-
quarters Allied Expeditionary Force court of
inquiry on war crimes and president of the
court during its last three months. He served
as Officer Commanding, First Canadian War
Crimes Investigation Unit, and chief prosecu-
tor of war criminals for the Canadian Armed
Forces, his most notable prosecution being
that of S.S. Major-General Kurt Meyer. De-
mobilized in June of 1946, he was awarded
the OBE and French Croix de Guerre. He
practised his profession in Windsor until
1951 when he became Crown attorney for
the county of Essex and then was appointed
to the bench.
Major-General Sparling, 54, has had a wide
experience in military and diplomatic service.
A graduate of Royal Military College and
1068
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Dalhousie University, he began his military
career with the Royal Canadian Horse Artil-
lery and from 1934 until 1937 was instructor
in gunnery in Winnipeg. Subsequently, he
was attached to national defence headquarters
in Ottawa and later attended staff college at
Camberley, England. He went overseas in
1940 as brigade major with the Second Cana-
dian Division Artillery and in 1942 he
assumed command of the 13th Canadian
Field Regiment, RCA, serving later in Sicily
and Italy as brigadier in command of the divi-
sional artillery of the Fifth Canadian Ar-
moured Division. In 1944, he was appointed
corps artillery commander of the First Cana-
dian Corps in Italy and northwest Europe.
He returned to Canada to command the
divisional artillery of the Canadian Army,
Pacific force. Upon the disbanding of this
force in 1945, he returned to Europe and
served in the Canadian Army occupation
force in Germany.
He subsequently became District Officer
Commanding Military District No. 2, Toronto,
and from 1947 to 1949 was commander of the
western Ontario area. In 1950, he attended
the Imperial Defence College, London, Eng-
land, and was promoted Major-General. He
was vice-chief of the General Staff, Canadian
Army, from 1950 to 1955, then chairman of
the Joint Staff, Washington, DC, until 1958,
when he became General Officer Command-
ing Central Command, with headquarters at
Oakville.
Thomas J. Graham was born in Toronto in
1914. He attended St. Clare's Separate
School, Vaughan Road Collegiate and St.
Michael's College. In 1937, he joined the
Toronto City Police Department and, in 1941,
on leave from the police department, he
became a special investigator in the RCAF.
Returning to the Toronto force in 1944, Mr.
Graham was one of the original members of
the Toronto Police accident squad. In 1947,
be left the force, entering the hardware and
appliance business.
He was elected to North York township
council in 1953 and served as deputy reeve
in 1954 and 1955. He sat in the Legislature
as member for York Centre from 1955 until
1959. As a member of North York council,
Mr. Graham acted as chairman of the police
committee which re-organized the North York
force prior to its absorption into the Metro-
politan Toronto force. Under his chairman-
ship, the North York force was increased from
50 to 200 men, two new police stations were
opened and a police training programme was
instituted. In 1957, as a member of the
Legislature, he was appointed to the special
commission which reviewed the operation of
the Metropolitan system in the Toronto area.
In 1956, he became president and general
manager of Domus Engineering Company
Limited, Toronto. He sold his interest in the
firm in 1958 and subsequently entered the
construction business in association with sev-
eral firms building apartment projects in the
Toronto area.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair, and the House resolve
itself into the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply; Mr. K. Brown in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
On vote 301:
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Com-
merce and Development): Mr. Chairman,
several days before the budget was delivered,
I started on the estimates of this department
by delivering what was the economic state-
ment for the year 1961 just completed. Now
with the indulgence of hon. members I would
like to speak for a few minutes about the
programme, tlie economic programme of the
government of Ontario for this coming year,
after which no doubt the Opposition parties
will follow and then we will proceed into
the actual votes where I will deal with the
details.
Mr. Chairman, in asking this Legislature
to vote as I am today, $5,593,000 on ordinary
account and $5.6 million for capital facilities
for the 1962-1963 operations of The Depart-
ment of Commerce and Development, there
are a number of points I would like to have
the House consider. I shall present the 20-
point economic trade programme for 1962.
There can be no doubt we are facing
challenging times. The world is in a state
of flux, where abrupt changes in inter-
national affairs have forced every nation
to revise its thinking. This is particularly
noticeable in world trading patterns, which
are undergoing immense revision. The
emergence of trading blocs, though they be
thousands of miles away, will affect all of
us in Ontario— our production, our labour,
our markets, and the future of our province
and our country.
When I presented my economic statement
to the House some two weeks ago, I did
so in an effort to provide information and
background for the budget debate to all of
the hon. members of this Legislature in our
current economic situation. I believe, as I
MARCH 13, 1962
1069
am sure do all of the hon. members, that a
well informed Legislature is a good Legis-
lature.
In this statement, I outlined some of the
problems our economy will have to solve if
we are to obtain a high rate of economic
growth in Ontario. I am going to list a
number of points or courses of action that
the government of Ontario feels will aid the
people of our province in meeting the chal-
lenges of this decisive decade.
Let me first state that we do not consider
any one of these points to be sacred; if
study or practice show they are not succeed-
ing, we will not hesitate to discard or
modify them. If, on the other hand, a course
of action proves promising, we will support
it. Of course, we will always be ready to
adopt new points or courses of action as
circumstances warrant.
When this administration decided to em-
bark on a course of action for the 1960s, it
decided as a matter of policy to attempt to
utilize the skills, knowledge, abilities and
public spirit of people from all occupations
and social and economic groups within this
province. We believe that these people
from all walks of life who are directly con-
cerned in everyday life with the problems
that face this government and country, have
much to contribute to the general welfare
of their province. We are determined to
avail ourselves of their skills and public
spirit, and we are doing this through the
Ontario Economic Council. This is the first
plank in our economic programme.
The stated purpose of the Ontario Eco-
nomic Council is to stimulate all phases of
economic development and bring labour,
management, agriculture and government
together in a working unit or partnership.
This is an accurate, but colourless way to
describe what we have in mind. What we
actually have in mind is the effective mobili-
zation of the innate human resources of our
people. In economic affairs, people like to
talk of investment, automation, new methods,
monetary policy, and so on. It is good that
these things should be discussed and ana-
lyzed. After all, knowledge is power, just
as the truth will make us free.
However, when all is said and done, these
things count for little unless driven on
powered by the will to win. The lesson of
history which we are applying is that the
best methods in the world avail little unless
we mobilize our human resources, of which
we have plenty of the best.
. We know here that a complex industrial
society requires a dynamic unity, that some-
thing extra beyond the cold figures and the
application of new methods can be nulli-
fied by the feeling that we are not all
involved in a common enterprise. This then
is the first plank of our economic programme
relating to the Ontario Economic Council.
The second plank of our economic pro-
gramme relates to an undertaking which we
have begun some months ago of a three-
part survey of the operations and future
prospects of the Ontario Northland Railway,
with a view to ascertaining its future. The
results of this survey will be applied in
fact in the programme which I shall tell
the House of later.
This survey is being carried out by most
eminent and capable men; Mr. Blair, former
vice-president of the CNR, who is studying
the operation of the railway and its equip-
ment; Professor MacDougall of Queens
University, who is studying the economic
status of the railway and its impact on our
northland; and by Price Waterhouse and
Company, which is studying the railway's
financial structure.
The results of these studies, Mr. Chair-
man, will aid us immeasurably in undertak-
ing a programme for the development of
our north, our province and our people.
Our third plank to aid in the economic
development in the province, and in partic-
ular, northern Ontario, deals with a $7.2
million extension of our Ontario Northland
Railway communications system.
This programme will provide the kind of
communications system no modem economy
can do without. Better communications en-
able more work to be done at lower cost. A
modern economy cannot advance in one direc-
tion only, and this modern network, leading
to greater volume of traffic and direct tele-
phone diaUng, is no more or less important
as food supplies and sewage facilities to the
advance of our northern economy. In a word,
this is one of the essential basic investments
we have to make.
As a fourth plank, we have decided to
intensify our efforts in the field of basic and
applied research.
Research, perhaps more so today than at
any time in our past, is the key to the
future. We cannot afford to neglect it and
we will not.
In this field we have strengthened and
improved the governing board of the Ontario
Research Foundation.
A major long-term expansion is under study
to set up a satellite community on research
1070
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in the Toronto area. The estimated cost of
this new research centre will be $9 million.
We expect it to be completed in 1964 and
a number of industries have expressed interest.
The Toronto area was selected because of its
central location and proximity to universities
and other technical facilities.
In this connection, a committee of the
economic council has been established to
study the involved problem of industrial
research and to recommend policies related
to it.
This committee is necessary to see that
the increased amounts to be spent on research
are well spent. We have to co-ordinate two
objectives: increase per capita research ex-
penditures to a level comparable with that
of other leading industrialized countries, and
increase these expenditures judiciously and
profitably, rather than indiscriminately.
With this reorganization and extension of
services and facilities, we believe we have
made a good start— a start, incidentally that
should do much to encourage and retain those
skilled people our country needs.
As a further aid to research and our fifth
plank, I am asking the House in these esti-
mates to increase our grants to the Ontario
Research Foundation and to make additional
grants in aid of special studies we feel will
aid our economy.
These grants wdll lead to greater produc-
tivity throughout our economy. Research is
the key to modern progress. At one time,
100 or even 50 years ago, new products,
better ways of doing things, came almost by
accident or as the result of the efforts of
a few devoted scientists. Now, to keep up
with our competitors, we have to organize
our inventive genius. This eflFort will touch
all sectors of our economy and all parts of
the province. To name but a few projects,
this programme will investigate cellulose
utilization, spruce bark utilization for oil-
well drilling muds, non-metallic uses of
uranium, hydrogenation of fats and oils, and
many others.
This government has always believed in
northern Ontario. Our north is Ontario's
frontier and we believe in opening up
frontiers.
During the last 18 years, the economy of
northern Ontario has developed as it did not
in any other period of our history. We intend
to accomplish as much in the next ten years
as has been done in the last two decades.
Our sixth plank is to aid our development
in the north in the creation of a northern
Ontario development committee.
The need for a special body to consider the
needs of northern Ontario becomes apparent
if we consider how different that region is
from the region in which most of us live.
Northern Ontario and southern Ontario are
in many ways as different as oil and water.
Our northland is bigger than Texas, with a
fraction of the population. It has a small
agricultural base and huge mineral and forest
resources. It depends heavily on such indus-
tries as pulp and paper, mining and tourism.
These activities are heavily dependent on out-
side markets, or economic forces largely out-
side Ontario's control. In view of this we
realize that we have not merely to be as good
as our competitors, we have to be better.
Since we firmly believe we can achieve
this, not merely part of the time, but most
of the time, if not all of the time, we feel
that this Northern Ontario Development
Committee is an all-important first step and
we intend to organize for victory in this
connection.
We want to look at the question of liaison
between the north and the south and how
this can best be accomplished. We are con-
cerned about rate and cost differentials and
availability of finances. We want to find out
how one-industry municipalities can be diver-
sified. We would like to strengthen the
economy of Manitoulin Island and we want
to study every possible way to bring this
about.
Although some people forget this nowadays,
agriculture is the basic first industry of our
economy as it always has been. As our
seventh plank— and no programme to further
our development would be effective without it
—and as a supplement to the great work of
The Department of Agriculture, and in close
co-operation with it, an agricultural com-
mittee of the economic council has been
formed to consider certain aspects of our
agriculture industry.
A new approach often achieves results.
Many of the men and some of the facilities
of The Department of Commerce and
Development can quickly spot possible
markets for our agricultural products. For
example, in the last two weeks in my own
portion of the department we have been able
to take part in negotiations for the sale of a
substantial volume of an important agricul-
tural product running into several millions
of dollars. Negotiations are still in progress.
This is a new market, a new country, and I
am confident that we have great prospects
of disposing of it. I am sorry that I am not
able to disclose to the House the nature of
it, but because of the negotiations and the
size of it, I think hon. members will realize
that if this matter is pulled off, they will
MARCH 13, 1962
1071
realize it was a most important one, and this
is why it could not be discussed at this time.
In conjunction with our many projects, I
would like our people to keep agriculture in
mind at all times. Frankly speaking, I believe
that we, with the wealth of talent that we
have been able to assemble in our committees
and departments, can do this. Studies will
relate to markets, finance, methods, exports
and so forth.
The eighth plank relates to housing. This
government strongly believes in social pro-
gress. The improvement of our living
standards is part and parcel of our ever in-
creasing progress. The two are interrelated.
We cannot have the one without the other,
This is why we have begun a new, 12-point
housing programme, which I can refer to in
greater detail if the House wishes me to do
so at the time we come to that specific vote
in the estimates.
The dollar value of the programme is not
nearly as important at this stage as the
prospects which it holds out to us for our
people. I am confident that this new approach
to housing, when fully in swing, will not only
be of assistance to the housing industry and
our general economy, but will make great
strides in alleviating social inequalities and
helping to lift the standards of our people
to acceptable levels.
Our ninth plank relates to retraining of
part of our labour force. I readily acknowl-
edge that retraining is fundamentally the
responsibility of The Department of Educa-
tion and, to an extent. The Department of
Labour. On the other hand, I do not believe
that we can divorce the strength of the
economy from the capacity and training of
the labour force.
There is an imaginative and highly expan-
sive and expensive retraining programme
underway in Ontario. The problems of re-
training are immense. Before automation, a
man could select a trade and without much
general education be confident that he could
earn his living so long as he wished to work
at that trade. With the progress of automa-
tion, this prospect is no longer so assured.
Today, we must be able to retrain those who
come to Ontario as well as those who, for one
reason or another, have need of another
trade.
Fundamental to retraining is the general
education of our people. To teach a man a
trade who cannot read or write with facility
or calculate simple mathematical problems
is to accomplish little in the long run. With
only a facility at one trade, a man is vulner-
able to changes in techniques and automa-
tion, and he may very well again be out of
work unless he has some general education
with which to assist himself even within his
own job opportunity. Therefore, we intend
to establish a study relating to automation
and retraining to see what we can do in this
department to assist in the preparation of
our labour force initially and in its retraining
to prepare it for that which will be demanded
of it.
We wonder, for example, whether it might
be desirable to begin a programme which
would open up one or more closed army
camps which would be properly equipped,
and to which could be sent persons to be
retrained who are interested in retraining,
and where they would be housed for a num-
ber of months much as we were in the army.
We feel that we must look at this prob-
lem perhaps from a different light than has
been the traditional approach. We would
have to give consideration to the support of
a man's family, if any, as well as to his own
support during this period. In any event,
our study will relate to retraining in co-oper-
ation with the committees and departments
now concerned with it. It is our intention
to look at the problem of retraining, not as
educators, but as persons who are dedicated
to the conviction that we must have a mobile
and flexible work force.
As we all realize, skilled labour and a
skilled people are one of the most essential
prerequisites to economic progress. In fact,
I would go farther and say that unless the
jurisdiction possesses a monopoly of natural
resources, which, of course, we in Ontario
do not, education gives that edge, that
fractional advantage which enables us not
merely to draw a little ahead, but to win
the game; as far as the economic game can
ever be won.
This government, as a vital part of our
programme for economic progress, is going
to undertake a study of the demand and
availability of required labour and manage-
ment skills in the light of actual and antici-
pated changes in our economy. From this
study the appropriate conclusions will be
drawn and action taken.
But let me emphasize this: there is no
simple answer to this problem. The solution
lies in the success of a large number of
actions by groups from all walks of life,
including, of course, the person whose skill
is in questionable demand.
Our tenth plank relates to industrial incen-
tives. Today, there are many devices which
enlightened government can operate to en-
courage industry without interfering in its
1072
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
internal workings. Although the province,
by virtue of The BNA Act, cannot directly
eflFect changes in the monetary system, rates
of interest, tariflFs or conditions of foreign
trade, we can by means of an enlightened
taxation policy set the conditions which will
encourage progress.
A special committee on industrial incentives
and inducements will study, among others,
the following subjects:
1. Remission of corporation taxes to com-
panies which: (a) increase their exports com-
pared to their exports in a given base period;
(b) make factory shipments in excess of their
shipments for a given base period; (c) make
capital expenditures in excess of their capital
expenditures for a given base period.
This reduction of the tax on companies
making specified percentage increases in the
above regards would act as a stimulus to
aggressive firms but would not act as an
umbrella for the less efficient.
This type of approach could be used to
encourage initiative in developing new prod-
ucts, improving industrial design, using a
greater percentage of Canadian raw materials
in any given product, encouraging research,
helping areas of high unemployment, and
encouraging exporters to fabricate their
products to a higher degree than formerly.
In addition, the committee will study the
ideas of subsidized services, and of an Ontario
development fund.
These are not matters for precipitate
action, but for careful study on which to base
decisive action.
One of the essential prerequisites for
economic progress is cheap and plentiful
energy. Where there are ample and cheap
supplies of energy, there is a high standard
of living. Ontario has always had ample
supplies of cheap energy despite its lack
of certain essential fuels. We intend to
maintain this position, and, in furtherance of
our aims, we are going to amalgamate
financially the three Ontario hydro-electric
systems. This is our eleventh plank.
In the past there have been amalgamations
within the area which today comprises the
southern Ontario system, and the benefits
anticipated at the time these amalgamations
took place have been realized. So now, we
propose to amalgamate the three existing
systems, the southern, northeastern and north-
western, to realize further benefits. In effect,
we are proposing to amalgamate one medium-
sized electrical utility system udth two small
systems to make one large, strong and stable
system.
As a result, we shall be able to achieve
economies in administration, eliminate anoma-
lies from the very complex problem of
costing electricity within and among the
regions, and provide a large degree of protec-
tion from fluctuation in rates to consumers,
particularly in the north, where basic indus-
tries are heavily dependent upon markets
subject to boom and recession. We shall be
able to develop the resources of all regions
more economically by providing a market for
all hydro developments as soon as they are
completed. In the long term, rates will be
lower than they would otherwise have been.
The effect upon rates will be little or none
at present, but amalgamation will hold down
increases for the future.
Our twelfth plank relates to the creation
of a committee of the economic council to
study the tourist industry. One of the
problems noted in my economic statement
was the size of our balance-of-payments
deficit. While increased exports will aid in
cutting down this deficit, the non-merchandise
or money side of our balance-of-payments
situation must also be tackled. One of the
goals of the committee on tourism will be to
attract more foreign tourists to Ontario and
at the same time encourage Ontario and
Canadian citizens to vacation here. If such a
goal is realized our present deficit on tourist
account could be turned into a surplus.
Some of the subjects to be studied by the
committee on tourism will be the development
of suitable attractions and facilities, camping
sites, historical sites, advertising, domestic
and foreign, government aid and services,
liquor policy, financial assistance through an
Ontario development fund, and other matters.
The committee on tourism will draw
heavily for its members upon people engaged
in the tourist industry in Ontario.
Our thirteenth plank relates to the study
of the advisability of creating an Ontario
development fund.
The availability of capital for business
enterprises of all descriptions is one of the
key detemiinants of economic progress. Our
existing financial enterprises have all made
tremendous contributions and undoubtedly
will continue to do so. Nevertheless, as a
part of our far-reaching economic programme
for the sixties, we intend, through the Ontario
Economic Council, to investigate the need for
an Ontario development fund.
Such a fund might loan money to industry
for sites, buildings, machinery and equipment,
and guarantee loans by non-profit municipal
industrial development groups. In addition,
the fund committee would study federal fiscal
MARCH 13, 1962
1073
and monetary policy as it relates to encour-
aging capital investment in Ontario industry,
and in general study the factors affecting
business growth, such as availability of
foreign capital, business taxation and financial
inducements to growth.
For example, are there sufficient financial
means within the conventional loaning insti-
tutions for expanding industry? If not, in
what areas is there a shortage? Are these
areas in which we wish to encourage develop-
ment?
What kind of development do we want to
encourage? Why has it not taken place other-
wise? Also, if we are to create an Ontario
development fund, what are the methods for
establishing it? Should it be co-operative with
industry and is there any way of infusing
public participation— by way of bonds or other
holdings in a fund in the hands of the pubHc?
Such a fund could exceed $100 million.
If such a fund were created, it could be
used to assist in the creation of new industry
and the expansion and development of exist-
ing industry, and it could help to retain the
family farm and expand the tourist industry.
This is a proposal in which I have long
believed and advocated for some time. But
before any such programme is undertaken,
it must be very carefully scrutinized.
Canadians today import more per capita
than any other people in the world. We in
this government do not believe in this day
and age that we can best stimulate our econ-
omy and improve the standard of living by
engaging in campaigns for high tariffs. In
fact, the record shows that our strongest
companies, those that compete not only in
Canada but throughout the world, deplore
high tariff^s because they feel that such action
shuts more doors than it opens.
There is much the government of Ontario
believes can be done to assist materially the
manufacturing sector of the economy. One
field looks particularly promising: the field of
import replacement. Our fourteenth plank
relates to what we call the fabrication gap.
Fabrication gaps mean that we are im-
porting from outside of Ontario or outside
of Canada tremendous quantities of goods,
many of which can well be manufactured in
Ontario.
We have a booklet which we will be dis-
tributing to the hon. members of the House,
Mr. Chairman, which shows what these gaps
are, but we have to take a new approach
toward this matter. Our new programme, in
relation to these imports which can be manu-
factured in Ontario, is to aggressively attempt
to replace them.
We can do this by manufacturers' agencies
and by an aggressive pohcy of education in
our Ontario industry.
In Canada we import $236 per capita,
while the UK and Germany import about $50
per capita. The US imports only $32 per
capita.
It is fair to assume that this average rate
per capita apphes also in Ontario. Witii
approximately 6 million people, if we can
cut that down by only $50 per person, we
can do $300 million more business in Ontario
in a year. This would provide jobs for 30,000
people, based on the general belief that
$10,000 worth of business creates one job
in industry.
I am sorry the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Wintermeyer) is not following me
on this point because it is of great signifi-
cance.
There is utterly no sense in assuming
that any industrial woes we have or any
unemployment we possess is because we
do not have enough industry in Ontario.
This is only part of the problem. A large
part of the problem exists because we have
unused capacity, and we do not need people
to man this unused capacity. We are letting
other people manufacture the goods that we
consume rather than manufacturing them
ourselves.
The point of view of this government is
simply this: that we, the people of this prov-
ince, can lift our economy to the highest level
if we have the courage to make a few sacri-
fices, the intelligence to make a few plans,
and then the determination to execute them.
We intend to increase our efforts in the
field of import replacements, and as a start
we are going to hold a conference on fabrica-
tion gaps. Through this conference we hope
to stimulate Ontario manufacturers to fill these
gaps. These conferences, we hope, will not
only stimulate manufacturers, but will also aid
and assist government, business and the pub-
lic to better understand each other's problems
and develop new techniques to find new
products and markets.
In its expanded capital expenditure pro-
gramme, the Ontario government will ensure,
as it has in the past, maximum consideration
for goods of Canadian manufacture.
Some hon. members of this House might
not realize this, but an important fabrication
gap in the Canadian economy was closed last
year. This was done by the national oil
policy, which displaced most foreign oil
products from the Ontario market and which
led to the construction of a large new oil
refinery in Ontario.
1074
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As our fifteenth plank, we propose to set
up a markets division in the trade and indus-
try branch, which will specialize in market
studies of fabrication gaps and of foreign
markets and will draw to the attention of
Ontario manufacturers opportunities that exist
in provincial, national and world trade.
Such a division, in my view, could do the
vital study work so essential to such projects
as trade missions abroad and the programme
for closing fabrication gaps and judgment of
proposals for the Ontario development fund.
Moreover, the markets division would assist
the government and industry to judge trends,
work closely with our trade officers and free
them from much routine work, and assist the
department in judging important new areas
in which to place new trade offices or open
offices.
Our sixteenth plank relates to trade mis-
sions. We have been much too content in
Ontario to let the world knock on our doors.
After the last war, in fact, the world did
come to knock on our doors to buy from us,
but now the world is knocking on our doors
to sell to us. As I have already pointed out
today, a large part of our economic salvation
will rest upon increased exports, improved
quality and advance design. We therefore
intend to send to Europe a trade group some
of whom will be members of the economic
council, some of whom will be representatives
of industries and organizations across this
province. When such a trade group reaches
Europe, it will fan out to go to prearranged
locations where contacts can be made and
negotiations for trade and market sampling
carried out. When these people return to
Canada, they will report to the economic
council and to this department, and they will
consist of the council's contact with their
specific industry in Europe and Canada.
We believe that we can sell in Europe. We
can even sell radios in Japan. But we have
got to get off our own doorstep to do it. I
contemplate that this trade group will be
followed up by another to South America and
perhaps one to Asia.
Our seventeenth plank relates to our
foreign offices. We are adding to our staff in
our offices in Chicago, New York and London.
We are strengthening the specific responsi-
bilities of these offices and changing the em-
phasis from that of attracting new industry
to increasing our sales beyond our own juris-
diction with a continued attention to the
challenge of introducing new industry from
abroad to Ontario.
Our eighteenth plank has been in progress
now for several days. It relates to the crea-
tion of a trade office in Europe to service
the new European economy and to augment
that which is carried out by Ontario House
on the continent.
A member of the staff of the department
has been despatched to Europe, and is now
making an on-the-spot survey to determine
the most suitable location for new European
trade offices.
We will be working in close co-operation
with the trade commissioners of The Depart-
ment of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa. After
all, that department is mostly concerned with
the bringing of industry to Canada, as a
whole, and, although this is of vital impor-
tance to us, we also want to have trade
brought to Ontario.
Our nineteenth plank is related to manu-
facturers' co-operative agencies.
We also plan to study the value of co-
operative or common agencies to foster the
export of products from small and medium-
sized Ontario companies. A co-operative
agency is, in effect, a sales agency located in
the US or abroad, which sells the products of
a number of Ontario manufacturers who
jointly support the agency, with or without
government financial assistance.
The problem is that many of our small
industries are unable to financially support
roving trade people on their own, or sales
managers in Europe or other places where
markets are developing. We feel they can
make a modest contribution which> in co-
operation with other companies, would enable
a small group of manufacturers to actually
have a trade representative in other countries
in the world.
It must be emphasized that we are funda-
mentally interested in stimulating all possible
exports, not so much for balance-of-payments
reasons, but for employment reasons. If
a Canadian good or a service, such as insur-
ance or tourism, is sold abroad or to foreign
nationals, much more employment per dollar
of sales is created in Canada than if imports
are sold here.
Not only is employment created directly,
but the Canadian manufacturer buys goods
and services here, and those who sell to him
employ goods and services in their turn. One
export dollar may lead to as much as three
dollars of business and employment for Cana-
dians. With imports, the balance runs the
other way. Imports have many economic ad-
vantages, but a heavy import surplus dis-
courages emplo>Tiient here. This balance
must be redressed, and in fact this has been
started.
We plan a number of co-operative manu-
facturers' agencies.
MARCH 13, 1962
1075
We will approach, through the depart-
ment, a number of Ontario manufacturers,
either with vertical lines of production or
horizontal lines of production, and, having
assembled a number of these— let us say 10
manufacturers— an agent will be appointed
either from the department or outside of the
department, and supported by these indus-
tries, he will go forth into Europe and other
trade areas to obtain orders and sell our
products.
It is entirely possible, in co-operation with
the manufacturers of Ontario, that we may
be able to locate several product show-rooms
in various trade areas of the world. There
are many other exciting prospects in this
field.
We have much to learn from the Japanese,
for example, who have been traders all their
lives.
Our twentieth and last plank deals with
a new immigration policy.
The department has embarked on a new
immigration plan to assist Ontario industry,
universities, schools, hospitals, professional
and trade associations and other organiza-
tions in obtaining from overseas professional
and technical personnel not available in
Canada. Surprisingly enough, there are many
fields in Canada where there are very criti-
cal shortages of trained personnel, which
are holding back the expansion of industry.
Such people have a large contribution to
make in two ways. I would point out to
the House that immigration is a matter
which is contained in the federal responsi-
bility, but ours is one of augmenting our own
industry— in my department, at any event.
If they are well chosen, these technical
personnel that are not available in Canada,
their productivity and their contribution to
the economy will be high. Secondly, they
will help fight unemployment because the
first essential in raising employment or in
attracting new enterprise to an area is to
assure employers that they can obtain their
key personnel in the area, or that it is an
area to which they can bring their key per-
sonnel and retain them. This involves a
supply of professional and technical person-
nel available for recruitment, and full and
adequate facilities such as educational facil-
ities for their children, medical services and
well designed and engineered communities
to live in.
One only needs to look at the advertise-
ments carried by Canadian manufacturers in
European newspapers for professional and
trained people to realize the importance of
this.
Our programme to encourage high qual-
ity immigration, in relation to our economic
programme, is already being implemented.
Two immigration oflScers have been hired to
work in the Toronto oflBce of this depart-
ment. An assistant director for immigration
has been hired recently and has joined the
immigration staff at Ontario House, which
consists of five men. The immigration officers
at Ontario House promote, counsel and guide
the emigration to Ontario of persons posses-
ing the skills and knowledge needed in this
province. At the Toronto office the oflBcers
receive from prospective Ontario employers
their skilled personnel requirements. In gen-
eral, close liaison is maintained with trade
associations, the federal government and
representatives of other countries.
Mr, Chairman, these 20 points or courses
of action will materially assist all areas of
our province to reach new economic heists.
We are confident that this programme will
help us achieve an increase of six per cent
in our gross provincial product and we are
hopeful of receiving eight per cent. As I
mentioned at the beginning of my remarks,
we will not hesitate to discard a course of
action that holds no promise, nor will we
hesitate to undertake or consider new courses
of action. Not only are we going to seize
our opportunities, but we are going to cre-
ate opportunities. Don't sell Ontario short.
We are richer in our resources, our people
and our skills, than any other area in the
world.
I would say to the hon. members, Mr.
Chairman, that they are now about to vote
for Ontario's golden age.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman,
I followed very closely what the hon. Minister
said and I copied down the whole of his 20
points and I missed No. 3. I wonder if he
would mind repeating it. There was $7.2
million for the Ontario Northland Railway?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is for the com-
munication system of the Ontario Northland
Railway— to extend and enlarge it.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Chairman, if I may be per-
mitted to make a few introductory remarks
before we get into the details of the estimates,
I would first of all congratulate the hon.
Minister for his presentation here this after-
noon and for the general pattern of the pro-
gramme that has been outlined.
I must say that I would hope there are very
few, if any of us, in this House who would
1076
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
disagree with tlie objective, who would dis-
agree with the purposes— the need, certainly—
as I submit that this is what we should have
been doing 20 years ago, when other countries
were doing the same thing; and I would
certainly say to the hon. Minister that, in
terms of the economic council, I personally
have identified myself with this for a long
time, as he has.
Therefore, at the outset, Mr. Chairman, I
want to make it emphatically clear that I
have not come here today just to criticize
for the purpose of criticizing only. There is
much that has merit here. There is much
that deserves support. The question is, are
you going to implement it, are you going to
do anything about it, or is this just a lot
of window-dressing?
Let us get down, Mr. Chairman, to some of
the realities of Ontario. The hon. Minister
has very energetically, intelligently and almost
emotionally appealed to the great riches and
people of Ontario for development, and I
think this is a good thing. But what is Ontario
as an economic unit? It consists, as he has
said, of two divisions, northern Ontario and
southern Ontario.
Let me point out what I mean when I say
that these economies are in conflict, one with
the other. An economic council, designed to
help southern Ontario may do great harm
in northern Ontario, and I cannot see the
correlation thus far. For example, northern
Ontario is an exporter. It exports natural re-
sources. It has by nature a low tariff industry.
It wants to compete in foreign markets. It
sells little or nothing in Ontario or in Canada.
The southern part of our economy is
secondary industry, a manufacturing industry,
and it is concerned with protection. I say at
at outset that there is a conflict which must
be resolved. Where will the emphasis be?
Now let me go a little deeper. In con-
junction with the northern economy, we on
this side of the House have said for three
years that something should be done about
subsidizing freight rates, because one of the
difficulties in northern Ontario, in mining
and iron mining at the present time— certainly
in the pulp and paper industry— is the cost
of power and transportation. These are vital
factors. Paper is sold f.o.b. New York.
Now, what are we going to do? Are we
going to use the facility of Hydro to effect
cheap electricity and power to these indus-
tries? By what the government has done, you
would say just the contrary is true, because
they now want to amalgamate all the several
sectors of the Hydro development— the north-
western with the northeastern and the
southern. In effect, this may be okay, it may
be in order, but the real problem I ask is: Is
this government prepared to retain control
over industrial Hydro rates, or is it going to
be handed to the commission— a commission
which, by definition from the hon. Minister,
is autonomous in itself and owned by the
municipalities? I, for one, Mr. Chairman, am
not prepared to take the position that we in
this Legislature should abdicate our right to
control industrial Hydro rates.
Now, these are the things the hon. Minister
should be in a position to— and must— answer
this afternoon. What are we going to do in
that respect?
What are we going to do about freight
rates which, he has admitted himself, are of
great consequence? The former leader of the
party opposite said that, as long as he was
Prime Minister, there would be no subsidies
for freight rates in Ontario. Now is this the
declared continuing position of the party
opposite and the government?
If it is, it is inconsistent with the position
that has been outlined today.
My appeal, Mr. Chairman, is not for words,
but JFor reality. Sure, there is need to help
and to develop northern Ontario. But
primarily at the present time there are two
significant factors that must be treated—
freight cost and power cost. And we should
have a policy in this respect.
To sit down now and study a problem
three years after Manitoba started to study
the freight rates structure, and many years
after Quebec has studied the Hydro problem
with the intent of attracting industry to that
province, is no time for the province of
Ontario to set up a group to think about it
or study it. I suggest the time has come in
those two respects to be in a position to act.
And I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the hon.
Minister advise the House this afternoon what
government policy is, in respect to these
vital factors in conjunction with the develop-
ment of northern Ontario.
With respect to a revolving fund it is a
good thing. One has only to look at the
statistics with respect to capitalization and
ownership of our resources to know that we
should encourage more Canadians to become
part owners and owners of equities in this
great opportunity in Ontario, our natural
resource industry. But specifically what are
we going to do with a revolving fund, and
where are we going to get the money? Where,
specifically, is the money in the estimates
that will be used for this purpose? We talk
xMARCH 13, 1962
1077
about $150 million or $200 million; are we
going to borrow that money? And what are
the terms of repayment going to be?
Mr. Chairman, this is the third question
I put specifically to the hon. Minister. Three
years ago I suggested that we use the facili-
ties of the Ontario Provincial Savings Bank.
I think it could be used; I think it is an
institution that could be expanded dramati-
cally to comply with Galbraith's concept that
in the public sector there is much to be
done by way of investment. Expanding that
institution could attract money— deposit
money, sa\dngs of the people of Ontario, put
on deposit, and then used by agreement, by
the government for the purposes of this
northern development.
It could be used for housing, as it is in
England at the present time. There they are
away ahead of us in conjunction with funds
for public housing, for urban development
and for private housing. And, while I agree
wholly with the hon. Minister's objectives in
respect to housing, we need the money, and
the question is where are we going to get
it? It is all right to identify a revolving
fund, to talk in terms of a revolving fund,
but the mechanics, likewise, are important.
Fourth, I would ask, specifically, where
will the funds come from? Or is this, too, a
matter of study?
Mr. Chairman, may I say that in respect
of the southern part of the province, another
problem presents itself. The hon. Minister
has said on two or three occasions, and I
wholly agree, that the manufacturing industry
in southern Ontario is the big employer. It
employs roughly, I believe, 50 per cent of the
total employment and therefore it is an im-
portant determinant of whether or not we
have employment or unemployment in
Ontario. If things are going well witli this
industry, the secondary industry, the manu-
facturing industry, usually we have little or
no unemployment.
We, on the budget— and tlie hon. member
for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), I thought, did this
admirably the other day— demonstrated that
a plan, whereby our gross provincial activity
would grow at a constant rate of 4.5 per cent
per annum, would effect full employment.
Now what he meant was inducing our sec-
ondary industry to expand to the extent that
it would grow at the rate of 4.5 per cent
per annum.
The question that I put to the hon. Min-
ister is simply this, how does he propose to
expand secondary industry in Ontario and,
specifically, to effect this type of objective?
A man on the street will say almost spontan-
eously that we are not developing our sec-
ondary industry suflBciently fast to take up
the slack in employment. The economists
talk about gross national product and the
rate of growth and so forth. But both are
talking about the same thing.
The simple fact, Mr. Chairman, and may
I point this out, is that the labour force in
manufacturing, or in secondary industry, has
not grown dramatically in Ontario. I point
out to you, Mr. Chairman, that in 1917 there
were 299,000 people employed in the manu-
facturing industry in Ontario. And at the
present time, 1961, there are 593,000.
Now relating this to overall figures, it is,
say, 300,000 to 600,000, the force has
doubled in that period of time. But, Mr.
Chairman, the number of establishments has
grown from 9,000 to only 13,000. The dollar
value of factory shipment, of course, has
gone up dramatically from $1.4 billion to
about $12 billion, it has gone up almost 10
times. But the numbers of jobs that have been
created have not, and this is the real problem
we have in Ontario.
The question I put to the hon. Minister
again is: In terms of specifics, what are we
going to do? I do not think it is good
enough at this stage to say we need foreign
markets. That is obvious. It was obvious
even to the group in Ottawa to the extent
that they organized and sent trade missions
out in the course of the last few years. But
more than that is required.
In western Europe, at the present time,
they have so geared their economy and their
economical development that they have
adopted a new concept, a concept of co-
operation between management and labour,
that has permitted them, Mr. Chairman, to
reduce costs. And I say to the hon. Minister,
something imaginative today would be of this
order: that you come to this House and say,
we, the province of Ontario, would like to
encourage management and labour to get
together and reduce costs. In order to do
this it may mean that labour has to hold the
line in a certain given area to find itself in
a certain foreign market but, in order to do
that, Mr. Chairman, surely it is not fair to
say that labour must absorb the whole burden
or that it must hold the line without com-
pensation.
It would be imaginative, however, to do as
certain European countries have done and
to say: If you do that, and we do succeed
in that foreign market and we do make
money, we, the company, will permit you
to share in the profits or permit you to buy
into equities, or in some other fashion make
1078
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
up and share with you the successful opera-
tion.
We have taxing facilities here; we impose
corporate taxes and the hon. Minister himself
said he was giving serious consideration to
reducing corporate taxes in those areas where
a corporation will make a genuine efiFort to
expand its foreign trade or its export markets.
This is commendable but this, in itself, is not
sufficient, Mr. Chairman. We in this prov-
ince, and on this side of the Atlantic, are
up against a real problem in terms of com-
petition. To say that we are going to sell
radios in Japan is just so unimaginative—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We are selling them.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, now—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I am simply pointing
that out as an example that you can trade
if you really make the effort.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, but the hon. Min-
ister and I or anybody else in this House
who is close to the industry— and there are
several in my own home area who are very
close to this industry— know that the wage
cost in Japan is so much lower than it is
here that it is almost impossible to get into
that market.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Will my hon. friend
permit me to say that, if he looks at the
radio industry which is selling in Japan, he
will find that it is not selling in the kind of
hne in which Japan is in competition. In
short there still is room in this world for
quality, and this is what these people are
talking about.
Mr. Wintermeyer: With that I have no
quarrel. There are areas, certainly, but in the
overall the major point I am trying to make
is this: that everybody, from die man who
has an elementary knowledge of this problem
to the most trained economist, acknowledges
that competition is a factor here, and that
costs are a factor. I simply say that we, if
we really want to be imaginative, have to
find an answer to bring our costs in line.
Now I do not think there is anybody in
this House who is going to suggest that
we ask labour to make an unqualified
5"" orifice. I think it would be ludicrous. On
the other hand, I think it would be very
realistic to say to management and to labour:
if you two will co-operatively work under
government initiative here, we are prepared
to make some tax concessions to you. Now,
I think this type of imaginative thinking will
produce more exports for our secondary
industry and, as the hon. Minister so well
said— and I agree fully with him, that we are
not interested in exports only for the sake
of dollars but for jobs.
In Ontario we are dependent wholly on this
secondary industry to create new jobs and we
are not creating enough new jobs. From
the year 1917 forward we have not grown
dramatically in the secondary industry branch
of our economy. To do so I think we have
to use every opportunity, but I suggest to
the hon. Minister that it will not be sujfficient
to go into those areas where nobody else is
specializing at the present time, such as, a
quality product. Do it by all means. But
something more is going to be required and
this concept of profit-sharing and the co-
operation of management and labour, I think,
can be a real one.
I certainly, for one, am not prepared to
acknowledge that the last word has been said
on the idea that our economy is premised
on the supposition that these two forces are
inimical, and each looks to his economic force
for survival. I think they can be partners,
and they should be, and I think it is in this
area that I would encourage you to move
forward because— as the hon. Minister himself
said, and, again, so rightly, in this area we
are working under a severe handicap. Our
natural market, our Canadian market, is so
small compared with our ability to produce,
that we are at an immediate disadvantage.
We can produce far more than we can con-
sume in the secondary manufacturing level.
I would point out another thing which
my hon. colleague, the member for Bruce
(Mr. Whicher), suggested the other day, and
which I thought was so worthwhile. It was
the matter of working out, Mr. Chairman,
with a given industry— in this instance he
referred to the manufacturing industry— an
opportunity and encouragement to manu-
facture more of the complete product in
Canada.
He selected the automobile industry be-
cause it so happens that all of the manu-
facturing industry in the automobile business
is in Ontario, and necessarily would inure
immediately to our benefit. I know, from
personal experience, again in my own terri-
tory, that many of the parts group in the
automobile industry— the suppliers so-called,
the toolmen and the like— are at a great dis-
advantage. That part, that segment of the
industry could be expanded dramatically.
I think it is fair to tell you, Mr. Chairman,
it is my understanding that several of these
industries are trying to develop feeder areas
in this very Oakville area. So there is an
element of encouragement there, there is
MARCH 13, 1962
1079
something to work with and I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, if we could persuade the industry
to buy all its parts in Ontario that we would
do very much.
Now, another Suggestion has been made,
and I suggest it in a different order entirely.
You know that the competition in the electri-
cal appliance business is fierce and there is
real danger frankly of some of these com-
panies running into financial difficulty. All
you have to do is read the financial pages to
realize that. Now, again, we in this Legisla-
ture, as the hon. Minister has said, must be
interested in jobs. If any one of those groups
ever went under and we lost those jobs we
would be in trouble.
I suggest to you that maybe we have
become slaves to the concept of the anti-
monopolistic legislation; maybe we have be-
come so imbued with it that we fail to see
what could be done with a little bit of
arrangement between several companies.
There is nothing wrong, for example, for one
of these big companies building a certain
product for the whole of Canada, and another
one a washing machine or a toaster or some-
thing of that sort and getting the advantage
of volume and efficiency.
Here again, I would encourage the hon.
Minister to move bravely, enthusiastically and
determinedly. Nobody is going to blame him
for trying. Mistakes are bound to be made,
but ingenuity and real ingenuity is the order
of the day, Mr. Chairman. Unless we do
it we are in trouble because, remember this:
As the hon. Minister said so well the other
day, western Europe, which was destroyed
economically as the result of the last war,
has gained its feet and is moving forward
rapidly and effectively.
It is no longer a question in Canada, in
Ontario, of sitting by and saying we will
sell to these people who need our products.
It is now a question of saying how can we
compete with people who are producing
products for the foreign market cheaper than
we are producing them— and, in fact, knock-
ing, as the hon. Minister said, on our very
door to sell their products here.
Mr. Chairman, all I say is that the situa-
tion today is serious, very serious. I am not
saying it is critical, I am not a person who
is imbued with any gloom about this thing
at all. The answer is there, the opportunity
is there, but it will not be done by mere
expression of word. It must be done by
positiveness and positive policy. I suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Minister obvi-
ously has a good grasp of this subject and
is very intelligible about the subject, but
from what we have heard thus far there
has been no determination, no specific deter-
mination of policy for the translation of
these ideas into programming. I would de-
fine them specifically in conjunction with
northern Ontario as I did at the very outset.
What about freight rates? What about power
rates? What specifically is the government
going to do? If it is going to encourage-
as I think it must, because our national
economy depends as has been said, on agri-
culture and natural resources— and commit
itself to a low tariff for a free trade area-
then what is it going to do about the manu-
facturing industry? How is it going to be
consistent in protecting it?
I do not think we can protect it with
tariffs. I think we can protect it by using
our imagination in such a way that we
sell that product at a competitive price, at
a price as cheap as or cheaper than it
is being sold elsewhere. If that means
we have to make certain sacrifices— and par-
ticularly if the government has to make
taxation sacrifices— they should be made. In
addition I would encourage the hon. Minis-
ter to consider the advisability of calling a
conference of management and labour. I
think he will find these groups are very,
very anxious for leadership and direction.
I do not think they want dictation. I recog-
nize that. But I think, as I have talked to
members highly placed in unions, and to
members highly placed in industry, there is
a desire today to set goals. I think we have
gone beyond the time when it is a bad
thing to talk about planning. I have said
this many, many times.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer) has not.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I certainly have, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. MacDonald: It is a platform of social-
ism.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I have never said that.
Mr. Chairman, I am not changing. If one
wants to go back to the very speech I made
last year I think I used the same phrase-
ology.
There must be goals and everybody— in-
dustrialists at large— have committed them-
selves to this. No more efFective appeal has
been made in the last 12 months than was
made by Mr. E. P. Taylor who made a
dramatic demonstration in Halifax last sum-
mer of the willingness of leaders in industry
to re-think some of our traditional patterns
1080
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and to co-operate with government, to co-
operate with labour, to effect a formula that
will permit us to compete and expand here.
Mr. Chairman, it is therefore my primary
suggestion this afternoon that we recognize
that the mere recitation of old platitudes,
the mere recitation of words, the mere reci-
tation of facts, are not enough. The hour
is late, the time has been ebbing away ever
since 1945 and I do not know, Mr. Chairman,
but that we will have to act much as one
acts in an emergency. I think we should
adapt and gear our thinking to this concept.
We should treat this as a very, very serious
problem and be prepared to do things that
we may not have been prepared to do 15
or 20 years ago, or that persons were not
disposed to do then.
My contribution to the debate this after-
noon would be a personal appeal to the
lion. Minister that, in addition to all the
economic theories, in addition to the con-
cept of whether our gross national product
is going up or down, and exports versus
imports and development, we think of the
simplicity of the situation. I think he hit
the nail right on the head when he said we
are really interested in our jobs and we are
not creating enough new jobs in our second-
ary industry in Ontario, and we have not
done it for a long, long while.
I think when this country, back in 1917,
had 9,000 separate institutions there was
probably a lot of pioneer work that was
required to be done, and manufacturing
grew rapidly. Now we have entered an
entirely different phase. Now we are a mature
group, a mature country, with a very small
population, a scientific ability to produce in
quantity, but likewise a high cost area. I
think that a simple direct approach to this
problem would recognize that if we are going
to meet the competition we must meet it in
dollars and we cannot expect sacrifice of any
one group as opposed to another. But we can
ask co-operation of all the important aspects
of our economy, namely, labour, management
and government, and ask that they sit down
and co-ordinate their efforts.
Herein, Mr. Chairman, I say to you, the
government must take the lead. I have called
for an economic council heretofore. I support
it now, but there is only one person, Mr.
Chairman, in Ontario at the present time who
can do anything about it, and he is the hon.
Minister opposite who has been charged with
this development.
These industrial leaders will come, these
labour leaders will come, these leaders in
agriculture will come to give advice and help
and assistance, but fundamentally they are
looking to the government for leadership and
direction.
They want the goals to be determined, they
want the rules of the game to be set out, and
they will pursue them. But I say to the hon.
Minister opposite that he must set that policy
and he must make those determinations and
he must fix those goals rapidly. In what has
happened thus far I give him full credit for
enunciating the problems, for outlining tlie
area of solution, but thus far, Mr. Chairman,
I must tell you I have not heard any concrete
evidence of positive programming and policy
that will really do something about the
solution to these problems.
Now, he talks about immigration. Person-
ally I would tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I
feel that immigration in another context is
an answer to this problem. There are those
who fear immigration. I just wish that more
and more people had come to this country
for a long period in the past and I wish that
we had a programme now that would encour-
age people to come here in large numbers.
This would create employment. This would
develop a home market. Now we have to
encourage specialists to come, if we do try
to bring them, but is it not a reflection on
our failure in the past? Surely it is justified
for an Opposition to say, why do you have
to bring specialists in science and engineer-
ing at this critical stage? Is it not demon-
stration that preparation was not made when
it should have been made?
Mr. Chairman, maybe a little ingenuity will
work. Has the hon. Minister ever thought of
working a trade arrangement with some of
the British West Indies, areas that are grow-
ing and are going to grow very rapidly? Why
do we not make an arrangement to permit
some of those people to come here? Maybe
they eventually could become a province of
Canada and then maybe we would expand
our market very dramatically into an area of
the western world that is going to grow, an
area that will prove to be a bridge between
North and South America some day. I would
think that this type of thinking might capture
the imagination and demonstrate a willingness
to look at reality and, what is more, would
add so greatly in the area of trying to come
to grips with a problem that is going to be on
our doorsteps— in fact is here now— the very
moral problem of what to do about the multi-
racial problems, the colour problems in the
world.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I do
not come, as I said at the outset, to criticize
for the sake of criticism. The time is serious.
MARCH 13, 1962
1081
the hour is late. I simply suggest that what
has been outlined here this afternoon is in
broad context supportable, but I find myself in
the position where I must question whether
or not the tough decisions have been made,
the decisions that will not be popular; but the
decisions that a government must bear the
responsibility to make, the decisions which
will determine whether we are going to stress
exports or manufacturing, the decisions that
will determine whether or not we are going
to subsidize freight rates and power, the de-
cisions whether or not we are going to be
prepared to break with tradition and bring
management and labour together and help
them to share a common future that will
permit, I am sure, of encouragement from all
sources.
I think these are all the problems we should
be talking about, Mr. Chairman, rather than
the scientific problems of growth rates, the
scientific problems of gross national product
and the like. This problem is simple. This
problem is not as complicated as one might
think. But there is a lot in it that requires
statesmanship. There is a lot in it that requires
espousing the unpopular. There is a lot in it
that requires a man to get out and move
ahead of public thinking at a given time.
And this, I think, is what is required more
than anything else, that the leaders opposite
move out ahead of public opinion and project
themselves to what the situation will be, not
next year, but 25 years from now.
Twenty-five years from now, what we are
talking about will all have come about in
varying parts of the world. I do not think
we will be quarrelling as we are now quar-
relling between management and labour.
Twenty-five years from now, I say that the
challenge will be in the area of skills, and I
commend the hon. Minister here in this
respect: that he recognizes and sets some
money aside for scholarships so that we can
perfect our skills in this area. One researcher,
Mr. Chairman, who can come up with some
new idea is worth many, many persons who
perform the routine. And I think that this
is to be encouraged. But I regret that it was
not done sooner and that we have to employ
so many specialists and experts from Europe.
Well, Mr. Chairman, those are my observa-
tions by way of introduction to these
estimates. I am repeating myself, but I do
so because I want to be understood com-
pletely. I do not want to disagree with what
has been done. I say however that there is no
demonstration that the tough decisions have
been made. I think they are yet to be made
and they must be made.
I regret that what has been done was not
done earlier. We can do nothing about it
now. However, we do have the right now to
say to the government: What are you going
to do about what I would term these tougher
decisions? And these are the decisions that
will distinguish the government and dis-
tinguish this province in its economy from
some of the other areas with which we are
competing. '
If we are to compete effectively, sir, we
must demonstrate more imagination and that
imagination is not sufiicient in the area of
quality perfection or a little change here and
there, but in a fundamental reorganization
of our thinking and the economical develop-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, it will be my opportunity,
as the opportunity of all others, to speak in
more detail on the individual items and of
that opportunity I will avail myself.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if the hon. member for Woodbine
(Mr. Bryden) would permit me to make just
a few comments in relation to tlie hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer), who
has just spoken?
First, as the hon. leader of the Opposition
has given indication, he did note that we
are going to study a number of these services
as to whether they require outside support.
First of all, just let me mention freight
rates. I am sure hon. members realize now
that about $50 million a year of the federal
government's budget is put into what is
called a "roll back"; it is a subsidization of
the rates. I am sure you will realize that in
the case of Ontario Northland Railway there
is a form of a subsidization presently prevail-
ing under two grounds; it is being subsidized
really to about the extent of $2 million.
First of all, there is an investment by the
province of $30 million in the Ontario North-
land Railway which bears no interest, and
this amounts to about $1,500,000 a year.
Secondly, the communications system has a
profit of about $900,000 a year, and this is
turned into the general operations of the
freight of the railway, to carry freight. So,
actually, there is a subsidization of freight
rates of the Ontario Northland Railway, in
this indirect way, of about $2.5 million.
In terms of electrical rates, electricity and
so on, we are looking at this very earnestly;
because, as the hon. gentleman has indicated,
we have come through one period, have
approached quite a sharp turn on the road,
and there is quite a tradition related to
Hydro and its management, its relationship to
1082
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this House. As hon. members know, this is
a very sensitive area. We have given this
problem of general services, and what purport
they should have, to the economic council, to
send to one of their committees.
In relation to the second question of the
hon. leader of the Opposition about the
Ontario Development Fund— "Where will the
funds come from?"— there are many ways in
which this can be done. Manitoba, I believe,
has a programme of matching contributions
by industry. Quebec has talked about a pro-
gramme—I do not think any money has
actually been lent. It sounded as if it was
going to be either by way of guarantees of
municipal loans— this is an interesting pro-
gramme, we can discuss it at another time—
or perhaps by raising money in the province
by the sale of bonds especially designated for
this fund. These are two areas.
This is one of the reasons why we have
given this matter to the economic council,
to come up with a good programme, at which
time we can look at it and see. There is no
money provided in the estimates for this,
obviously, because it is not yet known
whether there is a policy to go ahead with.
But we do want to study it to see whether
the traditional lending institutions are un-
able to handle the areas, and what areas they
are, and whether they need encouragement,
and so on. Where there is a will, there is
a way.
As for the comments of the hon. leader of
the Opposition— well, one word that is often
used is "monopoly," but another word, per-
haps, is a combination of companies to enable
them to compete. His comments in this
regard are very intelligent, in my opinion,
and follow the course which we have been
taking in relation to our own department in
negotiations with the federal department.
There has been, for many years, a general
resistance toward liberalizing the general
laws relating to monopolies; but there is no
doubt that the experience of Great Britain
is that the British electrical industry would
have gone under in relation to competition
with the European Common Market had it
not been permitted to make sensible re-
aligimient. And here in Canada we have
much unused capacity.
I should have mentioned in relation to
freight rates— I do not want to get into a
discussion with it— the policy of the govern-
ment was indicated some time ago. The
policy has not changed; we are looking at
these matters generally; but I am sure that
the hon. gentleman has looked at the Mac-
Pherson report of the Royal commission on
transportation, and what he recommends is
absolutely the contrary to the recommendation
of the MacPherson report. I would also
point out that in terms of the Ontario North-
land Railway, which is an interline railway-
it is a connecting line because it does not
run south of North Bay, except by a trucking
system— the problems of freight rates sub-
sidization is an immense one, really, because
we have to negotiate these rates with the
railways beyond there. It is a very large
problem.
The hon. leader of the Opposition also
made reference to the management and
labour conference. Well, I will be frank and
acknowledge to him that on our economic
council we have the president of the Ontario
Federation of Labour, we also have Mr.
Donald Gillis, who is the president of the
Mine, Mill, Smelter Workers' Union at Sud-
bury, and Mr. Roland Hill, who is the
nominee of the provincial Building and Con-
struction Trades Council, and Canadian
director of International Union of Operating
Engineers, together with a number of other
industrial, agricultural and government rep-
resentatives. And it is the intention of the
council to organize conferences somewhat
along the lines mentioned by the hon. leader
of the Opposition.
What I was anxious to have was to have
these people work together really in a common
cause, where the things they were fighting
for brought them together, before we got
into any areas which might bring them apart.
And I am hoping that, after a few months,
these people will conduct some investigations
into industrial research, and the tourist in-
dustry, and government incentives and in-
ducements to the realignment of industry,
and so on; and that these people will come
more and more to work with one another,
and realize that we are all in this thing,
every one of us— as the hon. gentleman has
indicated— and we have all to succeed
together, because none of us will succeed
separately.
In relation to what the hon. leader of the
Opposition has indicated I can say one thing,
in my own defence, I think. The hon. leader
of the Opposition has indicated that he hopes
that this list of 20 points is not just a pious
incantation, and he hopes that some of these
things, if not all of them are carried out— and
I think he believes me when I say that I do
intend to see these are carried out.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): This is the
platform for the next election, is it not?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, this is not—
MARCH 13, 1962
1083
Mr. Sopha: Part of it?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is part of it, but
it will be— I would want to say, however,
in all fairness to the hon. gentleman, I
mentioned an economic council; this has been
established. I mentioned the second plank,
the survey of the ONR, this is now under
way and we will have the report in a matter
of weeks. The $7.2 million extension to the
ONR communication system is now under
way.
The Ontario Research Foundation satellite
organization is now under study and I con-
template that it will not be long before this is
brought into operation. The increased grants
are before the House today for the Ontario
Research Foundation. The creation of the
northern Ontario development committee has
been established under the chairmanship of
Mr. Clark. The agriculture committee has
been established. The housing programme
has been presented in a general way, and
will be in more detail today. The committee
on industrial incentives has already met and
is under way.
The bill is here before this House on the
amalgamation of the three systems. The
tourist committee has been established and
has now started to work. The committee on
the Ontario development fund was announced,
I understand, by the chairman of the
economic council yesterday. And so on. Hon.
members can go through this list and will
find that a great many of these are now in
operation.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chair-
man, as hon. members know, I sit for the
constituency of Woodbine in the east end
of Toronto. Immediately to the west of that
constituency is the constituency of Riverdale,
as it is known provincially, or Broadview as
it is known federally. It is almost exactly the
same geographic area, although there are
diflFerent names for the constituency federally
and provincially.
The gentleman who sits for the federal
riding of Broadview is the Rt. hon. George
Hees, the Minister of Trade and Commerce
in the federal government, and the gentleman
who sits for the provincial constituency of
Riverdale is the hon. Minister of Commerce
and Development (Mr. Macaulay) in this
government. It has been a matter of some
interest and even amusement to me, Mr.
Chairman, as a neighbour of that constituency,
to watch the increasing frequency with which
the provincial member jabs the elbow into
the federal member.
The hon. Minister of Commerce and Devel-
opment has now pretty well completed the
take-over of the government of the province
of Ontario, and now he is moving in to take
over the federal government, starting with
The Department of Trade and Commerce, but
with advance forces already moving into The
Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Mr. Sopha: I hear he is going to run
against Walter Gordon.
Mr. MacDonald: A drippy tap; why does
the hon. member not turn it off for a
moment?
Mr. Sopha: I thank the hon. member for
those few kind words.
Mr. MacDonald: They were realistic and
appropriate, not only kind.
Mr. Bryden: I would say, Mr. Chairman,
that I would agree with the hon. Minister
to this extent. I do not think we should rely
entirely on the federal Department of Trade
and Commerce; certainly we should do what
we can to help, but I think the hon. Minister
in his zeal has gone far beyond that. He
has got himself stumbling all over the juris-
diction of the federal Department of Trade
and Commerce in a way that will undoubtedly
be most confusing to that department and,
I suspect, to his own department.
In fact, I was rather interested in the
statement he has just made. He was much
more specific about what he was going to
do in the federal field than about what he
was going to do in the field over which
this government has jurisdiction. He had very
definite and concrete plans in the federal field,
but as far as the field of provincial juris-
diction is concerned, where his government
has some authority, his statement, as far as
I could make out simply from listening to it-
he has sent me a copy of it but I have not
had time to study it— as far as I could make
out, it consisted of re-statements of announce-
ments that have already been made or of
statements to the effect that the government
or the department planned to study various
matters. In fact, such phrases as "study the
advisability of" or "investigate the need for"
crop up frequently in the hon. Minister's
discussion of what this government is going
to do within its own field of jurisdiction.
However, I will say, Mr. Chairman, that
I am very glad, even though it may be a
matter that more appropriately is in the
federal area, that the hon. Minister is con-
templating, in fact I think has decided, to
send a trade group to Europe, I presume with
the purpose of trying to promote the sale of
Canadian products in Europe. That is a
useful purpose but when it is there it will
1084
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
no doubt study what is going on in Europe
and it will no doubt study and report back
to the hon. Minister exactly the same thing
as a similar group Mr. Hees sent over there
some time ago reported back to him— that
the countries of western Europe are making
very great strides economically, primarily be-
cause they have given up various 19th century
inhibitions and are engaging in economic
planning.
That is what Mr. Hees' trade group re-
ported to him among other things, and I have
no doubt that since the hon. Minister will
undoubtedly appoint intelligent, observant
men to his trade group they will report the
same to him; and even though the group may
not sell very many Ontario products over
there, at least they will bring back a report
which will undoubtedly contribute to the
education of the hon. Minister, and that is a
useful role in a democratic society, too.
It is rather regrettable, Mr. Chairman, after
tlie many advance announcements we have
had as to exactly what the government was
going to do and as to the very fine things
the hon. Minister had in mind, that all we
have really is a series of announcements of
20 unrelated items, some of which are merely
items of study, some of which are merely
pious hopes, and some of which have already
been announced to us two or three times
before, and some of which are not even in the
government's jurisdiction. I had hoped, and
I was really encouraged to believe from news-
paper reports of speeches that the hon. Min-
ister had made previously, that he was
coming around to the idea of planning, but
his statement today does not seem to indicate
it. It is sort of a hit-and-miss proposition;
catch-as-catch-can; based on the hope that
a little stimulant here and a little makeshift
there may add up to something or will be
useful.
But the fact remains, Mr. Chairman, and
surely it is being recognized more and more
even in Canada, that without economic plan-
ning we are not going to solve the kind of
problems with which Ontario is faced today,
and which the hon. Minister is trying to deal
with. I would say that for a person such as
myself who has advocated economic planning
for a long time it is gratifying to find that at
least this is no longer a dirty word. True,
the word is still resisted in some quarters,
notably by the Canadian Chamber of Com-
merce which is experiencing real difiiculty in
finding its way into the 20th century, but it
is nevertheless possible to talk about it in
respectable company. After reading the story
that was on page seven of the Toronto
Daily Star on Saturday, I am not sure that
I am in respectable company at this moment,
but even so, Mr. Chairman, it is now possible
to talk about planning without being accused
of communism by anyone other than perhaps
the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. In
fact, politicians of the Conservative and Lib-
eral variety now find that they have to talk
about planning, and they are doing so in
increasing measure.
The problem is that to date they have done
little more than talk about it. The federal
leader of the Liberal Party, for example, has
talked vaguely about the need for "new
planning arrangements with a sense of con-
structive purpose and urgency," but the only
concrete suggestion he lias made is to esta-
blish a full-time economic council to conduct
research into economic trends in all parts of
Canada and to undertake systematic examina-
tion of new problems. References of that
kind can be found, for example, in the
Toronto Daily Star, October 16, 1961. The
national economic council that the Liberal
leader is talking about sounds remarkably
like the productivity council of the present
federal government, which has been a
complete flop as far as any contribution to
planning or to economic development is con-
cerned.
It is an axiom of Canadian politics that
the Conservative and Liberal paarties have
regularly stolen ideas from the New Demo-
cratic Party and, before it, from the CCF.
But in this case, they have unfortunately not
stolen the idea, they have merely stolen the
word.
Mr. Whicher: We stole Mr. Argue too.
An hon. member: You can have him.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Bryden: This becomes very clear from
the budget statement of the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan) and the economic
statement of the hon. Minister of Commerce
and Development (Mr. Macaulay) and his
further statement of today.
The budget, for example, is declared to be
"the first step in a new five-year plan." But
when one tries to discover something about
the plan, one is confronted by vague state-
ments such as the following on page five of
the budget statement:
Under this plan our aim will be to
maintain an adequate rate of economic
growth consistent with the financial
capacity of the province.
—it would be very hard, Mr. Chairman, to
find anybody who would disagree with that
platitude.
MARCH 13, 1962
1085
A study of the hon. Minister's economic
statement discloses nothing but more of the
same kind of vague statement. On pages 29
and 30, for example, one finds the following
—and I am quoting two or three sentences
that appear on those pages:
Our economic policies can be summed
up in one word: "growth." The govern-
ment pledges its co-operation and support
to industry. In co-operation with industry,
labour, agriculture, commerce and science,
we will do our utmost to ensure the great-
est possible economic growth in Ontario.
These are noble statements, Mr. Chairman,
l)ut it is time we faced the fact that we will
not produce economic growth merely by talk-
ing about it or wishing for it. To say that
Ave are aiming at growth begs the question.
"What is required is a clear indication of the
degree and kind of growth which the govern-
ment is aiming at both in the short term and
in the longer run, and the methods by which
it expects to achieve it.
The hon. Minister of Commerce and Devel-
opment is apparently pinning most of his
hopes on the new Ontario Economic Council.
I would like to read what he originally said
about that in his economic statement. What
be said today is really just elaboration on
what he said in the earlier statement, so I
will content myself with the earlier statement
which appears on page 30 of the economic
statement, as follows:
We are looking to the new Ontario Eco-
nomic Council to come up with the answers
to many of our economic problems. Com-
mittees are now being established to study
and report on specific subjects, such as the
tourist industry, industrial research, indus-
trial development, agriculture and develop-
ment in northern Ontario. As I stated
before, the activities of the council will not
be limited to the investigation of problems
over which the Ontario government has
jurisdiction; we are going to look into any-
thing and everything which affects the
Ontario economy and use every method
open to us to safeguard our interests and
promote economic growth and development
in this province.
An economic council of the kind which
has just been set up could play a dynamic
role in the development of the province, but
in the context in which the hon. Minister has
placed it, it will be little more effective than
a trapped bird, flapping its wings in futility
against the ceiling. As the hon. Minister
himself has stated, the economic council can-
not and should not take over the functions
of government, but as long as the government
abdicates its own responsibilities, and there
is certainly nothing to date to indicate that it
is not abdicating its responsibilities, then
tliere is very little for the council to do.
The hon. Minister seems to visualize it as
a sort of research agency; it is going to con-
duct various studies, he says. I must say I
lost track of all the studies these commit-
tees are going to conduct. I have come to
the conclusion that perhaps the hon. Minis-
ter thinks if he gets enough studies con-
ducted and printed he will solve the
unemployment by putting people to work
on research and printing. I do not know, but
he certainly is going to have a lot of studies.
I would suggest to him that the research
function can be better carried on by full-
time personnel in his own department, and
if he needs more such personnel, as he may
very well do, I for one would be happy
to vote him the money required. The coun-
cil consists of very busy men who really
have no time for research. What will hap-
I)en, of course, is that such studies as are
undertaken will be produced by the depart-
mental staff. The hon. Minister surely does
not think he can fool us into thinking that
these men who are on the council or its
committees are going to produce the actual
studies. The council will no doubt review
them before they are finalized, and this will
be useful, but it seems a rather small func-
tion for such a large council.
I am a great believer in research. I be-
lieve that continuing economic studies should
always be under way as to both our current
economic situation and our future prospects.
At the same time, I am mindful of the
fact that one of the oldest excuses known
to man for inaction is the claim that a sub-
ject is under study. If we wait until all
p>ossible facts have been amassed and di-
gested, we will never act, because we will
never get them all amassed, not even with
the new calculating machines they are de-
veloping.
There is enough information available
right now for the government to draw up
clear-cut, comprehensive plans and to an-
nounce those plans. True, its plans will
undoubtedly have to be revised in the light
of future experience but that will always be
the case. It is no excuse for failure to plan
now.
In the second half of the 20th century,
it is no longer possible to accept the 19th
century economic mysticism that if private
individuals and companies are left to pur-
sue their own economic self-interest, mak-
ing such private decisions as appear to them
1086
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
most likely to contribute to that self-interest,
the sum total of these unrelated decisions
will miraculously become the maximum
economic well-being of the community as
a whole.
Economists of 100 years ago even used to
talk of an invisible hand which led to this
desirable result. It is time we got over the
childish notion that an invisible hand will
solve our problems for us. It makes no more
sense for governments to fail to plan the
development of the economy as a whole
than it would for the management of a pri-
vate business to fail to plan the development
of that business, and any management that
failed in that respect would not be in busi-
ness for more than a week.
I recognize that, fundamentally, planning
is the responsibility of the federal govern-
ment. It is imperative, however, that there
should be close co-operation between the
federal and provincial governments. Other-
wise, they could easily negative each other's
eflForts.
For that reason the New Democratic
Party proposes in the programme it adopted
last August that a federal-provincial plan-
ning and development council should be set
up to provide a regular channel of co-opera-
tion and co-ordination between the two
levels of government. I would suggest that
the hon. Minister, through his intergovern-
ment relations branch, should pursue this
idea and urge it upon the federal govern-
ment and the other provinces.
Moreover, in a province of the size of
Ontario, a great deal can be done at the
provincial level even in the absence of con-
structive leadership from the federal govern-
ment.
We should always be prepared to work
closely with that government without chal-
lenging their jurisdiction altogether, and we
^ould urge upon it a more mature and
meaningful approach to planning than it has
now. But we should also be prepared to pro-
ceed on our own. The government should
determine the rate of economic growth it
thinks Ontario can achieve.
I am getting tired of hearing statements to
the effect that we want growth with no indica-
tion of what the government thinks is feasible
as far as growth is concerned. And I think
that such estimates should be in terms of not
only the coming year but the next few years;
we should have both a short-term and a long-
term forecast and the forecast should be
formed on the basis of our knowledge of the
manpower and resources available.
I would like to emphasize further, Mr.
Chairman, that I do not mean that the govern-
ment should merely estimate the growth
which it thinks will take place if nature is left
to take its course. What it should do is
estimate the growth of which we will be cap-
able if all our manpower and resources are
fully employed, after making reasonable
allowance, of course, for fractional unemploy-
ment. It should then devise policies of public
investment, encouragement to private indus-
try, and so on, which it hopes will achieve
that rate of growth. And I want to empha-
size again that its ix)licies should all be in
terms of an objective, the objective should be
stated, and then the policies should be
formulated in relation to that objective. They
should be part of an integrated whole, and
as far as possible they should be announced
as such.
It is not good enough for the hon. Minister
of Commerce and Development to say, as
he said on page 29 of his economic statement:
We are designing specific policies to
encourage economic growth in Ontario.
The government has already announced a
new 12-point housing programme and the
establishment of the Ontario Economic
Council. Additional programmes will be
announced to the hon. members shortly.
And a few more were announced today.
But I would like to emphasize, Mr. Chair-
man, that this is the old-fashioned, unplanned
bits-and-pieces approach. A makeshift here,
and a stimulant there, do little more than
create confusion. It is imperative for private
industry to have a clear idea of what the
government has in mind, not only what it has
in mind at this moment but what its total pro-
gramme is. Otherwise, it will be impossible
for industry to adapt itself to the govern-
ment's plans and, as I will try to indicate in
a moment, close co-operation between the
government and the private sector is the
essence of good planning.
At this point, I would like to make one
further suggestion with regard to the planning
of the government. I think the time has come
when it is insufficient for a treasurer of a
province, particularly in a large province like
this, to do as the hon. Provincial Treasurer
did once this year, and that is present
estimates of revenues and expenditures for
one year only. Most businesses develop their
plans on the basis of about three years, and
I think that the government should be pre-
pared to start estimating its requirements on
a three-year basis. Certainly they would have
a more specific budget for the one-year period
on which the voting of funds would be based,
but they should also have three-year forecasts
MARCH 13, 1962
1087
of their requirements so that industry will
have some idea of where it stands as far as
future government activity is concerned. This
is all a phase of planning. The government
has mentioned a five-year plan in the budget,
but for the life of me I cannot see any
evidence of it yet or any evidence of anything
that even looks like it.
Getting back, however, to my suggestions
as to just how planning could be undertaken,
I would like to state that in my opinion it
is not sufiBcient to think in terms merely of
aggregate growth; there are two important
modifications or refinements that should be
made.
Firstly, it is important that we consider
the quality as well as the degree of growth we
have in mind. We cannot go on much longer
starving ourselves of essential social capital.
There has to be some balancing of the various
demands for investment funds— as between
social and private purposes and also among
various private purposes.
Secondly, we have to consider the degrees
of growth that are possible in various sectors
of the economy. Let us assume that we set
ourselves what I consider to be the quite
reasonable objective of a 25 per cent increase
in our gross product in the next four years.
Clearly, the rate of growth needed to produce
this increase could not be achieved uniformly
across the economy. Some industries have
much greater opportunity for expansion than
others, and we naturally expect them to have
a faster-than-average rate of growth to com-
pensate for a slower-than-average rate else-
where. These variations necessarily have to
be taken into account in any plan that may be
developed.
So much then for the kind of objectives
the government should set for the economy.
It would take too long for me to attempt to
outline in detail the kind of measures I think
it should develop in order to achieve those
objectives. I would, however, like to call
attention to the fact that the main deter-
minants of growth are foreign trade and
investment.
Foreign trade is something over which we
have only limited control, even at the federal
level. Certainly everything possible should
be done to stimulate trade and, as I said
before, I agree with the hon. Minister that
we in Ontario should not rely entirely on the
federal government, although I must say he
somewhat took my breath away by the extent
to which he plans to substitute for the
federal government. He apparently has very
little confidence in the department operated
by his hon. colleague out there in the east
end. We should do what we can to supple-
ment that government's efforts to stimulate
trade and, above all, Mr. Chairman, we
should always consider ways and means of
assisting our own industries in becoming more
competitive.
But when all that is said and done, the
amount of trade we can expect is, to an
important degree, determined independently
of us. In making economic plans, therefore,
our only possible course is to make realistic
estimates of the level of trade we can expect
and then adjust our procedure accordingly.
This makes investment the most important
single factor in economic planning, because
investment is a function over which we can
exercise considerable influence. Our great
problem at the present time, and I have
gone into this at some length before so I will
not dwell on it now, but it is a point,
apparently, which the hon. Minister is un-
prepared to recognize— our great problem at
the present time is the inadequacy of private
investment, and the recently published figures
of investment plans for the coming year do
not indicate that this inadequacy will be
anything like fully remedied.
The lesson is plain. The government must
compensate for the lack of private investment
with public investment. I would like to
emphasize, however, as I have emphasized
before, that the investment programme should
be planned and co-ordinated. Preferably, it
should be devised and carried out co-opera-
tively by the federal and provincial govern-
ment, but even if we assume that the present
refusal to face either facts or responsibilities
will continue to dominate government think-
ing at Ottawa, I think Ontario should be
prepared to work out and announce a co-
ordinated programme of its own. It is my
submission to you, Mr. Chairman, that not-
withstanding the spate of announcements we
have had and perhaps indicated by that
spate of announcements, the government has
no co-ordinated investment programme; it is
merely drumming up policies to meet tem-
porary emergencies as they come along.
Now in the context of economic planning
which I have just outlined, I would submit,
Mr. Chairman, that the new economic council,
which the hon. Minister has appointed,
would acquire functions that are worth per-
forming, as distinct from the functions it
now has which may be useful but in view
of its size are a little bit in the nature of
using a pile-driver to crack nuts. It is a
council of very distinguished people with a
great many subcommittees, most of which
are going to be responsible for preparing
1088
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reports which will probably be prepared by
the stafiF in his department anyway.
I would suggest, in the context of economic
planning, that a council like that, and the
various sub-agencies which the hon. Minister
has suggested, have a genuine function to per-
fonn— and a useful one. No one suggests that
any government is all-wise and least of all this
one. The members of the economic council
and its subcommittees have a vast fund of
exi)erience and knowledge that could be of
incalculable value to the government in
arriving at its overall objectives and in
devising plans to meet those objectives. The
government has to take ultimate responsibility,
but to enlist the co-operation of business,
labour, agriculture and other sections of the
community in drawing up plans, is the best
way of ensuring the co-operation of these
groups in carrying them out.
These groups can be particularly helpful
in the detailed working out of the plans. As
I have already indicated, it is not sufficient
merely to set ourselves an overall objective.
That objective has to be broken down into
specific objectives for specific sectors of the
economy.
Under the economic council, there should
be specific industrial panels or working groups
through which management, labour and
others in specific industries can work together,
not merely in preparing reports but in setting
objectives and in figuring out ways of
achieving objectives for their industries. This
is the sort of thing that is going on in
Europe; they are not content merely to write
reports, they sit down and say, "There is an
overall objective for the economy as a whole;
what can our particular sector contribute to
that? To what extent can we contribute to
overall growth? Just what is a reasonable
objective for our sector and how can we
achieve that objective?" That is a meaning-
ful activity and a highly useful one. And
it would permit the groups on these various
panels or subcommittees, or whatever you
want to call them, to work together not
only for their own benefit but also for the
benefit of the community as a whole.
We hear a great deal these days about
the need for labour-management co-operation,
and we have heard a fair amount about it
from the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer), including some comments to-
day. I would like to suggest to you, sir,
that most of the comments that have been
made on this subject are nothing but pious
platitudes, because we will never achieve
such co-operation in any meaningful sense
itnder our present "every man for himself"
philosophy.
If management has no larger role to play in
economy than merely to make profits— and
I am not saying there is anything wrong with
that— but if that is to be their sole objective,
then they will naturally concentrate on
making profits regardless of the secondary
effects of any of their actions elsewhere in
the economy. That is just human nature.
Similarly, if labour has no other function
than to get what it can in the way of wages
and other benefits, then it will concentrate
on that.
But if both of them are brought together
with government and other sections of the
community to help in developing and im-
plementing plans for the benefit of the
whole community, they will have a more
meaningful role to play than they have now.
I would like to stress, Mr. Chairman, that
I am not talking about bringing them together
to hear nice little Sunday school lectures
about the value of co-operation or about
how we should all pull together, being all
citizens of this great country and all having
interests in common.
We all know that; everybody knows that.
But the point is they are not given any
opportunity to participate directly in the
planning of the development of the country,
mainly because there are no plans for that
development. If we can bring them together,
make them in ways such as I have suggested
and as are now being applied in other
countries a natural part of a meaningful
process which is the planning of the develop-
ment of the whole economy, tlien we can
expect that while they will, while continuing
to look after their own private interests,
relate those interests to the overall benefit
of the community. What is even more
important, they will be assured— and I think
this is very important— that any immediate
sacrifice they may make will be for the
benefit of the community as a whole, includ-
ing themselves, in the long run, and not
merely for the profit of some other individual
interest.
I would say that it would be perfectly
ridiculous, for example, to ask the employees
of a large profitable enterprise to forego a
wage increase, when the only effect of it is
that somebody else is going to get a bigger
chunk of the pie. But if their activities are
related to overall development, then I think
that our working people and our management
groups will be just as responsible as those
in Europe; and it has been demonstrated
that those in Europe, given the opportunity
to participate and given the leadership by
the government, they do take a thoroughly
responsible attitude to the community and to
MARCH 13, 1962
1089
their responsibilities to it. It is only through
economic planning, and not through pious
platitudes, that true labour-management co-
operation will come about.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress
the point that planning, as I envisage it and
as I have tried to set it forth this afternoon,
does not involve detailed interference in the
day-to-day operation of businesses in this
country. That is an old bogey that could well
be laid to rest, and I hope will be laid to
rest in the near future. The government
has to give leadership; it has to set objectives.
It has to consult with industry and labour
and others, but it has to take responsibility
for setting objectives and for indicating the
ways in which those objectives are to be
realized. Within that overall framework,
there will still be all the scope in the world
for private initiative and private decision. In
fact, the scope will probably be greater
because there will be more continuous
expansion.
Mr. Chairman, it is undoubtedly not
apparent to the House as a whole that I am
being knocked a little bit oflF stride by two
absolutely conflicting sets of heckling from
the Liberal benches. From one direction I
am being told that I am absolutely right and
that the Liberal Party agrees with me
entirely, and from another direction I am
being told that I am absolutely wrong and
that I am planning to lead the country down
the garden path to socialism.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to assume
any responsibility for the ambivalence of the
Liberal Party, and I suppose you are power-
less to protect me against this ambivalent
heckhng, but I thought the House might
be interested.
At any rate, Mr. Chairman, to complete
the point I was trying to make, the essence of
sound planning is that the government sets
objectives but its intervention actually is
limited really to a very narrow area, to the
critical point, shall we say. I would say right
now that the government should intervene,
and in a much more wholehearted way than
it is doing, with a full-fledged investment pro-
gramme to compensate for the lack of private
investment. And if, as would imdoubtedly
happen if they did that, private investment
reached the point where there was a danger
of serious inflation as we had a few years ago,
then obviously the government should slow
down public investment and probably should
take steps to put the brakes on private invest-
ment. But that degree of regulation is really
only at the margin. Economic controls can
be exercised by operating on the margin in
key areas of the economy, leaving the day-to-
day decisions still to be made by private
individuals as they have always been made.
One last suggestion I would Hke to make,
Mr. Chairman, is that although I have con-
sidered for a long time that economic plan-
ning is not only necessary but also feasible,
I think the feasibiUty of it becomes greater
every day. Industry has now developed
calculating machines which, I think, when
put to work on some of our baffling economic
problems, will assist us very gready in refining
the indicators that we now use in attempting
to forecast economic growth and other
economic development; and also in applying
those indicators in a much more accurate
manner than we now do.
Economic forecasting is a matter of judg-
ment; we just cannot get staff big enough to
work out all the variables that should be taken
into account, but business machines are reach-
ing the point where a lot of those difficulties
are being met. I am certainly no expert on
business machines but I would think that the
kind of machine that can, out of very
scattered preliminary returns on a national
election in the United States, predict with
quite a remarkable degree of accuracy the
ultimate outcome of the election, could be put
to use for, I think, something that might be a
little more useful to us— and that is trying to
forecast exactly where our economy is head-
ing.
As we refine our techniques for analyzing
the economy and forecasting probable future
growth, we will of course be able to make
plans that will be more and more precise in
counteracting anticipated developments that
are considered undesirable. At any rate, Mr.
Chairman, the need for planning has surely
now been established beyond all conceivable
doubt. It is unfortunate that the department,
which I presume in this government is mainly
interested in planning, apparently has not
developed any overall plans. It has no views,
that I have been able to determine, as to what
rate of economic growth we should have in
this province, what rate we need to produce
full employment, what rate we should be
striving for not only this year but over the
next three or four years— all we have is tiie
same old series of disjointed announcements
by the hon. Minister, many of which are very
useful in themselves but which when taken
together do not add up to anything in par-
ticular. They certainly do not add up to any
plan to solve the very serious problem of
economic stagnation with which we have
been faced for the last four years at least,
and with which, according to any present
indications, we will likely be faced at least
1090
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
until 1965, and probably further, at least
until the point when the crop of war babies
start to move into the family formation field
themselves.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that is really
too long to wait for a dynamic stimulant to
our economy, and it is regrettable that neither
this government, nor the government at
Ottawa, is prepared to take the advice of
qualified people in the business field, as in
many others, to try to use public investment
as a substitute for inadequate private invest-
ment and as a stimulant which the economy
so sadly lacks at the present time.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Before we go to vote
301, which I assume now that we have had
the general declaration of comment from
each of the three parties, we will proceed to,
may I make several suggestions as to how we
might best proceed if I could, sir? There is
nothing in my estimates relating to the
Ontario Northland Railway, and it may be
that a number of members in the House would
like to speak on the Ontario Northland Rail-
way. Could I suggest to you therefore that
the Ontario Northland Railway discussion
follow vote 311, which completes the dis-
cussion of the three— the foundation and the
development commission and the Ontario
Northland Railway? Would you put them
together there— the Ontario Northland Rail-
way at the end of vote 311?
Might I make one other suggestion and
that is— since 306 is an administrative vote
and 312 is a capital vote— that we might
discuss 306 and 312 together and pass them
together as vote 306.
One other comment I would like to make,
if I might, Mr. Chairman. I am greatly
obligated to the staffs of the departments,
although no reference has been made by the
hon. members opposite. I frankly want to
say that, while I deserve no credit myself, in
the short time that we have had to put these
two departments together, to alter the pro-
gramme which we have now presented to the
House has really been a mammoth job for
the staff.
They worked nights, days, Saturdays and
Sundays and I am very deeply obligated to
them. I will mention some of them by name
when we go through the various votes but
just in the beginning I would very much like
to have the opportunity of expressing here,
sir, my gratitude as a Minister— and, I think,
this House's gratitude— to three persons who
have been of tremendous assistance in the
reorganization of these departments, which
has been a larger job than it may appear.
First, of course, is Mr. Gathercole, the
Deputy Minister of the department, who has
been a tower of strength to me, and attains
the highest standards, I think, of our public
service. Secondly, Mr. Clarkson, who has
been the Deputy Minister of Energy Re-
sources, and who is the assistant Deputy
Minister of Commerce and Development, a
very fine Canadian gentleman; he is a young
man and he has done yeoman service with
reference to these departments. I am very
grateful to him. The last is Mr. Etchen, who
is before me with Mr. Gathercole at the
table; Mr. Etchen is the director of the finance
and administration branch, and I will now
refer to him and others as we go through
the votes.
Mr. Chairman, if it is now agreeable to the
House, perhaps we can get on to the separate
items.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, before we
get into the items there are a few general
remarks I would like to make about this
department.
The first thing I would like to do, Mr.
Chairman, is to congratulate the hon. Min-
ister on the speech he gave us this afternoon
outlining the programme he has for the
department. It was certainly given with
great sincerity and I have no doubt in the
world that he fully intends to do those things
that he has said that he will do, here this
afternoon. However, there are some things—
and a few of the points we have not had an
opportunity to study— but there are some
points, perhaps, we might disagree on, or
about which we might have some comment.
In congratulating the hon. Minister, Mr.
Chairman, I wish that the people of the
province of Ontario had the opportunity to
hear him this afternoon because to me it was
the greatest indictment of the Conservative
Party and their governing ability during the
past 10 years that I have ever heard any
living man give.
How anybody, Mr. Chairman, can stand
up as he did this afternoon and tell us in
the 20 points, telling us the things he is
going to do and, in the same breath tell us,
for example, I will give you item No. 12.
I have not got it in his words because I have
not had the opportunity of studying his
speech, although he kindly sent it over to
me, but in the notes that I made myself, he
was going to study the tourist industry and
he was going to attempt to turn the deficit
that we now have in the travel industry into
a surplus. Mr. Chairman, what I ask is this:
if the hon. Minister of Commerce and Devel-
opment (Mr. Macaulay) is going to take on
MARCH 13, 1962
1091
this job, what has the Minister of Travel
and Publicity been doing for the last 15
years in this province? That is what I would
like to know.
Time after time we have heard the hon.
Minister of Travel and Publicity (Mr. Cath-
cart) stand in the House and he has told us
what he has done in the past year, his plans
for the future. He has told us that we are
a great tourist province, that everything is
under control, and yet this afternoon in
point No. 12 that the hon. Minister of Com-
merce and Development has given to us he
has said, by telling us what he is going to
do, that the hon. Minister of Travel and
Publicity has been negligent in his duty. I
defy anybody to say otherwise.
But I am not so worried about point No,
12, because there are three or four more
that I wish to bring to the attention of the
House.
First may I say, and I think I made my-
self clear in my opening remarks, that if the
hon. Minister by taking over The Depart-
ment of Travel and Publicity can change our
deficit into a surplus, that we on this side
of the House are all for it. We are all for
many of the other things that he has sug-
gested. We know perfectly well that we
must manufacture more goods in this prov-
ince ourselves in order to employ more
labour and that we must manufacture them
so that we can sell them in the province
of Ontario and also sell them in the foreign
markets of the world. If that is the basis
upon which the hon. Minister has spoken,
and I believe it is, then we are certainly
all for it.
But let us look at another point, point
No. 7. In the Ontario Economic Council,
point No. 7, he is going to have an agricul-
tural committee, and in describing this
agricultural committee he told us that his
department was now studying a sale involv-
ing some millions of dollars in new markets,
involving I presume farmers' produce of the
province of Ontario. Mr. Chairman, I ask
this: where has the hon. Minister of Agri-
culture (Mr. Stewart) been for the last few
years? Why has he not looked after this?
Is it necessary that we have to have a czar,
a man who runs not only the Cabinet, he is
taking over The Department of Agriculture,
as well as The Department of Travel and
Publicity.
Let us go on a little bit further, because
in point No. 20 he says this— these are just
the notes that I have— "We are now going
to have a new immigration policy. We are
going to get professional and technical trades
personnel from foreign countries and have
them come into the province of Ontario as
immigrants." May I respectfully say to the
hon. Provincial Secretary and Minister of
Citizenship (Mr. Yaremko): what has he
been doing for the last number of years? Is
it necessary that the Conservative govern-
ment has to give all the powers that are in-
corporated in their government into the
hands of this one man? Is it necessary that
the hon. Minister of Economics has got to
bring in technical and professional men?
If such is the case, my suggestion to the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) is fire
the hon. Minister of Citizenship; there is no
use in having both of them.
But let us go on a little bit further—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: This is nice construc-
tive criticism!
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Prime Minister
is in danger of being fired himself be-
cause of point No. 9. As I have made my
notes, we find here that the hon. Minister
of Economics is going to retrain the labour
force in the province of Ontario. Labour
certainly should be retrained, in my opin-
ion, and I agree with him 100 per cent. But
in the same breath he admitted, if I copied
properly, he admitted that this was really
the business of The Department of Educa-
tion and The Department of Labour; so, I
tell the hon. Prime Minister, he may be go-
ing out the door too.
There was one point, however, where I
think that he could have gone a little bit
further. I refer to point No. 13, and here
he said—. Before I get to point No. 13, I
am going to go back for a minute, Mr.
Chairman, to No. 1 where the hon. Minister
is going to create an Ontario economic coun-
cil. I say to hon. members that if this is
going to help us employ our labour in the
province of Ontario; if it is going to help
industry that is not getting along too well,
put it on its feet; if it is going to help us
manufacture goods to sell in the province of
Ontario and to sell in foreign markets; then
I am all for it and I hope that the Ontario
Economic Council will be a success. But I
ask you, Mr. Chairman, in reality the eco-
nomic council of the province of Ontario is
the Cabinet that is sitting over there. They
have been sitting there for many years and
here they are asking a body of responsible
businessmen and responsible citizens of this
province to do a job and put the economy
of the province of Ontario on a plane where
they should have put it in the past number
of years.
1092
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Is the hon. member in
favour of it?
Mr. Whicher: I am absolutely in favour
of it, because they have not been able to
do the job.
Mr. MacDonald: They obviously cannot
do it because they have not the power to
act.
Mr. Whicher: They have the power.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member should
make up his mind which way he is going.
Mr. Whicher: I know which way I am
going.
Mr. Chairman, my point is simply this: if
the Ontario Economic Council can help in-
dustry and labour and citizens of the prov-
ince of Ontario, then we are all for it. But
by setting up this economic council he has
torn the former hon. Minister of Economics
(Mr. Allan) all to shreds, because by propos-
ing the 20 points that we have here this
afternoon he is condemning the former hon.
Minister for not doing one single solitary
thing.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to get to a point
where Ifeel that the hon. Minister really did
not go far enough. I might say it is the only
one, but point No. 13, as I read it, is the study
of creating an Ontario development fund in
the Ontario Economic Council. He told us
that he has set up a committee to study this.
Mr. Chairman, I have every sympathy with
what the hon. Minister told us a moment or
two ago when he said it had been a tremen-
dous job to get this department functioning
as he wishes it to function. He paid tribute to
several of the men who helped him, and
certainly I agree with what he said. I know
that it was a big job, but let me tell you, Mr.
Chairman, that the proposition of setting up
an Ontario development fund did not just
come five minutes ago, it did not just come
when the hon. Minister of Energy Resources
(Mr. Macaulay) became also the hon. Minister
of Commerce and Development. It came into
being during the past many months, I would
say, and particularly when the hon. Minister
was on the leadership campaign in the prov-
ince of Ontario.
I think I would not be doing my duty if I
did not point out to the people of this prov-
ince that now is the time we want this de-
velopment fund. Now, not a year or two years
from now. We want to get the show on the
road, the economic way of life on a higher
plane than we have at the present time.
Let me just quote to hon. members some-
thing that the hon. Minister has said. For
example, in the Peterborough Examiner on
October 18 of 1961 he is quoted as follows:
The first step is to form an Ontario de-
development fund which would be self-
liquidating. This should be used to help
four special areas of endeavour. First, non-
industrial or depressed areas; second, areas
wishing to expand existing industries; third,
tourist industries; and fourth, agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record:
with the hon. Minister I am in complete
accord, but my question is this: where is the
fund? Where, in these estimates that we are
going to pass this afternoon or some after-
noon, where is there any indication that this
fund is going to be set up?
As I recall what the hon. Minister said, he
suggested that in this economic council there
was a subcommittee being set up to study the
possibility of an Ontario development fund.
But that is not what he said in Peterborough
on October 18 last. Furthermore, he went on
to say this:
Small loans must be made available to
small businesses. We in Canada are now in
a desperate fight for economic survival.
Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the same man
speaking in Peterborough that was speaking
to us here this afternoon. I agree with the
hon. Minister that small loans are necessary
for small businessmen in this province. I
agree that it would do a great deal to help
get the economy on the road again. But my
question to the hon. Minister is this: where
in these estimates that we are about to pass
is there any indication that we are going to
have any small loans for small businesses?
I take hon. members now to another fine
newspaper in the province of Ontario. It is
the Toronto Daily Star and it is headed
"Tories Need a New Image." It comes from
Picton and I quote as follows:
Mr. Macaulay elaborated on one pro-
posal he intends to present at the conven-
tion and developing if he is chosen leader,
to create a multi-million dollar Ontario
development fund, accumulated by float-
ing bonds among Ontario people. This
fund, he said, would help create new
industry by offering loans. Ontario people,
he said, would be putting money in their
own development.
My question once more, Mr. Chairman:
where is the Ontario development fund? We
are getting tired of study in this Legislature,
and as two of the hon. members have said
MARCH 13, 1962
1093
before here this afternoon, what we want is
a little bit of action. In order to create action
and get industry on the road again in this
province, we need a development fund, as the
hon. Minister has said on numerous occa-
sions.
I quote one more speech that the hon.
Minister made, quoted in the Globe and Mail
of October 25, 1961, in which he says:
He said he would like also to establish a
large development fund which would lend
money to create new industry, expand
industry and encourage small business and
tourist trade.
Mr. Macaulay said that he believes in
the development of what he called an all-
Ontario policy, a policy under which every
part of the province would be promoted.
Now, Mr. Chairman, witli that I most
heartily agree again, but my question to him
is where, in the speech that he so capably
delivered this afternoon, is there any indica-
tion whatsoever that he is going to look
after, for example, Bruce county? He said
that he was going to look after all parts of
the province. I suggest to you, Mr. Chair-
man, that as far as the province of Ontario
is concerned, most of the development in this
province in the last number of years and
under the Tory regime has taken place in
the city areas and the rural areas have been
neglected.
It is all very well for the hon. Minister
to stand here this afternoon and tell us, or
tell us as he did in October when he was
running under a different star, that he intends
to develop all of the province of Ontario.
My question to him here, Mr. Chairman, is
how is he going to develop the rural areas
of the province of Ontario— because we would
be very interested— and when it is going to
happen?
Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to
take too long as far as my opening remarks
are concerned. Once again I tell hon. mem-
bers that there are many of the points with
which I can agree. On the other hand, there
is much repetition, a great deal of repetition,
in what the hon. Minister has said. For
example, in Nos. 16, 17, 18, and 19 points
of his 20-point programme, they are as fol-
lows, and once more I impress upon hon.
members that I have only rough notes.
No. 16, he is going to establish trade mis-
sions, he is going to sell in foreign countries
and Europe first. No. 17 is foreign ofiBces
and added staff. Well now, Mr. Chairman,
I would suggest that these are one and the
same point. There is no use having 20 points
just for the sake of numbering when in
reality there were about four or five good
ones here and they should have all been put
together.
For example. No. 18, the creation of a
trade ofiice in Europe, and No. 19, manu-
facturers* co-operative agencies. I would like
to ask this question, Mr. Chairman: what is
the difference between trade missions and
trade offices, because obviously if a mission is
going to go anywhere they have to have an
ofiice somewhere in some foreign country in
order to do their selling. What is the differ-
ence?
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Tliey are
entirely different.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. member is going
to get into trouble because the hon. Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) cannot hurt my
feelings; but he should not hurt the feelings
of the "deputy minister of agriculture," the
hon. Minister of Economics (Mr. Macaulay),
because he is going to be selling the hon.
Minister of Agriculture's goods from now on,
or at least part of them. I hope he sells them
too!
I might say, Mr. Chairman, before I sit
down, that I do wish him every bit of success.
There is only one way that we are going to
get the economy of the province of Ontario
on the road again, to make the show a suc-
cess, and that is change tlie manner in which
the hon. members opposite have been doing
business in the past few years. In the hon.
Minister's speech this afternoon he has
definitely told us that the policies of the
Conservative government in the province of
Ontario in the past have not been successful.
Of that, Mr. Chairman, we are sure. What
we are not sure of is that the policies that
he has presented for the future will be suc-
cessful; but we certainly hope that he will
devote his time and energy and that five
years from now, or within a reasonable
length of time, everyone in this province, in
this wealthy province, will be working again
and have respectable wages. And we will
be selling our goods, not only to our own
people in Ontario, but to foreign lands all
over the world.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Do you want
to call it 5 o'clock, Mr. Chairman? I imagine
I would need about six minutes.
Mr. MacDonald: It should be remembered
that there are a few others who would like
about six minutes also. Three or four others
have spoken in general terms and the
guillotine should not drop—
1094
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to make reference to the way the esti-
mates are being conducted and it was only
a question of time until we got to this point.
We started out originally permitting the
hon. Minister to make a general statement
about the aflFairs of his department, he was
then followed by the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) and the hon.
leader of the ND Party (Mr. MacDonald).
It has been obvious, from where I sit, that
gradually this has broken down until now
every hon. member in the House feels he
has a right to make as long a general state-
ment as he pleases on any estimate, and this
just brings the matter to a head.
I have watched this develop through the
estimates that have been considered and I
would suggest to the Chairman that we
revert to what is the proper procedure,
namely, the hon. Minister makes a general
statement, the hon. leader of the Opposition
makes a general statement, the hon. leader of
the ND Party makes a general statement, and
then other hon. members of the House on
any side who wish to speak may speak on the
individual votes. Thus we will have a much
more orderly approach.
This, of course, is the traditional approach
to the estimates, that has been followed in
this House, at least as long as I have been
here.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I can say
that I agree with the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts), but my only protest at the
moment is that he is dropping the guillotine
in the middle of the estimates, when there
have been three or four from one group and
there are a few of us who may have some
general remarks. If the hon. Prime Minister
wants to institute this with the next body of
estimates, I will support him.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am a very co-operative
man, Mr. Chairman, and we will get through
the estimates of this department in the
present improper way as we are doing it,
and then I would suggest to the Chairman
that from here on we follow the procedure.
Then everyone will know exactly— and I do
not want my hon. friends from the other
side to feel that I am attempting to stifle
them, because I am not, I am only attempting
to bring a little order into what is rapidly
approaching chaos.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, before
this is finalized, I want to make one point
emphatically clear, that I have no great dis-
agreement in principle here. But I want to
make it likewise clear that there are 23
members here who want to perform the
function of the Opposition and I think that
if we are going to have this rule, then on
the individual estimates you must allow
great latitude, Mr. Chairman.
I am not suggesting that under a specific
item that is detailed for one specific con-
sideration that we talk about something else
that should be discussed under another item,
but I would hope that no one is denied
the opportunity of making an expression as
broad as he may wish to make it at some
time during the consideration of the detailed
items.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to get this matter straight. Last night
I adjourned the House for lack of speakers
on the budget debate. This is the traditional
form in which an hon. member may speak
covering any department.
What has happened recently is that not
only do we get into the position where we
are getting general speeches before the esti-
mates are even dealt with, but then we
are getting general speeches on every item
of the estimates.
Now it seems to me if we lay down a
procedure and follow it, no one will be
stifled, everyone can speak as they like. But
let us speak in the proper place and in the
proper order in which the business of the
House should be called.
Everybody will have an opportunity to
speak, but I think we must follow the rules of
procedure as they are laid down and this is
what I am suggesting the Chairman do in the
future.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): Mr.
Chairman, I am speaking to a point of order.
I would like to bring to the attention of the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts), the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer),
and the hon. leader of the minority group
(Mr. MacDonald), that there are a few other
persons in this House other than leaders of
the parties. There are a few other people in
this House who do not belong in the executive
council of the government, there may be a
few other people who would like to make
general statements.
I cannot see anything wrong with having
a Cabinet Minister making a short general
statement on the purposes and the policies of
his department as he sees them, but for the
life of me I cannot see why a similar privilege
should be extended to the hon. leader of the
Opposition and the hon. leader of the minority
MARCH 13, 1962
1095
group if that privilege is not also granted to
every other hon. member of the House.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is just
breaking down the rule the hon. Prime
Minister has proposed.
Mr. Lawrence: Yes, I am. I would say with
the utmost of sincerity, that in my opinion I
would feel that the Cabinet Minister should
make a short general statement and that
should be it. From then on we go into the
estimates of that department, and if any hon.
member of this House wishes to speak in
detail, that is the time. If he has got a
general statement to make, that is the purpose
of the budget debate. Surely some of the
hours that we are putting in in this House
are too long, because too many hon. members
are speaking too often on each one of these.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee
of supply rise and report progress and ask for
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, we will go on with these estimates
and budget debate on Thursday, when there
will be a night session.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that when this
House adjourns the present sitting thereof it
do stand adjourned until Thursday next at
3 o'clock.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5:05 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 38
ONTARIO
i-egiglature of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Thursday, March 15, 1962
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk : Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3j00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 15, 1962
Seventh report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Gomme 1099
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, bill respecting the tax payable by, Mr. Spooner,
first reading 1099
Variation of Trusts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 1099
Mortgages Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 1099
Loan and Trust Corporations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 1100
Statement re York University site, Mr. Robarts 1101
Estimates, Department of Economics and Development, Mr. Macaulay, continued 1102
Recess, 6 o'clock 1131
M
il
1099
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests in the west gallery
students from St. Francis of Assisi Separate
School, Toronto; and in the Speaker's gal-
lery, a group from the legislative institute of
the United Rubber Workers of America.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. G. E. Gomme (Lanark), from the
standing committee on private bills, presented
the committee's seventh report which was
read as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. Pr37, An Act respecting Riverview
Health Association.
Bill No. Pr38, An Act respecting The
Windsor Board of Education and The
Windsor Suburban District High School
Board.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. Pr7, An Act respecting the City
of London.
Bill No. Pr28, An Act respecting the City
of Hamilton.
Bill No. Pr35, An Act respecting Laurentian
University of Sudbury.
Your committee would recommend that
the following bill, having been withdrawn,
be not reported; and would further recom-
mend that the fees less the penalties and the
actual cost of printing be remitted:
Bill No. Pr20, An Act respecting the
United Townships of Medora and Wood.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Thursday, March 15, 1962
TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES LIMITED
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands
and Forests) moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act respecting the tax payable
by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited under
The Provincial Land Tax Act for the years
1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE VARIATION OF TRUSTS ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to
amend The Variation of Trusts Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. A. K Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, I anticipate that my hon. friends
opposite would like an explanation of these
new bills as I go along. This bill merely
provides for the filing of an order made
under The Variation of Trusts Act by the
registrar of the Supreme Court with the clerk
of the surrogate court in the event that the
trust affects any will or other document that
would normally pertain to the surrogate court
jurisdiction.
THE MORTGAGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill initituled. An Act to amend The Mort-
gages Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Again anticipating the
same requirement, Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of this bill is to require notice of an intention
to exercise a contractual power of sale under
a mortgage to be given to those concerned.
However, provision is made under which this
general rule may be relaxed or set aside by
the court in appropriate cases. In substance,
it means that a mortgage contractual relation-
ship of that sort, with a provision that a sale
may take place without notice, could not
operate in that way except within the pro-
visions of the required notice, contained in
this amending Act.
1100
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS
ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Loan and
Trust Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Again, Mr. Speaker,
anticipating the same request, the amendment
will reduce the minimum amount required
to be paid in on directors' qualifying shares
from $1,000 to $500. It will make possible
a wider distribution of the capital stock of
trust and loan companies by reducing the
par value, statutory par value, from $10
down to as low as $1.
Under present section 78 a trust company
that maintains a common trust fund is re-
quired to file and pass before a judge of a
surrogate court an account of its dealings
with the fund at least once in every three-
year period. These amendments will dispense
with judicial accountings unless required by
the registrar of loan and trust corporations,
or requested by the trust company concerned.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I would like
to direct a question in two parts to the hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Warrender) as fol-
lows:
1. Is there any truth in reports now current:
(a) that the chairman of the conciliation
board appointed to conciliate a dispute be-
tween the Royal York Hotel and Toronto
local, operating engineers union, has sus-
pended proceedings of the board on the
grounds that, in his opinion, there is no basis
for conciliation; (b) that the Toronto local
has applied to the international headquarters
of the union for authority for its members
employed by the Royal York Hotel to go on
strike?
2. If so, what action does the department
plan to take in the light of these develop-
ments?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the ques-
tion, I may say that the hearing before the
conciliation board was held yesterday, Wed-
nesday, March 14, 1962, at Toronto.
From inquiries which I have had made,
I understand that full representations were
made to the board, briefs were presented
and efforts were made to bring about a
settlement in the dispute. Our further under-
standing is that a settlement was not
reached, and the board of conciliation is
to consider and prepare a report which will
be submitted to me as Minister of Labour,
in accordance with the requirements of The
Labour Relations Act.
No statement, I am informed, was made
by any member of the board that the pro-
ceedings of the board were suspended on
the grounds that there was no basis for
conciliation. This board, composed of three
men of long experience in this type of
work. Magistrate J. A. Hanrahan, Mr. G.
S. P. Ferguson and Mr. Drummond Wren,
dealt with the problem in the ordinary way
provided for by legislation. A settlement
was not reached and I expect a report from
the board in due course. I have no knowl-
edge as to whether or not the Toronto local
of the operating engineers union has
sought permission from its international
headquarters to engage in a strike.
A legal right to strike will not arise
until the board of conciliation has reported
to me, and seven days have elapsed after
the report has been released to the parties.
As to the second part of the question, I
am given to understand that the board
urged the parties to resume negotiations
upon receipt of the report and an assin:-
ance was given that this would be done.
I think that we should await the outcome
of these further negotiations, which will
reveal whether or not any additional assis-
tance is needed.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day, I wish to direct a question to
tlie hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts).
While I think he will be able to answer
today, perhaps he will want to take the—
Mr. Speaker: I would ask if this is the
question submitted to the Speaker's ojffice
today.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the leader of
the Opposition could hold the question? It
came a little late to the Speaker's office and
the answer is not available. I think it would
be better from the point of view of pro-
cedure to keep the question and answer
together.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not
going to make a big issue about this. I
think you have made an informal arrange-
ment that questions must be submitted to
you. I would only make this suggestion to
you, that some consideration be given at
this session to debating the advisability of
MARCH is, 1962
1101
strict adherence to that particular arrange-
ment.
I think you do have a point here, and I
do not intend to make a big issue of it
now. But it does put us at considerable
disadvantage, because in respect to this par-
ticular question, we were advised that it
would be in order to submit the question
to you, and then subsequently we were
advised that it was too late.
Now, I do not think that is exactly the
way a House of this sort should operate.
I am going to say nothing more at this
time. I presume you do not want me to
ask the question and I will abide by your
ruling. But I would ask, some time in your
discretion, that an opportunity be provided
that we debate the advisability of pursuing
this rule religiously.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Be-
fore the orders of the day, I should like to
make an announcement concerning York
University.
I am very glad to advise the House that,
as a result of successful negotiations be-
tween ourselves and the federal govern-
ment, a large site will be provided in North
York township for the main campus of the
university. The property is approximately
465 acres and is located on the south side
of Steele's Avenue, running between Jane
and Keele Streets. It will be transferred
to York University free of charge.
I should like to express our appreciation
of the federal government's co-operation
and of its clear understanding of the uni-
versity problem in this rapidly expanding
part of the province. In particular, I would
express our appreciation for the co-opera-
tion given us by Rt. Hon. Prime Minister
Diefenbaker and the hon. David J. Walker,
federal Minister of Public Works, who have
both taken a personal interest in this matter.
The land in question is part of a 654-acre
tract that was purchased in 1954 by the
federal-provincial housing partnership and
held in reserve to provide for future pubHc
housing needs in Metropolitan Toronto. It
has now been determined that the property
is surplus to those needs and can be given
to York University without prejudice to the
housing programme.
The book value of the land is approxi-
mately $1.3 million but its market value
approaches $3 million. The federal govern-
ment has agreed to sell its 75 per cent interest
to the province on the basis of the book
value plus interest and carrying charges. We,
in turn, will deed the land to the university
as an outright gift, to be used only for the
purposes of education and research at the
university level. Should it become unneces-
sary to use the land for these purposes, it
will revert to the partnership on the same
basis as it is presently held.
This acquisition will make possible the
creation of new university facilities that will
accommodate an estimated seven to ten
thousand students within the next decade. It
will fully satisfy the site requirements for
university development in the Toronto area
for some years to come.
Since the land acquired by the federal-
provincial partnership in 1954, approximately
18 acres have been dedicated to North York
township for park purposes and 36 acres of
flood-land have been sold or donated to the
Metropolitan Toronto conservation authority
for Pioneer Village. During the past year,
Metropolitan Toronto has asked the federal-
provincial partnership to construct a rental
housing project of approximately 500 units on
some 100 acres fronting on Jane Street, to the
west of the conservation authority property.
This matter is under consideration at the
present time and construction would presum-
ably commence following the development of
public housing projects in the Thistletown
area, which projects are now being planned
and will be started during the summer. Also,
during the past year, negotiations have been
under way in connection with a further 33
acres which the conservation authority wishes
to purchase in order to expand the facilities
in Pioneer Village.
This leaves the remainder of the property
—approximately 465 acres. Last year. Metro-
politan council came to the conclusion that
this land was not required for housing pur-
poses and that its acquisition for York Univer-
sity's main campus would in no way prejudice
the housing programme which Metro has in
view for the next 20 years. This decision has
been endorsed by North York council, the
Metropolitan Toronto housing authority and
the Metropolitan Toronto conservation
authority, which will be next-door neighbour
to the university.
This step is of the greatest significance in
the development of university facilities in the
Metropolitan Toronto area. Within the area,
as indeed throughout the whole province, the
university picture is affected by three in-
fluential and interrelated factors; the first
is that our population is expanding rapidly;
the second is that the proportion of uni-
versity age persons within our rapidly
growing population is itself increasing quite
markedly; and the third is that today we have
1102
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a much larger proportion of our university
age i)opulation desiring to go on to higher
education.
It is estimated that by the early 1970's
Ontario's university enrolment will be be-
tween 90,000 and 100,000, more than double
the present enrolment. In order to meet this
situation, the government has assisted in the
establishment and development of a number
of new universities, including the University
of Waterloo, Essex College at Windsor,
Laurentian University at Sudbury, the Lake-
head College of Arts, Science and Technology
and York University. I might say that our
grants to universities have increased from a
total of $19.3 million in the 1957-1958 fiscal
year to $43.9 million in the coming year.
By the early 1970*s the Metropolitan
Toronto area will need university accommo-
dation for at least 30,000 students. The
University of Toronto has a registration of
about 14,000 at the present time, but studies
have indicated that its enrolment should not
exceed 23,000 if it is to maintain its high
academic standards and efficiency. This
leaves a gap of 7,000 student places by 1970
in Metropolitan Toronto, a gap which can
only be filled through the rapid but careful
development of additional university facilities
in the area.
York University was established in 1959. It
opened in September of 1960 with 75 students
in temporary accommodation on the Univer-
sity of Toronto campus. Last September, it
moved to a new $2 million building, financed
by the province, on the 82-acre Glendon Hall
estate near Lawrence and Bayview Avenues.
It now consists of 216 students and 32 faculty
members. The latest studies indicate that
the pace of York's development must be
accelerated more rapidly than had previously
been anticipated if the needs of the 1970's
are to be met. A second university of major
proportions must be provided in Metropolitan
Toronto as soon as possible, consistent with
sound educational planning.
Since its establishment in 1959, York
University, in collaboration with the muni-
cipality of Metropolitan Toronto and its con-
stituent municipahties, has been looking for
a site which would accommodate a large and
growing university and which would be
r^'^dily accessible to the rapidly expanding
suburban population of Toronto. When it
became apparent that these requirements
would be ideally satisfied in the Keele-Jane-
Steele's property, we undertook to negotiate
with the federal government in order to
acquire the federal interest. This has now
been accomplished and we propose to deed
the property to York University without
charge.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) would permit a question arising
from his most commendable statement?
There was an announcement in the Toronto
papers a day or two ago that York University
planned to spend, I think some $5 million,
as I gathered, on their Glendon Hall property.
In view of this announcement, will that be
abandoned and will York University be able
to take possession of this Steele's-Jane prop-
erty immediately or reasonably soon?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, this will
be available to them immediately and I think
it might very well result in some revamping
of their plans, but I have not discussed this
with the board of governors.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair and
the House resolve itself into committee of
supply.
Motion agreed to. House in committee of
supply; Mr. K. Brown in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMICS AND DEVELOPMENT
On vote 301:
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman,
you may recall, sir, that I was on my feet
when the House adjourned the other day in
consideration of this estimate. I report to
you that I followed with great care and great
attention the lengthy introduction made by
the hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment (Mr. Macaulay), of his estimates; I fol-
lowed with great care the remarks made
thereafter by the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Wintermeyer), and my colleague
the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher)
and the remarks of the hon. member for
Woodbine (Mr. Bryden).
I have had an opportunity, of course, since
hearing all that the other day, to assess the
impact of all that occurred. And I felt, sir,
that bearing in mind the great vigour and
energy with which my hon. colleagues and
the hon. member for Woodbine descended
upon tlie hon. Minister, that perhaps he was
not all that deserving of being completely
damned, as he was.
I tell you, sir, that so far as I am concerned,
the hon. Minister will, in my books and in the
MARCH 15, 1962
1103
books of many other people resident in north-
ern Ontario, go down in history as being
one of the very first Tories that ever dis-
covered northern Ontario. I think during the
liectic campaign of late September and last
October, the hon. Minister— more so than
any other of his hon. colleagues— visited criss-
cross and came back again and again to
northern Ontario to meet and have close and
personal contact with the very fine people
who live up there north of the French.
Now, it has been a complaint for many a
year— I speak now in reference of course to
liis announcement if you want me to keep
close to vote 301; his announcement about
the formation of a northern development
committee, I think it was. The Sudbury Star
at one time conducted a survey of the gov-
ernment of Ontario and found exactly six
people— a Cabinet Minister and senior civil
servants, charged with the responsibility of
the administration of government— who were
from northern Ontario.
Now I would not be one to guess that the
total number— certainly we have 22 Cabinet
Ministers, and if we added to that number
all of those in senior positions of responsibility
in the civil service, we would come up with,
I think, quite a dramatic number of people.
If we took, say, 200 people, then of the 200
the Sudbury Star discovered that there were
exactly six who were either born in northern
Ontario or had lived an appreciable part of
their lives there.
For example, the name of one comes readi-
ly to mind and that is the Deputy Minister of
Labour (Mr. Metzler). He is a northerner
and apparently, aside from the two hon. Min-
isters that we have from the north, there are
exactly three more. I never took the trouble
to identify who they are.
So, in this new attention to northern
Ontario that is testified to in the estimates of
the hon. Minister's department, we are en-
titled on the one hand, of course, to look at
it very warily and very cautiously, but then
on the other hand, to be fair, one must com-
mend these forward steps so far as they
result in some concrete action to enhance
and forward the development of that great
area that comprises some four-fifths of the
land area of this province.
I just want to say in that connection that
I have had the feeling since I have been in
this House that there may be those souls,
there may be those sceptical souls, who are
inclined to treat our special problems and
pleas for the development of the area, our
cries for the establishment of secondary in-
dustry, for the expansion of our natural
resources and industries; there may be those
who are sceptics, and we have heard the pleas
and the cries and the wails for so long now
that the effect of those pleas has somewhat
been mitigated and vitiated. Therefore, sir,
I say, by the establishment of this committee,
perhaps the hon. Minister is going to take a
new tangent, bring about a resuscitation and
a revivification of activity in northern Ontario;
and it may be— and I would never be so
political as to say that I would decry the ap-
proach of the golden age. That was his
phrase.
I think that was borrowed from classical
times. But if the approach of the golden
age is at hand, though it may do great dam-
age to us politically, I would put that aside
and go forward into the mighty expansion of
the last part of this century with him, and I
hope it comes about.
Now there may be some in nortliem
Ontario, sir, who are still a bit sceptical
because I note that the Sudbury Star had
taken note of the hon. Minister's visits there
last autumn; they had to this to say, and I will
just quote a portion to show the scepticism
that still remains, and perhaps I should add
for the purpose of keeping the record straight
that the Sudbury Star is not an organ of
public opinion that is known very often to
speak in endearing terms of the Liberal Party
—shall we put it that way? I might add they
do not support the ND Party either. But
they had this to say:
The leadership race has taken on every
appearance of a provincial general election
in the bid for support. Northern Ontario
hasn't had as much attention in years as
some of the candidates make a pitch for
the vote of northern Ontario delegates to
the leadership convention. But the north
is not likely to be swayed by Johnny-come-
lately concern for northern Ontario.
Now they might have changed that to "is
not likely to be swayed by Robert-come-lately
concern for northern Ontario." That would,
in fact, sound a little bit more musical, or
poetic.
The record of past performance by as-
piring candidates is more solid meat than
vote-catching platitudes and the support of
some Cabinet Ministers for other Cabinet
Ministers will not cut much ice as far as
northern Ontario opinion is concerned.
Well, that is the way the Sudbury Star
looks at it and that is the measure against
which that journal and a great many other
people in northern Ontario will measure the
results of this.
1104
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
During the course of the hon. Minister's
presentation, by way of friendly rejoinder
with the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts),
he uttered that this presentation was only
part of tlie election platform. I submit, sir,
tlien, if this is part of the election platform,
that we are perhaps entitled at the same
time to put our election platform forward. I
hastily add, we are not going to do that.
We will choose our own time and place for
unveiling that very significant and historic
document so important to the future of this
province.
I would submit, sir, perhaps more seri-
ously, that we are entitled to evaluate the
hon. Minister's statements made here by a
comparison with utterances made by him
on previous occasions.
Specifically, in regard to that, the hon.
Minister, during the very exacting and hec-
tic period of speech-making last autumn,
unveiled before the public of Ontario what
amounted to a four-point programme. It
was basically a four-point programme that
he was offering and his four points are
summed up by the report in the Toronto
Telegram, well-known for its accuracy
especially when it is reporting anything said
by Conservative Ministers.
Apparently, these were the four points.
He would set up an Ontario economic coun-
cil to set job standards, time limits, price-
tags, so that production will increase and
costs fall; second, he would establish an
Ontario development fund of millions of
dollars, which would help create new in-
dustries in pockets of unemployment and
assist the agricultural and tourist indus-
tries; third, he would open a marketing
branch that would parallel and sometimes
overlap federal activities in this field;
foui'th, he would combine The Departments
of Economics, Energy Resources, and Com-
merce and Development.
It is interesting to note, sir— and one will
immediately see, who follows such things
—that, of the four planks in his platform,
he has substantially effected the completion
and realization of two. He has combined
The Department of Economics, and Com-
merce and Development. He has not yet
effected the combination of those two de-
partments with The Department of Energy
Resources, but I suppose that is in the
works and perhaps, before the end of this
session, we may expect to see legislation
that will see the realization of his complete
dream in that regard.
I do not know what he will call it, how
he will combine all those terms, economics.
energy, commerce and development, and I
do not suppose he will ask me either, when
he is dreaming up the name to put on it.
He has effected the establishment of the
Ontario Economic Council. Two of his
dreams he has not yet realized; that is,
the Ontario deyelopment fund. He is on the
way— I am in error, and I like to be the
first to admit my error; he has in fact,
realized the effecting of three dreams, be-
cause apparently, plans are going forward
apace to open the marketing branches, and
I should like to say something about that
a little later.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to draw
your attention to this. As I understood the
words of the hon. Minister, the other day,
in respect of the Ontario development fund,
I should like to dwell upon that for a
moment; I copied those words down. He
said he did not know if it was government
policy to go ahead with it. He said he was
taking steps to initiate a study of its feasi-
bility and practicality, by the Ontario Eco-
nomic Council, and in tliat regard, he said
— almost in parenthesis — that he did not
know whether it was goverrmient policy to
go ahead with it.
Well, I think one does not torture the
language too much if one says that his
meaning of that phrase, "he does not know
if it is government policy to go ahead with
it," the real meaning is: "It is not govern-
ment policy to go ahead with it." I assume
it has been discussed in, at least, the circles
of the Treasury board, perhaps on a broader
Cabinet level, and apparently, for the time
being, we are entitled to assert that all the
Treasury benches, and those responsible for
government policy, have turned "thimibs
down" on it.
The hon. Minister shakes his head. I will
leave that. Let me come back to his earlier
assertion that he was going to ask the eco-
nomic council to study the feasibihty of it.
Now I have the hon. Minister nodding, and
I always like to be in agreement with the
hon. Minister. Last October, one would not
have leaped to the conclusion that the hon.
Minister felt there was much necessity for
study. Not at all. He had his mind made
up. We have our minds made up. The hon.
member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), in his
very masterful, eloquent and very learned
presentation in reply to the motion of the
hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan), asserted
where we stand in respect to the establish-
ment of a development fund and I do not
recall that the hon. member for Bruce, any-
where along the line, said that it was our
MARCH 15, 1962
1105
intention to set up a committee or ask any
other body to look into the practicality of the
establishment of that fund.
On the contrary. But the hon. member
for Bruce said— and the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) has said it
on many, many occasions— that it is part
and parcel of the Liberal Party platform,
and our intention when charged with the
responsibility of office, is to make a fund
of this nature available for the stimulation
of secondary industry, tourist operators and
any other worthy project in the economic
life of this province.
The hon. Minister agrees with us. He
agrees with us because, from place to place
throughout Ontario last autumn, when he
was making his speeches, he was quite spe-
cific and he was quite definite on this and
he even had the figures. He said: "We will
make $100 million available." Oh, yes. I
refer to the Cornwall Standard, October 7;
he said funds which would be available to
sucl^' a development branch may reach a
hundred million dollars. Well, he might
have been thinking of five dollars, he might
have been thinking of $25. You see, he
gave himself lots of. leeway, but he said,
he certainly held out and dangled, that nice
ro.und figure of $100 million.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): He was ap-
pealing to the people of Cornwall.
Mr. Sopha: Oh, yes. My hon. friend from
Stormont, Mr. Chairman, has said that he was
appealing to the people of Cornwall at that
time. Well, we saw in these other clippings
that he used that figure in other places in
the province. You see, we take a great
interest, Mr. Chairman, in the hon. Minister.
I am the first one to say— let me be the first
one to say— that I have a great deal of
respect for the hon. Minister who leads this
department.
I admire his mental agility. I admire his
intelhgence. I admire the amount of learn-
ing that he has amassed. I might say, though
—so that I do not damn him with faint
praise— I might say that he would be well-
advised to ask the hon. Minister of Mines
<Mr. Wardrope) which Dale Carnegie school
it is that he goes to, that he might attend
with him there and take two or three quick
courses. In addition to learning French, I
might say. Well, I think I have made my
point.
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of
Economics and Development): Which point
was that?
Mr. Sopha: Well, I will sum it up for the
hon. Minister again. Last October he did
not need any studies, but today when we
hear that it is not government policy, that
this is another of the items that is going to
the great repository of problems, the Ontario
Economic Council— and almost wherever one
turns now, in these buildings, in the last few
days since this organization was established,
one hears ricocheting off the walls, that before
action is taken in that particular problem, it
will be studied by the economic council.
The vice-chairman of Hydro, the hon.
member for Peel (Mr. Davis) yesterday used
it at least twice, at the meeting of the com-
mittee of energy that, "Oh, well, we will
give tliis to the economic council and see
what they do with it and then we will find
out what it is all about." The economic
council, I venture to say, is a permanent
Royal commission.
Now it is a pity, Mr. Chairman, that we
did not have available to us the Hansard
reports of the hon. Minister's remarks, but
many of us kept careful note of what he
said, and I want to turn to his remarks so far
as they concern foreign trade.
Be it remembered, Mr. Chairman, I invite
you to remember, as I invite all hon. members
of the House to remember, that the hon.
Minister sits for the same constituency in this
House as does the hon. Minister of Trade
and Commerce in the federal government.
We must assume that, sitting for the same
constituency, there is an accord between
them. I would help the hon. Minister along
in his learning of the French language by
saying, as the French would say, we would
think they have established a rapport between
them. Well, it is an English word that is
borrowed from the French. And I see the
hon. Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr.
Spooner) by his nod, agrees with me that it
is French, and if the English have borrowed
it, then that is all right.
Now no one could quarrel with any pro-
posal which would effect an increased sale
of our bacon, our butter, our cheese, our
electronic products, our nickel, our forest
products, and everything else that we have to
sell on the world market— and, I might add,
even our tomato juice— no one could quarrel
with that. But for one who attempts to
understand such things, it brings somewhat
of a feeling of regret, because so far as the
expansion of foreign trade is concerned, that
is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction,
and to the extent that the hon. Minister
wants to increase his empire by the establish-
ment of marketing agencies in Chicago, Los
1106
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Angeles, Prague, London, Paris, Rome or
anywhere else— to that extent he is encroach-
ing on federal jurisdiction.
My observation is this: I said he sits for
the same constituency as the federal Min-
ister of Trade and Commerce, they are prob-
ably very great friends; cannot this object
be effected then by the stimulation of the
federal government and specifically the urg-
ing of The Department of Trade and Com-
erce at Ottawa to assume the responsibility
for such matters?
I have said before, and it bears repeating,
that this government is always pleading
penury, is pleading that it has no money to
meet the responsibilities that it is required
to meet under section 92 of the British
North America Act. Each year we go farther
into debt and have to borrow in the money
market and, to that extent, mortgage our
future. I feel I am entitled to say, and
perhaps I will in that way merely reflect
the thoughts of many other hon. members of
this House, that we have enough responsibil-
ity in looking after those things that are
purely provincial without encroaching on
matters of federal jurisdiction and for which
the federal government is financially respon-
sible.
I am not one of those who can look askance
upon a department of this government ex-
panding its area of jurisdiction and increasing
the personnel, increasing its responsibilities—
if that be accompanied with any sinister
motive of expansion and the building of
empire for its own sake. Or, put it another
way, soon a federal election campaign will
descend upon us and it may be that I and
others on this side of the House will be
called upon to assist our colleagues, our
brethren at Ottawa, in endeavouring to en-
hance their fortunes. I do not suppose we
will turn them down, I do not suppose
they will turn us down if we ask them, but
I think it would be a legitimate criticism of
the federal government if we said that in the
field of the cultivation of foreign trade, the
expansion of the sale of our exports, the
federal government has demonstrated great
failure.
They have demonstrated that failure con-
clusively, because last spring in the Ontario
Legislature the hon. Minister of Economics
and Development, Mr. Chairman, in the
presentation of his estimates, said to us
that he wanted a sum of money voted from
the public Treasury of Ontario for the purpose
of opening marketing agencies abroad; and
now we in Ontario have to take the tax
dollars that we collect in order to pay for
something that is basically and exclusively
and peculiarly a matter of federal jurisdiction.
Now, the next thing I would like to speak
on, sir, is the hon. Minister's remarks con-
cerning the tourist industry. I approach this
with great caution, but I approach this also
in the spirit of the knowledge that we in
our party have assessed the problems of the
tourist industry and on occasion have made
remarks about the ills that bother the tourist
industry; we have advocated the specific
proposals that we would take to assist the
tourist industry. Now again, the hon. Min-
ister, in his manifesto— the Macaulay mani-
festo it might be called— of March, 1962, said
that, so far as the tourist industry is con-
cerned, its problems again would go to the
Ontario Economic Council. A sub-committee
of that council would be formed and the sub-
committee would be asked to investigate the
tourist industry and make a report, so far as
remedial action is concerned, to help.
I say to him, sir, through you, unequivo-
cally, that so far as the tourist industry in
this province is concerned, we have had
enough studies. We have had enough reports.
And what is bothering and militating against
the expansion of the tourist industry is well
known. My hon. colleague from Bruce (Mr.
Whicher) put it very ably and very effec-
tively, and it bears repeating, that if the hon.
Minister does not know what is wrong
with the tourist industry and what it needs
to assist it, then the hon. Minister of Travel
and Publicity (Mr. Cathcart) has failed in
his job. And I would add that—
Hon. B. L. Cathcart (Minister of Travel
and Publicity): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
I might just remind the hon. member that,
during the year of 1961, Ontario enjoyed
74.4 per cent of the total of Canada's travel
business. That is the figure arrived at by
the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I do not
know whether he wants 100 per cent or not.
Mr. Sopha: Well then, if such be the case,
why is the hon. Minister of Economics and
Development studying it?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Since the hon. mem-
ber has asked a question; if he had looked
at the terms of reference of the Ontario
Economic Council, which will come under
that vote, and I was rather hoping that we
could deal with it all at once in that way,
he will find that there is a necessity for
some land of a study to determine what
financial assistance, if any, can be given to
the tourist industry. This is a matter of
very serious study, something that does
require some study.
MARCH 15, 1962
1107
There is another fact. With the great
changing habits of trading blocs and of
people, it is necessary to do a continuing
study of these matters, in addition to which
the hon. Minister has said he has the respon-
sibility for administering certain aspects of
this matter. But there are changing aspects
of the tourist industry which must be marked.
There are other aspects which do not
generally come vmder his department and
what we want to do is generally, with his
co-operation— in fact he was one of the ones
who promoted this— to make sure that we
were doing everything that is possible to aid
in collecting and garnering into this province
the maximum number of tourist dollars. I
would think he would want that.
Mr. Sopha: I do not want to seem to be
pig-headed, but it is exactly what I do not
want. The hon. Minister in his remarks,
passed to me by the hon. member for Dover-
court (Mr. Thompson), said some of the
subjects to be studied by the committee on
tourism will be the development of suitable
attractions and facilities, camping sites, his-
torical sites, domestic and foreign, advertising,
government aid and services, liquor policy,
financial assistance, through an Ontario
development fund and other matters.
Now, beyond asking the hon. Minister of
Travel arid Publicity about the tourist
industry, I was going to invite the hon.
Minister to ask the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Spooner). There is a man,
capable administrator that he is, a man who,
like the hon. Minister himself, keeps himself
informed about the affairs of his department
and the northern part of the province, who
is in contact with tourist outfitters almost
continually throughout each calendar year.
All the hon. Minister need do is turn to
him and ask him what the tourist outfitters
want and need; and the hon. Minister need
not set up a committee of experts in order to
study these things. The answers are there.
I say to you, sir, and I might remind the
hon. Minister, that last October, when he
was speech-making, he said time and time
again that what the tourist industry needed
was money, funds— and we will take the
trouble to dig out the clipping here. He
got very specific on the score. He said they
cannot get the money from the Industrial
Development Bank; he said they cannot get
it through the ordinary bank-lending services.
Sometimes if they borrow it through private
sources they have to pay as much as 22
per cent interest— that was the very figure
he used.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That is quite correct.
Mr. Sopha: Well, if such be the case, then
v\'hat is the necessity for a study of the com-
mittee of the Ontario Economic Council?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well now, my hon.
friend wants to have, I am sure, a fair and
reasonable debate on this, to find exactly
where the need is; exactly how these people
can best be helped; how the money can be
raised; what returns should be expected;
what kind of indentures should be given.
There are a great many things to be decided
long before one gets up and pounds the
table about whether something needs to be
done or not, this is something I want.
Mr. Sopha: I never pound the table, Mr.
Chairman, but I want to say in very moderate
tones that there are two problems that face
the tourist industry; and if the hon. Minis-
ter will allow me to enunciate them— I have
struggled to enunciate one of them— one of
them is lack of capital. We do not need a
committee, I say, to study historic sites.
We have the great, wonderful panorama
of the outdoors, provided throughout the
province by a merciful providence, which is
an asset to be sold to visitors who come from
abroad and want to sojourn with us. What
the tourist operators need on that score is the
availability of ready capital, in order to
expand and improve their facilities. Now the
second thing they need is a revision of the
liquor laws. We have enunciated the specific
revision in this House, and I daresay that
we do not need a committee to look into
what revision of the liquor laws is required.
I sum it up, sir, without going into the
details of the necessary vision, and I
borrow the very colourful phrase of the late
member for Kenora, Mr. Wren, when he
said all you need do with respect to the
tourist outfitters of this province is take away
from them the necessity of being law-breakers
and bootleggers. That sums it up, and the
hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) will
know what I mean in that regard. Give them
the right to offer to their guests, who come
from jurisdictions where the liquor laws are
more rational and more flexible, and more
broadminded—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Where is that?
Mr. Sopha: Many of the American juris-
dictions. Many of them.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: On a point of order, is
is necessary to debate the liquor laws under
this vote also?
1108
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: Certainly. I have just read in
the speech, where the hon. Minister paid it
up. I make the same general comment. The
hon. Minister calls to your attention, Mr.
Chairman, that I ought not to be dealing with
the Ontario Economic Council, and I hope he
will not impose upon you or me the strictures
that he would use to prohibit me under this
vote from making reference to it, because it
is diflBcult to discuss his 20-point manifesto
without making reference to the Ontario
Economic Council.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It is the next vote
along.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I understand that; I too
have eyes.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: If the hon. member
understands that, why did he say that he
cannot discuss it? He can discuss it under the
next vote along; that is where to discuss it.
He knows that.
Mr. Sopha: The hon. Minister misunder-
stood what I said. I think that it is dfRcult
to discuss the other things in his 20-point
programme, without discussing the Ontario
Economic Council.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, then, discuss it
all under that heading.
An hon. member: Including liquor?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, if he wants to dis-
cuss liquor twice, then take this as part of
my programme.
Mr. Sopha: Very well. I do not want to
monopolize the time of the House. I thought
some of these observations I made might be
helpful to him.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, they are helpful;
but let us give them under the proper head-
ing.
Mr. Sopha: Very well. Perhaps the House
will be kind enough to grant me the indul-
gence to speak once more under that vote.
When we come to the Ontario Economic
Council—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We will look forward
to it.
Mr. Sopha: Thank you. There is one other
thing under the main office that I want to
mention and I hesitate to approach it. I
really do.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
hon. member has not convinced anybody yet.
Mr. Sopha: Oh, I find it difficult when I
wax serious, and I tliink of myself as such
a serious person. That is in respect of the
reorganization of these departments. The
Department of Economics and The Depart-
ment of Commerce and Development— the
hon. Minister, as we know, became the re-
sponsible Minister for both, and I should like
to ask him, and I ask him very respectfully,
that since the Legislature passed the legisla-
tion combining these departments, is it a
fact that some senior civil servants in those
departments, have found that they cannot
carry on and have tendered to him their
resignations?
Specifically, would he inform us whether
Mr. F. J. Lyle, head of the trade and industry
branch, a civil servant for 25 years, who has
served this province full and faithfully for
25 years, has tendered his resignation to the
hon. Minister; and if he has so tendered his
resignation, is it that he is going to other
employment or is it for other reasons?
Because, in the loss of Mr. Lyle, as I said,
we lose a senior civil servant who has been
engaged in government service for 25 years;
and his special knowledge that has been
accumulated over that quarter of a century
will mean a very great loss.
Then I should like to also ask him whether
there are other senior people in The Depart-
ment of Commerce and Development who
have seen fit to tender their resignations to
the hon. Minister since he became head of
that department— particularly in respect of
one, so far as information comes to us, is
concerned. I hope the hon. Minister will
correct me, but on the basis of our informa-
tion one of the senior persons in the depart-
ment, specifically the head of the public
relations department, Miss Rosemary Dudley,
was dismissed by the hon. Minister. As a
result of that dismissal, and replacement by
some other persons, Miss Dudley filed a
grievance with the grievance committee of
the civil service.
I do not know whether that case has been
heard or not but apparently this testffies to
some dislocation and some dissatisfaction
among the senior civil servants; and let me
hastily add, Mr. Chairman, that we in the
Opposition are not interested in cultivating
disunity, but we have a concern and a duty
and an entitlement to know that the civil
servants of this province function smoothly,
satisfactorily, and efficiently. It is for those
reasons only that I have asked those questions
of the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say to the
hon. member that I quite agree with him that
MARCH 15, 1962
1109
the Opposition as well as the government has
a great interest in seeing that the civil
service is operating functionally and content-
edly, and so forth, and this has been my
interest in the department.
He has asked me three questions in re-
lation to employees. One: whether there was
a resignation of Colonel Lyle; has it been
submitted to me? It has not been submitted
to me, but it has been submitted to the
Deputy Minister, Mr. Gathercole. As to his
reasons for resigning, I am not aware. As you
may well know, Colonel Lyle has retired
once before, and I understand, at least it
was suggested to me, somebody did, that he
might go back to Ottawa to work in relation
to the Colombo Plan.
I cannot say why it is that he is resigning.
He is within a very short distance of retiring
from the civil service in any event; and when
I came to the department, he indicated to
the Deputy Minister that we would want
to make a number of extensive reorganiza-
tions, perhaps, and that, in that case, he
would be more than happy to resign or to
retire, or act as an adviser or act in any
capacity that I would like.
Now the second question that was asked
of me: have any others resigned? I am un-
aware of any others, and I am advised that
there are not.
Thirdly, as far as Miss Dudley is concerned,
I did not discharge Miss Dudley. Last year,
as you may recall from reading Hansard,
there was a great deal of criticism of the
public relations and publicity aspect of The
Department of Commerce and Development,
as it was then. I removed the section. There
are no longer any public relations or public-
ity people on the staff.
This was one way I felt that we could
economize, reduce the staff; and I might
just tell you, as a matter of fact, that I have
fewer employees today in the three depart-
ments that I manage than were handled
by the former hon. Minister ( Mr. Nickle )
last year in one department. I have done
my very best to economize, but to look after
the interests of all these people involved.
It would be perfectly ridiculous to go on,
I felt, with the public relations department,
with people able and trained to do that
job, if I did not want to have that branch
in that department for which I did not
think there was a need.
I feel that, in The Department of Eco-
nomics and Development, all of the public
relations will be in action, not in terms of
what goes into the newspaper. What I want
to do or to have, as hon. members indicated
yesterday, what we want in this province,
are action and results. That is what I am
going to try to give. As far as Miss Dudley
is concerned, she did grieve. She grieved to
the grievance board, and the grievance
board refused her grievance on the ground
that, under the civil service regulations, the
job having disappeared there was no ground
for the grievance.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not
intend to take a great length of time this
afternoon. On the other hand, I do not
apologize for participating in the general
discussion prior to this consideration of these
estimates because I think it can be said
without any fear of contradiction that there
are few issues in Canadian public life at
the moment that are being debated more
vigorously than the question of economic
planning— exactly what constitutes economic
planning.
It is no secret that the party I have the
honour of leading is a party which has been
dedicated to the concept of economic plan-
ning from the very time that it came into
being as the CCF some 25 or 30 years ago.
There are many people who, up until a few
months ago, as I would like to relate a
little later, were decrying economic planning.
Now it just may be that those of us who have
been giving detailed consideration to this
concept may have something worthwhile to
contribute to a general debate; not with any
suggestion that we have any final answers,
that we are being dogmatic about it; but
certainly in recent years economic planning,
in many forms, has become the basic ap-
proach of government in other than the
North American continent. It may well be
that the persistent problems which the North
American continent now has to contend with
as it watches western Europe— that hitherto
it regarded with a degree of condescension—
with its booming economy, can be solved
only through planning. We may have to take
a look at how these other parts of the world
are doing it and apply some of their approach,
namely, economic planning, here on the North
American continent.
Now, with regard to the hon. Minister's
presentation of some 20 points: as points,
they all have a degree of merit. Some of
them are new; most of them are painfully
old. They are something that has been
trotted out in every election for quite some
time.
In this great economic potpourri which the
hon. Minister presents to us— if I may use
another French word, since we are acknowl-
edging the brethren in the rest of this
1110
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Canadian family this afternoon— in this great
economic potpourri while there is merit in
many of the Isolated propositions that he puts
forward, my chief criticism is that this does
not constitute economic planning. As a
matter of fact, the hon. Minister himself,
with the assistance of the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts), said that this was their elec-
tion platform. Not completely—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, no! On a point
of privilege, I want to correct this. I left
this when the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha) was speaking because he was speaking
in a facetious mood. While I was presenting
the 20 points the hon. member for Sudbury
interjected into what I was saying by saying
that this was— and I think Hansard will bear
me out— that this was our election pro-
gramme. I said no such thing. During the
course of the year I expect that if we were
in the future to have an election, some time
in a year or two from now, I am hoping very
much that this kind of a programme would
produce a platform on which we could go to
the country. I am not looking at this in a
partisan, political way, but simply as an
economic programme that I think is good for
this province.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister has
said that it is not the government's election
programme, that he hopes the election pro-
gramme is going to emerge out of it. I will
not argue with him on this point.
In fact, I think one of the reasons one
should reserve judgment on each of these
isolated 20 points is that if they are tackled
with vigour, certainly there is always possible
improvement, particularly in a fast-changing
world. But I repeat: my basic criticism is
that when hon. members add it all up, it does
not constitute economic planning on the basis
of the experience of Britain or France or
Sweden or the rest of Europe. It has gross
deficiencies in terms of any basic economic
planning.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Our economy is better, though, than theirs.
Mr. MacDonald: Well now, Mr. Chairman,
this may be, since I just made this point a
moment ago and apparently it went over the
head of the hon. Minister. The point is that
our economy is not necessarily better than
theirs.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Did the hon. member
read this?
Mr. MacDonald: The fact of the matter
is that the economies of Europe today.
because of the basic economic planning, are
booming. They are increasing their stand-
ards of living in a part of the world that has
less natural resources upon which to build
the standard of living. They have full em-
ployment, whereas here on the North Ameri-
can continent we are struggling along with
persistent unemployment. If we do not do
something by way of basic economic planning,
then that threat of Mr. Krushchev when he
came here a year or so ago will become a
real one. He said that he wanted peace.
Sure he wants peace, because he says: "In
10 years we will bury you." And they will
bury us.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Tliey have more un-
employment than we have, and they vdll
never bury us.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute. They will
bury us on the basis of a 6 or an 8 or a 10
or even a 12 per cent increase in gross
national products, while we struggle along
with a 3 or a 4 per cent increase if it is very
good; sometimes no increase and sometimes
a decline.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Would the hon. mem-
ber soon live there than here? Does he think
he would live as well? He knows their
standard of living is lower than ours.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): That is not the issue.
Mr. MacDonald: This is the issue, Mr.
Chairman, if he is repeating this absurd, ir-
relevant comment— that I would sooner live
over there— again this is too inane to deal
with, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Look at the record!
Mr. MacDonald: In the programme that
the government has presented, Mr. Chairman,
in the planning of the economy, there cer-
tainly is a role for the economic council that
he has set up. As my hon. colleague from
Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) has pointed out, our
chief criticism is that the role this council
can play is going to be a less effective one, in
fact is going to be in great measure an ineffec-
tive one, because it is only an advisory body
and we have yet to see evidence that the
government is willing to take action. If it
were taking the action-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member will
have a chance to talk later. Please do not
interrupt at every point along the way. I
listened to his 20 points. -u m ^t.
MARCH 15, 1962
nil
It is described as advisory, though its
chief function is to conduct the studies. If
it were a serious body and this government
were doing some serious economic planning,
then the function of a body of this kind in
terms of establishing a working relationship
with those who were appointed to the eco-
nomic council, would be a very useful and
valuable one.
Mr. Chairman, I want to proceed to the
presentation of tlie Liberal group in the
House; not in any provocative sense because,
once again, in considering the problem of
economic planning, I am interested to what
extent their approach diflFers.
The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer) tended to dismiss the observa-
tions of tlie hon. Minister as being words,
not being followed through with the kind
of action we need. He is right, but you
know, Mr. Chairman, I Hstened very care-
fully and I found the words with little action
that were presented by the hon. Minister
were matched by another group of words
from the hon. leader of the Opposition.
This does not surprise me, because no less
than one year ago the hon. leader of the
Opposition, standing right where he is today
in this House, rose when we were discussing
the idea of economic planning, and dismissed
it. He said he was opposed to economic
planning because this was socialism— that
what he was in favour of was economic
co-ordination.
Mr. Wintermeyer: On a matter of personal
privilege, Mr. Chairman, I never said any
such thing.
Now, it is all right to make these general
observations. The simple fact is that to the
best of my recollection I advocated planning
last year. But this I am sure: I never did asso-
ciate planning with socialism as such.
Mr. MacDonald: Surely they are the same
thing. That is the interesting point. See;
now the hon. leader of the Opposition has
got to the point!
Now just a minute, Mr. Chairman, this is
why the general debate is useful. Now we
have reached the point where at least plan-
ning has ceased to be a dirty word.
An hon. member: It has been like that for
years.
Mr. MacDonald: When we have reached
that point the hon. member has got to recog-
nize that this is what they used to describe
as socialism.
Mr. Wintermeyer: And the hon. member
is saying that he is not socialist! Is he or is
he not?
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister— just a
minute; I am not saying that—
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Wintermeyer: What did the hon.
member do in Ottawa if he did not say that
they were not socialists?
Mr. MacDonald: We are democratic social-
ists, we never for a moment denied it.
An hon. member: Imagine trying to deny
that.
Mr. MacDonald: If I may just get this
record straight, Mr. Chairman, since the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
feels that I am misrepresenting it. Let me
quote something that I quoted in the House
before, but perhaps we have to have it re-
viewed.
A year ago when the federal Liberals were
laying down policy at their annual meeting
at Ottawa, a committee met and they passed
resolutions and I am going to quote from
the news story that recounted what happened
on this occasion as it appeared in the Globe
and Mail on January 11—
An hon. member: What year?
Mr. MacDonald: Last year.
Despite some misgivings that its recom-
mendation was a step towards socialism a
subcommittee of the national Liberal rally
today called on the party to adopt a policy
of national economic plaiming. Approval
of the recommendation would represent a
sharp change in the attitude of the Liberal
Party.
In May 1958, the Liberals joined the
Conservatives in voting down a Co-opera-
tive Commonwealth Federation amendment
urging the adoption of planned economic
policies to ensure an ever-rising standard
of living.
J. W. Pickersgill (Liberal, Bonavista) told
the House of Commons his party was
opposed to the amendment because it was
a polite synonym for socialism.
Now this is the sort of thing we have heard
repeatedly from the Liberals; however, I am
not going to berate them, Mr. Chairman. If
they have now reached the advanced stage of
acknowledging the existence and the need for
planning, whether or not they want to call it
"socialism" is neither here nor there—
1112
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): What is
the hon. member trying to prove?
Mr. MacDonald: It was no more than a year
ago— I call it a form of socialism if you want
to-
Mr. Reaume: Is he or is he not?
Mr. MacDonald: As a matter of fact the
basic requirement, if we are going to have
full employment, is economic planning.
An hon. member: What does the hon.
member's planning consist of?
Mr. MacDonald: In other words, Mr.
Chairman, as the leader, or as my colleague
from Woodbine (Mr, Bryden) said the other
day: one of the things we have noted with
interest is that while the programme of the
CCF and the New Democratic Party is
usually decried as something of a threat to
the people of Canada, etc., etc., periodically
the old parties will take great portions of
that programme and incorporate it in their
own.
An hon. member: How many by-elections
has the hon. member's party won?
Mr. MacDonald: The things they decry
today, they accept tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: I will give you time, Mr.
Chairman, if you want to see if you can
muzzle— but as my hon. colleague from Wood-
bine has said, what has happened in this
instance is that both the government and
the Liberals have stolen the word but they
have not stolen the idea. They have not
yet come to grips with economic planning
in any meaningful sense at all. As a matter
of fact I was rather interested last fall
when the Toronto Daily Star, which con-
siders itself in the left wing of the Liberal
Party trying to lead it to greater enlight-
enment, appeared with an editorial on
November 28, after Mitchell Sharp had
dehvered a speech in the city. It was en-
titled: "Planning or Direction?"
Even they were wondering whether we
should avoid economic plarming and only
].a\e economic direction. You see, Mr.
Chairman, this is the kind of waffling that
is going on in the ranks, when they cannot
make up their mind exactly what is wanted.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Will the hon. member
tell us what he means?
Mr. MacDonald: It is reminiscent-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: This kind of waffling is
the kind of thing that we have seen, for
example, among close associates of the Lib-
eral party and the Conservatives in the
chamber of commerce.
An hon. member: Hazen Argue.
Mr. MacDonald: Last fall, when they
met in the city of HaUfax, one of the most
interesting speeches was Mr. Kirkpatrick's,
in which he said that the pHght that we
now face in this country is in good part
because the government did not plan. Mr.
Kirkpatrick and E. P. Taylor were two of
the resounding voices that came from the
chamber of commerce meeting calling for
economic planning. The interesting thing,
Mr. Chairman, is that since then Mr. Kirk-
patrick has ceased talking about economic
planning, in that very undemocratic organi-
zation of his that did not give its rank and
file an opportunity to express their approval;
the directors have since launched what is
described as "Operation Freedom." One of
the things they are condemning all the
time, in all of their literature is economic
planning. Apparently Mr. Kirkpatrick has
changed his mind since the Halifax con-
ference.
An hon. member: I cannot conceive of
Kirkpatrick being misled.
Mr. MacDonald: And just yesterday, Mr.
Chairman, we had an indication when my
hon. colleague was putting on the record
what our concept of economic planning was—
and I invite the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Wintermeyer) to read it if he still does
not know-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: —I know it does not
sound very good to the hon. member. This
is the interesting thing, and this is the point
I want to reiterate.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: While my hon. colleague
was explaining what economic planning was,
the hon. leader of the Opposition who, Hke
Saul on the road to Damascus, has suddenly
seen the light on this issue in the last year,
was saying: "Fine, I am in favour of it; that
is Liberal policy." One seat back from him
MARCH 15, 1962
1113
was another voice in the Liberal party,
what I might term as the chamber of com-
merce voice, who said: "You are leading us
up the primrose path to dictatorship!" Or
to socialism, was it?
It reminds me of that phrase that was
used about somebody being dragged kick-
ing and squealing into the 20th century;
well the Liberal party is being dragged
kicking and squealing into the era of • eco-
nomic planning, and the hon. member for
Fort William (Mr. Chappie) is standing there
guarding us because of its threat to our
liberty.
On this question of whether or not this
is socialism, let us cut out all the nonsense
of trying to abuse this term. In a moment
of truth, last summer, the Toronto Globe
and Mail had an editorial in which they
made, I submit, a very valid point. They
said there is no party today which is not
a socialist party. They said the difference
between the old parties, the Liberals and
Conservatives, and the new party, is that
the New Democratic party will bring its
socialism in the front door, whereas the
Liberal and Conservative parties would
smuggle it in the back door.
I wish Macpherson, Reidford, or one of the
cartoonists, would make a cartoon, because at
the back door— to guard the back door of the
Liberal party— is the hon. member for Fort
William (Mr. Chappie) trying to keep
socialism from being smuggled in. I think it
has the making of rather a good cartoon.
However, you know, Mr. Chairman, if
we needed any further proof of the basic
similarity in the approach of the Liberals
and Conservatives on this, we had it from
that inimitable intellectual of the Liberal
party, Jack Pickersgill. A couple of days
ago he was speaking to the Liberals on the
campus at the University of Toronto—
An hon. member: A big crowd there.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, 50 people! When I
spoke there there were 120 people last fall.
It was the new party, and a much bigger
meeting. Mr. Chairman, let me quote one
paragraph in this because this is a most
illuminating little paragraph:
Answering New Party charges that there
is no difference between Liberals and
Conservatives, Mr. Pickersgill admitted—
An hon. member: You had better have it
right now.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, all
I would say is that I have always regarded
him as one of the most Pickwickian figures in
the Canadian scene. However, what Mr.
Pickersgill admitted was that "there was little
ideological difference between the two
parties." And note tiiis next sentence, Mr.
Chairman. He said:
However, this was because it was be-
cause it was impossible to find out what the
Tory ideologies were.
This presumably proves something. He
cannot find out what the Tory ideologies
were— an irrevelant point; for he had already
conceded that there was no difference be-
tween them and his own.
Mr. Wintermeyer: What does the next
sentence say?
An hon. member: Read the whole speech.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, it is in the next one
that they are going to boost old age pensions.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if I am
not digressing too far from the estimates, I
am willing to read this because it is calling
for a $75 pension, a thing that his leader
decried as irresponsible in November of last
fall. So this is just added proof of what
goes on in the Liberal Party.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is the hon. member
against the $75?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to attempt to give in detail our concept
of economic planning. The hon. member for
Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) has already put it
on the record, and it is there available for
people to read, both in his budget speech and
his introducton of the estimates here. But I
want to make this point, Mr. Chairman,
because I think this is basic in our considera-
tion of this whole concept of economic
planning— I want to submit that the govern-
ment's approach is in reverse to what it
should be. What the government is doing is
taking a lot of isolated projects— unfortunately
most of them are old— he is adding them
up and calling it economic planning. He
misses George Drew's programme of 20 years
ago by two points; it is only a 20-point pro-
gramme. Having listed all his projects, the
hon. Minister, figuratively speaking, crosses
his fingers and says: "We hope this will
provide full employment."
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I did not say that
at all.
Mr. MacDonald: He said this is going to
provide a six or perhaps an eight per cent
increase in the gross provincial product.
1114
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I said I was confident
that it would create a six per cent increase
to the provincial product and I was hopeful
of eight per cent.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, fine. Now, I want
to suggest that this is going about it the
wrong way. If the hon. Minister would be
serious he may conceivably learn something.
It may be impossible, but he might con-
conceivably learn something.
I would suggest in general terms, Mr.
Chairman, that the objective and procedure
in economic planning should be this: The
objective is to provide full employment— we
are going to put all our people to work— the
fullest possible use of the human and the
natural resources of this country.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Can
the hon. member guarantee that?
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly; we feel we can
guarantee it. Just listen and I will say why
we feel that we can guarantee it. We set
the objective, full employment, and then, as
one aspect of economic planning, provide the
incentives in the private sector of the econ-
omy. My hon. colleague, speaking on the
budget, listed some of these incentives. They
seemed to come as new ideas to many people.
With these incentives we will get the fullest
possible development of economic activity in
the private sector.
Here, Mr. Chairman, if I may pause and
emphasize for a moment, if the government
were doing this kind of thing, this is where
the economic council could play a very im-
portant role. Instead of being an advisory
body which is brought in just to study or
talk, the economic council made up of the
right kind of people— perhaps on an indus-
trial basis, rather than this broader basis-
could together work out objectives.
This is the kind of thing that is done in
western Europe; and these people work it
out jointly. This is how we get genuine
labour-management relationships. They are
ihen willing to set themselves an objective
and to go out and co-operate in fulfilling that
objective.
Fine, the hon. leader of the Opposition is
not objecting to this, but may I remind him
that this is not the kind of economic coun-
cil the government has set up, nor is it the
kind of economic council that he has been
planning for the last year or so.
Having developed all the incentives for
the fullest possible development of economic
activity in the private sector, I would submit
that this government should do everything
it could to step up the co-operative sector
of the economy. One of the shocking things
in this country— I noticed this figure the otiier
day in the newsletter of the Co-operative
Union of Canada— is that in the whole of
Canada only 2 per cent of our economic activ-
ity is on a co-operative basis.
I must confess that I was surprised by
this; I thought it would be at least somewhat
higher tlian that. Co-ops are the finest kind
of economic activity, because the problem
of economic control rests in the hands of the
membership, and they do not have all the
problems that emerge in private exercise of
economic power. It seems to me that it is
a desirable objective to step up co-operative
activity.
But, Mr. Chairman, I was impressed, in
reading through the same newsletter, where
the Co-operative Union of Canada was out-
lining the mounting campaign that is emerg-
ing from the chambers of commerce, and
other soiurces, to cripple co-operative activity
at a time when we should be developing it.
My final point is this, Mr. Chairman, that
if you start out with the objective that you
are going to have full employment— the full
uses of the human resources— and you have
discovered what can be achieved in the pri-
vate sector, and what can be done by the
encouragement of the development of
the co-operative sector; it then becomes the
obligation of government to step in in the
public sector of the economy and do what-
ever is necessary to make certain that every-
body is at work.
Now this does not mean, in the old socialist
terms that are so often used, that a great
deal need be brought under public owner-
ship, for the great need today is not for
socializing more; rather the desperate need
today, in a Galbraithian sense, is to develop
the public sector of the economy which
in the last 10 or 15 years has become the
withered arm of our economy, to provide
social capital, which will meet the needs of
our people and at the same time provide
work.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Hazen Argue
did not believe that, how does the hon.
member expect we will?
Mr. MacDonald: The hon, member does
not know what Hazen Argue believes, and if
he got to know him he might be surprised
to find what he believes. Perhaps the hon.
member at the moment should go out and
consult with the young Liberals of Weyburn
who at least have the courage to express
their views.
MARCH 15, 1962
1115
However, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I
want to touch briefly on two points. In the
course of his remarks, the hon. Minister quite
rightly made this observation, that he is
moving forward into some experimenting to
step up our economic activity. And he said,
if on any one of these projects, we discover
that it is not effective, it is not meeting the
need, tlien we will discard it. The hon. Min-
ister shakes his head aflBrmatively and I con-
gratulate him for it.
The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Wintermeyer) rose and acknowledged that this
is what the hon. Minister had said. And I
think he, too, concurred that this was just
plain common sense. Now, having heard this
from both of them, I just want to remind them
quietly that 1 have listened in this House for
years to their constant pohticking on the
government of Saskatchewan which did this
very thing, because it started economic plan-
ning 20 years ago.
The government of Saskatchewan suc-
ceeded governments of the Liberal and
Conservative persuasion— who talked but had
no action— in diversifying the economy of
Saskatchewan, particularly in the develop-
ment of secondary industry. The government
of Saskatchewan in 1944 said, "We are going
out to develop secondary industries in Sas-
katchewan," and Tommy Douglas said in
words that are almost a paraphrase of what
the hon. Minister said, and the hon. leader
of the Opposition agreed with, if they dis-
covered that any one of these industries did
not appear to be an economic one in the
long-term sense, it would be discarded— and
they did discard them.
What they did, Mr. Chairman, was to ex-
periment in the way the hon. Minister is
doing now. Any government that undertakes
economic planning is going to do some ex-
perimenting and discover that some things
will not prove to be successful, and will have
to be discarded. So I hope that the hon.
Minister and the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Wintermeyer) and some of his
hon. colleagues behind will cease this constant
reiteration of the failures of a few of the
small attempts to build the secondary indus-
tries in Saskatchewan, because in the over-all
these few industries represented a very small
percentage of the over-all eflEort of the gov-
ernment. The rest of them were so successful
that in the 20-year period a province, whose
economy was almost exclusively agricultural,
has been so successfully diversified through
economic planning that today much over 50
per cent of it is non-agricultural and the
whole basis of the economy of the province
is that much stronger.
The second point, Mr. Chairman, that I
wanted to touch on, is by way of concluding
on the general estimate, and asking the hon.
Minister a question. Undoubtedly, there is
going to be a great deal of research work to
be done. As my hon. colleague from Wood-
bine (Mr. Bryden) has pointed out, inevitably
much of the research work for all these com-
mittees on the economic council will have
to be done by his staff— either staff that is in
his department, or staff that is hired specific-
ally and attached to the economic council or
any one of its committees.
I am curious to know exactly what is the
range of research staff and what proportion
of these estimates comes into the category
of research expenditures— more particularly
in the general estimate. To begin with, what
could $l,000-only $l,000-be used for in the
category of "in-service training"? I can quite
see where a fair range of in-service training
could be developed in this department, but
I am a little puzzled as to what exactly it
is going to be when the allotment for it is
only $1,000.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, in-service train-
ing, I would say to the hon. member, is
designed to have a certain amount of money
in the estimates to send people who are on
our staff, to courses around the province,
which we think will make them more adept
and more efficient at their jobs. There are
courses given, from time to time, on manage-
ment, book-keeping and various things, and
when we find that there are these courses
that we think will benefit our staff, tlien
this is the fund from which we draw this.
If we find there are specific ones which
are beyond this amount and we think that
they should go to them, we go back to the
Treasury board and put our points to them.
May I just correct one misstatement of
fact that I made? I said that the staff of the
present Department of Economics and Devel-
opment was smaller than the three depart-
ments of Energy Resources, Commerce and
Development last year. In fact, the new
departments of Economics and Development
and of Energy Resources, are smaller in
complement than the departments, last year,
of Economics and Commerce and Develop-
ment. In short, the number of staff that I
am responsible for to the House is smaller
than those three departments last year.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I have three
questions under vote 301, and I wonder if
I could ask the hon. Minister, does he want
1116
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
me to ask one question at a time or ask them
all together?
Mr. Macaulay: Any way he wants.
Mr. Thompson: I will ask all of them,
then. My first question is still in connection
with this in-service training. I wondered if
the hon. Minister is going to use any of the
federal departments in connection with train-
ing some of his personnel. I am thinking
particularly of the immigration department,
the two men going into immigration work,
the overseas oflBcers for trade and commerce;
and I could go on into many other areas of
the economic council, in connection with the
training required.
My second question is with respect to the
publication of technical, economic, financial
and other reports. I noted, sir, that the hon.
Minister had mentioned this fabrication gap
report. I would like to ask the hon. Minister,
are the facts that he has in this fabrication
gap report a compilation of DBS figures in
Ottawa?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Are what a com-
pilation?
Mr. Thompson: The fabrication gaps, the
little pamphlet that he had.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, yes, they are.
Mr. Thompson: They are? Well, might
I suggest, sir, that from the trade and com-
merce department in Ottawa, there is a more
developed pamphlet in connection with sug-
gestions for export and import, under the
industrial development branch, put out by
Mr. B. R. Hayden. The reason I ask this is
that I feel, first of all, in his pamphlet, in
giving suggestions to industries the classi-
fications are rather broad. The trade and
commerce division in Ottawa defines the
classifications more closely. I do not know if
he has looked at the import studies under
Mr. Hayden.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, we are in
constant contact with— well he can finish his
question.
Mr. Thompson: The other point to this is,
if DBS figures are available, if Ottawa has
a trade and commerce division, if they are
compiling these statistics, it seems to me this
indicates a certain overlapping with respect
to the information that he is providing
here.
This is the fear I have had, quite frankly,
in many of the aspects that the hon. Minister
has discussed under his economic council.
and I admit the pamphlet is a very small
item to raise, but it does indicate to me that
the hon. Minister could get all this from
Ottawa. He has the DBS figures, he has a
trade and commerce division and he has the
import studies done by a very capable man,
Mr. B. R. Hayden.
My third question is in connection with
special studies. I would like to ask that
under special studies, would the hon. Minister
define these studies? I might say, with the
hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha), I am
very confused about the position of the travel
and publicity committee in the—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That is under vote
302. Could we wait until then?
Mr. Thompson. Fine, then. Those are
my questions.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: In relation to the first
question concerning this in-service training,
I do not know that I can usefully say much
more to the hon. member than I have. We
have sent staff members to Ottawa for train-
ing in relation to immigration, we have sent
people from our housing branch to extension
courses in real-estate appraisal. We have
sent people in our industrial development
branch for extension courses in statistical
methods, and so forth. I do not know what
more I can really say to the hon. member
than that.
Mr. Thompson: Sir, I would suggest that,
in view of the hon. Minister sending these
people for training in Ottawa— obviously
Ottawa has experience in this work— I am |ust
wondering whether he could not use the
people in Ottawa to do the job rather than
sending some of his own people to Ottawa
to get the experience of Ottawa personnel.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, it is not to get
experience of the Ottawa personnel, but to
take training courses there, and we work in
very close co-operation with the Ottawa
department.
In relation to the hon. member's second
question, which relates to the fabrication gap
booklet, the ones I think that he is referring
to are somewhat more recent than ours.
We work, again, in close co-operation with
these people, but we feel, and this is the
philosophy of this government, that we have
some responsibilities to help ourselves. There
is some suggestion that we should not have
people overseas; there is some suggestion we
should not be doing anything in relation to
immigration; there is some suggestion I should
not try to find out what the fabrication gaps
are so that we can fill them. I do not know.
MARCH 15, 1962
1117
I am sure that the hon. members would not
want this programme hobbled to the extent
that I can do nothing whatsoever. I have a
strong, firm and strenuous belief that we can
do a very great deal in the field of trade,
and some of the steps which I have proposed,
I think, will help to carry this out.
One hon. member, when speaking this
afternoon, made some reference to the fact
that the federal government had exclusive,
pecuhar and some other jurisdiction in
relation to trade. This is quite untrue. The
British North America Act gives the federal
government the power in relation to regu-
lating trade. It has no monopoly on pro-
moting trade, and this is what I am trying
to do.
Mr. Thompson: Well, sir, my question to
the hon. Minster was if he was informed
that Mr. B. R. Hayden, who is in charge of
import studies for the federal Department of
Trade and Commerce, is putting out a more
detailed study than the hon. Minister's book,
I would suggest to the hon. Minister that
his book is a duplication of what is already
provided in Ottawa.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We started this pro-
gramme in Ontario.
Mr. Thompson: I do not quite see what
difference it makes who started it.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We started the pro-
gramme in Ontario and they are now doing it.
I would point out to the hon. member that
even the one which is done in Ottawa, I do
not think satisfactory by our standards. To
say that what comes into Canada is so many
tons of leather, or so many hundreds or
millions of dollars worth of leather goods—
this is still not detailed sufficiently to enable
us to really assist in connection with these
fabrication gaps.
The federal government are putting out
this book which, as I said, was undertaken
after we began our publications in relation
to fabrication gaps. Now, their programme we
think, really in many ways, is more advanced
than ours; we have to have something relating
to the province of Ontario, theirs relates to
all of Canada. A figure relating to all of
Canada is meaningless unless it is broken
down in relation to this province.
Mr. Thompson: I would just like to pursue
this further because to me it indicates that
there is duplication, As I understand him—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, I should say
also that the only one that has been put out
is on the oil industry; does the hon. member
understand that?
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry. I am looking at
the "possible Canadian export opportunities"—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: That was put out by the
industrial development branch.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Could the hon.
member look at the subject matter involved
in it?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, I see it has a variety
of some agricultural food products through-
out its—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It has not the detail
that ours has in it.
But the hon. member's question was: are
we aware of it? My answer is yes.
Mr. Thompson: I am talking about the one
that the hon. Minister is suggesting—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I am talking about Mr.
Hayden's study, or his fabrication booklet.
My understanding is that he has only put out
one and it is in relation to oil equipment.
Mr. Thompson: I would suggest to the hon.
Minister that there is more in Hayden's import
study. The other point I would suggest—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, would the hon.
member not only suggest to me, would he
name them?
Mr. Thompson: I will get the names for the
hon. Minister. They are import studies.
The other point is that I have heard
criticisms about the hon. Minister's own
studies. I have just mentioned, "possible
Canadian export opportunities," in this small
pamphlet. It is not as useful for the very
reason that he is suggesting, that it is too
broad in the coverage suggesting export
opportunities. Industries want this broken
down more.
It is all very well to say a well driller is
needed but it should be more defined. I
would like to make that as a recommenda-
tion, even though I do think there is still
duplication in this.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I think when the hon.
member looks at the Hayden study he will
find that it is not as he has said. It may be
that this is something new that has been put
out in the last few days, because the only
1118
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
one of which I know is the one that deals
with oil equipment and it has a very limited
application as far as we are concerned. It
was the only one that was available at the
time the conference was held here in Toronto
some several months ago.
As far as the hon. member's criticism of
possible export opportunities being too
general is concerned, we acknowledge tliat
this is a problem. This was sort of a pioneer
project and we anticipate that, like everything
else in life, there is room for improvement.
Mr. Thompson: May I have the answer to
my third question, about what the special
studies are?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: When we come to
vote 302.
Mr. Thompson: No, I am sorry; it is on 301.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Oh, yes! We have
been carrying on for some time, as the hon.
member knows, studies in relation to port-
able pensions. This has been a very time-
consuming project from the department's
point of view, as well as a very large and
important one. We are also making a sub-
mission, which we are now preparing, to the
Royal commission on banking and finance,
and we will be submitting one in conjunction
with the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond) to the Royal commission on health.
There are a number of other studies in this
connection; we have a great number. We are
doing one on the European common market
at the moment, and 1 have a number of others
here, some of which we are working on
now and are incomplete and which I have
left over in the department; these generally
are the kind of studies that we do.
Mr. Thompson: May I ask, just to get
clarification on one of the subjects, what
approach is taken to it? The hon. Minister
mentioned he is doing a study on the Euro-
pean common market.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The study in relation
to the European common market is going to
be in two parts. Some of the studies that we
have underway now, relate to the milk indus-
try and a great many different aspects of our
economy.
In relation to the European common
market, we want to find out first of all what
industry, what kind of imports and exports,
are going to be affected by the organization
of the European common market. Then
second, what influence will these have upon
the Ontario economy.
We expect that this will be finished in
several months. It is a very advanced study,
and I think will prove to be a very important
one.
Mr. Thompson: Surely, such studies are
being done at the federal level; or is hon. Mr.
Fleming's a case of gloom and the hon. Min-
ister's of optimism because he is not doing
such studies?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We perhaps have an
entirely different outlook, as was pointed out
in the Globe and Mail this morning. In the
event, I would simply say that I have heard
that people have seen both studies and have
—I will limit my comment to this— some
considerable admiration for the one that we
are conducting.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chairman,,
there is another item I would like to raise
which I think probably comes under vote-
301. I have here a letter dated March 7
from the Great Lakes Waterways Develop-
ment Association signed by its president and.
general manager, Vice- Admiral E. R. Main-
guy.
I assume that this same letter has gone to-
the hon. Minister and other hon. members,
of the House; I am quite sure that Admiral
Mainguy would not write to me exclusively..
I will, therefore, not undertake to read it; I
will content myself merely with saying that
the letter presents an argument, in my
opinion a very cogent argument, in favour
of a toll-free Welland ship canal.
The former hon. Prime Minister of the
province (Mr. Frost) expressed some views on
this subject some years ago. I think it is a
very important subject. I personally favour
elimination of tolls on the Welland ship canal
as part of an overall transportation policy.
One of Canada's major disadvantages, and
one that it has always had, is the high and
inflexible cost created by transportation over
long distances. I would say anything that
can be done to reduce those costs would be
desirable.
The reason I raise the matter is that I
would like to know, if it is possible to find
out, if the current administration which has.
taken over recently has any position on this
matter. If so, would they care to state what
it is and what they hope to do to persuade
others of their point of view on that subject?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I can most simply
answer the hon. member by saying that the
point of view of the present administration
in no detail differs from the point of view
of the former one. As far as what we are^
MARCH 15, 1962
1119
doing is concerned, we have done a study on
this ourselves and we are in touch, whenever
it seems it would be most worthwhile, witli
the federal authorities to put our position to
them. I do not think I can say much more
than that.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister's running
mate out there in Broadview-Riverdale used
to be the Minister of Transport, and is
now Minister of Trade and Commerce
{Mr. Hees). Does the hon. Minister have no
more influence with him on this matter than
these other associations? Is there no way
that this government might be able to bring
some real pressure to bear on the federal
government to reconsider its position on this
very important matter?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This may be the way
business is done elsewhere, in other prov-
inces, but I would point out to the hon.
member that in this case the toll was estab-
lished by virtue of a Canada-USA agree-
ment and regardless of the closeness of
friendship between myself and my running
mate, it is not strong enough to affect that
matter.
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. Min-
ister if any publications had been made as
a result of the studies of The Department
of Economics.
I understand that it is the responsibility of
the department to analyze and make projec-
tions with respect to the trends in provincial
and municipal taxation. What is the picture
with respect to the trends for the future?
Has the department made any projections in
this matter?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: These are matters
which the hon. Minister concerned should
deal with under the heading of the budget,
they have nothing to do with me in rela-
tion to this. My people provide the staff
to do the research, the conclusions are
drawn by The Department of the Treasury.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I
think this is somewhat confusing, because
I have in front of me a publication which
was printed, as a matter of fact I believe
the deputy minister was responsible for it,
and it says that one of the important func-
tions of the department is the carrying out
of analyses and studies and it goes on to
explain what these are. Now surely if these
studies are being made by the department
and if we are being asked to vote money
at this time, it would be in order to ask the
results of those studies or at least to have
the conclusions which were drawn from
those studies.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Whatever results
there are to studies are in the report in front
of the hon. member. As far as what action
is taken upon them, this is the general
service department which provides informa-
tion as a result of research to a number of
departments and this is acted on by the
department concerned.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, it
seems that I will not get an answer on this.
I would point out to the hon. Minister that
there is no other opportunity for hon. mem-
bers on this side to find out just what is
being determined from these matters. This
is a matter which does involve the expen-
diture of public funds, and we are being
asked to vote the money for the staff which
makes these studies and which come to these
conclusions. Surely it is not unreasonable
if the hon. members are going to be asked
to vote the funds that they be informed as
to just where they are going. I think it is
a matter of extreme importance to all hon.
members of this House to know just what
projection has been made and what the
possible effects are likely to be, say, three,
five or 10 years hence. And since the muni-
cipalities do enter into this, I think it is of ex-
treme importance. I wonder if the hon.
Minister would consider publishing these
projections.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, when I said
we have not made projections, it is diflBcuIt
to publish them.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I point out to the hon. Minister that what
he is telling me is in direct conflict with the
report which was issued to all hon. mem-
bers of this House and which I have in
front of me.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, then, what
does the hon. member want?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: And this says that
projections are made of provincial and
municipal taxation, ordinary and capital
expenditures, and debt. Now the hon. Min-
ister comes and tells us that no projections
are made. It is difficult to understand. As
I have pointed out other times in this
House, the one source of information which
is available to hon. members on this side
are the reports that are issued by the gov-
ernment itself; and when the hon. Minister
comes and contradicts those statements it
is difficult to come to any conclusion as to
1120
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
whether the estimates are or are not in
order.
If this is not the proper place to place
this question, I shall be pleased to bring it
up under the appropriate section. It seems
to me that the development of the province
which comes under these estimates is
directly related to the mobility and the
availability of labour. I endeavoured to raise
the question under The Department of
Labour last year and was told that this was
not a matter which came within that de-
partment. It would seem to me then that
it does come within this department.
I should like to know what studies have
been made, if any, with respect to the
effect of automation upon the labour force.
I would like to know whether or not any
projections have been made as to the effect
of automation over the next few years. And
I should like to know whether or not the
development of the province will be affected
by the training plans which are now in
effect, and how they apply to this entire
labour situation. I wonder if the hon.
Minister could tell us anything in respect
to that problem.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: As far as the studies
in relation to automation are concerned, I
made a statement in relation to that yes-
terday. As far as the specific individual
study on automation and mobility of labour
in the past are concerned, this mobility of
labour and the problems involved in auto-
mation are related of course in many of the
specific studies, one of which I had deliv-
ered to hon. members yesterday. So in
short, the problem of automation forms a
part of every specific individual study that
we have made, but as for studying auto-
mation individually and a specific study,
this has not been undertaken. We are in
the process of undertaking it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, at the
risk of the hon. Minister advising me that
I was not listening, would he repeat the
general context of the statement he made on
automation that he referred to?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I indicated to the
House yesterday that a committee was being
established under the economic council to
consider the problems involved in retraining
and assessing what we were doing, to dealing
with automation, and a number of the labour
problems associated with it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: So the statement
yesterday was in relation to the future rather
than to the past?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, that is right, in
relation to the present.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, this is
what I was endeavouring to find out; it would
seem to me that it would be very important
that we know to what extent and to what
percentage the present labour force will be
displaced by automation in, say, three or five
years. I think we would be interested to
know at what rate automation is affecting and
is displacing our labour force. I should also
like to ask the hon. Minister whether or not
his department is recommending any tax
exemptions in respect to the development of
secondary industry.
I know that the income tax is a federal
matter, but it seems to me that the province
does impose a considerable corporation tax.
Does the hon. Minister feel that tax incentives
are a proper method of developing secondary
industry? Is his department recommending
any such moves to the appropriate depart-
ment of government?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Could I ask the hon.
member if he was here yesterday?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I most certainly was,
Mr. Chairman, and I do not think it is
appropriate; the hon. Minister told us yester-
day that these things were being referred to
an economic council. Now I am not asking
him what the economic council is recom-
mending, he is the man who is charged with
the responsibility, I am asking if The De-
partment of Economics has made any recom-
mendations. There is a difference.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, if the hon.
member can see the difference, I cannot.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman,
in reply to the hon. Minister, there is a
distinct difference. The economic council is
an advisory council, the hon. Minister of
Economics and his department is a depart-
ment that is here to make decisions and make
recommendations. It seems to me that what
the hon. Minister has really told us is that
they have not really done anything, and they
are going to look for leadership from the
economic council rather than to give that
leadership from the government, from where
it rightfully should come.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It is interesting to
note that this is one of the specific things
that Mr. Pearson said he would refer to the
Economic Council of Canada, which he also
said would be one of the first things he
would do if he took power in Ottawa. He
said this in his speech of February 20, 1962.
MARCH 15, 1962
1121
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, first
of all, Mr. Pearson is running for Prime
Minister of Canada, and we are concerned
with the rights of the people who live in
this province. There is quite a difference.
And to try to make this thing into a political
hassle is, in my opinion, wrong. I asked the
hon. Minister what was forthcoming from his
department and I suggest that he has taken
it completely out of context because he does
not know the answers.
Now, one further question I should like to
ask is with respect to the matter which was
brought up last year. I see a considerable
sum has been expended in public account
with respect to the matter of the port at
Moosonee. Is this the proper place to raise
this question?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, this is not the
proper place.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Would the hon. Min-
ister tell me under what vote I am to raise
it?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I mentioned yesterday
where we would deal with it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder, sir, if you would advise me where
I might raise the question of the port at
Moosonee. Apparently you did not hear the
hon. Minister either.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Under the Ontario
Northland Railway, immediately following
the St. Lawrence Development Commission.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I am inter-
ested in the item of special studies. I was
wondering if the hon. Minister had considered
the opportunity for Canadian firms overseas,
and I am not thinking only of Great Britain
or Europe. This is from the point of view
of foreign construction. I am thinking of diis
from the point of view of study. I have this
paper before me, the Daily Commercial News
and Building Record, and I am looking at
immense opportunities for construction firms
and others to tender on foreign investments
from Morocco for this $300 million oppor-
tunity in building a tunnel. Is this an area
in which the hon. Minister has developed an
interest?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, this is an area in
which the Minister has developed an interest.
Mr. Thompson: Would he tell us how he
is going to develop this?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This, like every other
job opportunity, we attempt to evaluate and
to make known to the various parts of our
economy in our province who we think may
be possibly able to take part in such develop-
ment; this is all we can do.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, the only
book I got was Fabrication Gaps and I am
wondering, for example, these are put out by
private enterprise — the Daily Commercial
News and Building Record. I have another—
the International Construction Reporter— and
I am wondering what kind of material the
hon. Minister puts out to private industry to
inform them of the opportunities.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We put out a number
of booklets, some of which I delivered to hon.
members yesterday. We have, however,
something that we think is more effective. We
have a number of people on our staff whose
responsibihty is to try to keep track of some
of the foreign opportunities. They are in
constant circulation around the province, call-
ing on both municipalities and industries, to
keep them acquainted with these things. Our
purpose is to assist, not to replace, private
industry.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Chairman, in
item No. 7 there is an amount for advertising.
Does this include the total amount for all the
advertising that The Department of Eco-
nomics and Development will carry out? I
am wondering. I notice in the release that
was issued under the name of the hon. Prime
Minister of this province, that the committee
for tourist industry will work to find ways to
attract more foreign tourists to Ontario and
encourage Ontario vacationers to holiday in
their own province. Now if that committee
recommends certain ways to attract, will the
hon. Minister take the money out of this
advertising budget for them?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This advertising for
the tourist industry itself is handled by the
hon. Minister of Travel and Publicity (Mr.
Cathcart). This advertising account relates to
advertising exhibits and conferences, and
there are two branches which have some par-
ticipation in this amount; one is the housing
branch and the other is the industrial devel-
opment branch.
Mr. Troy: Any information from this com-
mittee on the tourist industry will be chan-
neled through the hon. Minister's department
to The Department of Travel and Pubhcity.
Is that right?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It may be that the
committee will make a number of recom-
mendations; these recommendations will then
1122
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
be studied by the Cabinet and, if they arc
to be acted upon, any that relate to the tourist
industry will, of course, go to the hon. Min-
ister of Travel and Publicity for action.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to inquire on the fourth item in 301—
postage. What is the explanation?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The amount that was
spent last year by The Department of Eco-
nomics itself was $4,000, and the amount
spent by The Department of Commerce and
Development was $9,000, making a total of
$13,000, and in view of the stepped-up pro-
gramme we have this year, relating to indus-
trial development, the amount we are asking
for this year is $14,000; this is for the postage
of the department as a whole.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The real basis of my
inquiry is: I thought all the department's
postage, its entire postage account, would be
free account. The hon. Minister can mail
things out here franked, as such, can he not?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Oh, no, no.
Mr. Wintermeyer: He does. His depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No. No.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, in the
various departments, is the postage handled
differently? Would the hon. Minister explain
why this department is charged with postage?
We noted under The Department of Travel
and Pubhcity that there was no charge and
we were told that this came out of The
Department of the Provincial Secretary.
An hon. member: The hon. Minister deliv-
ers things personally.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: All I can say is that
the amount of money that we had to spend
on postage last year for the two departments
was $13,000, this year we are asking for
$14,000 and this, I think, is perhaps because
our buildings are away from the central oflBce
here. I would say that postage in the
post office downstairs comes under the hon.
Provincial Secretary (Mr. Yaremko).
An hon. member: Could the hon. Minister
not deliver a lot of these things on his way
home?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I do, as a matter of
fact, on the way down.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Chairman, under vote
301, I think the hon. Minister mentioned the
fact that there are less people employed now
in the combined offices of the department
than there were when they were separate. I
rather thought that he actually imphed some
form of criticism against the former hon.
Minister, now the hon. Minister without Port-
folio from Kingston (Mr. Nickle).
I think we ought to have the opportunity,
when the hon. Minister is back in the
House, of getting an explanation from him
as to why he was overstaflFed or why the
present hon. Minister might be under-
staffed. I just wanted to mention that fact;
it would be very interesting to have him
explain this point.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I might just answer.
The difference is not great, I acknowledge,
but it is down instead of a trend upwards,
and one of the reasons, of course, is obvi-
ous. Where you have three active depart-
ments you are bound to have, in order to
keep properly advised, some form of a
library. Therefore each department would
have its own librarian; each department
under its main office would have its own
accoimtant in charge of paying its stafiF and
keeping charge of its money. This permits
the reduction of staff. And so the story
goes; I do not know how many more were
down but I think about 10.
Mr. Reaume: Fine.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: As I said before, we
took out of the department the branch relat-
ing to publicity and public relations, and
this took a number out.
Mr. Reaume: I was just wondering if the
hon. Minister would mind when we have
the chance and the hon. Minister without
Portfolio is here in the House, if I were to
ask him a question for the purpose of finding
out whether or not his story and yours jibe.
Mr. Troy: Has the hon. Minister still got
the emergency measures organization in his
department?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No.
Mr. Troy: Well, where did they go?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The Attorney-General's
Department.
Mr. Troy: Well, I presume, then, it is
not such a complete change.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, the point is:
We have added another whole department
to it; this is the point.
Vote 301 agreed to.
MARCH 15, 1962
1123
On vote 302:
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor Sandwich):
Mr. Chairman, on vote 302, I recall that
when the hon. Minister presented the pur-
pose of the Ontario Economic Council, it
was to assimilate all phases of economic
development and bring together labour,
management, agriculture and government.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Is that under the
proper vote?
Mr. Belanger: Which vote are we on?
Mr. Troy: 301.
Mr. Belanger: 302; am I not correct?
An hon. member: Did we carry vote 301?
We did not hear it.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 302.
Mr. Belanger: Well, under this, I would
like to speak on the tenth point or plank,
which is to increase industrial incentive.
I am wondering what co-operation this gov-
ernment has with its brothers in Ottawa,
because some 18 months ago or more, quite
a report was presented to the Canadian
government to which the hon. member for
Bruce (Mr. Whicher) referred the other day,
speaking in the budget debate. I am refer-
ring to the Bladen report. We have there
a report which is quite intensive. There was
quite a representation made by the auto-
mobile industry and I know that if the
recommendations were implemented by the
government that this would mean some
$400 million to this country.
Now, the automobile industry is installed
chiefly in the province of Ontario. I am
wondering why this government is not lend-
ing support to this report and asking the
federal government to implement the rec-
ommendations of this report. Definitely, we
have something that would help the auto-
mobile industry and other industries in-
directly in the province. I would like to
know from the hon. Minister if he is try-
ing to do everything to increase industries
in the province? In the Bladen report the
machinery is all set up right there. Now
all that has to be done is to get together
and do something about this report. I am
asking the hon. Minister: what has he done
about it?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, I would point
out to the hon. member— and his question
is quite proper— that firstly. Professor Bladen
is a member of the economic council, I am
sure the hon. member is aware of that.
Secondly, the council might study through
one of its committees, the various incentives
which are possible in relation to encourag-
ing the reduction of, for example, the num-
ber of foreign parts in a Canadian-assembled
or manufactured vehicle or other piece of
equipment. And this is in line with the
second programme to which I made refer-
ence, namely, in effect, closing the gap, as
I have referred to it.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, on vote
302, I would hke to make a few remarks.
I feel, sir, that what the hon. Minister has
suggested with his 20 points are very worth-
while suggestions for Ontario, but I do have
some concern that he may still be overlap-
ping with the federal department. And my
concern increased in view of the few ques-
tions I asked this afternoon. The hon.
Minister has indicated, to me anyway, he
might correct me if I am wrong, that he was
dissatisfied v/ith the study under Mr. Flem-
ing's department in Ottawa in connection—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I said no such thing;
do not torture it out of shape.
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry! Let me put it
this way then: he said his study of the Euro-
pean common market was a fairly good one
and he did not want to comment on the other.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I did not say that
either.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask the hon. Min-
ister, then, what he did say?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I said that the study
being carried on in our department has been
spoken of in very glowing or enthusiastic
terms by people who have seen both studies.
Mr. Thompson: Could I put it this way?
It seems to me the hon. Minister is in a little
bit of a dilemma. If the federal study was
good, there really would not be much need
for the hon. Minister to do a study.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That is quite wrong,
and I explained why.
Mr. Thompson: I did not get the hon.
Minister's explanation.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Theirs is done on a
national basis. It does include Ontario, but
it naturally does not show how much of this
is by provinces. This does not do much for
us. What we want to know, for instance, is,
of all the leather goods coming into Ontario:
how much there is and whether it is in shoes,
handbags or purses or whatever it may be.
1124
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now it does not help us to know how much
there is coming into all of Canada, because
there may be none of it, for example, coming
into Ontario.
Mr. Thompson: Is the hon. Minister sug-
gesting to me that The Department of Trade
and Commerce does not break it down
according to provinces?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The Department of
Trade and Commerce study does not show
this, as I understand it.
Mr. Bryden: Does the hon. Minister not
envisage the possibility that an industry
located in Ontario could sell elsewhere in
Canada, that exports into any part of Canada
could create an opportunity for industry with-
in Ontario?
Mr. Thompson: I would like to follow up
here: has the hon. Minister ever asked the
department in Ottawa to give him those facts,
rather than create another department to do
it himself?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Our department is in
constant touch with these people.
Mr. Thompson: That is not the question.
I am asking: did the hon. Minister ever ask
the department in Ottawa when it was doing
this study to specify the facts on Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: And they would not do
this?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, that is not correct.
This is an immense subject and I do not
think the hon. member appreciates it, with
great respect-
Mr. Thompson: I appreciate the fact of the
cost of this, and I think the taxpayers of
Ontario should not be charged twice.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: There is no question
of people being charged twice. This is a
study which every province, I am confident,
will carry on related to their own specific
needs and we are doing this in this province.
Interestingly enough, if I had not had it
underway, the hon. member would have been
standing up and accusing me of not being
interested in the common market, and asking
why were we not doing something.
Mr. Thompson: I appreciate the hon. Min-
ister knows what I would say, some people
say I do not even know myself.
I have been interested in the economic
council from the point of view of the person-
nel that are going to be used. If I could, I
would go through each area, and perhaps the
hon. Minister would be good enough to
answer them for me.
Yes, I am interested in the personnel and
where the hon. Minister is going to get this
personnel. I am interested in the priority of
the studies. There are 20 points. Which are
going to be given particular priority at this
time? I realize that I cannot ask—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: They have all started.
Mr. Thompson: And there is no emphasis
on one over the other?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: They are all being
done by diflPerent groups who are qualified
in that particular field.
Mr. Thompson: Might I ask about the
personnel, then, of the— I do not want to go
through the whole personnel— but could the
hon. Minister give me the personnel on the
retraining study? There are so many, and
such a wide field, that I could guess almost
any of them.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, I am not able to
tell the hon. member.
I should, I think, point out to the hon.
member so that he will understand, the
Ontario Economic Council was established in
the first place by the government requesting
certain organizations to send certain nominees
to the council. They were not appointed by
the government; they are not government
appointees, in short, in that sense. They are
actually named by the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council, but the various organizations are
the ones responsible for naming these people.
The desire of the government is, while not
being bound to accept their recommendations,
at the same time not to unduly interfere in
their operations. As far as the chairman of
the council advising me who is on these com-
mittees and what their names are, I am
unable to tell the hon. member. However, I
am sure, if he is interested in knowing the
names of the personnel on these various com-
mittees, I would be happy to get them. They
are still recruiting, but they have not begun
their studies.
Mr. Thompson: Thanks.
I was interested as well in some aspects
that have been raised about the economic
council. I wondered, for example, when the
hon. Minister talked about the Ontario devel-
opment fund which is going to help industry,
whether at this time the hon. Minister could
MARCH 15, 1962
1125
elaborate. I feel frankly that the approach
to helping industry to settle in a municipality
might be to help the municipality with its
social capital.
I raise this question: if the government is
going to help particular industries, does the
hon. Minister not see a political danger in
that he has to choose in placing one industry
over another? As I understand it, the hon.
Minister is going to have discretion in placing
the industry.
I can see some aspects that would make
this very worthwhile, for example, in areas
where there is excess labour. Of course,
today in Ontario this covers a great deal
of ground, but there may be a time when
excess labour exists only in particular areas.
I have another question from the hon.
Minister's speech— unfortunately I have not
had a chance to read it, I just had to make
notes as he was speaking— but I had the
impression that the government would help in
allocating industry and I do not know if this
is a philosophy of the government. If it is
the hon. Minister's, I am wondering how he
would decide between, say, Oshawa and
Ottawa. Has he got some rules for encour-
aging an industry to settle in one particular
place?
I raise the question about the hon. Min-
ister's tax incentives to industry. I feel that
because Ontario gets 10 per cent of the 50
per cent corporation tax, that he is going to
have to have a great deal of co-operation
from the federal government in connection
with this being really worthwhile. I had
sensed that perhaps there is not much co-
operation between the federal department
and the hon. Minister's own department at
this time; I make just the small point of
his pamphlet. I thought perhaps he was not
aware of the detail of what is being done by
the trade and commerce division in Ottawa;
but that is a very small detail in comparison
with more major issues in connection with
his department.
Certainly everything ^at can be done to
encourage trade in the world market should
be encouraged, but I just wonder whether
these trade junkets overseas have been so
profitable. I notice the figures on exports in
connection with hon. Mr. Hees* overseas
jimket and I feel the real necessity to encour-
age manufacturers in Canada to tie up with
requirements in some overseas market, is to
suggest that manufacturers in Canada meet
people overseas themselves, personally. I can
see, however, that a liaison could be devel-
oped. But I would hope this is not going to
be a junket of only bright economists going
over there without liaison at a level closer
to the producers
I raise just another question: the hon. Min-
ister is going to encourage certain industries—
I think he has said "a co-operative manufac-
turing and export basis", I do not know if I
am using his terms— in order that these indus-
tries can be helped in developing foreign
markets. I just raise this question, that there
are dangers if the government selects these
co-operative groups of manufacturers, I think
there are dangers again with respect to the
anti-combine laws.
I certainly raise a question in connection
with the immigration policy. I think that it
really ties in again with what the federal
government has been saying, they want to
get skilled immigrants to come here, special
immigrants, in order to create work. I think
the hon. Minister has to look at the situation
in Canada because often one can get doctors
or nurses. I know he is talking more in terms
of technical people, but there is going to be
a great deal to discourage them from coming
here. Apart from the prosperity that is being
enjoyed in western Europe, there are barriers
when they arrive here, placed by associations.
I think there will need to be a lot of liaison
between the professional associations so that
they will accept the influx of trained and
skilled people.
I have raised a number of questions. One
more, and I do this to a large extent as a
layman, is the hon. Minister's research centre.
I understand it is going to be a $19 million
research institute near Brampton. I would
suggest, sir, that in many ways research is
ideas, and ideas can be transported.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Perhaps the hon. mem-
ber could discuss that under the Ontario
Research Foundation, which is on another
vote.
Mr. Thompson: Would that come under the
Ontario Research Foundation? I wonder if
I could have answers to those?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, they were really
rhetorical questions. The hon. member asked
me whether we were co-operating with the
federal government or could we co-operate
in view of the fact we had a 10 per cent
corporation tax; I thought that the hon. mem-
ber would like to know it is not 10 per cent
in this province.
Mr. Thompson: Ten per cent of the 50 per
cent.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, it is not 10 of the
50.
1126
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Thompson: What is it?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It is 11.
Mr. Thompson: Eleven; I am sorry. Well,
it is a small amount.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, it is not a small
amount; it is a very large amoimt.
Mr. Thompson: In the influence on indus-
try?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, a very large
influence on industry, the one per cent.
As for how the co-operation between the
provincial government and the federal govern-
ment worked out, I have every confidence that
if the government decides that this is a field
in which the government should advance, we
will have no difficulty in working this out
with the government in Ottawa. In any event,
the incentives in relation to the provincial
corporation tax can be given by way of a
rebate without any working out of any kind.
As far as the junkets of people going over-
seas are concerned, they are not junkets. I
anticipate they will likely pay their own
way there. They will be drawn from industry
that has specific interests in the overseas
market and they will be experts in this field.
This is why they will be picked.
As for the $19 million research centre, it
is $9 million; but we can deal with that under
the Ontario Research Foundation.
Mr. Thompson: And immigration?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: As far as immigration
is concerned, we have had an immigration
office in Ontario House since 1943.
Mr. Thompson: I know that the hon.
Minister has had an immigration office in
Ontario House since 1943.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We shall discuss that
under Ontario House, shall we? There is a
place specifically for that.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I was interested
in some comments that the hon. Minister
made in answer to questions by the hon.
member for Dovercourt (Mr. Thompson).
They were actually comments made along the
way, but I would like to pursue the particular
point a little further.
He stated, I think, with specific regard to
the sub-committees or committees established
under the economic council, that in effect-
let me put it this way— the appointments were
made by groups whom he wanted to have
represented on these sub-committees, that
certainly the government reserved its
authority to make the appointments, but
essentially it was interested in appointing
people who were named by the groups
whose opinions he wanted presented.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No; I did not say that
at all.
Mr. Bryden: If I misunderstood him, then
perhaps he would correct me.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I asked the various
organizations in this province to name some-
one, and those persons were all, in every
case, appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council.
Mr. Bryden: Well, I perhaps made a wrong
inference which was purely unintentional.
That was the conclusion I drew, and I will
withdraw that suggestion if it was a wrong
conclusion.
At any rate, in actual practice, as far as
sub-committees are concerned, he asked
groups he considered appropriate to name
people for the committees and in all cases he
appointed them.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is quite incorrect,
and in addition I did not say that. I pointed
out that the sub-committees were under the
complete control of the council and the
appointments are made by the council, not
by me. I have nothing to do with it.
Mr. Bryden: Well then, during the hon.
Minister's reference to this particular matter
he stated that appointments were made by
order-in-council. Was he referring to the
members of the council?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, sir; yes.
Mr. Bryden: Then was the procedure that
the hon. Minister followed to ask various
organizations for nominees and, in actual fact,
appoint everyone who was suggested?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, I really did not
ask them to name nominees. I asked them to
name someone to the council. In short, I did
not accept any choice. I would accept who-
ever was named. This is a difPerent thing
than saying: "Would you name someone
whom you would like to have as an
appointee," and then having a right to turn
them down. I made it quite clear to these
organizations that whoever they named,
whether they were acceptable to me or not,
they would be on the council.
Mr. Bryden: Well, in that regard the hem.
Minister went a little further than I had
MARCH 15, 1962
1127
thought; and I may say that liis approach is
refreshingly different from that of the govern-
ment at Ottawa, which apparently takes the
position that it does not want to hear advice
from anybody except Tories. There is a real
danger that that government will become
even further removed than it is now from
the sentiments of various important groups in
this country, and I think it should be
acquainted with the views of those people.
I would agree with what appears to me to
be the underlying philosophy of the hon.
Minister in this matter. I hope I do not
improperly impute anything to him, but it
would appear his underlying philosophy is
that when he wants the views of various
groups, the best way to ensure himself that
he will have them is to listen to people whom
those groups themselves name, and in whom
they have confidence. I personally would
not go to the extent of saying that even
with an advisory body the government should
consider itself committed to accept anyone
whom a participating body might name. I
certainly think, however, it should satisfy
itself that anybody appointed has the confi-
dence of the body concerned, and this is
certainly an important and refreshing depart-
ure from the policy of the federal govern-
ment. In pursuit of this matter, I would
like to ask the hon. Minister if he could
tell me which groups named the various
members of the council.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I will be very happy
to. Did the hon. member not receive a copy
of this red booklet which I have here?
Mr. Bryden: I have received a copy, Mr.
Chairman. I will confess that, so far, I have
only had a chance to—
Hon. Mr. Macaualy: The industrial mem-
bers will be requested one each from the
Ontario division of the Canadian Manufac-
turers* Association, the Ontario Chamber of
Commerce and the Board of Trade. Nomi-
nations of the labour members will be re-
quested one each from the Ontario Federation
of Labour and the provincial building and
construction trade. The third labour repre-
sentative will be selected from northern
Ontario, preferably from a union operating
in a resource industry.
In the case of agriculture, the Farmers'
Union will be asked to name one nominee
and the Federation of Agriculture the other
two. The two government representatives
will be nominated by the Lieutenant-
Governor in Council; they are Mr. Gather-
cole, the Deputy Minister, and Mr. Clarkson,
the assistant Deputy Minister. In addition
to that, subsequent to preparing this, we felt
it was wise to have someone from the uni-
versities, and we appointed Professor Bladen.
We felt it was important to have someone
from the Export Association and we asked
them to name someone, and it is Mr. Hol-
brook, who is the president of the Algoma
Steel Company in Sault Ste. Marie. We felt
it was desirable to have someone from the
field of research and we asked the Ontario
Research Foundation to name someone and
they named Dr. Mysner the director. The
chairman, Mr. Randall, was selected by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council. He is the
president of General Steel Works.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister's answer indicates what I would con-
sider to be a quite satisfactory approach
except for the representation of the labour
movement on the council. I want, first of all,
to make it clear that I am not in any way
casting any reflections on any member of this
council; I am rather trying to approach the
matter from the point of view of principle,
without reference to the individuals con-
cerned, for all of whom I have the very
highest regard. But as far as I can see, the
Ontario Federation of Labour, which repre-
sents practically the entire labour movement
of this province— the only exceptions being a
few Communist unions and one or two break-
away unions from the general labour body-
but certainly the federation represents the
overwhelming majority of the workers of
this province—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The manufacturers*
association represents the overwhelming group
of manufacturers. Nevertheless, we asked the
chamber of commerce and the board of trade,
and all these people, as far as I know, are
members of the Ontario federation.
Mr. Bryden: I would still repeat that the
Ontario Federation of Labour is the chosen
spokesman of the overwhelming majority of
organized workers in this province, and yet,
as far as I can see, the Ontario Federation
of Labour was asked to name only one person.
Now, in the field of agriculture, the hon.
Minister, and I think quite rightly, had farm
organizations name three; one of the organiz-
ations named two, and the other named one.
In the labour field, the chosen spokesman of
practically all the organized workers was
asked to name only one. Another one was
named by a smaller group within the Ontario
Federation of Labour. I do not think the
hon. Minister can indicate a parallel for that
sort of procedure in the other appointments.
1128
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
where a group within a larger group was
specifically asked to make an appointment.
As far as I could make out from what he
said, the third labour member— and again I
am now not talking personally, because I
think he is a very fine man doing very fine
work— was simply an appointee of the govern-
ment, and the labour movement was not con-
sulted at all.
The hon. Minister said that he wanted a
labour representative from the northern part
of the province, and particularly one in the
resource industries; I think there is a lot to be
said for that, but the Ontario Federation of
Labour includes within it all the unions,
outside of one Communist union, which oper-
ate in that area. It is strange to me that, in
this one case, the government makes an
exception, departs from what the hon. Min-
ister says is the announced policy, and simply
makes the appointment itself. If I am wrong
in drawing that inference from what he said,
I would certainly like to be corrected; but
that appears to be what he said and 1 think
it is rather unfortunate that he asked the
Ontario Federation of Labour for only one
nominee in view of the fact that it repre-
sents also the other areas from which he said
he wanted representation.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say to the
hon. member, that, first of all, I discussed this
matter with Mr. Archer, who is the president
of the Federation of Labour of Ontario and
who is the member also of the council. One's
plans in all of these things are relatively
fluid, and I think if the hon. member would
be patient enough to realize the amount of
work that has gone into the organization of
these departments, and the number of things
that we have established in this time, I would
frankly say that maybe some of the decisions
we made in relation to the council could be
improved. This is quite possible.
It may be that Mr. Gillis is the northern
representative. I frankly wanted to have
somebody who I felt seemed to symbolize the
highest ideals of the labour movement for
northern Ontario, and I felt that Mr. Gillis
was a good man for this. On the other hand,
it may be possible that, in due course, we
can make some other arrangements. Nothing
is hard and fast on this and I told Mr.
Randall, who is the chairman, that if he
wanted to make additional adjustments as
to further personnel that this would be so.
My own personal relationships with Mr.
Archer, I believe, are of the highest order,
and I am hopeful that Mr. Archer has faith
in me, that I am trying to do what I see with
my political philosophy, as the right thing
from our province's point of view. Mr. Archer
at no time said to me that he objected to this.
As far as the third representative-
Mr. Bryden: I am not suggesting Mr.
Archer does object—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: As far as the third
representative is concerned that is the mem-
ber of the construction trades. Now they are
members of the federation, and when Mr.
Archer and I discussed this, some weeks
before, I pointed out to him that no matter
how we handled these appointments to this
council, I was determined that we should
have somebody— it did not matter to me who
he was, so long as he, as you say, was
accepted by and had the confidence of the
construction trades; because I think the hon.
member will agree that this is an area which
has given very great concern to the hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Warrender), and to
this Legislature and to our labour legislation
as a whole. I felt that if we had somebody
from this group on the council, it would be a
good thing. I frankly had never met the
gentleman before. I never consulted the
Cabinet as to what they thought, or if they
knew the man at all. I sent a letter out and
I told the Federation of Labour that I was
doing this. I sent a letter to the trades council
and asked them if they would name a repre-
sentative.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, may I invite
the hon. Minister to pronounce his name
"Gillis. G-i-1-l-i-s, Gillis." I want to say, as
a matter of record, that I did not say, nor
did I mean to imply in any way, that the
matter of trade and commerce and cultivation
of foreign trade was an exclusive matter of
federal jurisdiction— in the sense that a citizen
of Ontario would hale the hon. Minister in
the court on a constitutional question and
seek to get an injunction to close down his
trade ofiices abroad. I said this, and I repeat
for the record, that The Department of Trade
and Commerce has had the responsibility, as
a matter of custom and practice under The
British North America Act, for the cultivation
of foreign trade, and each of our legations
and embassies abroad is always at a com-
mercial and trade attache and to the extent
that the hon. Minister is now going to go
abroad— or send his people abroad— to sell
bacon, apples and cheese; then it is either on
the one hand empire building on his part, or
on the other hand it is the failure of the
federal government to carry out their respon-
sibilities; one of the two.
No^v next year when we come to his
estimates we will assess the quantity— the.
MARCH 15, 1962
1129
hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and
I will assess them— the quantity of bacon,
apples, cheese, tomato juice and everything
else that he has sold—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: And bologna!
Mr. Sopha: —and bologna! We make a lot
of it anyway.
Now, since I had so much success in speak-
ing to the hon. Minister earlier in French,
if I may take as the text and theme of my
remarks another French phrase and that is
the historic one of Voltaire— I think I am
right in saying it is Voltaire's— when he said—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Who is tlie hon.
member looking at for confirmation, the hon.
member for Essex North (Mr. Reaume)?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, the hon. member for
Essex North (Mr. Reaume). He said: "Plus
ga change; plus c'est la meme chose."
And for those of our brethren here who
do not understand this, that means: "The
more a thing changes, the more it remains
the same."
Now some things do change. I decry and
deplore the fact, after listening to my hon.
friend from York South (Mr. MacDonald)
that nowadays the socialist has disappeared
from the scene. There are no more socialists,
they are all Galbraithians. And the pubhc
thinks that too; they have disappeared and
they ought to disappear. They get 17 per
cent of the votes. I wish we had a bearded
socialist around.
I would say to my very esteemed, and
the person I regard very highly, my almost
beloved hon. colleague from Dovercourt
(Mr. Thompson), I would say to him that
in order to understand this $150,000 for the
economic council, that one must look at it
in the historical perspective. The economic
council was part and parcel of the new
image of September and October. He said,
the hon. Minister as reported in the news-
paper, the Toronto Globe and Mail on Oc-
tober 17, he said:
The Ontario Progressive Conservative
Party must adopt a dynamic programme
at its next convention to replace the
image of Premier Leslie Frost, Energy
Resources Minister Robert Macaulay said
last night.
And this is part of the new image!
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
The hon. member is screamingly funny, but
why do we not get on with the work?
Mr. Sopha: Well, I have not time to stop.
One must understand when I say to my
hon. colleague from Dovercourt, one must
understand in the light of this utterance,
these undying words:
There is no substitute for hard work.
I know that many people think that I
am overly ambitious. Frankly, I do not
understand this. I think that any man with-
out ambition is a vegetable.
Now I will leave hon. members to guess
who said that!
I want to make these two points about
the economic council. As I said earlier, and
I think just at the point the hon. Minister
was constrained to keep me within the four
corners of the votes, I said that this had
become a repository of problems; that
already in the few short weeks that this
thing has been in existence, we have heard
time and time again, when we raised a
question, that the problem will be referred
to the economic council for study and there
will be a report. Now, somebody very aptly
said in this House, and it bears repeating,
that the responsibility for policy and the
responsibility for solving problems cannot
be divested from the two front rows of the
Treasury benches over there and shouldered
or sloughed onto some body which is not
responsible directly to the electorate of the
people of Ontario. Responsibility must re-
main where constitutionally it is endowed,
and that is on the Executive Council. That
is one point.
The other aspect of the economic council
is that I say; and perhaps I am able to say
it more than a great many people in this
House that would like to say it, including
the hon. Minister of Mines; and that is: the
purview of the economic council under the
hegemony of the leadership will mean that
no department of the government will be
safe from its inspection. It will be within
the four comers of every department, con-
ducting its reports and surveys.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Is the hon. member
against that?
Mr. Sopha: I am making my observations
and submissions in respect of it.
Mr. MacDonald: They are hke the Lib-
erals, always for and against it.
Mr. Sopha: I am trying to lay down some
very salutary considerations in respect of
its operation, which I hope will be a guide
to the hon. Minister in its operation.
1130
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now already we see that the economic
council, or the hon. Minister, is within The
Department of Agriculture. We have heard
about that one. He is now going to take
over part of tlie responsibility of the hon.
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) espe-
cially insofar as it means the peddling and
sale and trafficking in the produce of the
agricultural industry of this province.
Now the other thing I want to observe
and report. Again I ask my hon. friend from
Dovercourt to view these things in the light
of history. Many hon. members of the House
may recall that just at the time of the leader-
ship convention last October, very suddenly'
and without any previous notice at all the
former Prime Minister of this province
announced that he had founded an organi-
zation which, I think, he called the economic
advisory committee. As far as the hon.
Minister was concerned, when he heard of
the hon. Prime Minister's announcement
about the economic advisory committee he
told an audience in Pembroke on October 20,
under this heading:
MACAXJLAY SAYS HE WAS CONFOUNDED BY
ECONOMIC COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENT
And later on it reports him this way:
He told his audience he was confounded
to read of Mr. Frost's economic committee
but was pleased to learn that his thinking
agrees with that of the Prime Minister.
I took the trouble to look up the word
"confounded"; and the word "confounded"
according to the Oxford Dictionary means "to
confuse, perplex or dismay". Now not only
insofar as— take that definition "dismay." I
venture to say he was not the only one dis-
mayed, because the former hon. Prime Min-
ister of this province even went so far as to
appoint the personnel to this economic advi-
sory committee, and we have not heard a
word to this date from the hon. Minister
about what has happened to this group; a
group of very respectable citizens.
I invite my hon. colleagues, at least on
this side of the House, to harken to the names
of some of the persons to whom the former
hon. Prime Minister of the province, or whom
the former hon. Prime Minister of the prov-
ince appointed to this advisory committee.
They included: Mr. O. D. Vaughan, a former
vice-chairman of the T. Eaton Company; Mr.
W. O. Twaits, who I believe is president and
general manager of Imperial Oil; Mr. Russell
Harvey— as my hon. friends to the left will
be able to recognize, he is of the labour
movement, I believe; Mr. Rhys Sale of Ford
Motor Company; M. W. McCutcheon of
Argus Corporation completes the list of those
whom I know.
There has been no announcement from the
government, least of all from the hon. gentle-
men about what has happened to this other
group. Have they been surpassed or dis-
placed by this new economic council? Per-
haps some of them are members of this
economic council but I do not readily recog-
nize any of the names of any of them. But
in addition to being confounded— that is con-
fused, perplexed and dismayed— the hon.
Minister lost no time after he reached a
position of hegemony within the government,
and I venture to say that his position of
leadership and confidence where it counts is
very high indeed within the government. One
needs only to open his eyes to observe that
phenomenon, and a developing phenomenon
indeed it is.
An hon. member: He is a good man, that
fellow.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I would hope so, but I
cannot say the same for some of his hon. col-
leagues over there. I hope at least the offices
of the Opposition are safe from his encroach-
ments, at least in the immediate future.
Mr. Reaume: They are all mad, too.
Mr. Sopha: I was not going to say that,
but my hon. friend from Essex North (Mr.
Reaume) has a very pungent way of putting
things, especially the truth.
But insofar as this economic advisory com-
mission is concerned, I think the hon. Min-
ister certainly owes an explanation to the
House of what the effect of his hasty action
in setting up his economic council has been
with respect to their position.
Does it still function? Are they to be in-
vited to play some part in the councils of
government? In addition to the $150,000
that we are voting for the economic council,
is part of this money or other public monies
to be used to allow this organization, called
the economic advisory committee, to con-
tinue to function?
I want to conclude on this note, and I
want to say this, that all this manifesto un-
folded to us yesterday demonstrated thai
none of the problems is new, none of the
things that the hon. Minister and his eco-
nomic council are going to study, suddenly
descended out of the heavens like a bolt of
lightning and appeared to exist as a problem
or a difficulty or a road block with respect
to the affairs of this province.
The problems of automation, of sale of our
surplus agricultural products, the problem of
MARCH 15, 1962
1131
unemployment, the expansion of our industry,
the taking away of industry from some urban
centres, decentrahzation of industry, all of
these problems have existed with us for a
good long time. And as the hon. leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) so aptly
put it, supported by the very able words of
the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher),
this smokescreen set up by the hon. Minister
is nothing but a blind and an attempt to
create the new image in order to hide the
indictment of 20 years of Conservative rule
that we have had.
The impression he is trying to convey in
this House— if my words convey no other
purpose, I want them to descend upon the
ears of the hon. Minister in this fashion, that
we over here are not going to be fooled. We
are not going to be fooled. I said the more
things change, the more they remain the same.
The problems have been here and just
because there is a sudden burst of activity—
almost gymnastic schizophrenia, to to speak—
he talks about his committees and his
sub-committees, and we are going to look at
all these problems, just as if this is a new
departure or this is a new method of carry-
ing on government.
And I just proflFer this note of caution, that
one year hence, when again he comes to the
House and the public treasury, and he wants
money to conduct his business, then there may
be some of us here— all of us I hope that
providence spares— who will look over the 20
points at that time, and we will ask him for
an accounting.
We will say to him, "We gave you talents,
we gave you the talents as in the Old Book,
now show us what you have done to increase
them. Make yoiur report to us." And the hon.
member for Dovercourt (Mr. Thompson) in
his perceptive and effective way, he can stand
there then and ask him question after ques-
tion, and tell us about the studies that the
hon. Minister's economic council has made,
tell us about the bacon and cheese and the
radios, and the nickel, and the forest products
that he has sold abroad— and the bologna
that he has sold abroad.
That will be our opportunity, apart from
all the words and all the verbiage and all the
studies, for us to assess in real terms, whether
we are justified in voting to the hon. Minister
this vast amount of money that he wants. We
will be here a year hence to get that account-
ing, to get that report of his stewardship
from him.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, I would say to
the hon. member that I think his comments
really do not amount to very much. He is
fond of quoting French words, several of
which he mispronounced, he lectured me
about not pronouncing Mr. Gillis' name
correctly, but I would like to point out to
him that the president of the Ford Company
is not Mr. "Rice" Sale, either.
I would say really and truly to the hon.
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) if he
summed it up, if he stood for the integrity
of his party in foreign trade, then he does not
want to do anything to help our economy. He
made very derisive and attacking comments
in relation to the question of an advisory
council, but I want to quote to him a state-
ment contained in the Toronto Daily Star of
February 21, 1962; the contents of this were
taken right out of this book:
Establishment of a national economic
advisory council to aid private industries
through crucial changes in the economy
was advocated last night by Liberal leader
Lester B. Pearson. Such a council, Mr.
Pearson told a dinner meeting of the
Toronto Junior Board of Trade, should
include representatives of business, labour,
agriculture and government. The council's
function, he said, would be to find out and
analyze what is going on.
Mr. Reaume: He is a good man, that fellow.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, he may be a
good man but he apparently does not know
what is going on.
And to study what is planned in all
types of industry, in all regions of Canada,
to study such major problems as automa-
tion, to investigate economic trends, to
publish outlook reports and finally to make
recommendations to government which in
our system has and must retain the respon-
sibility for policy of action. An economic
council, he said, would aid in ensuring
that Canada's economy now in a gentle
upswing, continues to improve.
And so saith the gentleman.
It being 6 o'clock p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 39
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
Betiateg
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Thursday, March 15, 1962
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
QC .o>:
CONTENTS
. , ^ Thursday, March 15, 1962
Estimates, Department of Economics and Development, Mr. Macaulay, continued 1135
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 1173
1135
di :.^'y- ..;;.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thubsday, March 15, 1962
■ The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMICS AND DEVELOPMENT
; .; , : (continued)
On vote 302: .,..^
Mr. E. W. Sopha ( Sudbury) : I inxdte the
hon. Minister to answer my query about the
economic advisory council.
Hon. R; W. Macaulay (Minister of
Economics and Development ) : There is no
vote, as the hon. member will note, in
relation to the economic committee to which
he makes reference.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, that is hardly
an answer. I referred to an announcement by
the former hon. Prime Minister of this prov-
ince (Mr. Frost), setting up this body, and
surely the Opposition is entitled to know what
has happened to this body and what has hap-
pened to the personnel who were appointed
to it by the man who formerly had the
responsibility of leading the government.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: On what possible
basis? They are voting no money for it,
they are not asked to vote any money, and
on what possible grounds have they anv
right?
Mr. Sopha: Tliis is plainly a S€^arch for
information and we are entitled to have this
information from the responsible hon. Min-
ister. .
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The purpose of the
estimates is to discuss the various amounts
of money which are requested for the pur-
poses that are shown opposite the relative
votes, and there is nothing here relating to
tliis.--' •••'■-
Mr. K. Br>'den (Woodbine): Well, Mr.
Chairman, the hon. Minister of Economics
and Development has tried to advance this
pTopo<?fti6n previously, bnt I submit to yoU,
sir, that in common sense and on the basis of
recognized procedures in almost any parlia-
meiitary as.<embly, in \oting money it is
legitimate to inquire into tlie way that
go\ernment has spent its money on similar
matters in the past. That is a legitimate part
of the inquiry, surely.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That is perfectly
proper, and if the hon. member can show the
item in the public accounts relating to the
question of the hon. member for Sudbury
( Mr. Sopha ) I would be happy to discuss it.
Mr. Bryden; Well, of course the public
accounts are a year old.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask a question. It is
tliat there is no item in the accounts for
the advisory council, but is it possible that the
formation of an economic council, for which
there is a cost of $150,000, could be a
duplication of an advisory council that was
set up by the former hon. Prime Minister?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, there is no
possibility of that.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer ( Leader of the
Opposition): Weil, Mr. Chairman, with
deference, I think the hon. member for
Sudbury ( Mr. Sopha ) raises a very legitimate
question here. I think that for years now we
ha\ e proceeded on the theory that the esti-
mates were an opportunity to examine into
the operations of the various departments, and
constantly we have asked for an opportunity
to quiz a particular Minister with respect
t(^ a particular division of a department, and
very often it was said: "Well, we will agree
in this instance that you will do such and
such under a given vote, even if there is no
reference in the given vote to the subject
matter," and I think Ontario Northland Rail-
^^■ay, for example, is just such an illustra-
tion.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is something I
offered, I do not really think that it needed
to be done. It could have been done as it
was done in the days, some years ago,
through the committee on commissions. This
is the only place it has ever been examined
l^^fore; This yiear I thought the hon. members
were qiiite entitled, and should properly ask
1136
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
questions about it, and therefore I suggested
it be done this way.
Mr. Wintermeyeri Well, Mr. Chairman,
the point I am trying to make is that in
any parliamentary institution a certain evolu-
tion takes place; it is bound to. One thing
that we have got to come to grips with, in
the course of the next few years, is the
bureaucracies of government as such. We
will have to find a new way of examining into
all the bureaucracies some time, but surely
tonight when we are concerned about the
economic development of Ontario primarily,
this is an appropriate time—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: There is no indication
of it so far. The Liberal Party is showing
not one whit of interest in the economic
development—
An hon. member: Why does the hon.
Minister not answer the question?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Just a moment, Mr.
Chainnan. I take exception to what the hon.
Minister has said.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) can take
all the exception he likes.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I suggest
to you that you have to exercise a certain
prerogative and that is to protect the position
of our hon. members in this House. Anybody
who has taken an elementary course in
English and Canadian history knows that a
function of the Opposition is to inquire into,
on a broad scale, operations of the govern-
ment, and I suggest to you that the very
institution of this Parliament evolves from
the original concept of the opportunity of
free men to oppose the whims of the
monarchy; and, as a resolution of that evolu-
tion, that performance that was originally
intended to be performed by all the members
of Parliament now evolves on a small section.
I for one take exception to those who feel
that we have no position here, and that we
are tr\-ing to tear down and minimize and
make fun of, if you will, tlie operation of
government.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: You are.
Mr. Wintermeyer: We are not. This is
our purpose, to come and examine into and
to try to find weaknesses. What other time
have we got to do it? Does the hon. Minister
realize that these seven-odd precious weeks
that we have are the only time that we can
learn and get at and determine the effective
operation of this government? This is the
institution we live under. I for one feel
that in these estimates somewhere there Is
every logical reason for asking the question:
what has become of the advisory— or whatever
its term— the advisory council that was insti-
tuted by the former regime?
I am sure that if it was not for a little
bit of pique that has arisen somewhere, and
I do not know where, the hon. Minister
would never think of opposing this question.
Of all the logic in the world, I think this
question has much validity. And, Mr. Chair-
man, therefore I deal direcdy wth you. When
we are talking about this House and its
operation, and it is a legitimate operation,
as a member of this House I appeal to you
to ask the hon. Minister to reconsider and
to extend the courtesy of an answer to a
question that has been asked by the . hon.
member for Sudbury.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would point out to
the Chairman, since the hon. leader of the
Opposition is making a direct appeal to him
in relation to what I would presume to be a
point of order, that I should discuss under
the heading of the vote now before us, vote
302, which is directed solely towards the
operation of the economic council, why I
should not now discuss some other item, and
I am pointing out simply to the Chairman
of the House that there is $150,000 requested
for the operations of the economic council;
there is nothing here in relation to the
subject matter which he now has under dis-
cussion.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Mr.
Chairman, it is a very simple question and
I think it is a related one, too. This is the
first time that I have ever seen, in the
operation of this House over a long period
of years, a responsible Minister of the
Crown elect to set himself up as a czar,
and refuses, because of a swelled head or
something, to answer a very simple little
thing. Now, we have asked him oftentimes.
This is about the fifth time that we have
asked this very simple thing, and why he
will not answer it I do not know. It is
nearly time I think that we asked another
question. Who is the hon. Prime Minister
of the province, the hon. Minister of Eco-
nomics and Development or the man at the
other side of him?
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): Mr.
Chairman, the hon. Minister, I submit to
you, sir, has relied upon a technicality in
withholding information which we are try-
ing Jto obtain. He suggested earlier that if
we could show any place in these estimates
MARCH 15, 1962
1137
where there is anything for the advisory
council, or in the public accounts, that it
would be a different matter. I suggest to
him that it is just as reasonable for us to
use a technicality to prove that there is
something in these estimates, and I refer
to the matter of postage and stationery, if
you will. Surely this group must have been
contacted at one time or another by the
government, either in that form or by tele-
phone. I am sure that this would not have
been made without— now, I submit, Mr.
Chairman, that of course this is a techni-
cality and it is almost silly, but I submit
to you, sir, that it is no more ridiculous
than the reasons that are being given to
the Opposition for not giving us this in-
formation.
I wonder if I might frame the question
in another way. I wonder if the hon. Min-
ister would tell us how the responsibilities
which are to be given to the economic coun-
cil differ from those of the previous econo-
mic advisory council.
Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is the pre-
rogative of hon. Ministers to answer or to
refuse to answer. It appears at this time
he is refusing to answer, and I suggest to
you, sir,, that in so doing he is leaving us
with nothing but suspicion; and in refusing
to answer I submit that it is evidence of
responsibility and that he is not able to
answer. If he does not answer there is only
one prerogative left and that is to vote
against the estimates. 1 ;•.:■;
Hon,. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
^ir. Chairman, may I have a word for a
minute? I have never spoken on this vote
at -all.,-.--.;. .J. ^ -■■:.
Mr. ip; C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman,, , this afternoon one of the hon.
members on this side of the House made
a crack at. the hon. Minister, that the only
thing he failed to do was to take the right
Dale parnegie courSe, and I think he has
proven ttie validity of this. All the hon.
Minister had to do was explain this. That
committee has now been superseded by
another broader one in the development
of his programme. It was a simple thing
to say so, but the hon. Minister on occa-
sion gets nasty and petty and peevish. I
think h^ has brought the whole trouble on
himself.
Mr. Qbairman, I move, seconded by Mr,
Thomas: that in view of the hon. Minister's
refusal to answer a reasonable question
related- to vote 302, the said vote be re-
duced to $1.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the
motion will please say "Aye."
All those opposed say "Nay.**
In my opinion, the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
Those in favour will please rise.
Those opposed please rise.
I declare the motion lost.
Vote 302 agreed to.
On vote 303:
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to direct a question to the hon. Minis-
ter which I think applies also to vote 304,
so perhaps I can put the question in rela-
tion to both votes. I would judge that the
economics branch and the economics statis-
tics branch are the two principal research
branches within the department. If I am
correct in that assumption, I would like to
ask the hon. Minister how many qualified
economists and statisticians are employed
in those two branches.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Which branch?
Mr. Bryden: We are on vote 303, and I
was making my question applicable also to
vote 304.
Hon, Mr. Macaulay: We will come to
vote 304 when we do. There are 20 in
relation to Aote 303.
Mr; Bryden: Twenty economists!
Hon, Mr. Macaulay: On 303 and 304.
Mr. Bryden: In relation to the two of
them?
Hon, Mr. Macaulay: Yes!
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask the hon. Minister a question.
The studies that were made by the former
Department of Commerce and Development,
I presume, will apply; or will these reports
made by tlie economic development commit-
tee on forestry, on agriculture, on transporta-
tion, on tourism and all tbe investigations
made in those reports now be thrown
out the window? It is no wonder that like
that other soldier of classical times, the
former^ Ibon. Minister of Commerce and
i5evelopment (Mr. Nickle) apparently is sulk-
ing in his tent, because he is not here.
Ais the honv member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) Said this afternoon, it was **pot-
pourri"; and somebody else said window
1138
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
dressinjj. I think probably with the close
approach of Sf. Patrick's day, ope might call
it an Irish stew..
Seriously, sir^ if hon. members look at- it,
I suggest they could save a lot of money in
this department by buying a subscription to
the Monetarn Timesl It has all sorts of
material about northern and northwestern
Ontario and northeastern Ontario and research
committees from that Department of Com-
merce and Development have gone up there.
They sat at the head of the lakes, they sat
at North Bay, at Timmins. All that informa-
tion, apparently is not wanted at all by this
particular hon. Minister.
Professor McDougall has already conducted
a survey of the Ontario Northland Railway in
regard to the transportation. He was directed
by the former hon. Prime Minister of this
province (Mr. Frost) to do it. I cannot see
how much more the hon. Minister is going to
get from this present investigation.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Hon. members
opposite would not do anything anyway.
Mr. Troy: It is better to do nothing than to
do something the wrong way. Are these
investigations of any use to the hon. Minister's
department? If he has not got them, I can
send them over.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay^ Thanks! Do that!
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, recently,
the special economic survey of the Lake
Ontario region was released and distributed to
the hon. members. I understand it was the
fifth in a series of 10 regional reports by the
province of Ontario. I wonder if the hon.
Minister would tell us when the remaining
five surveys might be completed.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The report to which
the hon. member refers is actually under vote
304, but I will answer it here if he will
repeat the question. I am sorry, I did not
hear what the question was.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, my
question related to the studies and the surveys
which have been concluded by The Depart-
ment of Economics dealing with the economic
sutveys in the various regions of tiie 10 areas
into which Ontario was broken into for this
particular purpose. . My question is: when will
the remaining five surveys be completed an^
when will they be published? • ' '
•Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say to the hon.
member that they are done as quickly as we
can do, tliem. We have done five or six of
them 'now and there are a number yet to
complete. A number of them are undoir study
at the moment and our anticipation is that we
will produce one every nine to 12; months.
They are quite detailed. They take a great
de^l of time, and I should think that would
be about the programme.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chainpan, I
wonder if the hon. Minister would tell me: is
thcr^ not a problem when they are so far
apart, does it not follow with some logic that,
by the time the entke survey is completed,
the original report is somewhat obsolete?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, each report would
be up to date. All reports are not analogous,
or commencing from the same starting point,
but each report itself is up to date when it
comes out.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, it seems to' me
that they do not tie into the overall pro-
gramme. My understanding was that for the
purposes of producing the information,
Ontario was broken into these ten regions.
Now I suggest that if it takes this long, by
the time these reports are ready, the original
ones are of little significance in the overall
picture. That is what I am suggesting.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, I would say
this to the hon. member that the : Deputy
Minister advised me that, instead of nine
months, it is about six months. These reports
are published about every six months. After
the reports have been published, the up-to-
date information in connection with each one
of them is sent out to the various regions.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I have one other ques-
tion and I presume it would come under
these estimates, Mr. Chairman. It deals with
the matter of co-operation with the univer-
sities in the matter of the entire economic
picture. It so happened that recently a report
came to my desk dealing with an area under
another jurisdiction where they nlake full
use of the universities with respect to the
compiling of information, research and what-
have-you.
J wonder, how much does this department
co-operate with-, the various universities?
Are we . getting the maximum frorh the uni-
versities that are growing in our province
and are available?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: 1 think so, yes.'
: Mr. R. G. Edwards: To what extent do we
co-:operate? In what way do we co-operate
with the universities? ■ ;
MARCH 15, 1962
1139
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, for example, just
one that I can think of: the preparation of the
submissions to the Royal commission on
banking and finance. We have had five or
six meetings with two or three of the profes-
sors—one from McMaster, one from Queen's
and one from Toronto— and we have plotted
out the programme that we contemplate
would be wise to represent in our submis-
sion, and we have allotted to each one of
oiurselves the various areas and the comments
after a number of meetings. This takes place
in relation to a number of the studies that
we are undertaking. This is true in relation
to Professor Bladen and a number of others.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Dovercourt): Could
I ask if the hon. Minister is using— I am think-
ing of university staffs during their holidays—
if he is giving grants for special studies by
these experienced men who would not want
to be full time on the government? Is he
using, for example, various departments of
economics in the province?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, our obligation,
sir, is to prepare the material which we need,
rather than to fill the summer holidays of
anyone else. Now if our obligation meets
the summer holiday requirement of these
people then we join these forces together.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I appreciate the hon.
Minister is interested in the summer holiday—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: In fact we take on in
the summer, in the neighbourhood-
Mr. Thompson: Whom does the hon. Min-
ister take on in the summer?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We take on about 10
economists in the summer.
Mr. Thompson: I had a further question
here. I noticed in the 1960-1961 Department
of Economics, public account, report— I pre-
sume that The Department of Economics is
now the economics branch; am I correct in
that?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, there is no— it is
a very difficult thing to place actually. Just
suppose any specific vote in the estimates of
this department is in relation to the depart-
ment which existed before. We have tried to
streamline this, reduce our staff and change
some of the functions. So it is very difficult,
there is a considerable overlap.
Mr. Thompson: Well, could I ask the hon.
Minister this? In the estimates of 1960-1961,
under The Department of Economics, there
were fees and expenses for special studies in
research, and the names under this were
D. C. McGregor, Mercer, Shepherd. They do
not seem to be in these estimates. Is that
because their studies are finished or are they
being continued under another department?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would be happy to
look up that information for the hon. member
and send it to him.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, I would ask the hon. Minister: has
the department taken any study as to the
amount of printing that is done outside the
province of Ontario? I specifically refer to
supplements of the various magazines or
newspapers— likewise the various containers.
I can recall popsicles, ice cream phosphates
and various other types of containers similar
to that. I understand they are printed in the
United States and then imported into Canada.
Is there any study taken concerning that?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: In relation to the
amount of printing which is done generally
outside this province, I can say to the hon.
member who asked the question, there is, as
he knows, a great deal of refining of the
pulp and paper industry in this province, and
the export and the buying back. This is one
of the items in the fabrication gap that we
are hoping to help close.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I have
wondered for some time whether the hon.
Minister has determined the purpose and
operation, if you will, of this particular
branch in the overall department. Now here-
tofore it was a separate department.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I think it would be
easiest, perhaps, if I referred the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) to these
notes that I have. The duties of this partic-
ular branch, as opposed to several others—
and they come quite close to one another,
I acknowledge— but it has a number, and
the first is that it undertakes research and
studies on the Ontario and Canadian
economics, such as manufacturing, capital
investments, population, employment, trade
relations, economic problems of individual in-
dustries and localities.
Second, its purpose is to maintain a con-
tinuing review of economic trends and condi-
tions and prepare monthly reviews of
economic trends,
Yesterday, if the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion will recall, there was distributed to him
a review of economic trends, which is a bi-
monthly review of economic trends. It has
1140
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
had up to now a very limited circulation but
I have asked that it be circulated to the hon.
members of the House.
It is really a very worthwhile document. I
think the hon. member will obtain a great
deal of value from it. I would say to the
hon. leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chair-
man, as in anything that relates to the
temperature of a patient, or the ups and
downs of an economy, it may have some good
news and some bad news, but I think hon.
members are entitled to get both. So I have
asked that this be distributed. It is very well
written and I think the hon. members will
obtain a great deal from it.
Third, it provides a secretariat for the spe-
cial commissions or committees such as the
committee on portable pensions, the Ontario
fluoridation investigation committee, and so
on. Its fourth responsibility is to prepare the
Minister's economic statement— which, in-
cidentally, although it may seem long and
tedious and full of charts, and so on, is a
very diflBcult document to prepare. It takes
a great deal of time and, frankly, is worth
some study. It helps to prepare material for
the province's submission to the Royal com-
missions, a number of which I have men-
tioned this afternoon.
And last, the branch prepares memoranda
on specific problems, information on specific
problems as they may develop. This is how
we have tried to break down the responsi-
bilities of the economics branch.
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is exactly the
information that I sought, and I would say
very frankly I think this is a commend-
able thing that more information of this sort
be-
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: May I just say this
to my hon. friend, who I know has a great
interest in all these economic publications:
we have a large number, a number of which
we will be releasing to the House or to the
hon. members very soon. My purpose in the
coming year, in addition to the other things
that I have said, is to keep hon. members as
well advised as I possibly can, because I
think, regardless of how partisan people may
be in this House, a well-informed member
of this House is a very good representative
of the province.
An hon. member: That is a good idea.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, could the
hon. Minister tell me if a study has been
made of the fiscal relation between govern-
ments?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, and this relates
to a vote somewhat further on.
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry that I did not
hear you.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This relates to a vote
somewhat further on.
Votes 303 to 305, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 306—1 would like to
ask the hon. Minister if he is going to debate
vote 306 and vote 312 at the same time?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, both together.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask
a question on vote 305.
An hon. member: It is too late.
Another hon. member: No, it is not too late.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 305:
Mr. Sopha: I wanted merely to ask the
hon. Minister what the organization in vote
305— finance and administration branch— does?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I think, unlike my
hon. friend who handles the language with
such facility, that it is easier perhaps if I
read to him the four specific assignments
which we arranged some weeks after these
two departments were organized:
(1) To undertake financial research into
questions of interest to the government, the
department and other government depart-
ments; (2) To maintain a continuing review
of the bond market, interest rates, ex-
change rates, etc., in Canada and the
United States, United Kingdom and else-
where; (3) To provide administrative serv-
ices for the department; and (4) To
undertake any specific tasks which were
assigned to it by any one of the depart-
ments.
Mr. Sopha: I thank the hon. Minister for
that very comprehensive answer. Now that
he and I have established rapport perhaps
he will tell me what happened to the
economic advisory council?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, as a matter of
fact, I want frankly to say to the hon. mem-
ber, in tliat it is he who has asked me, that
it is still where it was.
Interjections by hon members.
Ms:.* Chairman: Order.
MARCH 15, 1962
1141
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I assume, sir,
that we are dealing with 306 and 312 as
one item.
An hon. member: We are on 305.
Mr. Bryden: Are we still on 305? Do you
want to deal with 305?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, I do not suppose
I will get any further, Mr. Chairman, but I
wanted, if I could, to pursue this just a little.
Does this financial and administrative branch
—I understand that it inquires into economic
financial policy and I refer back to the publi-
cation I referred to earlier in the day. Does
this department make any economic forecasts
into the future— in other words, the affairs
of this province, say, five years from now?
Do they do any work along this line?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say to my
hon. friend, who has asked a most proper
question, the basic purpose of the finance and
administration branch is to look after the
administration of the department. That is to
say, pay, personnel and so forth. In addition
to that it undertakes specific studies that may
be given to it either by the Minister, or
through the Minister by other departments.
Mr. Thompson: I think one of the questions
that is in our minds is about the so-called
secret report to the federal government—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I assure the hon.
member that we have no secret reports what-
soever. In addition to the things which have
been mentioned, that the finance and admin-
istration branch carries out, is an analysis
of enrolment staff and financial position of
each of the 13 universities receiving provincial
grants, undertaken on behalf of the university
affairs committee. There are a number of
other studies, we have a number of them
here, but our job is as a central clearing
house for research; our job is to do these
things which are asked of us by the depart-
ments.
Mr. Thompson: I apologize that I am not
sure, in view of the many departments that
the hon. Minister heads, under which I
should ask this question. Surely he has some
kind of a forecast of the economy each year
on which he gauges his budget? Does his
department provide this forecast?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: What kind of a fore-
cast?
Mr. Thompson: An economic forecast on
which the hon. Minister decides how he can
make his policies each year.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I just made reference
to this in terms of the booklet which I handed
out to hon. members yesterday. Did the hon.
member read it?
Mr. Thompson: No, I have not had a
chance yet.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I think when he has
read that he will realize that answers the
question.
Mr. Thompson: That is the forecast?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes. Well, it is the
question the hon. member has asked.
Mr. Thompson: I want to know about the
forecast. •- ■-"
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I am not sure what
the hon. member expects.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, we
have been very busy since this book arrived,
but I would say that I have looked through
it and—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member
does not have it open at the moment.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: —and I do not see
too much of an analysis with respect to the
economic and financial conditions and trends.
Is this of the province or the government?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Is this the book the
hon. member has? Would he hold the book
up so I can see that he is reading from it?
Interjections by hon members.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: First of all, I did not
tell the hon. Minister I was reading from the
book but I do have it.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member
asked this same question under another head-
ing and I did my very best to answer him
then.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, the
question I am specifically asking now is
with respect to the function of the depart-
ment as set out by his own Deputy Minister.
One function, section (a) is the econo-
mic—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It was not set out
by the Deputy Minister, I decided what it
would be and I told the hon. member how
it has been settled.
1142
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
,.Mx, R. C. Edwards; Mr. Chairman, he
has not told me, because I have not asked
the question yet. I do not know how he
could tell me before I have asked the ques-
tion.
The question 1 ask is this: the book that
I have in front of me states that one of
the functions of the department is to ana-
lyze and advise upon, and make recommenda-
tions on matters pertaining to economic
and financial conditions and trends. My
question to the hon. Minister is: Is this re-
ferring to trends in the province or trends of
the government?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This relates to trends
—I mean the fact that the hon. member
would ask about trends in the department
simply is so ridiculous as to be beyond
words— but it relates, if he will just sit
down; can he?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Or was his stamping
an indication that he has something to get
rid of other than in here?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say to the
hon. member, I spent an hour and half in
this House and distributed an economic
statement of this province relating to the
last year and the forecast for the present,
and here it is. Has he read it? Was he
here when that was presented?
The point is that this economic state-
ment answers the two questions he has
asked.
Are these economic trends from the de-
partment? No, they are in relation to the
provincial economy and they are set out
in my economic statement.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister has said that the word "trends"
was completely irresponsible and that it
should not be talked about in this debate.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I did not say at
any time that "trends'* was irresponsible or
make any reference to it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I
have nothing to get rid of that I am not
going to get rid of right here. The hon.
Minister has inferred to me that the trends
he spoke of are the trends of the economic
situation in the province generally. I wonder
if I am correct that far. Would the hon.
Minister assure me?
Now 1 do not find that compatible with
the other functions as set out in this report.
This speaks of economic and fiscal policy,
fiscal relations between governments and
any other matter referred by the Lieutenant-
Governor in Council. It goes on to say that
one of the most important functions of the
department is a continuing review carried
out with respect to tax-sharing arrangements
and the various sources of revenue and
expenditure.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is because my
hon. friend is on the wrong vote. Which
vote is he talking about?
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I am talking about
the statistics.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, we are not.
This is not tlie vote now before the House.
Mr. R. Cc Edwards: Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We are dealing with
vote 305, financial administration.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Is that not the vote
with which we are dealing?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I do not know, the
hon. member is the one-
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I thought we were
dealing with financial administration and I
thought this was financial administration.
The hon. Minister advises me I am not
speaking on the right vote. What vote
would this subject that I am talking about
come under?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is a very difii-
cult thing to say.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: It is all very well to
be sarcastic, but I would remind the hon.
Minister that I am getting my information
from the document which came out of his
department.
Surely, somewhere in these estimates,
there should be an opportunity to question
the functions of the department as out-
lined in the hon. Minister's own publica-
tion. I raised this under the very first vote.
He did not answer me at that time and I
assumed that it was proper to raise it under
financial administration. Now if the hon.
Minister is not going to answer me and he
is going to lean on the technicality that this
is not the proper vote, I ask him what the
proper vote is so that one year from now
I will at least be on the right vote when I
wish to ask a question and he will not be
MARCH 15, 1962
1143
able to use that as a technicality. Now
surely that is a reasonable question.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I do not know, my
hon. friend. I would not for a moment want to
withhold any information which he would
ask for rightly, but I would think even my
obligation to answer them when he has, as he
has, impolitely asked for them— but if the hon.
member would tell me what question it is
that he has to ask, I will do my best to
obtain the information for him, if he can
put it succinctly, without a lot of sarcasm,
and get down to the point.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I won-
der if the hon. Minister would consider that
it would not be sarcastic of me if I were to
send him the booklet that I have in front of
me published by his department, and re-
ferring particularly to page 24. I have the
items marked and underlined. I wonder if
he would look at it and tell me what portion
of his estimates will relate to the information
as contained on that page. If he would do
that, I would be pleased to bring this stuff
under the correct vote.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: If the hon. member
mails it to me, I would be happy to look at it.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I would be pleased to
send it over with a page-boy at this time; and
I would think that it would be courtesy on
the part of tlie hon. Minister to give me the
information at this time so that we can deal
with it under his estimates.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: If the hon, member
will send it over, I will look at it.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Chairman, might
I ask what vote we are on?
Mr. Chairman: Vote 305.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I object
to it being carried until I get an answer,
because then we will use the technicality
that-
Mr. Chairman: Send the book over then,
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say to the
hon. member that he has underlined a con-
siderable number of portions of this page, all
of which relate to the operations of the
department, and if he would be kind enough
to give me the specific questions that are
concerning him, I would be happy to send
him the answers.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr, Chairman,
I would suggest to the hon. Minister that
the questions are on record, and I wonder if
he would undertake to send me the answers.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, if the hon. mem-
ber thinks that they are on record, I will
send them to him.
Vote 305 agreed to.
On vote 306:
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have some
comments I would like to make with regard
to vote 306 and the related vote of 312, both
of which relate to the housing branch. It
would appear from announcements made to
us during the past few weeks that this gov-
ernment is the most studious government in
the history of British parliamentary institu-
tions. Everything under the sun is under
study; nothing whatever is under way, or
practically nothing, and this is nowhere better
demonstrated than in relation to the govern-
ment's housing programme. ;
We have had a number of announcements
of this programme. I will give the govern-
ment credit for this; they have learned the
technique of the old master, who used to lead
the government over there, of getting every
conceivable drop of publicity out of even the
driest sponge. They announce the same
thing over and over and over again, and that
is what they have been doing with housing.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member has
been reading Mr. O'Heam's column.
Mr. Bryden: Well, it is very useful read-
ing. I did not particularly read that one, but
if Mr. O'Heam was the first one to call atten-
tion to this then I will give him full credit
for his perspicacity.
I will refer to. one of the announcements
only; the one that was the most compre-
hensive and possibly even the most authorita-
tive since it came from the hon. Prime
Minister. That was his announcement in this
House before the orders of the day, on Febru-
ary 23, of a so-called 12-point housing pro-
gramme, which he declared to be "a new,
broader and bolder approach to public hous-
ing," Three of the points were matters which
the government was discussing with the fed-
eral government with no indication of action
on any of them. As to the rest, they were
mainly matters that were under study. There
is one, item No, 4, I think, on which a certain
amount of minimum action is being taken. We
find, however, that in item No. 5, the govern-
ment is planning "to explore what can be
done" to encourage preventive maintenance
of housing. In No, 6 we are told that "studies
1144
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
will be carried out" with regard to the pro-
vision of assistance to individuals and muni-
cipalities in acquiring borderline housing
units.
Item No. 7 declares that "there are nu-
merous possibilities under study" with regard
to limited dividend housing. Item No. 8: "We
are studying a plan to assist by guaranteeing
loans for interim financing," etc. Item No. 9
deals with "studies to be undertaken." Item
No. 10 now puts the whole thing in one pot;
it says we are going to set up "a permanent
housing advisory committee." So we are
studying everything under the sun and then
we are setting somebody up to study us. I
take it that is the significance of this.
The 11th point is diflFerent, Mr. Chairman,
and I hope the House will distinguish the
subtle distinction. It provides that grants will
be provided so that people can study the
question. Finally, item No. 12 is in much
the same category, although I think a little
more practical. It is one that I would almost
put under the category of action. The gov-
ernment is going to co-operate with CHMC
in encouraging research into improved build-
ing methods, which I think is a very necessary
and important item.
However, out of the 12 items in this so-
called new housing programme, at least 10
indicate merely various types of study that
the government is undertaking. Then, just
in case any of us missed the point, the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) stated in his
conclusion that "it is obvious that we cannot
leap into many of the matters that I have
mentioned here, without further study."
So we will conclude that the government
is engaged in some study of the housing pro-
gramme and the very serious and acute prob-
lem of providing public housing for the very
substantial portion of families who really
cannot afford private housing.
One asks the question as to what the
government has been doing since 1943, that
all these urgent matters are now for the first
time being studied and the government can-
not leap into action on any of them because
it still has to study. It would appear, Mr.
Chairman, that in this particular area the new
administration is doing exactly what the old
administration used to do, and even the older
one before that.
One of the controllers of the city of
Toronto, who at one time sat in this House,
stated, a good many years ago, that in this
province we have housing by headline. I
think it was a very apt statement at the time
he made it, and it is a very apt statement
now. We never get any housing, we merely
get a lot of announcements that catch head-
lines as to what the government is thinking
of doing. I would guess that anyone who
checks back through the records would find
that every year the government made an
announcement of a bold new approach to the
problem of housing and once again we have
an announcement of a bold new approach.
Actually, it is hard to see what is so bold
about it. As I have mentioned before, the
amount of money that is to be appropriated
for this bold new housing programme— if we
take both the vote for current expenditure,
vote 306, and the vote for capital disburse-
ments, vote 312— if we add the two we come
to a grand total of $6,667,000. This is ap-
proximately the amount of money that this
House has voted to the government for hous-
ing every year for as long as anybody can
remember. It is perfectly true that in the
past the government never spent the money
that was voted to it, pitiful as that amount
of money was.
It is possible that this year they plan to
spend it; I do. not know. That would make a
slight improvement. I would still suggest,
Mr. Chairman, it is a picayune amount when
one considers the very urgent need which
continues to exist in this province, as far as
housing facilities for at least a third of the
population is concerned at the lower end of
the income scale.
The hon. Minister seems to be somewhat
self-conscious on this matter because, in the
statement he made on Tuesday in introducing
the estimates of the department, he said at
page ten of that statement: "The dollar value
of the programme is not nearly as important
at this stage as the prospects which it holds
for the public."
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that pros-
pects make very poor shelter against the
weather. It really is time, after nearly 20
years of Tory administration in this province,
that the people had something more than
prospects as far as houses are concerned.
The one item which seems to be of some
practical significance, and with which the
government is making some attempt to pro-
ceed at the present time, is the so-called rent
certificate scheme. For this particular scheme
they are appropriating the tremendous sum
of $50,000 so that one can expect a
tremendous dent is going to be made in the
backlog of housing demands and housing
needs with that particular item. The govern-
ment frankly says that it is an experimental
project.
I would suggest that it is an experiment
that should be watched very carefully because
MARCH 15, 1962
1145
I think there is a serious danger that it will
in fafet be much less of a means of providing
low rental housing to families that need it
and much more of a method of protecting
landlords from the normal economic force.
There is now a surplus of high priced hous-
ing accommodation in this city. The city is
overbuilt to a considerable degree in the
rental area of $125, $150 a month and so on.
We are grossly short of housing that low
income families can afford. And here is a
plan whereby the government, or the city of
Toronto with the assistance of the govern-
ment, is going to take oflF the market some of
these vacant units, pay the landlord the rent
that he was not able to charge for the apart-
ment, and then subsidize the landlord by
charging the tenant somewhat less than the
price the landlord was asking.
I suggest that it might be better if this
government, which always claims that it be-
lieves in free competition— although I must
say that there has been very little evidence in
its actions that it ever believed in that— let
the force of competition operate. Maybe some
of these rents would come down by them-
selves, especially if we changed the law by
removing that provision in The Assessment
Act which now permits landlords who have a
certain vacancy rate to get a reduction in
their taxes on account of the vacancies.
The situation we are now in is that land-
lords are on the one hand making provision
for vacancies in the rent they charge, and
then they get provision for vacancy made
again in a reduction of taxes. Now the
government is giving them a third bulwark,
it is introducing a plan that will help to main-
tain their rents at the uneconomic level at
which they are now being set.
I am prepared to see what happens with
this experiment, but I think we should be
very much aware of the pitfalls that are
inherent in it. I think very careful attention
should be paid to make sure that the plan
does not essentially become a scheme for the
protection of landlords rather than for the
benefit of low income families.
Whether my fears with regard to this plan
are justified or not, I would suggest that that
particular item is a pretty picayune affair
when one considers that, apart from study, it
is pretty well the sum total of the new
broader and bolder approach to public hous-
ing to which the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) made reference in his statement of
February 23.
I was appalled to read, Mr. Chairman, in
the hon. Provincial Treasurer's (Mr. Allan's)
budget statement, that the province last year,
or during the fiscal year which is now coming
to an end, will spend only $2 million, as far
as capital budget is concerned, for housing in
this province. The amount that we voted last
year for capital was, I think—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Might I draw the
hon. member's attention to the fact that it
is not in the year that is just coming to an
end: I think the booklet that he has ends in
1961, does it not?
Mr. Bryden: This is on the top of page
27 of the hon. Provincial Treasurer's budget.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I am sorry, I thought
the hon. member was reading from the—
Mr. Bryden: Well, it really does not matter
because it was the sanie last year too, and
the year before, and the year before that.
Always we have voted some such stmi as
$5.6 million for capital purposes for housing,
and always the expenditure turned out to be
a million and a half or two million dollars.
Never was the money spent, even though the
original vote was totally inadequate.
My submission, Mr. Chairman, is that the
kind of statement the hon. Prime Minister
has made, and which has been repeated in
condensed form both by the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer and the hon. Minister in
the introduction of his estimates, does not
indicate any serious intention to tackle the
housing problem. There are one or two
minor little devices which are being under-
taken or considered that might improve the
situation, but basically the problem of public
housing is still not being approached.
The most one can say is that once again,
for at least the last 15 years, the newspapers
have risen to the bait and produced scream-
ing headlines to the effect that something
will be done about housing.
Now, I have the greatest of respect for all
the newspapers and the newspaper men in
this province, but I really do think it is
time they wised up to this housing situation.
They have fallen for this line every year for
as long as I can remember, and I think it
would be useful if they would actually
analyze what has gone on and what is now
contemplated and publish the true facts
which are that we still do not have anything
approaching an adequate housing programme.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): Mr.
Chairman, unlike the hon. member for Wood-
bine, I would like to sincerely commend the
government for this bold new plan of housing,
1146
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
especially the rental certificate plan that has
been announced by the hon. Prime Minister.
Now, I must admit that perhaps I have
not studied the announcement to the extent
that I should have, but there are one or two
aspects of it that rather puzzle me. First of
all, as a member in this House for an area
of the city of Toronto— in which this plan,
I think, could be put immediatdy to work-
am I to assume that this rental certificate
plan must work through a municipal housing
authority scheme? Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say to the
hon. member who asked the question, that
this is a pilot scheme and we are going to
try it out for the first 12 months in Metro-
politan Toronto and it will work through
Metro Toronto housing.
Mr. Lawrence: This was the point I was
confused by. Is it going to work through
the Toronto Housing Authority or the Metro-
politan Toronto Housing Authority?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The Metropolitan.
Mr. Lawrence. Metropolitan. That is
what I was asking, I thank the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I think I might say
just while I have the opportunity, that while
the hon. member for Woodbine has made
much fim of this housing programme, I think
it is worthwhile noting that under this rent
certificate scheme alone, in four months we
are going to put in occupation a number of
families almost equal to the number that
Saskatchewan has put into occupation in 18
years.
I thought that since the hon. member for
Woodbine has been so attentive to the in-
adequacies of our programme, he might be
interested in knowing that in the province
of Ontario we have one of these public
housing units to about every 1,000 people
in the province. In Saskatchewan they have
one to 3,600. In fact, the total programme
of Saskatchewan is 264 units, the total of all
of Canada other than Ontario is 3,434, and
Ontario's is 5,766.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, if the hon. Minister
is proud of that—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Now, just a moment—
the hon. member was the one who objected
when he had the floor and asked me not
to make my speech during his; was that
right? The hon. member has not even the
manners to get up, he just lies there and
makes his speeches.
Basically speaking, I think you have to
look at these things in their relationship to
one another. The hon. member has said that
we have had in the budget $5 milhon or $6
million and we have voted $5 million or $6
million and have only spent $2.5 million.
I want to say to the hon. member, so
that he understands, this has been so recently
because there have not been the programmes
coming forth from the municipaUties in
relation to it. I want, however, to assure
the hon. member of this, that we now have
in hand a number of projects equal to, if
not exceeding— but at least equal to in our
anticipation— the number of dollars that we
are asking this House to vote, and we have
every reason to expect that we will live up
dollar for dollar to the amount that we are
asking the House to give us.
But I want to tell you something else,
that the hon. member made much fun of us
about the fact that we have had 20 years
of Tory administration, and that we have
made no dent in the housing problem. I
can only say, as I have said, that we have
made this dent, that we have one unit
for every 1,000 people, whereas as opposed
to Saskatchewan one unit for every 3,600;
and furthennore, that in four months with
this rental certificate scheme, we anticipate
in this province we will put into occupation
almost the same number of families that
Saskatchewan took 18 years to put in.
The hon. member and his party talk about
people being doctrinaire. It seems to me that
there is time, and this is tlie time, to have a
fresh look. Hon. members opposite have
made a lot of fun, all of them, they have
made a great deal of fun about these studies.
Now, I am not worried about the sympa-
thetic understanding. I am close; my borders
are contiguous— I will spell it, I will send
the hon. member a note— my borders are
contiguous to the hon. member's, and as far
as I am concerned, I put this to him. The
hon. member is talking in terms of housing
in the most doctrinaire fashion. He has the
concept that unless you spend millions of
dollars you have accomplished nothing. One
of the greatest things that can be done in
terms of housing is to slow up the dilapidation
of areas, to slow up the areas which will
otlierwise become very expensive redevelop-
ment areas, to pick into the areas of buying
or leasing houses which stop a general blight
in an area.
Mr. MacDonald: Hear, hear.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member
has no interest in it at all. Unless there are
millions of dollars spent— now let me just
MARCH 15, 1962
1147
give a concrete example. We are putting
in 200 people by rent certificates— this is a
new idea and it has never been tried any-
where in the world— we are putting 200
people, 200 families in four months into
occupation to try this out in a pilot plan. To
do this same programme in low cost housing
units would have cost $3 million. The subsidy
in terms of this rental will be about $20 a
month, and do you know, in the city of
Toronto at the moment, the subsidy, even
without spending the capital amount, is be-
tween $38 and $42? This is a new approach
that the hon. members are making fun of
simply because they are doctrinaire and do
not understand these conditions.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Chairman, I
listened to the hon. member for Woodbine
(Mr. Bryden) talk a little while ago about
the lack of housing in this province and how
little this government had done about housing.
I wonder if he has the latest copy of the
Review of Economic Trends in Ontario for
February and March of this year. Now, will
he please open it, if he has it, at page 9,
and read what is going on in Ontario as far
as housing is concerned, in addition to what
the hon. Minister has mentioned. I will read
it for him if he has not got the economic
survey on his desk. I quote:
New residential construction continued
strongly into the new year with January
starts 11.2 per cent higher than in January
1961. Completions 18 per cent higher,
and units under construction by the end of
the month, 22.2 per cent higher and close
to half the national total.
How do hon. members like that? And
they say this government has done nothing
for housing.
If I were the hon. member for Woodbine I
would go down and confine myself a little
more often in the Don Jail. He will learn
something about housing there and be able
to tell us about it; he seems very interested
in the Don institution.
I am amazed at all this talk decrying this
new scheme that our able young hon. Min-
ister, who is bringing new thoughts to this
province— and this government— is trying to
do, and I think it ill behooves hon. members
to try and tear down the things that he is
endeavouring to build up to make this prov-
ince more prosperous.
In my area I think they would be amazed
if they heard the hon. member say that he
was withholding information. All the papers,
radio and television have been full, over the
past two or three weeks, of what his depart-
ment is endeavouring to do. We have one
of the best known and finest economists in
this province as the Deputy Minister of this
department, in the person of Mr. Gathercole.
I think even hon. members of the Opposition
must admit that. They have a young hon.
Minister who has got the drive and the
energy and the—
An hon. member: Baloney!
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I will say that the
hon. member can get deficiency payments on
his baloney if he wishes.
But he is a man that is trying to do some-
thing to promote the economy of the prov-
ince. Now, up in my area this department
has been most favourably accepted, by all
parts of northwestern Ontario. We have a
man who has been chosen there as head of
the economic council for the area; who is
one of our greatest industrialists, one of our
most travelled men. Many hon. members
know him, Mr. Clark* He has gathered
around him, in that area, our best brains
and our best industrialists, and they are-
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort William): Who are
they?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: The hon. member
knows some of them. He knows Mr.
Andrews, he knows Mr. Patterson; and all
the rest of them up there. He should get
in with them, the hon. member for Fort
William (Mr. Chappie), and do something up
there for his area to make it grow and
prosper.
Now the hon. member decries the develop-
ment fund for the north. The hon. Minister
mentioned the development fund for the
north. Our people are looking forward with
great anticipation-
Mr. MacDonald: What estimate is this
on?
An hon. member: What vote is this on?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Why does the hon.
member have to fall back on noise and
criticism— to try to stop us talking over here,
and alerting the people of this province to the
improvements we are trying to build up?
The development fund for the north has
caused a great deal of interest-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: On a question of order,
Mr. Chairman. A question of order, Mr.
Chairman!
1148
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman, we were discussing the esti-
mate dealing with housing. Is it appropriate
to go back to the northern development
fund which has been considered and voted
on repeatedly in earlier votes?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
A little bit of stifling from the other side.
Mr. MacDonaldt We had it from the hon.
members opposite all the time. Let us keep
it in order. The hon. Minister has been
trying all evening to keep on the right
estimates.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Hon. members
opposite love to hang on any crutch they
can get. They do not like to hear of im-
provements we are making. They cannot
take it.
I was mentioning the enthusiasm that the
economic council has sparked in housing
and other things in the nortfi, and I do
think it ill behooves our Opposition to try
and decry this department. Many things
have already developed due to this econo-
mic council and the hon. member for Fort
William (Mr. Chappie) will notice it very
soon in that area. One of the most startling
things to me, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that
we may have diamond discoveries in this
country.
Mr. Reaume: That is what the hon. Min-
ister has been saying for years.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I have never men-
tioned it before. No, this is a comparatively
new thing, and I would give great credit to
this Department of Economics for seeing that
these things are being uncovered and made
possible. This is an enterprising department
with a group of dedicated, expert men who
are going to do things for this province and
any hon. members in the Opposition-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order!
An hon. member: I have heard of Dia-
mond Jim Brady, now we have Diamond
George Wardrope.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon* Mr. Wardrope: The hon. member's
glasses are fogging up over there. They do
not want to see the sunshine.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Chairman, I am
amazed at the courtesy from the Opposition
benches. I have sat here and tried to get
on my feet hours at a time, and this is tiie
courtesy shown— typical of the hon. members
opposite—
An hon. member: They are rude.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: They are exceed-
ingly rude. I have a better word for it— if
I was not in this House.
But, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say
this, that when the hon. Minister brought
out the figures of Saskatchewan as against
Ontario, and what has been done out there,
it ill behooves the hon. member for Wood-
bine (Mr. Bryden) to get up and decry the
efforts of the whole council.
Now I was checked on talking outside
of one vote but hon. members over there
get all around the whole field and try to
get to the centre and never do. They are
still in the outfield, missing flies. I just
want to say, if they want to earn the obser-
vation of the voters in this province they
will go along with these votes of the eco-
nomic council because, in my opinion and
that of others I have spoken to in this
province, it is one of the greatest forward
steps that has been brought about during
the regime of any government of this prov-
ince.
I think we will see great returns from
it. I know in my area it is exceedingly
popular. I will tell hon. members that many
new natural resources are going to come to
their attention before too long, due in great
part to the efforts of the economic coiuicil,
whose estimates we are voting on tonight.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, when people
get up and talk a lot of foolishness on an-
other vote we are not on, that you sharply
rap-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: Now that the hon. Minister
of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) has provided a
suitable interlude of comic relief, maybe
we can get back to the business, at hand,
which is a vote related to housing, vote 306
and 312.
The hon. Minister of Economics and
Development (Mr. Macaulay), I have
noticed, has always been obsessed with the
province of Saskatchewan. I can understand
this in view of the fact that the develop-
ment of that province under a CCF admin-
istration has certainly been most remarkable;
and I will say, Mr. Chairman, that I will
be very happy to debate the record of the
government of Saskatchewan with the hon.
MARCH 15, 1962
1149
Minister at any suitable time and place he
may care to name. But I believe, sir, that
in this House we should deal with the affairs
of the province of Ontario; and that is what
I was dealing with and that is what I
always wish to deal with, notwithstanding
all the red herrings and diversions that we
get from the benches opposite.
I would suggest, further, Mr. Chairman,
that to compare the province of Saskatch-
ewan and tlie province of Ontario in a
matter of housing is totally irrelevant. To
compare the tremendous congestion we have
in this province with what is still, notwith-
standing considerable industrial diversifica-
ton, a basically agricultural province, is
completely irrelevant. If that is the best
sort of defence the hon. Minister can put
up, it is a very weak defence indeed.
The hon. Minister suggested in his im-
passioned reply to me— I regret that he is
in such an irritable mood tonight, almost
anything gets him mad— and he got very
annoyed indeed because I ventured to criti-
cize the lack of performance of the govern-
ment and its present policy— that lack of
performance in the past was due to the fail-
ure of municipalities to come forward with
suitable plans. That, Mr. Chairman, is cer-
tainly far from the whole truth.
A year and a half ago, five projects that
had been planned by the municipahty of
Metropolitan Toronto and had been ap-
proved for six months, were in a condition
of suspended animation because of the flat
refusal of this government to give the final
okay to go ahead. I will take some credit
for having helped to break that log jam and
at least get those five projects going ahead.
There were only five, and not very big
projects, but the flat refusal of the govern-
ment to act, even when there were legiti-
mate and approved municipal programmes
before them, was a major factor in the past
in preventing or delaying the development
of public housing in the province.
Another factor, and a major and continu-
ing factor, is the doctrinaire attitude of the
federal hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Walker), who is the member of Parliament
for Rosedale constituency, who turns his
face in a determined way against any kind
of public housing and insists in the most
doctrinaire fashion that housing must be
turned over to private developers. That has
been another major stumbling block to the
development of public housing programmes
in this province.
The hon. Minister has developed a pass-
ionate affection for his rent certificate plan.
I can perhaps understand his reactions on
this point, because this really is the only
concrete point in the whole 12-point pro-
gramme. I suppose when one even dares
to question that, one strikes a very sensitive
spot. I would like to remind you, Mr.
Chairman, that I raised certain questions
about it. I said that I was prepared, how-
ever, to watch the results of the experiment
to see what happened. It is quite possible,
I do not deny the possibility, that it may
make a useful contribution; but to suggest
that this is a substitute for urban redevel-
opment and the construction of low-rental
housing units and low-cost housing units, is
sheer nonsense. It may have a small pal-
liative effect, but certainly we still need
important housing developments.
Apparently the hon. Minister considers
that if one advocates the construction of
housing units, one is doctrinaire. I do not
consider that to be doctrinaire at all. It is
the only full solution to the problem and
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that capi-
tal invested in housing units actually adds
little, if anything, to the net debt of the
province, because most of it is recovered over
a period of time in the rentals that come
back. Most of it is, it depends on the
particular form of the scheme and on the
degree to which it is subsidized. And even
our limited experience in Canada with public
housing indicates that there are many other
attendant benefits which probably mean that
there is no net cost at all.
Now the hon. Minister, without any justi-
fication whatsoever, jumped to the conclusion
that I was not prepared to consider measures
designed to slow down the process, reverse
the process, towards urban blight. That is
the most ridiculous proposition, the most
ridiculous straw man, I have ever heard. The
fact of the matter is that it is this govern-
ment that has never been prepared to con-
sider any measures along that line, and they
are now in a situation where they have
considered it so little that they have no pro-
gramme to put forward. They are merely
studying possibilities to see what they might
do, that is according to the hon. Prime
Minister's (Mr. Robarts') own statement.
For years I have suggested that policies
should be adopted to eliminate or reduce
urban blight. But even that is not a substitute
for redevelopment; because in some areas the
blight has proceeded too far. Redevelopment
certainly has to be undertaken. I believe, Mr.
Chairman, that the excited defence by the
hon. Minister of the very little programme
that has been put before us was, by virtue of
1150
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
its very excitement, an indication of the hon.
Minister's own realization of the inadequacy
of his programme.
Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the hon. member would permit a question
before he sits down? I believe it is one
thing to attack an hon. member in this House
who can stand up and defend himself, but
to attack an hon. Minister of the federal
government sitting at Ottawa is a completely
different thing. I wonder if the well-tailored
and vivacious hon. member for Woodbine
(Mr. Bryden) would mind informing the
House just exactly when, where, how and
under what conditions the federal hon. Min-
ister of Public Works, the federal hon. mem-
ber for Rosedale, Mr. Walker, deprecated
and completely threw over any idea or theory
of public housing in Canada.
Mr. Bryden: I did not say he completely
threw it over, but if the hon. member for
St. George (Mr, Lawrence) is not familiar
with the statements that the federal hon.
Minister has made on the subject, I must
s^y that I do not think it is worth taking the
time of the House to enlighten him. As far
as attacks are concerned: I think my attack
on the hon. Minister was a fair attack, but
if it was not a fair attack, I am quite content
to apologize.
I would suggest, however, Mr. Chairman,
that the complaint about it comes very
strangely from an hon. member who sits in
this House and went out of the House to
deliver on myself a totally unfounded and
unwarranted attack based on nothing but
lies. I think that his suggestion that my critic-
ism of the federal hon. Minister is inap-
propriate comes very poorly from him.
Mr. J. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
I listened with interest when the hon. Min-
ister told us that they were now going to
provide for 200 families, that they had the
units. That suddenly, after 20 years, they
could find room for 200 families. When
hon. members consider that the two housing
authorities here in the city have a waiting-
list of 12,000 families, they can see that the
government has been sitting around doing
nothing for an awful long time.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That statement is an
intentional misrepresentation-
Mr. Trotter: I am taking this from the
Social Planning Council of the city of
Toronto. This is what the official—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: There are 3,000 on
the waiting list.
Mr. Trotter: The Social Planning Council
of the city of Toronto tells me this, and I
have it in front of me, that there is a list of
12,000 families waiting here in the city of
Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, this does not
affect the truth.
Mr. Trotter: The Social Planning Council
continues, and incidentally I think a good
Tory is the top man of the Social Planning
Council here in the city of Toronto. Experts
here, again from the Social Planning Council,
estimate that 30,000 to 40,000 units of pubhc
housing are needed in Metropolitan Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, that is just
nonsense.
Mr. Trotter: Well, the hon. Minister might
think it is nonsense, but it is time that he
got up to date. He was talking in terms of
200, after 20 years, and these people who
spend thieir lives in this type of work tell us
differently. I would like to put forward
some of the facts that have been garnered
by people who have been spending their lives
in this type of work.
I represent a Toronto area, and I would
like the hon. Minister to hear what Toronto
people have to say. The Metropolitan Toronto
Interim Housing Committee recommended a
construction programme of a thousand units
per year for a period of five years beginning
in 1958. Since that time, less than 100 units
of housing have been added in Metropolitan
Toronto; but in 1961 steps were taken to
add over 800 units by the end of 1962. It
can be seen that they are plodding bit by
bit, and for the hon. Minister to get up and
talk about 200 units a year in this city, when
we need literally between 30,000 to 40,000
his programme is obviously away out of date.
The city of Toronto had attempted to put
in a programme to renovate and to augment
the supply of low-rental housing for public
control. In order to do that, Mr. Chairman,
they had to come to this Legislatiure before
the private bills committee, to get the legis-
lation. So they came to the Legislature, and
their recommendation was to acquire suit-
able older properties for renovation in order
to augment the supply of low-rental housing,
something in the line of this legislation that
the province says that they are now going to
bring in. I hope the government does it; and
I hope they are going to make an effort in
this regard; but certainly, after this length of
time, they are long overdue to do something.
This is what happened when the city of
MARCH 15, 1962
1151
Toronto suggested to this Legislature that
they be given such power. The city of
Toronto prepared a draft bill. It was brought
to the Ontario Legislature in February of
1961, and a delegation representing tlie com-
mittee on housing— and, incidentally, the
Riverdale East Toronto Housing Group, I
believe, comes from the hon. Minister's own
riding, and they certainly took an interest
in tliis— came before the Legislature, as well
as the Central Toronto Housing Group. They
appeared at a private bills committee in the
Legislature in support of the city's applica-
tion. But even this government, at that time,
was not too impressed with what the city
wanted to do. This was just in February of
1961, and the bill submitted by the city of
Toronto asked for wide powers for the local
corporation. The city proposal was amended;
the Legislature did not want to give the city
too much power in regard to rental housing,
so the city proposal was amended to limit
the use! of this housing for families or persons
who may be in need of public assistance.
The city of Toronto has not had the funds
in the past year to appropriate in their budget
for more rental housing. Certainly they need
help from the province. I bring this to mind,
Mr. Chairman, because as of February, 1961,
the city of Toronto was getting very little
encouragement from this government to
acquire suitable older properties to be used
for rental housing.
I just wanted to make a few remarks
regarding the use of rental housing and the
limited dividend corporation. All these things
can be helpful, but neither one of them in
itself will help solve the housing situation.
Certainly we in the city of Toronto have
seen a tremendous growth in apartments and
in rental buildings. Most of the buildings
that have gone up, of course, have been for
the middle income groups. They are apart-
ments that rent from $110 to $130 per month,
and we can see that this is not going to help
those people who are in most need of housing,
certainly in the low income group.
Again I repeat that the Social Planning
Council advises a group of between 30,000
to 40,000 families that need help. The limited
dividend company which is assisted— I believe
it is under section 16 of The National Housing
Act, where the federal government will
provide the long-term interest mortgage funds
—does help in some respects, but it still
requires a large capital outlay for limited
dividend construction. The capital is provided
by private enterprise. Here in Toronto, over
77,000 units of limited dividend housing have
been built and, as I said, mainly by private
enterprise; certainly nothing to do vdth this
government. The opportunity has been lying
there waiting for this government to do some-
thing over a very long period of time.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that some limitations
and problems are presented by limited
dividend housing. It does some good, and
probably the provincial government intends
to use this system, but there are three
problems that it does not solve. The limited
dividend housing can provide dwelling units
for only a limited group of people. They are
the people who, at best, are the highest of
the low income groups so that it is, again,
not reaching the people that most need it.
Limited dividend housing cannot meet the
needs of the larger families witli low incomes;
what we certainly need here, in this city, is
the type of dwelling unit where the large
families can find housing. The present set-up
they have for limited dividend housing does
not help the large families.
I make this one suggestion: if the provincial
government does intend to use the limited
dividend corporation let it make a change in
housing construction. Try to make arrange-
ments with the federal government, so that
provision can be made for famihes that have
a large number of children. Certainly under
the present legislation these people are not
helped under the limited dividend scheme.
The third weakness of limited dividend
housing is that high land costs require that
most of this type of project be built in the
outer suburbs where there are high densities
of population; land here in Toronto is so
expensive that they try to get as high build-
ings as possible. That is, I think, one of the
weaknesses in the Regent Park system. In
some cases the buildings are too high, there
are too many famihes compressed in a small
area. This is the result of the high cost of
land.
So, with these three weaknesses in the
limited dividend project, I suggest that it is
public housing, subsidized rental housing,
that is going to be needed for that area of
people; and I again point out there is such
a pressing need here in this area.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the one thing that
has not been suggested, that I think could be
considered, is a comparison could be made
with Central Mortgage and Housing Corpora-
tion. This federal corporation provides the
greater percentage on a first mortgage of the
funds necessary for a new home. In an
area like the hon. Minister's area of River-
dale, or my area of Parkdale, there are many
older homes. People have a difficult time
trying to finance these homes. They can
obtain a first mortgage, but so often a second
mortgage is needed. And the great weakness
1152
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with the second mortgages is that people find
themselves in the hands of loan sharks.
They can take out a second mortgage,
keep up the payments faithfully for five years
and then, at then end of the five years, in
order to renew it, they must pay a bonus of
about 20 per cent of what is owing. They
never get out of debt. What this provincial
government could provide are funds where
second mortgages could be made available
on older homes at low interest rates, at around
6 per cent. Certainly this would be a great
help in making it possible for people to buy
and own their own homes without getting
into tlie hands of loan sharks.
So I would ask the provincial government
to consider the use of provincial funds to
help those people to purchase good housing
—such as with telephones, in Riverdale and
Parkdale— by the use of second mortgages.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to say, in relation to the statements
that the hon. member has made, that he
inferred that the 200 homes that will be
provided through the rent certificate scheme
was the total amount which would be made
available through the housing branch this
year. I am sure he did not intend that. So
that the record shall be accurate, I thought
he would like to know that we expect there
will be 38 at Lawrence Heights, 155 at Scar-
lett Woods, 400 on Warden Avenue, 350 at
O'Connor Drive, 1100 at Thistletown. The
rent certificate scheme will produce about 200;
we are providing by vote 306, item 8,
$500,000, which is a quarter of the total
appropriation and which may well run into
500 homes; 900 are being planned at Moss
Park. The possibility is that this year, through
the housing branch, we will have created more
housing opportunities than the whole of
Canada has in 20 years, outside of the
province of Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the point
that I wanted to raise has become rather
sadly detached now because it has reference
to one remark that the hon. Minister made
in his efforts about ten minutes ago, or was
it a half hour ago? In the course of it, he
said that he was seeking the application of
new ideas, new experiments. For this I
commend him. I am not going to debate
with him the argument that what we want
to do is follow a doctrinaire approach; this is
a little political sally that I think is worthy
of being ignored.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member has
already given it more attention-
Mr. MacDonald: However, in the course of
his references to the need for renovating and
rehabilitating individual units to halt the
spread of urban blight in certain areas, he
suggested this is something which we are
opposed to. I happen to have been fighting
for this for quite some time. But when he
made this comment, I noticed that, in his
eager-beaver fashion, the hon. member for
St. George (Mr. Lawrence) pounded the desk
and approved. Well, Mr. Chairman, my mind
went back just 12 months when there came
before the committee on private bills spokes-
men for the Toronto housing authorities who
were seeking to get permission to do precisely
this— to be able to rehabilitate scattered units
throughout the city of Toronto and bring
them under the housing authority so that they
could put people who needed low-rental
housing in these scattered units instead of
concentrating them in the fashion of Regent
Park. And what happened, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Lawrence: This is going to go through
Metro.
Mr. MacDonald: What happened, Mr.
Chairman, was that the hon. member for St.
George (Mr. Lawrence) fought the proposal.
He opposed it and said it must be restricted
only to people who were on welfare, which
was a completely unworkable proposition.
Mr. Lawrence: That not only is untrue, the
hon. member knows it is untrue.
Mr. Trotter: February, 1961.
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly. And just let me
complete the picture. This woman, whose
name escapes me now, who was either the
head or one of the key people in the housing
authority, pleaded for an enlightened and
progressive approach to this. But the hon.
member for St. George was such a successful
hatchet man that day that the proposal was
killed by the rest of the Conservatives in the
committee. I will give the government credit
because, apparently, sufficient pressure was
put on them that what the hon. member for
St. George succeeded in killing, the govern-
ment brought in through general legislation
before the end of the session.
Mr. Lawrence: How many hatchet men
have we got over here?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, when the hon.
member for St. George is around they do not
need, many more because he does a pretty
effective job. I just wanted to remind the
MARCH 15, 1962
1153
House of this effort— a new idea being killed
by one of the bright young men of the Tory
party.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
that the hon. Minister is open for ideas. I
presented an idea last year that I thought
might be helpful in some of the downtown
areas, particularly of Toronto. I was think-
ing also of my own riding. At that time, I
do not think the previous Minister was as
fertile soil for ideas, because he neither
answered it nor paid any attention to what
I was saying. So, in the hopes that I might
have more fertile soil, I would like to read
this from Hansard— it is a very short state-
ment—and I am referring to the progress at
Sacramento, California, where they have a
scattered-type housing project.
I do not know if the hon. Minister had an
opportunity to study that project, but I would
say I think they have gone into some of this
rental approach that he is doing, and I con-
gratulate him on doing that. But, in connec-
tion with this scattered housing approach in
the United States, they have about 10,000 of
these projects. In other words, they take
dilapidated houses in various downtown areas,
take them over as a public housing unit. I
will not bother reading this from Hansard,
1 will just summarize it.
In Sacramento they have found this really
pays off because by developing the public
housing units, building up old houses on a
rundown street, they raise the value of the
real estate on the whole street and the hous-
ing authority found there that the cost to
the housing authority had been $1,200; and
yet two years afterwards the value was
$1,700. I think that one of the reasons for
the great delay in the building of housing
units in Toronto has been that we have
always thought of enormous blocks. I frankly
see some disadvantages in some of these
large blocks.
Much as I can see the value of Regent
Park, I often feel that the inhabitants there,
grouped together because of economic cir-
cumstances, must feel hke goldfish. I would
suggest that having scattered units— buying,
in other words, individual houses in run-down
areas, and using these— might be a way, not
only to hold back the deterioration of streets
in Toronto, but also in fact, Mr. Chairman,
to build them up.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I thank the hon. mem-
ber. Would he tell me— I usually read, in
the summer, the Hansard of the winter
before. Would the hon. member give me
the pages to which he is referring?
Mr. Thompson: I am delighted that the
hon. Minister is asking for this: It is page
1731 of the Hansard for 1960-1961.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: TTiank you.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr.
Chairman, I was quite interested in what the
previous speaker was saying, because we have
taken advantage of the programme in the
past offered by the federal government and
provincial government— that is, the federal
government paying 75 per cent, and the pro-
vincial government 17.5 per cent and the
municipality 7.5 per cent on this housing
programme of redevelopment. We are con-
sidering, at the present time, doing something
exactly along the lines mentioned by the hon.
member for Dovercourt (Mr. Thompson)—
that is, taking a certain section of the city
and having the people do some rehabilita-
tion, or renovation to their homes, and I am
just wondering, under this plan, that the
province is inaugurating, whether some loans
could be available.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: There is a section in
the estimates which relates to the lending
of money, or the guaranteeing of loans. We
will consider this, if the federal government
will go along with us. We have proposed
it to them and hon. members will see in
legislation which I vdll introduce in the House
that we are going to ask for permission of the
House to enter into this kind of programme.
We are now negotiating this with the federal
government and I am hopeful that we can
come up with something along the lines that
the hon. member has outlined.
Mr. Belanger: Thanks very much.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, may I
pursue this one step? This opportunity to
lend money, or extend credit, will be for
what type of housing? Will it be for sub-
sidized housing, old homes, or could it be in
conjunction with—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It could be for any of
these things.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Any whatsoever?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Does the government
propose to lend money on old homes? As
the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter)
so effectively pointed out, there is a real
need—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: As a matter of fact,
there is a great problem of which the hon.
1154
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
members should be aware. I want honestly to
say to the hon. leader of the Opposition ( Mr.
Wintermeyer) that he has an interest in
accomplishing the same fundamental goals
that I have in mind for this programme.
But sometimes what one might think at first,
with some enthusiasm is a very good idea,
sometimes can work out to be not as ad-
vantageous as one might feel.
When the second mortgage programme
began in 1948 or 1949, this was at first
working to the distinct advantage of the
buyer. It was not many months until it
was obvious that it was working to the
advantage of the manufacturer, the maker,
the contractor. Knowing that the purchaser
had this much more money and that there
could be a mortgage made available, he was
simply adding it on to the price. What hap-
pened in the long run was that we had to
take over, sort of control, prices or rents.
But what did happen was that CMHC came
into the programme and they said in efFect
to us: if you get out of the second mortgage
business we will advance an equal amount
more on our first mortgage, but only if the
contractor will agree to the end price at
which he will sell the house. Hon. members
can see, what they were trying to do was
to make sure that the money they were
advancing was going to the benefit of the
purchaser and not to the contractor. That
is one of the problems of putting mortgages
—and I would ask the hon. members to con-
sider this.
I say this with great sincerity, I have had,
I think, the best people in the province of
Ontario come here to help me, to advise
me, with reference to this housing programme.
This is one of the reasons I would like to
establish a permanent housing advisory com-
mittee, because I think in all our interests
it is a good thing in the long run. These
people— and they come from all walks of hfe,
people whom the hon. member for Park-
dale (Mr. Trotter) and others know well—
they say, in all sincerity, what we are con-
cerned about is that if the government or
anybody gets into a second mortgage or any
kind of mortgage business on old houses,
where there is a limited number, sooner or
later it will be just like the second mortgage
proposition we got into, in that there is not
an endless number. Sooner or later, it is
going to increase the demand for these
houses, and ultimately, it is not going to
help the purchaser.
Now, how many months that will take is
diflBcult to say. But most people who in this
province have devoted a hfetime to housing,
their estimation is that if we were to get into
this second mortgage business on old homes,
that all we would end up doing would be to
increase the sale price of old homes. The
first few that might be sold, or for the first
month or two, might be to the advantage of
the purchaser. But in the long run, it would
be simply a means of increasing the sale
price, simply because it is not an expandable
commodity. With new houses, it is a different
thing, you can keep on building them. Old
houses, there is a fixed number.
Right now there is a certain number of
old houses and that is all there is going to
be. Now this is their estimation, and I would
want to say to the hon. member that we have
looked at every idea in relation to housing,
everything. We have had everybody in this
city, from across this province, because I
have a very sincere desire to do all that
can possibly be done for these people. We
have gone into most every conceivable
proposal.
I have presented, through the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts), a 12-point pro-
gramme. I am hoping that during this year
we can develop some of these. I have an
idea, and I want to say this in all fairness,
I have an idea that this rent certificate
programme may be an entirely new approach
towards housing. It may do away with a
great deal of the very heavy capital invest-
ment and may, at the same time, help to an
extent the housing industry, the persons who
own homes, the people who are in areas
where they do not want the area to break
down into a sort of renewal area, or a re-
development area, and so on.
I would say honestly to hon. members,
though some fun has been had of me today
about studying things, I honestly say that
we have looked at this and we are going
to continue to do so. If there is any way
in which we can implement the ideas which
the hon. members have put forward today, I
assure them that we will do so, and I will
not be chary in giving recognition where it
belongs.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to say to the hon. Minister, having had
some little experience with this subject that
he speaks of, that I am somewhat in dis-
agreement with him that this would create
the effect that he suggests it would create.
I think the situation today is entirely differ-
ent from the situation in 1948. I would also
suggest to him that such has not been the
case in the United States of America, where
they have had a system of guaranteeing loans
for used homes for a number of years. This
has not been the effect in the United States
MARCH 15, 1962
1155
and I am aware of some organizations with
some considerable experience in this matter
of financing of homes which feel that grant-
ing mortgages on used homes would work
to the distinct advantage of the purchaser.
Particularly in the case of used homes, where
the price is lower than that of the new
homes. It means that a person with limited
means is in a position to buy a home that
they can finance and be able to pay for it
within their lifetime. The situation as it
exists now is such that the only place that
one can get a maximum loan is in the
purchase of a new home. In many cases this
is forcing people to buy a home which is
beyond their means; and yet this is the only
way they can obtain maximum financing.
I would like to suggest to the hon. Min-
ister that had such a scheme been in effect
for a few years prior to the present time,
there probably would not have been the
need for the mortgage legislation which was
brought forward during the past year. I think
this mortgage legislation was necessary simply
because there was not adequate means of
financing the older homes and as a result
these people went to the high price money
market to obtain the secondary money that
they needed to buy a home within their
means to acquire.
I think the hon. Minister should take
another look at it. I do not know who his
experts have been, but I do know many
organizations composed of responsible people,
who are knowledgeable in this field, who
take the other side of the issue.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say to the
hon. member I am happy to have his obser-
vations and if he would be kind enough in
the morning to let me have a list of these
people I would be very interested in getting
in touch with them.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask
the hon. Minister if they have given some
thought to a way to stop houses becoming
overpriced as a result of using second
mortgages on older homes. For example,
Central Mortgage and Housing sets the price
of a house; it cannot be over a certain
amount—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That is a new house.
Mr. Trotter: All right. I know that is a
new house. Of course, that is the weakness
with the Central Mortgage plan. With an
older home there can certainly be income
limitations before second mortgages are
allowed; there can be limitations on the
value or the price of the house. This is
what Central Mortgage does with the newer
homes. That is why I cannot agree with the
hon. Minister's excuse why they do not use
second mortgages for older homes.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, I said to the
hon. member that I will look forward to
receiving in the morning the list of people to
whom the hon. member for Wentworth made
reference; this matter is under study. This
is the advice that I have had from people
whose credentials, to me, seem rather impor-
tant in this field; who have devoted their
lives as public-spirited citizens. It may very
well be that there is other evidence, and I
would be happy to hear it.
Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, I think
there is one other field this government could
get into, in the way of housing mortgages,
and that is a provincially-incorporated organ-
ization along the lines of the federal
organization, namely, Central Mortgage and
Housing Corporation. I do not know if the
constitutionality of the Central Mortgage and
Housing Corporation has ever been tested
in the courts— and I have my doubts if there
is any authority under our constitution for
such a body— but, nevertheless, I think all
will agree that that organization is doing a
good job. Here in Ontario I think we have
special problems that are not in existence
in the rest of the country.
As one, like the hon. member for Parkdale
(Mr. Trotter), whose business involves mort-
gages and dealing with mortgages, every day
of the week, I am sure he has noticed, and
I know I have noticed, advertisements in
periodicals, in Great Britain for instance,
where there have been private organizations
willing to loan, by way of first mortgages, up
to 95 per cent of the market value of the
property. In the United States, I have seen
similar periodicals containing advertisements
which have been on behalf of private organ-
izations like insurance companies and trust
companies, which have been willing to loan,
by way of a first mortgage, up to 75 and
80 per cent of the market value of the
property.
It may be that in this country we have
not quite reached that stage; perhaps because
of raw land available on the outskirts of the
metropolitan areas in this country, we have
not quite reached this stage. But I am
wondering if the hon. Minister's department,
and the officials therein, have yet looked into
the possibility of incorporating an organiza-
tion which would greatly increase the value
or amount loaned on mortgages in relation
1156
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to the value of a residential property. In
other words, set up an Ontario mortgage
corporation. I am not talking about the old
Housing Corporation which dealt only with
second mortgages; I am talking about a
provincially-backed organization or incorpor-
ated company which would go in and provide
mortgages up to 85 or 90 per cent of the
market value of the property. In other
words, start stealing some of Central Mort-
gage and Housing Corporation's thunder, but
steal it on the provincial level and allow far
more by way of a first mortgage on these
properties, because I think this is needed in
our crowded metropolitan urban areas in
Ontario; and perhaps this is a need that is
not felt across the rest of the country.
I think this is a provincial need, I think
this is a provincial field, and while I feel a
great many services now provided by the
Ontario government should perhaps be taken
over by the federal government, I think this
is one endeavour and one field, where I am
glad to encourage the hon. Minister in the
pioneering work he is doing, and encourage
him to go even further. Perhaps this further
field should be an incorporated body whereby
a government-backed organization would loan
far more, as far as the percentage value of
the market value of premises is concerned,
than any similar private or public organiza-
tion will now do.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): I am in the
position of representing a company which has
some 528 lots in one subdivision. I think
there is an area that has not been explored;
it might have been explored but has not been
acted on yet, and several have touched on
this particular problem. It appears to me that
if NHA will provide 95 per cent of the cost
of a new home, most of the people who go
through the houses that I show in our area
along the Niagara River will buy the new
homes if they can sell their old homes. I do
believe there is an area in which the govern-
ment can work, where they can provide at
least 85 or 90 per cent on the old home of
an old established family who may sell that
home for, let us say, $9,000 or $10,000.
If they can get their money out of that
house— so many of the people say: "If I can
sell my home. Til immediately buy a new
one." I think this area can be explored and
well developed. I feel that many of the people
who have old houses would like to move into
new ones but they just have too much tied up
in the old house and cannot get their money
out. I believe if the government was to pick
up this particular problem; enable the people
to sell their homes and get all their money
out, I could immediately, tomorrow, sell five
or six new houses; and if I can, I will not be
here to bother the hon. Minister for the next
week.
Now, I built myself a home some three or
four years ago before I was elected to this
House—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Is that a threat or a
promise?
Mr. Bukator: I would threaten the hon.
Minister with that if it would work. But I
built myself a home three or four years
ago, before I was elected to the Legislature,
for some $18,000 or better, and I never
realized that I had this government to thank
for building me that home. Every year the
government has displayed statistics here,
where the province have had so many starts
and have completed so many homes and I
thought: using my grey matter and ingenuity,
after all these years I had finally built myself
a house. I did not know that I would have to
come and thank this government.
Since I am on my feet here, I speak on
behalf of all of those people who were in the
same spot that I was, and say: thank you very
much. But the government is going to be
thanked again from this side of the House
because we are a reasonable lot, believe it or
not. We are going to thank it when it brings
about the finances to help the man with the
established home, the cheaper one, to build
a home not only in my subdivision but
throughout the whole province. This is an
area that should be explored, and immediately
that is done I will not show up for a whole
week.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Chairman, through you to
the hon. Minister, that latest agreement be-
tween the federal government and the pro-
vincial government in regard to housing, does
that refer only to housing in the cities of
Toronto and Hamilton, as I judged from the
papers, or is that fund available to housing
authorities throughout the province?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: May I ask the hon.
member— I really did not understand his
question. He said some recent announcement
by the federal government?
Mr. Troy: No, the announcement about
the agreement in the capital disbursements
here. Did not the province and the federal
government make an agreement recently for
provincial housing— a partnership agreement?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, no. Perhaps
the hon. member is thinking of an occasion
MARCH 15, 1962
1157
upon which Mr. Gathercole, Mr. Scott and I
went to see the hon. federal Minister. At that
time, we discussed with him and with the
CMHC people our 12-point housing pro-
gramme. A number of these housing pro-
grammes are under study and Mr. Scott, who
has been back several times since then, has
advised me that a number of these will have
been accepted and be in operation by the
first of April. We announced at that time a
certain study that was to take place. We also
said that we were hoping to establish with
the federal government's concurrence, a hous-
ing authority, a company which would admin-
ister the new housing undertakings here in
MetropoHtan Toronto, but I—
Mr. Troy: Was there any mention of Ham-
ilton?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, there was no men-
tion of Hamilton; not that there will not be,
but there was no mention of Hamilton.
Mr. Troy: Hamilton was mentioned in the
press.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Not yet, sir.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to pursue the comments of the hon. mem-
ber for St. George (Mr. Lawrence) for just a
moment, and ask the hon. Minister whether
he had given any thought to the suggestions
that were made by the hon. member for St.
George. Now those same suggestions have
been made by various hon. members of this
House; I believe that the hon. Minister has
himself, on occasions, referred to the possi-
bility and, I am sure, in the last few months,
given added thought to the advisability of
either using the facility of a savings bond,
which I think were suggested at one time, or
even the provincial savings accounts; or, as
the hon. member suggests, a new institution,
I must say that I find myself very much
in agreement with the hon. member for St.
George. It does seem to me that all one
has to do is to realize that there are funds,
people's deposits, that are available, providing
the government is prepared to underwrite
those deposits and assure their return at a
specific time in the future. It could be dir-
ected for housing purposes.
In England they have done this through
co-operatives; in the United States, through
federal institutions. I personally believe that
here in Ontario there is an ideal opportunity
to tap this market and use it effectively and
directly for first mortgages. I think that many
of the shortcomings to which the hon. Min-
ister has referred are particularly with refer-
ence to older homes; in conjunction with the
newer homes and the more expensive homes,
if you will, there is no real problem. The
federal government is doing a job in that
field and there is no great hardship.
The hardship certainly exists in respect
to those people who cannot afford to buy a
home under present circumstances, or per-
sons who are prepared to buy an older home
and just do not have anything like the full
purchase price. In this area, which again
is the great area of assistance, I think that
we could use a new type of financial institu-
tion. I am not settled in my own mind that
it should take the form of a savings bond,
or a new incorporation, or the facility of the
Provincial Savings Bank, but I would appreci-
ate some further elaboration from the hon.
Minister.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I was just looking
to see what vote this was under. We would
be prepared to consider something. First of
all, I would say that the suggestions are
worthwhile. We came forward this year with
a 12-point programme and this was as much
—as far ahead really, with great respect— as
any other province's department is able to
digest, and I felt that this was all I would ask
the Legislature in this session to authorize us
to do; but we are asking for an amendment to
The Housing Development Act to permit us
to loan money or guarantee money loaned to
persons like corporations authorized to loan
money, if the money so loaned is to be used
to acquire and rehabilitate existing housing
units. This is a piece of legislation which
will come before the Legislature. I think
it is a matter of the Legislative Council hav-
ing it prepared.
The guarantee does not require an item in
the estimates; what we are doing under this
programme is really new. It is like the rent
certificate scheme, it is well in advance of
anything that we have been able to find has
been done elsewhere. I am hoping that if
I introduce this legislation here, and if the
federal government is prepared to go along
with us, that we will, for the year, use our
guarantee if that is available; and next year
we will discuss this question of money in
the estimates specifically, but may I assure
the two hon. members that I am grateful to
both of them for bringing it up. This is a
very big field and it is really, without mean-
ing to sound facetious— when I started out on
t^i«: housing programme, I had 25 points in it.
This group of people that I called together
from around the province talked me out of
some of my points. I was sad to see some
of the points go; I would like to try some of
1158
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
them again. When I have a Httle more con-
fidence in this field I would like to restudy
them.
Vote 306 and vote 312 agreed to.
On vote 307:
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask the hon. Minister
a question. In regard to United States
OflBces—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Excuse me, just a
moment. I am sorry; is 312 carried with
306?
Mr. Wintermeyer: On a point of order.
Where is the Ontario Northland Railway
coming up? Is that under 312?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No. Yesterday, I
suggested that perhaps it might be useful
to the House if we took 312 as capital dis-
bursements; if we discussed the ONR after
we had cleared vote 311 and just before
we moved that the committee rise and
report progress. Could we all write that
down?
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon. Minister a question in re-
gard to Item 5, United States Offices. I see
where he is allotting $85,000 for expenses
this year. Did Ontario have an office open
in the United States this year?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We have had two
offices open in the United States for some
time, one in Chicago and one in New York.
Mr. Spence: How many industries were
channelled through these offices last year,
and established in the province of Ontario?
And I would like to ask the hon. Minister
another question. Have any publications
come out of his office in regard to the work
of these offices in the United States?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We will be deliv-
ering tonight, and also tomorrow, a number
of publications that we produced. The most
important one is in relation to fabrication
gaps. These two American offices have two
fundamental responsibiUties. One is to
assist our manufacturers in Ontario to sell
their goods in the United States; and the
second is to bring those manufacturers who
are in the United States, or elsewhere— but
we are talking about those two offices at
the moment— and bring those manufacturers
who are in the United States, who could
well supply some of the market which we
are not importing into Ontario here. I was
asked about this particular point. In 1961,
the industrial development division was in
contact with over 1,500 companies regard-
ing location in Ontario. Eight hundred of
them were in the United States.
During, the year, 113 manufacturing com-
panies, employing over 10 on their staff or
occupying a plant of over 5,000 square feet,
established in Ontario as opposed to 113 in
1960. From the United States there were
55. We entered into a number of manufac-
turing agreements between manufacturers in
the United States and those in Ontario, who
were prepared to undertake manufacture
on behalf of this particular product. We
serviced over 700 Ontario manufacturers in
this relation, that is to say, we talked to
manufacturers, and interviewed them here,
who were able to manufacture some kind
of a product which we were importing from
the United States. Approximately 200 com-
panies sought to have their products made
by an Ontario company, 119 of which were
from the United States; and, as we say,
we have serviced these and been in touch
with them.
Our manufacturing arrangements bulletin
—I am sorry, the pages have left and it
is not possible to distribute them, but
we will make sure that it is on your desks.
We have a bulletin which goes to hundreds
of companies in Ontario which says: we are
importing these kind of goods, there is an
opportunity here, are you interested in do-
ing business here?
I would want honestly to say to the hon.
member, that if I were to say to him that
this specific box of soap came through the
efforts of that specific man in Chicago or that
specific man in New York, I could not say
this. All I can say is that we have a great
number of companies in Ontario, hundreds
and hundreds of whom we interview each
year. We have, and there are, a great number
of American companies and we try to marry
up these people and put them in touch with
one another. In many cases it has produced
new companies here, it has produced new
exports there and this is about all I can say.
Mr. Spence: Does the hon. Minister antici-
pate in future to try to sell agricultural
products in the United States under this new
set-up that he has announced?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I think I would want
to make perfectly clear my position in relation
to agricultural products, or for that matter
any other products. I see it as my respon-
sibility to try, in this province here and in
MARCH 15, 1962
1159
our foreign markets and markets available to
us, to make as many opportunities available
as possible either to bring new industry here
or to sell products. Now this may also mean
that I work with the hon. Minister of Travel
and Publicity (Mr. Cathcart) in relation to his
tourist programme; or the hon. Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) in relation to his
agricultural products.
I am asking the House in these estimates for
permission for more money in relation to our
offices in Chicago and New York. Whomever
we send to Chicago and New York, we are
going to try and carefully screen them to
make sure that they have some commodity
experience in both agricultural products and
industrial products. In relation to agricul-
tural products, I will really be at the assist-
ance of the hon. Minister of Agriculture who
will give me his instructions as to what it is
that he wants carried put.
I feel that we have a service department.
The hon. Minister in relation to the tourist
industry tells me certain things that he would
like done in connection with my department
and we do the best we can to fulfill these.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture and I have
been discussing whether there should be addi-
tional representation at Ontario House or on
the Continent with reference to agricultural
products. This is a difficult thing to decide,
because until a few weeks ago the European
economy itself had not decided what its
whole policy for the Inner Six was to be in
relation to agriculture. But now that it looks
to be settling down, the hon. Minister of Agri-
culture and I are working out between our
staffs as to what we should do in this con-
nection.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask another question of the hon. Minister. As
he knows, towns and villages across this
province certainly need an industry or two
located in them. What consideration is the
hon. Minister going to give under this new
economic council—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: What vote is this
under; the regional developments? This is
under this present vote of 307, item 4, grants
to regional development associations,
$105,000. What we try to do in this
particular case is this: there are a number of
regional development associations; they have
their own staffs, they have their own general
manager and his duty and their duty is to
try, within their own field, to attract indus-
tries into their areas. Each municipality
within the area makes a contribution towards
the central treasury and we make a grant of
either a matching amount or some other
amount to these people. With this financial
support then, they try to carry out their
obligations in attracting industry into their
area.
The Department of Economics and De-
velopment has a central responsibility of
attracting industry into the province of
Ontario. We have a special branch which is
responsible for keeping all statistics of all of
the municipalities. When some companies
come into Ontario they say: first of all, we
have these requisites, whatever they may be.
We go over them and we give them the whole
list of the number of municipalities that fit
their requirements. Now, surprisingly enough,
they do not all fit. Some of them insist on
being in a big labour market, some of them
insist on being out in the country, and so on.
But let me say this: our basic purpose is
to be helpful. I think we have an attractive
policy this year; I do not say for a moment
that it is perfection. I think it can be
improved greatly and I think it would have
been better if we had even longer for
organization of the department. But now that
we have these things reorganized, our purpose
is to bring as much industry here as we can,
to sell as many commodities overseas as we
can. Regardless of the jibing, in good nature,
my hon. friends opposite have given me today,
we are confident that in working with these
development associations and the economic
council we are going to be able to diversify
industry in this province.
This is about all I can say to the hon.
member. We do everything we can to make
people in the United States and Europe and
England aware of the opportunities here. We
have a number of our staff who go and visit
these people and we do just about everything
we can to induce them to come here.
Mr. Spence: There is a great problem here
with the towns and villages which need one
small industry. I think great effort should
be put forth by this new economic council
to have them placed in these areas.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: That is right.
Mr. Belanger: Mr. Chairman, I am very
interested in this vote. We all know that the
larger municipalities all have an industrial
commission and that there is quite a race
among the municipalities of the province to
attract new industries in their own municipal-
ities. However, I am wondering what assist-
ance this department is lending to these
industrial commissions.
1160
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I can put it both ways: whether they are
working with or working against these indus-
trial commissions in certain municipalities,
when a certain municipality is trying to
attract a certain industry to locate in their
area. I recall in the past having been a
member of a commission that had worked for
a period of over three years trying to attract
a certain industry to our locality; and then
when we were almost on the verge of having
this industry locate in our municipality some
way or other the information did get out and
the industry did not locate there, they went
elsewhere.
I am wondering, because I do know that
some municipalities, in order to attract the
industries, subsidize anything they can pos-
sibly think of. To me, that is not something
that should be done. I think there should be
a law set up by the province saying that this
is not a thing that one can do. After all, if
we are going to work that way we certainly
are going to have quite a chaos in the
province. I want to know: actually what
help does this department lend to these
commissions?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: There are two answers
that I would offer to the hon. member. First
of all, under vote No. 4, are the grants to
regional development associations so these
regions, which are unable to afford their own
men to promote their interests, are able as a
region to attract other industries and to
compete—
Mr. Belanger: That is not the one in
which I am interested. ;
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Nevertheless, that is
the first point. Then, second, we maintain a
municipal industrial development service
which assists municipalities to organize indus-
trial commissions and hold industrial devel-
opment seminars at the municipal level. Our
purpose is to teach municipalities, to the
extent that we. can, how to attract industry
and keep industry already established and
to foster decentralization, to keep records
on industrial land and buildings available
for rent or purchase, to maintain up-to-date
information on services and the municipal-
ities generally in the province. r ,p; .^/
These statistics are available in our muni-
cipal industrial development service. If the
hon. member is suggesting that there should
be a law to stop one municipality from
attracting an industry away from another, I
do not really think that in a free enterprise
country there is anything we can do about
that. If an industry wanted to locate in one
area, I would think that is the area to which
it would go. If it went elsewhere, there is no
doubt some compelling reason for it to go.
Mr. Belanger: No! I do not think the hon..
Minister gets my point very clearly.
What I was stating was that: suppose, we
will say— I have seen it— a municipality will
say that they will grant an industry a conces-
sion of tax-free for a period of 10 years in
order to attract an industry to their town. I
feel that this is something that should not
be done at all.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: They cannot do it by
the law of the province.
Mr. Belanger: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: They cannot do it by
the law of the province.
Mr. Belanger: I am wondering whether
the hon. Minister is aware what is going on
in the province.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member
asked me the question as to whether muni-
cipalities should be able to oflFer incentives
in relation to assessment and taxation and
so forth. This is not an entitlement of theirs,
but as far as whether it is being done, the
hon. member might better— and I would ask
him to do so— bring it up in the estimates
of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Cass). This does not come within my
jurisdiction.
Mr. Belanger: All right, I will do that, if
that is the place to bring it up, I will certainly
do that. But I happen to know of cases, that
is for sure.
Mr. G. E. Gomme (Lanark): Read the law.
Mr. Belanger: The law might be there,
but what goes on under the table is a
different matter.
I would like to ask the hon. Minister
another question and it is this: if a muni-
cipality has an industry that wants to locate
there and they need the help of the depart-
ment in order to give them certain figures and
so forth, is the department willing to sacrifice
its men to go down to the municipality
for a period of, say, maybe two or three
weeks to assist the municipality? Is it done
at the cost of the province?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, it is. First of
all, we have a number of people who are on
the move all the time, they go from muni-
cipality to municipality all around the prov-
ince. I do not know how many hundreds
MARCH 15, 1962
1161
of municipalities Mr. Holland and his group
would call on, and I do happen to have a
couple of letters here from areas not far from
the hon. member, from mayors of areas
who have written to me recently to thank
me very much for Mr. Holland, who is here
on my left, coming with some people from
the staff of the department to assist them.
Now if we are in the United States and we
have a contact, if somebody wants to come
here, our men in the United States, through
the Chicago or the New York oflBce, service
the account on the American side and the
information is made available. Our people
will go anywhere and do anything to try and
locate industry here in this province, any-
thing within reason, or to find exports for our
producers in this province.
Mr. Thompson: I was interested— I can
appreciate the work and the dedication of
Mr. Holland— but I was just trying to get
some figures on a number of industries in
Ontario. I think in the construction industry
it is something like from 1,000 to 1,600 which
would be interested in the export field. Is
that so?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I am unable to tell the
hon. member. I do not know, but—
Mr. Thompson: I would feel it would be
almost an impossible task, unless the hon.
Minister had a very large staff and I realize
he likes to keep his staff to the minimum to
cover all these industries and to inform them
personally of opportunities.
Then there is always the danger that some
people who might have wanted to know of
an opportunity in some foreign market and
have not heard of it may suggest that the
hon. Minister's department was showing
favouritism to some other group. I appreci-
ate the sincerity of the staff to try to inform
any industry in Ontario about the export
opportunities.
When I asked a question before supper,
I noted that the hon. Minister said he sends
out these books— I am going back to this
"fabrication gap"— and I would like to offer
the suggestion that existing weekly news-
papers covering this show the opportuni-
ties in the export field. I had one that I
mentioned previously; I was reading it at
supper. It points out that there is a market
of $300 million apparently in some countries.
Probably our people do not know about this.
I would suggest the hon. Minister use these
newspapers and encourage them to be read
by the industries in Ontario, or else have a
regular release to be sent out to industries
in Ontario as well.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We have a regular
monthly release. I am sorry, as I pointed
out, our pages are not here and, therefore,
I am unable to send it over to the hon.
member. I would be happy to make it
available tomorrow.
Mr. Thompson: Does this go to any indus-
try that asks for it?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, as well as those
which are on the mailing list.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Chairman, I noticed that
there is quite an increase in the amount to
U.S. offices. Is the department opening
another office?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No. What item is
the hon. member under?
Mr. Troy: Under No. 5, the amount is
$85,000. I noticed that last year— in the esti-
mates of The Department of Commerce and
Development.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The increase is
$25,000 over last year for the two United
States offices. The reason for this is $7,500
in terms of salaries, $5,500 in terms of allow-
ances, apartment rent $2,100, moving ex-
penses for one person, and for increase in
travelling maintenance, and so on. The total
amount is $25,000.
I anticipate that we will be placing— this
involves the natural increment in the salaries
of our stenographic staff in both offices— and
I anticipate that we will be putting one addi-
tional person in the New York and Chicago
office. The problems are many, of course,
as hon. members realize. If a person is out
on a call servicing industries and someone
was to come to the office there would be no
one to look after them, other than the secre-
tary. This involved two people being there
and for each one of these persons, of course,
there are salaries and allowances because of
the difference in the cost of living, and a
number of adjustments. The addition is
$25,000, allowing for additional secretarial
staff and two additional people and a stepped-
up programme.
Mr. Troy: I notice there seems to be quite
a difference in living and representation
allowance in Chicago. Your man there, Mr.
Cooksley, was given $1,287, and Mr. Probyn
in New York City $4,600 in the same service,
apparently. Is there that much difference
in living costs?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: This is because of the
change of personnel half-way through the
1162
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
year. The hon. member is only looking at
A half-year.
Mr. Troy: Was the Chicago man only there
six months?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Mr. Holland tells me
that there are two reasons for this. It was
a half-year break, in addition to which there
is a different allowance for a married man,
who is the gentleman in Chicago, and an
unmarried man, who is the gentleman in New
York. It costs more money to be unmarried
in New York than it does to be married in
Chicago.
Mr. Bukator: The hon. Minister mentioned
the regional development group. Am I in
order to speak on that matter, pertaining to
regional development?
Hon. members will recall about a year
ago, as a matter of fact this time of night,
I asked the then hon. Minister of Commerce
and Development, the hon. member for King-
ston (Mr. Nickle). At that time he promised
that they would make a survey on the project
that I was speaking about, which was Black
"Creek, bringing the water down from Lake
Erie through Black Creek and helping many
of the farmers, the tourist industry, the boat-
ing industry, and so on. He did promise me
a survey. Now I might say to the hon. Min-
ister—I am sorry the hon. Minister from King-
ston is not here— they did have a survey last
year and it looked like it might be feasible
to develop this area for many purposes.
Now—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Could I ask, was there
a survey?
Mr. Bukator: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: And the hon. member
would like to have it?
Mr. Bukator: That is it exactly. I would
like the results—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: If there was a survey,
the hon. member will have it.
Mr. Bukator: That is all I want. As a
matter of fact, the only other thing I would
ask at this time: if it is feasible, would they
start the job? That is all I would ask for
that area.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, in that I did
not know there was a survey, I am not
able to say whether they are able to what-
ever it is the hon. member asks me if they
can do. ,
Mr. Troy: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
hon. Minister: what is the grant going to
be to the regional development associations
this year?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: $15,000 for each
association.
Mr. Troy: Thank you.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, did the department attempt
to direct industries to set communities— I
specifically refer to communities that might
be economically depressed — and in the
course of their discussion with industry on
the American side, sort of attempt to sell
one community over another?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would frankly say
to the hon. member, who is an associate
of the hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich
(Mr. Belanger) who asked me the same
question a few moments ago, I said to him
at that time: this is why there are regional
development associations. Our basic respon-
sibility is to introduce people from outside
Ontario into Ontario; they tell us their
specific requirements, and it is our respon-
sibility to provide them with information
through our municipal services. We tell
them of the various municipalities which
could fill the needs that they have.
We then put them in touch with the vari-
ous regional development associations, and
it is up to these development associations
to compete with one another in relation to
these matters. However, I will say to the
hon, member who has asked these ques-
tions, that we have now under study,
through the economic council, the question
of an Ontario development fund. This is
one way that we may even out develop-
ment of secondary industries, and also tax
incentives, all of which can be directed to-
wards, as the hon. member would realize,
the depressed areas and so forth. But as
far as our present policy is concerned, our
job is to bring industries to the Ontario
border and to find market opportunities for
those who are manufacturing in Ontario.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I thank the
hon. Minister for the answer, but does the
department attempt at all to impress upon
industry desiring to locate into the prov-
ince that certain areas suffer considerably
from unemployment, and, as a result, should
possibly be favoured over others?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, this really is
not what one would call an item that could
be put very high on our list of saleable
MARCH 15, 1962
1163
qualifications. We do what we can to bring
industry to this province. I do not know
what more I can say than that. We do not
point out that one municipality although
not as well equipped as another, would like
to have them more than somebody else, or
needs them more. Our job is to point out,
as we say, that Ontario is a good place in
which to do business, and that these are
the municipalities that can fill the bill.
Mr. Thompson: I would like to enlarge
on the remarks of my colleague to the right
(Mr. Newman) and to point out— and I am
sure that the hon. Minister, if he has read
the study by the United States Senate, the
manpower study, he would recognize that
they took an example in Pennsylvania, which
is the depressed area, they took one of the
towns there, Hazeltown. The coal-mining
industry had been depleted, and there was
stagnation on the part of the labour force.
They took a more comprehensive look
than just suggesting: "Why does industry
not come in here?" They told industry that
there would be retraining of the unem-
ployed men. There would be opportunities
for sites for industry coming in. There
would be houses provided and if industry
would locate there, the retraining would be
particularly for that industry. I think this
is what my colleague to the right is suggest-
ing. In other words, a more cohesive ap-
proach to this problem, and I would—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: In spite of the fact
that yesterday, the hon. member made some
considerable light of the fact that I talked
about retraining, saying that this was— at
least one of the Opposition members did—
that this properly belonged in some other
department, and I was trying to become a
czar. Is the hon. member now suggesting
tliat I have some responsibility in this area?
Mr. Bukator: If he is a good czar, yes.
Mr. Thompson: I would hope that there
would be a happy co-ordination amongst the
hon. members of the Cabinet; sometimes I
wonder about this.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I assure you
I will not be long, but I want to say some-
thing about these regional development
associations, because I have had a little bit
to do with one of them. I am not going to
be the least bit critical of the hon. Minister.
He has told us that it has been a hard job
to reorganize the department, and I cer-
tainly appreciate that; but when he gets a
little more time I wish that he would look
into these grants to regional development
associations for this reason. I believe that
the regional development associations were
set up originally to attempt, to the best of
the ability of this government and of the
associations, to try legitimately to decentral-
ize some of the industry in the province of
Ontario into the rural parts and small towns
of Ontario.
The point is that these municipalities, for
example, in my own area of Bruce, or
Grey, obviously work on very limited indus-
trial budgets, and I would strongly suggest
that, in order to make these development
associations have real success, there should
be more money put into the pot from the
government level.
I am not one who goes and suggests that
the government should give money away
irresponsibly, but I sincerely suggest to the
hon. Minister that this is one place where,
when he has more time— probably when the
session is over— he should look into the p>ossi-
bility of increasing the grants to development
associations, because those fellows can really
do a good job.
They are on home territory; and by adver-
tising and by going out and putting on a
strenuous effort, it is quite possible that they
can get industry in their own locality which
now they cannot do for one reason— that they
cannot aflFord it. They cannot aflFord all the
entertaining, and the labour, involved in
getting industry into a small locality; and aU
of us know that entertainment and labour are
very, very important, and they go hand-in-
hand. I suggest to the hon. Minister that he
look this situation over again when he has
more time.
Now then, the next thing that I wanted to
suggest to him. I am very glad to hear that
he is putting an extra man in New York and
in Chicago; and, with all due respect to the
hon. Minister, I suggest that this still is not
enough; but I know that if it is not enough
he will put more there. I will only take One
minute, but I want to quote from a speech
from the industrial commissioner of the city
of Brantford, dealing with this problem. It is
very short and took place before the estimates
of the hon. Minister came, so there is a little
change. I quote from his speech:
In addition to the eflForts of the various
communities across the province, the
Ontario government has The Department of
Commerce and Development, which has a
division known as the trade and industry
branch whose function is to handle inquiries
in relation with firms from the United States
and Europe seeking to examine the Ontario
1164
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
market. The people from this branch are
doing an excellent job but they are too few
and far between. For instance, they main-
tain one man in New York and one man in
Chicago, who have the monumental task
of representing the leading industrial prov-
ince of Canada in a country of 180 million
people.
Now this is the area of **hard sell". What
impact can two men have on this vast
American industrial territory? I would
strongly suggest that Ontario representation
in this field is entirely inadequate and
should be bolstered as rapidly as possible.
In addition, the growing strength of
America's industrial complex on the west
coast should be recognized by the estab-
lishment of a province of Ontario industrial
relations office in California. We must
wake up to the simple fact that Quebec and
other provinces are pushing and pushing
hard in the race to grab the potential
industrial firms seeking to locate in Canada.
It is to be hoped that the new Minister of
"that department, the Honourable Robert
Macaulay, will recognize these salient
features. ,„,# . ,
I am quoting from the industrial com-
missioner for the city of Brantford, Mr. Mac-
kenzie.
I think there is no criticism there whatso-
ever. But I strongly suggest to the hon.
Minister that even two men are not enough.
I know if he finds it necessary to have trained
salesmen to sell our products in Chicago and
New York, that if necessary the staff will go
up to 10 or 12 men; and I would hope he
takes the view, the forward-looking approach,
in looking into the future in the next two or
three years, that in order to sell a country
like the United States we have to put men
there— not just one or two or even half a
dozen— and that they have to be real trained
fellows to do the job.
Votes 307 and 308 agreed to.
On vote 309:
\fr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I suggest
that-
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Which vote is the hon.
member on?
An hon. member: Does the hon. member
not have a home to go to?
Mr. Thompson: Well, for the sake of the
people of Dovercourt and of Ontario, I de-
prive myself of my home. I was interested in
the two immigration officers that the hon.
Minister is appointing, two additional immi-
gration officers. Are they to be attached to
Ontario House? Is their area of work going
to be in Great Britain?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member
mentioned two immigration people, did he?
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry, I thought the
hon. Minister had mentioned that.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, I mentioned two;
but I wondered whether those are the two
that the hon. member mentioned. We have
them here in the province of Ontario, with
one additional person at Ontario House.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask the hon. Min-
ister what is the purpose of the two in the
province of Ontario? Are they going to be
consulting with industry to see the kind of
personnel needed? And as regards to the
man in Ontario House, will he be looking
further than Great Britain?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I am sorry; I did not
hear what the hon. member said.
-Mr. Thompson: Will the man in Ontario
House be looking further than Great Britain
to get this technical staff?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: W«ll, this organization
is basically for the UK, and the policy is
not to supplant or replace tlie immigration
policy generally of the federal government,
because obviously that is their jurisdiction.
This is as it affects the economic situation
in the province.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr. Chair-
man, we moved along there pretty fast, and
I know it is getting late, but on vote No. 308
—I have had my eye on that one all evening
and we went over it. I wonder if the hon.
Minister could just tell us what the inter-
governmental relation branch does?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It has a number of
responsibilities: to study questions of federal-
provincial relations including tax-sharing
agreements, fiscal arrangements and related
matters; to study the relationships between
the province and the municipalities; and to
undertake other duties that are in these areas.
I might just mention some of the things
which have been under way and completed
in the last year, since the hon, member has
asked:
(1) Material was prepared for the plenary
session of the federal-provincial conference
MARCH 15, 1962
1165
held last February and for meetings of the
federal-provincial continuing committee on
fiscal and economic matters in February,
March, April, September and November.
(2) General matters under study for these
meetings included new fiscal arrangements
to replace existing tax-sharing agreements
which are due to expire March 31, 1962— new
methods relating to taxation of companies
engaged in logging operations and reciprocal
arrangements regarding the application of
taxes on Crown agencies.
(3) Several payments under existing tax-
sharing arrangements were examined and
analyzed— a similar examination in a prior
year resulted in an additional payment to the
province of Ontario of more than $1.2 million
with respect to the rental of the personal
income tax field.
(4) Research was carried out on methods
providing special grants to school boards for
the benefit of residential and farm ratepayers.
(5) Special report on Metropolitan Toronto
system of government was prepared for the
special committee of the metropolitan council
on metropolitan affairs.
(6) Water power rental agreements between
the province. Hydro and Niagara Parks Com-
mission were reviewed.
(7) The branch is studying, in collaboration
with The Treasury Department a draft agree-
ment with the federal government for the
federal collection of Ontario personal income
tax— and I have four pages here that relate
to programmes that we now have under
discussion.
Vote 309 agreed to.
On vote 310:
Mr. Thompson: Under 310, I raised the
question about the $9 million— I apologize,
I had said $19 million— research institute or
research centre. I am curious about this from
the point of view of administration. I can
understand that research is really the ex-
change of ideas, and yet there is a need
for equipment in order to develop these ideas.
But I am wondering about spending this large
amount of money on a research centre in one
area. The hon. Minister had mentioned that
the reason for having it, I think, near Toronto
was because there was a lot of industry here.
I wonder why DuPont, for example, are doing
their research in Kingston; there is research in
Sarnia on petroleum; and there is also auto-
mobile research in Oakville. It seems to me
that some industries— I think the hon. Minister
grasps the point I am making.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Does the hon. member
want the answer?
Mr. Thompson: Well, I would just like to
ask another question. How does the hon.
Minister decide what industry will get priority
in research— that is part of my first question,
I think.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, firstly, answer-
ing the hon. member's questions in reverse
order, how does one decide what industries
obtain what order of priority in the research
of the Ontario Research Foundation? J would
say that all industries pay the cost of the
research at the research foundation and it
therefore depends on what arrangements they
work out in the Ontario Research Foundation.
It is just a question of how much they can
handle all at one time. In short, the Ontario
Research Foundation is more than two-thirds
industry supported, employed and financed.
The other portion of it is in relation to the
provincial government for specific under-
takings that we finance, that we think are
in the interests of the province to develop,
for example, new products, new techniques,
to help industries which may otherwise be
facing difiiculties due to technologicar changes
and so forth. Their second job, in relation
to us, is to give or to act as a committee
for the granting of university research and
post-graduate science and engineering scholar-
ships which we grant in the extent of
$275,000. Now the breakdown of the milhon
dollars which I am asking for is: administra-
tion, research, review and advisory committee
—$32,000; northern Ontario development and
foundation research, special services and
projects and energy sources for jet smelting
—$693,000; and I can give him the number of
studies that that includes; and then we asked
the Ontario Research Foundation to distri-
bute some $275,000 for research in post-
graduate science and engineering scholarships
in areas which they have selected which they
think are productive in original research.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask another ques-
tion with respect to this? Previously the hon.
Minister had mentioned 11 per cent of the
50 per cent corporation tax and that this does
have an influence on industry. I had
wondered if he had thought of encouraging
independent research by corporations to
which he might give some tax incentive.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, could I men-
tion to the hon. member the first question
he asked in relation to this $9 million? At
the present time, the Ontario Research
Foundation is on Queen's Park Crescent, in
1166
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
two or tliree buildings, and it is quite pressed
for space; there is a necessity for it to move
elsewhere to house its equipment and to
carry on its expanded obligations. Tlierefore
the question embraces a new concept, an
entirely new concept for it to go where there
is some space around it and where it can
centre itself as a nucleus; and industries can
come in and locate all around it. This is why
I described it as a satellite community.
There are four or five large industries
which have indicated a great interest in doing
this, and co-operating. There can be an
exchange of technicians, and of engineers,
and of research, and of information, and of
saving in equipment and, therefore, we would
have, in effect, a heart in the centre which
is the Ontario Research Foundation and
around the edge would be a number of com-
panies, the names of which I cannot mention
at the moment, but I hope to have something
of a substantial nature to indicate to the
House in time.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chaimian, I note that
this vote was a little bit abrupt, because
I note that with the advisory committee— and
I think we tossed those words around earlier
in the evening to some extent— I wonder if
the hon. Minister would name the advisory
committee whom this $32,000 pays and the
personnel there.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I can name it. As a
matter of fact it is a board of directors.
Actually, the $32,000 does not go to the
advisory committee, so let us get this clear
right off the bat. We pay $32,000 to the
Ontario Research Foundation as our contribu-
tion to a $3 million or $4 million total budget.
We feel we involve them in the distribu-
tion of the $275,000 worth of scholarships and
also in handling the $693,000 worth of speci-
fic undertakings that we ask them to carry
out. In short, this is $32,000 that we pay
to their overhead. On the board are people
like Mr. Twaits, head of Imperial Oil; I do
not know whether Mr. Sale is on it, but
there are a large group of industrialists. Dr.
Tupper is the chairman of the board. I would
be happy to send the hon. member a list.
These people are not salaried. The name
advisory committee just happens to be a
phrase. These people serve without renumera-
tion whatsoever. TTie advisory committee's
purpose is to do two tilings: one, to sit at
their own expense and on their own time to
decide how this $275,000 should be divided
up among people doing original research.
Secondly, to delineate the areas in which we
should operate in connection with the
$693,000, also to support original research.
Mr. Whicher: Is tliis the committee that
the former hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost)
set up last fall?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, this is the board of
directors of the Ontario Research Foundation.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Chairman, would a graduate
student in nuclear physics, who is at the
university now taking his MA and hopes to
go to Oxford or Cambridge or some British
imiversity to continue experiments in nuclear
physics, be eligible for one of these scholar-
ships? To whom would he apply: to The
Department of Economics and Development,
or to the research foundation, or to the
university?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Frankly, I cannot tell
the hon. member whether he would be eligible
or not. But a way he can find out very quickly
would be to apply to Dr. Misner who is the
director of the Ontario Research Foundation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to table, if I
might, the annual report of the Ontario
Research Foundation.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Chaimian, one
question before we leave this section. I have
been waiting for some time, like one of the
hon. members referring to one of the other
sections. When we were talking about the
research organization in The Department of
Agriculture which is to be set up, there is
provision made in that legislation to allow
the department to charge for certain dis-
coveries that they may make that would be
marketable.
The connection with this is as follows: I
understand that basic research is done at the
universities, but practical work on industrial
problems, provided from Ontario industry, is
done on Queen's Park Crescent and at this
new establishment. The industries concerned
pay the cost of this research, but suppose
some development comes from the work of
the Ontario Research Foundation that is
patentable. Is there legislation that would
enable one to patent this and to collect money
on the use of the patent?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: My recollection on this
is that the patents on work which is done by
the Ontario Research Foundation for company
"X", and fully paid for by company "X",
belong to company "X". Where research is
done by the Ontario Research Foundation
imder these general grants the patents are
"res publici". I am sorry that the hon.
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) is not here.
MARCH 15, 1962
1167
Mr. Whicher: I do not know what the hon.
Minister means by "res publici".
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: They are in the public
interest. They would belong to the research
foundation for the general pubhc.
Vote 310 agreed to.
On vote 311:
Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, before 312
is passed, I would hope that the hon. members
of the House, would certainly want some
further exposition of that very vivid
description which we had a couple of years
ago from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr.
Auld) on the far-reaching programme of back-
breeding. I wonder if he could tell us more
about how the development of that pro-
gramme has continued.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Actually, back-breed-
ing comes under the next vote.
Mr. Trotter: On 311, Mr. Chairman, there
is an item 2, the operation of park and historic
sites. Just what does that cover, because The
Department of Travel and Publicity is
supposed to be looking after parks and historic
sites, at least looking after historic sites?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, that is not correct.
The Ontario-St. Lawrence Development Com-
mission is a commission which was established
to create and develop this particularly historic
area of the province of Ontario and has
nothing to do with The Department of Travel
and Publicity. Under the Ontario-St.
Lawrence Development Commission comes
Fort Henry at Kingston and the parks not too
far from Cornwall; which is not perhaps the
way the hon. member would want it referred
to, but some distance from Cornwall.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest
that it would be more reasonable that this
section, $954,000 covering parks and historic
sites, should be in either the parks depart-
ment or Lands and Forests. Why would they
put it in this department?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I think the
answer to the question is that on the select
committee we have been wrestling with this
problem for two years and we are one day
going to bring in a recommendation as to
where it should all—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: When hon. members
do, that will be time enough perhaps to—
Vote 311 agreed to.
Mr. Troy: Under the ONR clause, or what-
ever it is—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: May I just say— while
I have these in my hand— that there has been
some considerable interest, discussion and in-
accurate reference, in and by and around,
through and under and over the press, about
the Moosonee harbour investigation basic
field survey in 1960, and I would like to
table these things.
Mr. Troy: Early in tliis session I asked
questions in regard to certain matters about
the Ontario Northland Railway. They have
been in the hands of the hon. Minister, or
the appropriate hon. Minister in any event,
for many weeks. I wonder if the hon. Min-
ister at this point is able to— I know he is
able to— but will he answer those questions
first?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: What were the ques-
tions?
Mr. Troy: The first one is— I will read it
to him— have there been or are there now
any former employees of the Ontario North-
land Railway who after retirement on super-
annuation are being kept on or were kept
on in an advisory capacity?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: If these questions are
on the order paper I will answer them as
questions on the order paper only.
Mr. Troy: Only?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: While the hon. mem-
ber is speaking, I will go on looking and see
what I can give him off the bat.
Mr. Troy: I understand that in connection
with the new development of northern
Ontario the communications system is being
expanded, particularly because of certain con-
ditions that prevail in the city of North Bay
and also that have to do with the defence
of this country. One would think it was im-
proving the general telephone system, or
communications system, of northern Ontario.
I would like to know: first of all, in one of
the projects in connection with the com-
munications, there was a tender called, the
tender number was ONC59— I think it was—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: It does not matter,
it deals with air-cooled and water-cooled
generators, does it not?
Mr. Troy: Prime powered diesel is one;
and standby propane and no-brake pro-
pane. It is in connection with the new com-
munications system. A North Bay firm.
1168
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Inspiration Mining Limited based at North
Bay-
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: $26,937, is that the
one? As opposed to—
Mr. Troy: Yes, one was $36,907 for the
first one, the prime powered diesel, tax
included; the other was for the standby pro-
pane. The North Bay firm tendered $54,-
748, and no-brake propane complete $102,-
000, Altogether the North Bay firm's tender
was approximately $184,000.
I understand that tender was let to the
Quebec firm. Atlas Polar; and some firm
co-operating with them, I think it is Rus-
sell Hipwell. Now, if there was a substan-
tial difference in the tender price, it is only
reasonable to expect that the contract would
be let to the lowest bidder, even if it was
an outside of the province firm. But if there
was not too much of a spread, in view of
the fact that Inspiration Mining is a firm
operating in northern Ontario, then I think
that a little leeway should have been given
to the northern Ontario firm and the con-
tract given to them.
What was the tender of the successful
bidders?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The advice that I
have and the information the hon. member
has given I will have to look at more care-
fully, but the Russell-Hipwell Engine Com-
pany is not a Quebec company, they are
from Owen Sound. The Atlas Polar Com-
pany Limited is from Toronto. The Inspira-
tion Mining and Development Company
from North Bay bid on air-cooled diesels,
and the engineering staff decided it was
more in the area of efficiency for operation,
etc., to purchase a water-cooled diesel and
they therefore bought through, as I under-
stand it, Atlas Polar Company Limited of
Toronto. They were the lowest acceptable
bidders.
Mr. Troy: What was the bidding, the
price?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The price that I have
here is in relation to the power generators
of $30,765.16.
Mr, Troy: Right, that is for the first one.
What about the standby propane?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I am sorry, my notes
do not indicate. Might I say I did not an-
ticipate that particular point and I will have
to look up the figures and send them to the
hon. member.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would Uke
to ask the hon. Minister a question. The
northland transportation commission has
tabled their report. How much promotion
is planned for Moosonee and other tourist
attractions? I understand the commission is
operating boat lines. Are these boat lines
paying? Are they going to continue?
I might say I understand the new iron
ore mine is being brought into production;
will the tonnage offset the decline in gold
mining in the province?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I am sorry, I must
say frankly that I did not catch the hon.
member's question.
Mr. Spence: How much promotion is
planned for Moosonee?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: In dollars or activity?
Mr. Spence: What is the programme or
the plan for the promotion of Moosonee?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Is the hon. member
reading a question someone else has posed
for him?
Mr. Spence: Yes, but I would like to
know myself. I have heard a lot about
Moosonee in the last three or four years
and I am certainly interested in it. It was
a great thing one day. When it was an-
nounced here in the House, we were really
going to have something.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The position in rela-
tion to Moosonee I think can be sized up
in this way: firstly— I am sorry, there are a
number of things I wanted to distribute
tonight. For instance hon. members will
find in reference to the quarterly published
by the Ontario Northland Transportation
Commission for March, that 121 homes are
being shipped from Fort William for erec-
tion in Moosonee.
In relation to the development of the port
itself, the report which I have tabled is
now available. This gives some indication
of the amount of earth, silt and so forth
that will have to be moved if the port facil-
ities are to be created. At this time we have
a three-prong survey under way in relation
to the Ontario Northland Railway, one of
which will touch upon the economics of
Moosonee as a port. After we have received
that, then we will be in a position to know
the further surveys with which we must
proceed.
There are two or three problems related to
it. There is one as to whether Moosonee is
MARCH 15, 1962
1169
capable of being turned into a sea port. A
great many people have felt that this was
possible; a great many people with much
justification, not one the least of which was
Colonel Reynolds, the chairman of the
Ontario Northland Railway. On the other
hand, there have been some who have dero-
gated this and who have made derisive
remarks about any effort to develop a
northern outlet at Moosonee. Now, I am
sure that none of our hon. members opposite
fall into that category, but, nevertheless,
there have been some.
There is a great deal of activity in relation
to Moosonee. For example, the Hudson's
Bay Company— and they have been in the
business for 300 years in the north and have
some knowledge of what is going on there
—are developing and building at the moment
a large tug and two self-propelled barges to
operate in the harbour of Moosonee. They
have some faith in this.
At the moment, I think I could sum up
the general situation by saying to the hon.
member that there is the possibility of bring-
ing iron ore to Moosonee and smelting it and
bringing it south. There are all kinds of
other opportunities in relation to clay
materials, to lumber, timber and so forth. At
the present time, we have a survey underway
from which, when it is completed, we will
know whence we will go forward. That is
about all I can say. I have tabled this
report which is now available.
Mr. Spence: What is the hon. Minister's
stand on Moosonee?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: My stand is that I
have great faith in the development of the
north. If Moosonee proves to be an eco-
nomically sound project, we will go ahead
with it. This is in line with what I said
before.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, in regard to
the boat lines that have to be operated by
the commission. Are they paying? Are they
going to continue?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, the boat lines
actually are not operating at a profit. They
are operating at a loss of about $37,000, as
I recall. I am interested in this; the hon.
member who wrote the questions for the
hon. member who is now asking them, said
that-
Several hon. members: Oh, no!
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Now this is perfectly
fair. I know who wrote the questions for
the hon. member, and one of his attacks on
us was the question that we were not allow-
ing the Ontario Northland Railway to carry
out its fundamental purpose. Then he just
leaves it at that, and starts making fun about
the railway because it is not operating at a
profit.
In fact, the same hon. member wrote a
letter to a newspaper and I am sorry he is
not here.
An hon. member: Who was it?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member
for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha). The hon. mem-
ber has indicated that he is asking somebody
else's questions, can he tell us who it is?
Mr. Whicher: He wrote his own questions.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The boats are oper-
ating at a small loss at the moment. The
fundamental purpose of the Ontario North-
land Railway, as the hon. members I am
sure realize, is for development. This gov-
ernment takes this position, that so long as
the railway and its boats and its automobile
transport systems are operated at the best
eflBciency that man can produce, whether it
loses money or not, is not important to us.
What is important is: does it bring develop-
ment? If it does bring development, that is
what we stand for.
Mr. Spence: Might I ask the hon. Minister
if they are going to continue the boat lines?
This was not answered.
Mr. Troy: There are several boat lines. I
know of several that operate on Lake
Nipissing—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Operate what on Lake
Nipissing?
Mr. Troy: Why was the hon. Minister not
listening? He would have found out.
There is in the city of Toronto, at the
present time, a sportsman's show. I under-
stand on Monday, the opening day, over
50,000 people were there. If hon. members
go down to the sportsman's show to find out
something about the Ontario Northland Rail-
way, of the services off^ered for the tourists,
to find out if it has boat services and other
facilities, what they have to do is ask some
girl and she takes name and number and
says: we will send you a letter. Now I sug-
gest to the hon. Minister that he tell this
advisory committee— I guess he is allowed to
speak to them and give them some advice.
1170
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as they can give him advice—he tell his
advisory committee that they should suggest
to whichever department— Economics, De-
velopment, or whatever it is— that they see to
it that there is, when the most important
sportsman's show in Canada is in operation
in the great city of Toronto, somebody from
the ONR publicizing that particular railway.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Well, I was $4,000
out. The deficit for 1961 was $39,000.
Mr. Spence: Are they going to continue the
boat lines?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would say that the
boat Unes are part of the survey that is being
undertaken at the moment and there is not
much point in talking about a future pro-
gramme before the surveys are available. I
would say that I see nothing to indicate in
the future that we would be discontinuing
this service.
Mr. Troy: The hon. Minister said quite
forcefully to the lion, member for Kent East
(Mr. Spence) who was seeking information,
I think legitimately, that the ONR was for
development. Why, then, has the government
not considered the policy of subsidizing the
railroad so that, as the member for Timis-
kaming (Mr. HoflFman) has pointed out, and
as has been pointed out by other members
for northern Ontario on other occasions, there
are a number of industries, particularly the
industry of beef-growing, that could be de-
veloped through better forage. Fertilizer is
needed there. It is so expensive to get it by
railway.
One can do all sorts of things. If one looks
at the various cars of the Ontario Northland,
one sees blazoned there "northern Ontario's
development road". The hon. Minister said
a moment ago that that is what the railway
was there for. I hope then that there will be
a change of scene. I know that we had at
one time— I am talking about the boats that
my hon. friend from Kent East (Mr. Spence)
has discussed— a great promotion of boat
service on Temagami. There was a great
dream of developing tliat area as a summer
paradise. It is a wonderful place but
apparently the director, or whoever it was, of
the promotion for some reason or other got
sour on that particular project and he went
north to Moosonee. It seems to me, too, that
for many years to come— I think we should
wait because in a very short time, perhaps
in the next 20 years- we will have ocean-
going submarines that will, with a little bit of
uranium about the size of an ice-cube which
will last for ever, operate all seasons of the
year.
They do not have to wait because tiie
Hudson Bay Straits are only open 2.5 months.
In any event, why should they ship ore all
the way down from Moosonee— tlie mills are
in the United States— all the way by rail, when
they could stoclcpile it on the Belcher Islands
and take it out by boat in a navigation season?
But I am not here to discuss Moosonee, I am
interested—
An hon. member: Ask him about the
diamonds.
Mr. Troy: Yes, I understand that there are
diamonds up around there and of course they
say there is fools' gold up there too. However,
I am very much interested in this announce-
ment in regard to the private enterprise, the
firm of Jones and Laughlin from Pittsburgh,
who are going to establish a mine at Boston
Creek. I know, Mr. Chairman, as the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) said when he
was in North Bay, that that will mean a
great number of extra trains on that hne. I
also know that it is going to mean that there
will have to be a lot of work done on the old
coal cars that have been out in the open
for many years. I do not know if they are
going to be in shape, with the bearings that
they have or whether, running all the way
from Boston Creek down to Pittsburgh, they
will stand the nm. I also wonder if it will be
necessary to double-track that line, because
with the regular trafiic coming down— the
lengthy paper trains, the passenger trains-
will it be necessary to double-track the line?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, it will not.
Mr. Troy: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Simply because we are
timing— and this is something that is relative
in all fields of life— with adequate timing, it is
not necessary to double-track the system.
Mr. Troy: But with the diesel power that
the ONR have-
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Do not argue with me
about it, my hon. friend. The engineers say
that it is not necessary to double-track the
system. Now, does the hon. member want to
stand here and—
Mr. Troy: I did not say the system. I—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The line south to
North Bay— it will not be necessary to double-
track -the system.
MARCH 15, 1962
1171
Mr; Troy: All right. What about these
employees tliat were laid o£F? Will they be
the ones to get the first chance to go back
inta the shops were all the old coal cars are
being . repaired?
Hon. Mr. Macaiilay: They will, of course,
be the first" to come back.
Mr. Troy: The first to come back? Has
the hon. Minister found the answer yet?
HpnvMr. Macaulay: To what question?
Mr. Troy: The hon. Minister said he was
going to look for—
Hpn. Mr. Macaulay: Oh no. If the hon.
member will ask the questions on the order
paper, I will answer them as they are on
the order paper.
Mr. Troy: All right. Is the hon. Minister
yet prepared to say that with this great new
programme, this dynamic development of
northern Ontario, that he is going to reor-
ganize the commission? I understand that
the present chairman— I do not know whether
he is still chairman or not— is not well; he is
in the south for his health. And the others-
one of them is quite old. He is older than
some; of the people in the Senate.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Is the hon. member
finished, now?
Mr. Troy: Well, I will be quiet if I have to.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member does
hot have' to, if he wants to go on. As far as
reorganization of the commission is con-
qerned, 1 would say that we have— as I said
in these three surveys, all of which will be
available to us in a matter of weeks, one of
which deals with personnel and the commis-
sion and so, forth— an opportunity to consider
the existing arrangements; and if at that time
it -SeeiTis Wise that there be some adjustment
in this cdnnection it will be made.
' Mr* Wiiicher: I know the hour is getting
late and e^verybody wants to get home, but
there are just one or two remarks that I
want to- make in connection with Moosonee.
The hdn. Minister seems to take the attitude
that whien we ask questions about— and I am
giving the example of— Moosonee, that we are
doing it strictly to put in time, that we are
licit really interested in it, and things of that
nature. .1 want to impress this on you, Mr.
Chairman, :tJiat you cannot blame us in the
Opposition for being a little bit sceptical
^liout an arfia such as Moosonee. -
I ani going to tell you, Mr. Chairman,
that I heard the former hon. Prime Minister of
this province (Mr. Frost) stand over there,
three or four years ago, and promise to the
people who live in Moosonee and in northern
Ontario that there was a siim of $5 million
to be spent for the development of that
port.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that did not take
place. I want > ou to know that all of us on
this side of the House are as keen for the
development of the north as you are and we
wish the new hon: Minister of Economics
and Development every possible success in
his endeavours, but at the same time you
cannot expect us to sit down here and
passively accept the words of the new hon.
Minister of Economics and Development
when he says that he is for the dev^elopment
of the north.
What we go on are the actions of the past.
We were very interested of course in the
dreams of the hon. Minister for the future,
but when we tliink about the actions of this
government in the past, in promising to us
in the Opposition and to all of the people of
the province, the sum of $5 million for
Moosonee, it was nothing but a fairy tale.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the new hon.
Minister of Economics and Development,
I was the one who called him an economics
czar the other day, and I will certainly do it
again. But he must remember that in that
speech of mine I also wished him 100 per
cent success.
If he has to be a czar and take over five
or six of the Cabinet portfolios of the hon.
men who are his colleagues and sitting around
him, more power to hini; the point is that
we do wish him every bit of success. But
his speech the other day and tonight and his
speeches at the beginning of this session, have
been nothing but dreams of the future, which
we hope will be siiccessful, and an indictment
of the Tory government of the past 20 years.
Therefore we say to the hon. Minister,
when he talks to us about Moosonee and the
development of the north, come to us niext
year with a little bit of action and not just
promises.
Mr. R. BruneHe (Cochrane North): Mr.
Chairman, Moosonee is in my area and after
all the doom and gloom from the hon.
members of the Opposition, I would like to
announce to this House a very important item
bearing on Moosonee. At Moosonee in a few
months time they will :be able to eat some
nice Arctic char. ' The federal government is
going to estabhsh a fish processing plant. I
would like to read this letter from the hon.
1172
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Angus McLean, hon. federal Minister of
Fisheries. It is dated March 8:
Dear Mr. Brunelle:
In reply to your letter of March 3, I am
advised that The Department of Citizen-
ship and Immigration has obtained a parcel
of land at Moosonee in connc^ction with
its programme of encouraging the develop-
ment of commercial fishing by Indians. I
am therefore forwarding your letter to the
hon. Ellen Fairclough for further comment.
Naturally, like yourself, I am extremely
interested in instances such as this which
have to do witii the development of
. relatively unexploited fisheries. The in-
spection service of my department will be
providing such assistance as may be re-
quired for white fish, Arctic char and otlier
species from this operation in order to
assure the consumer of a top quality
product.
Yours sincerely,
Angus McLean.
Mr. Chairman, this is another instance of
another industry which is being established,
I live in that area and, I for one, will tell hon.
members that my people are very optimistic.
Along with what the hon. Minister of Eco-
nomics and Development (Mr. Macaulay) has
announced, at the present time there are air
force personnel in the neighbourhood of
around 500 and in a few months time, by
this summer, we should have approximately
700 or 800 personnel of the air force. So
with the air force personnel, the establish-
ment of a fishery, with the existing activity,
even at the moment we have, I would say,
enough to go on. With the unlimited re-
sources and with the other developments
taking place, Mr. Chairman, I say that
Moosonee is an area to which we can look
with optimism. In a few years time, we will
be congratulated for the steps we are taking
now.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon. member, for whom I have a
great deal of respect, this question: he said
he is optimistic about the future. Is he
pessimistic about the unkept promises of this
government in tlie past as far as Moosonee
is concerned?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Words only, words
onlyl Let me state one thing and be perfectly
fair about it. The hon. Prime Minister of
Ontario, as he then was (Mr. Frost), said that
We would undertake a survey, in joint
arrangement with the federal government.
which was likely to cost about $50,000. He
said if this survey gave promise, the invest-
ment on development of a port at Moosonee,
the future prospects for capital development
in that area would entail expenditures in the
neighbourhood of $5 million.
Mr. Whicher: Was there $5 million put in
the budget of that year?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No, there was^ not.
But there was enough to carry out the survey
and that is the undertaking that was made.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister never answered the last part of my
question. The new iron ore mine tonnage,
will it offset the decline in gold mining in
the province?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I would think that it
will go a long way towards it.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask
the hon. Minister a question in regard to the
other operation of the Ontario Northland
Railway Commission. This Star transport, is
the hon. Minister able to give the House
some idea of the success of that operation?
I kno\v it is fairly successful.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, my recollection
of the transport service— of tlie Star transport
—is that there was something in the neigh-
bourhood of $160,000 profit. Sorry, $210,000
profit.
Mr. Troy: Mr. Chairman, sinc-e the Star
transport does not deliver between North Bay
and, I think it is. Swastika, and since the
Walter Little transport has the rights in that
area and then from Kirkland Lake on through
to Quebec, would the hon. Minister consider
making a strong effort from his department,
or instruct the Ontario Northland Railway
Commission to make a strong eflFort, to buy
out the Walter Little people? I understand
that if the price is right, they are willing to
sell. Then we would have the possibility of
marshalling yards in the city of North Bay
and could combine the two services, the
Walter Little service from North. Bay to
Kirkland Lake and all the points in between
and then on up to the Quebec border, with
the Ontario Northland R^lway service to
start transport from Swastika north to, I think
it goes into, Kapuskasing. That particular facet
of the operation of the commission is paying.
I would also like to know: has the site been
procured yet for the new building that has
to be built in Widdifield Township in con-
nection with the communication dev^opment?
MARCH 15, 1962
1173
tf so, from whom was it purchased and what
was the price?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: In relation to the first
question the hon. member has asked me.
I would be happy to take it under considera-
tion. As far as the second question is con-
cerned, I have the answer here somewhere.
I have been unable to locate it in my papers
and I will, therefore, be pleased to send it
to the hon. member.
Mr. Troy: Thanks. I must assure not only
the hon. Minister but this House that
anybody who lives in the city of North Bay
is definitely interested in the success of the
Ontario northland as well as every other part
of northern Ontario. If Moosonee is feasible,
certainly we on this side of the House as
weU as—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes, I have the
answer here. It was owned by a Mr. Alec
MacPherson,
Mr. Troy: And the price?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The price was $2,000
per acre, plus the cost of the survey.
Mr. Troy: How many acres were bought?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Forty acres.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee of supply rise and report
that it has come to certain resolutions and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of supply begs to report it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed with the
budget debate and some of the order paper-
third readings and second readings.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder, before the House adjourns, I would
ask the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) if
the Ontario Nortliland Railway Commission
will be before the committee on commissions
as last year?
Hon. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of
Economics and Development): Yes.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the ajdoumment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:50 o'clock,
p.m.
.: u- '■H'::
No. 40
ONTARIO
Eegisilature of (l^ntario
Beiatesi
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
J/,'!.'fir?',„,f
Friday, March 16, 1962
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk : Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3M0. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
IE
u
i
i
i
6^
Oi
CONTENTS
Friday, March 16, 1962
County Judges Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 1177
Statement re worid figure-skating chanq>ianships, Mr« Robarts 1177
vKesumption of Hie debate on the budget, Mr. White, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Chappie 1183
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Chappie, agreed to 1200
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 1200
1177
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature, and today we wel-
come as guests, students from Bradford Public
School, Bradford, in the west gallery.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE COUNTY JUDGES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The County Judges Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, anticipating that the hon. members
opposite would like the usual brief informa-
tion concerning the introduction of a bill, I
would state that this bill is aimed to provide
the working tools to meet with the increase
in the work of our courts at the county and
district level particularly, I would say, in re-
gard to some of the problems in the eastern
Ontario section centring around Ottawa, and
in this metropolitan centre and York centre
as well as generally. The effect is that six
additional county and district court judges are
provided for to be judges-at-large. The bill
also provides the authority to pay judges-at-
large allowance for surrogate court work
comparable to the allowance now paid by
judges for specific counties and districts.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Before
the orders of the day I would like to draw
to the attention of the House the great honour
that has been brought to Ontario and Canada
by Donald Jackson of Oshawa, who yesterday
won for Canada the men's singles champion-
FRmAY, March 16, 1962
ship in the 1962 world figure-skating
championships.
Mr. Jackson became the first Canadian to
capture the men's title. He did it with an
imaginative, brilliant, free-skating perform-
ance which won him the crown, and thrilled
the huge crowd in the Prague's Fucik Hall.
Our very sincere congratulations are
tendered to him at this time, in which I am
sure all the hon. members of the House will
join me.
We also have cause to rejoice in another
victory.
Maria and Otto Jelinek, of Bronte, born in
Prague but now part of the Canadian mosaic
and way of life, won the world figure-skating
pairs competition on Wednesday. This great
wdn for them, I might say, came as they de-
cided that it would be the last performance
of their amateur career.
We voice our best wishes to them and
extend hearty congratulations on their brilli-
ant achievement and hope their future activi-
ties will be successful and rewarding.
I think it is most gratifying that Canada
and Ontario should be so well represented at
these world championship competitions, and
that our entries should be giving such a good
account of themselves in international
competition.
Mr. L. Quilty (Renfrew South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day I would
like to make this observation. This House
will not be sitting tomorrow and tomorrow is
St. Patrick's day, the day on which all Irish
celebrate, and those who are not Irish join
them. I may get an argument on this, but if
I do I believe that my voice will back me up.
I consider myself the most Irish member of
this Legislature. I come from a long line of
Quiltys, O'Hares, Dillons, and Murphys. My
home is in Shamrock, seven miles from Mount
St. Patrick. I had a brother and a sister
born on St. Patrick's day— not twins. My two
sons are Pat and Mike.
With this background I pay tribute to those
of Irish descent and all those fine people who
join us on this day to pay tribute to that
greatest of all missionaries, who converted
1178
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not a few pagans but an entire nation of
pagans to Christianity.
To help me in this celebration I have as
my guest a lovely Irish colleen and her
Scottish mother, in the person of Miss Out-
door Girl of Canada and her mother.
Mr. Speaker, through the House it gives
me great pleasure to present this fine young
lady and her mother— Miss Isabel (for today)
"O'Gould", and Mrs. Gould.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I
would like, as a good Scotsman— and of course
you know what the Scots are, they are great
people to keep the faith and everything else
they can get their hands on— but I must com-
pliment the hon. member for Renfrew South
(Mr. Quilty) and also our Irishman, the
"O'Reilly" we think of so highly, the hon.
member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly).
But the reason I rose to mention this today
was because last year I made the remark that
it grieved my heart to go in and buy a sham-
rock at a store and find embroidered on it
"Made in Japan"; this year I received a letter
and this beautiful shamrock from the Catholic
Women's League, St. Lawrence O'Toole
Parish Council, in the riding of my hon.
friend from Renfrew South, and they say this:
; .: Dear Mr. Wardrope: ^'f.
■ Shortly after St. Patrick's day last year
I heard via the radio that you were very dis-
appointed at not being able to find a sham-
rock for St. Patrick's day. Our small CWL
makes shamrocks every year to sell in our
area for Paddy's Day. So in case you
find the same circumstances this year
we would hke you to wear one of our
shamrocks with best wishes for a happy
St. Patrick's day.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Paul Yakabuski
President
That is a great combination of national-
ities.
I might say that the hon. Minister from
St. Andrew (Mr. Grossman), sitting to my
left, has also a very strong streak of Irish
blood running through his veins.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister without Port-
folio): Irish, just Irish.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I want to say this.
Yesterday into my office came six Irish
people from a mine in Ireland; they pre-
sented me with this and asked me if I
would give it to our hon. Prime Minister
who also has a strong streak of Irish blood
in his veins. It says:
Genuine shamrock from the Emerald
Isle flown to you, compliments of Irish
International Airlines.
I would Hke to present that to the hon.
Prime Minister, with their compliments, as
being a good Irishman too. That is for you,
sir, direct from Ireland, flown in yesterday,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Mr.
Speaker, if I might just say a word. Mrs.
Yakabuski is a very fine woman. I was up
in the area not long ago, and Barry's Bay
I think is one of the finest parts of the
province; but the woman who gave you
this little shamrock is probably the only
Tory in that town.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if you would permit me
just a brief word. I want to join in the
tribute of the hon. member for Renfrew
South (Mr. Quilty), partly because nobody
has ever settled the argument as to whether
the Irish are shipwrecked Scots or the Scots
are shipwrecked Irish. But another reason
why I want to join with him this morn-
ing is that he has brought us living proof
of the fact that mothers of Irish colleens
nowadays are Scottish.
Mr. L. Reilly (Eglinton): Before the orders
of the day, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering
on just what basis our hon. friend from
Renfrew South (Mr. Quilty) was claiming
to be the most Irish.
An hon. member: The hon. member is
not even wearing a green tie.
Mr. Reilly: I may not be wearing one but
may I assure the hon. member I do have
one. And tomorrow is Irish day.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Sure and begorrah!
Mr. Reilly: Aye, sure and 'tis that. Mr.
Speaker, the reason why I question his
claim to being the most Irish is that I am
a member of a family of 16 and happen to
be No. 13 in that family of 16. I heard him
today mention six or seven people; I ques-
tion whether he could come up to the num-
ber I suggest— No. 13 for Irish day.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, before we leave this subject
and after the procession we have witnessed,
surely the representative for St. Patrick
should join this procession. However, my
MARCH 16, 1962
1179
calender says that St. Patrick's day is to-
morrow, and I notice that perhaps it is
premature or perhaps it is the funeral, but
the one man who was bom in Ireland seems
to have some kind of a wreath or something
on his desk; he himself is either laid out
early or somethingi
All that I have to say today is before
any of you gentlemen had finished shaving
I was in St. Patrick station down here in
the new subway addition and got ofiE to a
very good start. I did not bring my shil-
lelagh, because I figured if anything was
to be said about the Irish it should be said
tomorrow, when I would use the shillelagh
on anybody who particularly offended me
and expect to get hit back. However, March
17 is still to come tomorrow, and before
midnight tomorrow I am sure that it will
be well celebrated.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately the real Irishman is not here
but I notice this beautiful plant from the
ladies* luncheon club. The accompanying card
says: "We dedicate it to Andy [hon. member
for Dovercourt, Mr. Thompson] in memory
of our great St. Patrick, and second, the good
luck of the Irish"; and certainly an Irishman
does not have to wait until St. Patrick's day
to celebrate anything.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I did not
plan on paying tribute to the Irish today
because my forte, as the hon. members very
well know, is St. Andrew's day. However, see-
ing as how there has been so much discussion
about who has the most Irish, I invite the
hon. members down to 55 Lakeshore Boule-
vard East.
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, if I may bring the
Irishmen and the would-be Irishmen back
into the realm of reality, I would like before
the orders of the day to make an announce-
ment regarding a matter which will affect not
only all hon. members of this House but all
persons doing business with the Ontario
government in Toronto. When the hon.
members return to these buildings on Monday
they will find a new telephone system in
operation which will be the most modern
available to us at this time.
By way of explanation I would say that,
in effect, the government will have its own
telephone exchange covering most of the
telephones in the metropolitan area. It is a
service called "Centrex" by the Bell Tele-
phone Company and it enables a person
calling in from outside to dial directly to
the ojffice of the person he is calling, instead
of having the connection made by a switch-
board operator. It is much the same as the
change that has been made in most Ontario
communities from manual operation to dial
telephone.
In line with the Bell policy of instituting
all number exchanges, the government tele-
phones will have the prefix 365, easy to
remember as the number of days in the
year. This will be followed by a four-digit
local. To reach my office a person outside
the buildings will simply dial 365-1101. To
call my office from inside the building a
person would simply dial 1101. This new
system we hope will take care of more than
75 per cent of telephone calls made into
the government and there are some 15,000
calls made daily. For persons not knowing
the number of the person they are calling,
there will remain the EM 3-1211 general
number. This will become known as 363-1211
and will be serviced by a staff of highly-
skilled operators who are being specially
trained to provide information service for
callers.
These operators will also have more time
to assist people calling into the government
who are not quite sure what department or
branch deals with the problem they are call-
ing about. By now, hon. members will all
have seen and, I trust, studied the new tele-
phone directories which have been distrib-
uted. These will be replaced on at least an
annual basis and I hope will prove to be
more convenient and useful than the previous
directory.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day there is a matter that I would like
to draw to your attention. Mr. Speaker, this
morning when we assembled, we found on
our desks copies of the Ontario-St. Lawrence
Development Commission report and the
Ontario Research Foundation report, and the
Ontario Northland Transportation report.
Now I think we could anticipate certain
literature yesterday as a result of what the
hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment (Mr. Macaulay) told us, but I would
point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it does
seem to me extraordinary that these particular
reports, unlike economic reports generally, or
compilations of statistical information, should
be presented the day immediately following
the consideration of the estimates. I will
concede that many of these reports are com-
plicated and take time and preparation, but
it does seem to me that a little bit of fore-
sight would have assured that these reports
1180
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
were made available to us prior to the time
that these estimates were considered yester-
day. It is more than coincidental that they
should be ready the day immediately follow-
ing.
Mr. Speaker, the point I rise on is simply
this: we have had a lot of talk about the
purpose of the Opposition, its functions and
its operations. I assure you, Mr. Speaker,
that I think there is genuine feeling on all
sides of the House that we want to improve
the operation of this House, and I point out
to you that the Opposition has a purpose and
a function and a real responsibiHty. It is
not always a pleasant responsibility, but it
is in our system a real one, and a purposeful
one, and a meaningful one. In this respect
I am not being personally critical at all, but
I am saying objectively that this does not
lead to the better performance of government
of the province of Ontario, and certainly
handicaps in a substantial way the facility
and the operation of the Opposition.
With these reports in our hands three or
four days ago, a more intelligent, knowledge-
able and objective presentation could have
been made by the Opposition; and I draw
this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because
this is not the first time it has happened. But
I certainly hope that we can have your
assurance that you will use your good offices
to assure us that this is the last time it will
happen.
H<m. R. W. Macaulay (Minister of Eco-
nomics and Development): Well, Mr. Speaker,
since I feel some responsibility in this matter,
I would point out that this morning, on the
hon. members' desks, there is no statement of
the Ontario Northland Railway; that is not
yet ready— what they have is a quarterly staff
publication that is published.
Now the difficulty with these reports is
that they are done to a large extent in rela-
tion to the chartered accountants who do the
books of these various commissions. Some
of these are large commissions and one of the
problems of having these reports ready is
just a question of timing, and staff, and
getting these things done. Quite frankly, it
was only yesterday or the night before, I
think late, that I got the copies, in sufficient
quantities, of the Ontario-St. Lawrence De-
velopment Commission and also of the
Ontario Research Foundation reports.
I will, however, say to the hon. leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) that I think
that his point is quite well taken; it is desir-
able to have these things as far in advance as
we can, but I want hon. members also, if
they will, to take a look at some of these
reports and realize how much work goes into
the preparation of them. Nothing can be
done until the books close at the end of the
year, and that is, to a large extent, a matter of
accounting. Hon. members will also note
that the public accounts, for instance, for
the year that has ended here in this province
is not available yet. I would think that very
few companies have yet reported their
financial statements to the federal government
on the year ended December 31, 1961. This
is a great problem to handle.
However, I assure the hon. leader of the
Opposition, Mr. Chairman, that being in the
department earlier— I came in in November,
and it was impossible then to attend to all the
things that I would like to have done— but I
am hoping next year that I will have these
available before my estimates come down. I
think that the Ontario Northland Railway
report will be very difficult to get ready in
time. It may not be ready before the House
rises this year.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to speak to this question for
a moment. It has been a matter of consider-
ation and discussion in previous years here
in the House, and in the last three or four
years there has been a concerted effort made
by the various departments to get their
annual reports out at least prior to budget
time and I think the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer) will agree
with me, that the situation is a great deal
better today than it was five years ago. The
pressure is still on— if I may put it that way—
to ensure that these reports are brought
before the House and are in the hon.
members' hands prior to the time the estimates
are considered.
But I would also point out to you that
there is a great deal of difficulty in time-
tabling the affairs of the House in order that
we may get the business of the province
done, and that it is not always possible to
hold up the estimates of any particular de-
partment awaiting tlie arrival of a report,
which arrival might be somewhat indefinite.
But even there we are attempting to time-
table the estimates, in order that the greatest
amount of information possible may be in
the hands of all the hon. members before the
estimates of any department are considered.
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort WilHam): Mr. Speaker,
could I ask the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) a question on this? Would it be
possible, when the hon. Ministers bring down
their estimates, if all the information is not
MARCH 16, 1962
1181
given to us at that time, that he tell us the
situation so that we will know tliat it is either
coming soon or will be on our desks; the
actual information concerning all this, every-
thing that is being developed for his particular
department.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I think it would be quite
possible for an hon. Minister, if his most
recent report is not available, to tell the hon.
members when it would be available.
Mr. M. Belanger (Windsor-Sandwich): I
would just like to ask a question of the hon.
Minister of Economics (Mr. Macaulay). This
publication, to whom does he send it? Where
does it go?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: I discussed this with
the hon. member last night. That is a publica-
tion which is sent to Europe, England and
the United States; and also areas of Ontario
and other provinces of Canada.
Mr. Belanger: Does he send it to the indus-
tries of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: We send it to people
whom we think are interested. In effect it
shows opportunities to do business here in
Ontario. Our purpose is to send it to people
in areas that we think will be interested in
coming into Ontario to do business.
Mr. Speaker, I v^^ould like to table, as I
desired to do last night and omitted so to do,
the annual report of the Ontario-St. Law-
rence Development Commission.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, I have a question and I
direct it to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts).
Is the hon. Prime Minister aware that Mr.
Thomas Graham, whose appointment to the
Ontario police commission was announced in
the House by the hon. Prime Minister on
March 13, was and may still be a director of
Mexicana Explorations Ltd., an Ontario com-
pany?
Tvi'o: is the hon. Prime Minister aware that
Mexicana Explorations Ltd. has been listed
since June 27, 1960, by the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission as a
company whose securities the commission be-
lieves have been distributed in the United
States in violation of The United States
Securities Act?
Three: is the hon. Prime Minister aware
that the secretary and a director of Mexicana
Explorations Ltd. was, and may still be.
Mr. Lewis Herman, a Toronto barrister whom
I identified in the House on November 29,
1961, as a solicitor for a great many char-
tered clubs which have been used for illegal
gambling? Is he also aware that Mexicana
Explorations Ltd. was financed by Mexi-
cana Prospecting Syndicate, of which Mr.
Louis Herman was the promoter?
Will the hon. Prime Minister inform the
House who recommended Mr. Graham's
appointment to the Ontario police commis-
sion?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I am aware
that Mr. Graham was a director of Mexicana
Explorations Limited, I am aware that this
company was placed on a restrictive list by
the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission. I am aware that Mr. Louis
Herman was a director and officer of this
company and I am not aware of the full
particulars of the financing of the company.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
has made an obvious effort, in this question,
to associate Mr. Graham with the allegations
of crime made in this House by the hon.
leader of the Opposition in his speech of
November 29, 1961, to which he refers in
the third question.
The questions, and the way that they are
worded, are obviously designed to cast doubts
upon Mr. Graham and his position on the
Ontario police commission. Mr. Graham, a
former member of this assembly, is unable
to appear here and defend himself against
this innuendo. However, Mr. Speaker, I have
a letter from Mr. Graham which will estab-
lish his position in this matter. I propose to
read this letter and to table it.
Dear Mr. Robarts:
I was indeed pleased and honoured by
my appointment to tlie newly formed
Ontario police commission. I have indicated
that I am prepared to give as much time as
necessary to do all that I can to further
the purposes of the commission. I am
impelled by a desire to be of service to the
public in this way, as I hope I have in other
ways, in the past.
It is with deep regret that I have been
informed of a question which the hon.
leader of the Opposition indicated he wishes
to ask you before the orders of the day.
I wish to give you the following informa-
tion:
1. I have not been a director of Mexicana
Explorations Limited since the latter part
of 1960.
1182
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
2. In October of 1956, Mr. Louis
Herman, QC, who resides in York Centre
riding, which at that time I represented in
the provincial Legislature, and who had
taken an active part in my election cam-
paign, invited me to go on the directorate
of Mexicana Explorations Limited, a com-
pany which had to do with a mining venture
in Mexico.
3. It may be of interest to note that a
part of the ground acquired by the com-
pany was formerly Cinco Mines, a silver
mine in which not only the Spaniards many
years ago, but much more recently the late
John W. Gerard— one time American
Ambassador to Germany— were interested.
I was informed that introductions to the
Mexican interests prior to the acquisition
by the Mexicana Company were facilitated
by two Cabinet ministers of the late St.
Laurent government.
4. Before accepting the invitation to go
on the board, I asked for and received
assurance that everything was in order in
connection with the company's organization
and business methods.
5. I took no active part in the enterprise,
but had confidence in the board, partic-
ularly by reason of the fact that on it were
an hon. member of the federal Parliament
and the sister of the then Lieutenant-
Governor of the province of Ontario.
6. The prospectus of the company was
accepted for filing by the Ontario Securities
Commission early in 1957 and was twice
renewed, the last renewal being in
February, 1960. It has not been further
renewed and therefore has not been in
primary distribution for some time.
7. There was never any extensive public
distribution of shares. A number of those
associated with the enterprise purchased
substantial quantities to assist the financing
of the company. I myself, however, never
invested in the company, nor received any-
thing from the company.
8. I am informed by the chairman of
the Ontario Securities Commission that the
company record is, and always has been,
clear as far as the commission is concerned.
9. I understand that the company was,
like a great many other Canadian com-
panies, following a certain precedure
adopted by the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission, placed on a
restricted list. This, I understand, is done
without notice and does not necessarily
mean that there has been any mis-
demeanour.
10. As a matter of fact, in connection
with this particular company, I resigned as
soon as I learned that it had been put on
a restricted list and actually I am informed
that it has now been removed from the said
list.
11. As far as Mr. Louis Herman is con-
cerned, I never have had any reason to
believe that he was anything but an honest
person. I have never myself been a client
of his or had any dealings with him either
directly or indirectly, except in connection
with the association mentioned above in
relation to this company which ceased in
1960.
Yours truly,
Thomas J. Graham.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, on a matter
of privilege. May I simply say that this
explanation is quite valid and is the sort of
thing that we would expect. But I must point
out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) suggested that I was
trying by innuendo, I think he suggested, to
associate—
An hon. member: If not, keep quiet.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I was not. Mr. Speaker,
I am the leader of the Opposition, I have a
responsibility to be here. In every other
parliament there is an opportunity to make
question. This question has been made and
a good answer provided; that is all I am
asking. We are an institution, we are an
assembly, that is required to publicly make
certain investigations and certan questions.
I made it and I have a—
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Trans-
port): But the hon. leader of the Opposition
abused it-
Mr. Wintermeyer: I did not abuse it. I
have an answer here and, Mr. Speaker, until
we grow up and realize that there is a proper
time and place to do this sort of thing, then
this type of comment back and forth is going
to persist. I for one want to rid this Legisla-
ture of that type of innuendo.
This was a legitimate question, it has
received a legitimate answer and I accept it.
But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that all
those interested in political life here recognize
in the United States a specific facility is
made to give an opportunity to the Opposition
to make these questions at a specific time;
here, this is the only opportunity we have.
I exercised it in my ofiicial position, Mr.
Speaker, and we have the answer this after-
noon.
MARCH 16, 1962
1183
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Resuming the adjourned debate on the
motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
chair and that the House resolve itself into
the committee on ways and means.
ON THE BUDGET
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this
budget debate and to join those who have
aheady welcomed the five new hon. members
to this Legislature.
I recall two or three years ago, Mr. Speaker,
coming here for the first time and being very
puzzled about almost everything that was to
be found in these buildings. I am reminded,
Mr. Speaker, that I thought at that time
there should be some sort of instruction
booklet available to new members, so
perhaps I could make that suggestion to you.
Perhaps some small sum of money could be
made available to one of the members of
the press gallery and perhaps they could
writer a primer on Queen's Park which could
be made available to people when they come
here for the first time.
Mr. Speaker, the five new hon. members,
and indeed all hon. members of this House,
have witnessed a rather remarkable perform-
ance in this House in the last week or two;
a remarkable performance, Mr. Speaker, by
tlie NDP financial critic and the NSF party
spokesman.
The Liberal financial critic presented what
might be called a latter day Doomsday Book,
and the NDP financial critic read what could
be entitled post-Argue neo-capitalism or
Galbraith revisited.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. White: While listening to the hon.
member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) give his
budget speech, some of us were saying
"The Liberal Party should have given him
some help in preparing that criticism."
Imagine our surprise when we learned from
the newspapers that the financial critic had
the assistance of 12 Liberal economists and
accountants. These must be the same men
who provided the country with so much
amusement when they gathered at Kingston
a year or two ago to remake the Liberal
Party.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): How many
were there?
Mr. White: Twelve, yes. I have the
article here.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): The hon.
member has bats in the belfry.
Mr. White: The results of that convention
in Kingston, hon. members may recall, were
considered a fiasco even by the Liberal
leadership.
With the kindest of intentions, I suggest
that the hon. member for Bruce be left to
produce his own criticism. While it may
not have had too much intellectual content
in the past, it did have sincerity of purpose
which appeared to be missing from the
latest rendition of the "blues" by his
friends in the Liberal glee club.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose this bat is going
to be here all day. If it has provided suflB-
cient amusement to the hon. member across
the way, they may be interested in hearing
certain comments which I want to make
about the inadequacies of their criticisms.
This is typical of the way they let them-
selves be distracted by momentary diver-
sions. I hope they will do me the courtesy
of listening to my critique as I Hstened to
theirs, painful though it was.
May I spend a few moments pointing out
some of the more serious mistakes in this
year's Liberal criticism?
Early in his remarks, the hon. member
said "We Liberals smell the scent of vic-
tory." This brave claim was in marked
contrast to the statement made by the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wintermeyer)
as reported in the Globe and Mail of
August 5, 1960, which reads:
Wintermeyer Mum
On Choice of Candidate
Liberal leader John Wintermeyer called
for victory in Timiskaming to show the
province that the tide has turned toward
Liberalism.
Upon this by-election hangs the future
of the Liberal Party in Ontario, he said.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): That is
ancient history.
Mr. White: I myself have to agree with
the hon. leader of the Opposition in this
dispute and I am confident that our efforts,
together with his own, will prove the ac-
curacy of his forecast.
The hon. member for Bruce accused the
government of "cooking the books." As a
businessman he should have known better
and as an hon. member of this assembly he
should have spoken more responsibly.
The changes in the accounts receivable
and accounts payable accounts, 1960 versus
1184
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
1961, are absolutely meaningless when con-
sidered by themselves, as the hon. member
attempted to do. The increase or decrease
of one or several asset or liability accounts
means notliing at all in judging the success
and profitability of a year's operation.
To use his own example, if a businessman
increased his bank balance by $100 during
the year he could well conclude that he
had made $100 profit for the year, notwith-
standing an increase in unpaid bills, provid-
ing his total assets had increased $100 more
than his total liabilities. This effort to dis-
credit the operating surplus by isolating two
of several dozen asset and liability accounts
is misleading in the extreme.
The fact is tliat the consolidated surplus
realized during the fiscal year ending March
31, 1961, as expressed in business terms,
would be the operating surplus plus the
increase in fixed assets— a total of $64.2 mil-
lion. This is what we who are businessmen
would call an operating profit. In business
we would then deduct the non-cash expense
of depreciation to give a net profit.
In e£Fect, the government does the same
thing by transferring certain funds from
ordinary account— in effect expensing some
of the increased investment in fixed assets
—and at the same time setting up a reserve
against fixed assets. If I may call the total
of these two amounts depreciation for a
moment, it will be seen that the govern-
ment has depreciated its fixed assets by an
average of about $87 million per year dur-
ing tlie fiscal years 1957-1962.
I further calculate that this is a straight
line depreciation rate of four or five per
cent, which is likely the equivalent of a
seven or eight per cent annual depreciation
on reducing balance.
When it is considered that the federal
government permits private corporations a
five per cent depreciation rate on decreas-
ing balance on this type of fixed asset for
tax purposes, it must be concluded that the
provincial government has used sound ac-
counting principles and techniques and has
stated surpluses in moderate fashion after
judiciously increasing reserves for depreci-
ation. It is a truly remarkable record for
the period of growth concerned.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bruce
delights in the increase to the provincial debt
of $423,929,000-this is his figure for the past
five years— but does not point out that the
fixed assets increased by nearly $1 billion—
the difference of nearly half a billion dollars
once again being what businessmen would
call the operating profit for the period.
The provincial auditor's certificate was
quoted in part to suggest that he was
uneasy about the annual report. The hon.
member knows full well that the fiscal state-
ments of any substantial business operation
include explanations, classifications and con-
ditions. The provincial auditor states:
The balance sheet, statements of revenue
and expenditure and other related state-
ments are properly drawn up in accordance
with generally accepted accounting prin-
ciples.
Does a single hon. member opposite
honestly believe that the provincial auditor
would continue in that post if he were not
well satisfied with the accuracy of the figures
presented in the public accounts statements?
Of course no one believes such a thing, or
cries for resignation would be echoing in this
chamber today.
The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher)
has referred once again to the sales tax and
to their party's exemption plan. The people
of this province cannot be expected to place
their confidence in a group that forecasts
enormous debt increases for 1971 while
promising greatly increased expenditures and
lower taxes.
Mr. Whicher: I did not promise anything.
Mr. White: Well, the hon. member's col-
leagues are promising to pay for all the cost
of education, to pay for everything else that
comes their way. As recently as last week-
end in Chatham, at the Liberal convention
which the hon. member may or may not have
attended, they promised almost everything
they could think of— everything that costs
money.
The fallacy in the Liberal sales tax plan
has been described in detail several times in
recent montlis and it would be redundant for
me to assess this plan again. In fact, the
hon. member for Bruce himself admitted a
purchaser determined to avoid the tax would
be able to do so. May I simply say that
the so-called Wintermeyer plan is not easily
rationalized with their financial critic's fore-
cast of financial ruin. Once again the Liberal
party of Ontario is consistent only in its
inconsistencies.
The hon. member for Bruce referred to the
civil service, hoping, I suspect, that they have
forgotten that the last Liberal regime fired
more than 3,000 civil servants without cause.
He advocates higher salaries while implying
reduced expenditures, so it may be tliat
similar wholesale dismissals are part of the
unannounced plans of the Liberal glee club-
that secretive, shadowy group of Liberal
MARCH 16, 1962
1185
advisors who claim to be so rich in intellect
and who have proved to be so poor in faith
and reason.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. member is cooking
words now. That is utter nonsense.
Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Bruce complains of Ministers without
Portfolio, but does not recall to our memories
the good use to which Mackenzie King put
four Ministers without Portfolio.
Mr. Whicher: Does the hon. member re-
member that?
Mr. White: He complains of the number
of government departments but does not state
which departments he would abohsh, while
other hon. members of his caucus promise
a Department of Industry and a Department
of Northern Affairs. He complains of the
cost of acquiring land for highways yet would
be the first to urge higher prices be paid
in the name of justice to his farmers for their
property. He asks: "What has the government
done to ease the municipalities' education
costs except wring their hands?", while con-
veniently forgetting that the $34 million spent
by the Liberals on education in 1943 has
been increased nearly tenfold by a govern-
ment that recognizes today's well-educated
young people are the fountainhead of our
future prosperity.
He compares Canadian university enrol-
ment with American figures which include
our grades 12 and 13 pupils. Teachers' Col-
lege, business school and technological stu-
dents. He compares government departmental
expenses, rounding off percentage points so
that 1.5 per cent and 1.9 per cent appear as
being unchanged at 2 per cent, but he omits
The Departments of Health, Highways and
Education, even though they are the largest
departments of government, because tbey
do not fit his fanciful theories.
He forecasts expenditures for 1971— which
should provide this House with some jolly
moments of recollection at that time— but
does not mention that the net personal in-
come in Ontario is likely to reach $18 billion
to $20 billion. He dwells on possible deficits
while discounting Ontario's future expansion,
and chooses to ignore the fact that today's
debt equals one and a half years' revenue
compared to the six year debt pay-out of
1939-1940. He forgets, apparently, that in
the late 1930's the net capital debt was 29
per cent of total personal income in this
province compared with 10 per cent today.
Even if his dismal forecast of debt were
right, the 1971 net capital debt would be
nearly one-third less in relation to net per-
sonal income than when the Liberals were
in power.
He urges contra-cyclical budgeting but
must know that no province has the tax base
to put this theory into practice.
Comparing capital investment, he carefully
selects the years 1951 and 1959, but the fact
is that Ontario's share of the nation's capital
investment was fractionally higher during the
five years ending 1961 than it was during the
five years ending 1956. He details carefully
selected unemployment figures but will not
reveal recent improvement in unemployment
or admit that Ontario's record has been far
better than either Canada as a whole of the
United States.
He complains that housing completions
were down in 1960 but does not tell us that
housing starts were up. He looks at the
employment chart A 15 in the economic report
and states the percentage of the labour force
engaged in primary and manufacturing indus-
tries is down, failing to point out that off-
setting increases were experienced in trade
and services.
After this 50-page attack on the province's
resources, credit standing and future, what
suggestion did the hon. member for Bruce
have to offer this House? Let me remind
him:
(1) He would expand the growth rate by
encouraging increased capital investment, but
he overlooks the fact that the 20 per cent
Ontario rate compares with the U.S. rate of
17 per cent and that this government is doing
everything humanly possible to maintain and
expand this growth.
(2) He suggests that the province exert a
powerful influence in secviring growth but
does not acknowledge that this is exactly
what the goverrmient is doing through the
Ontario Economic Council. And may I just
say at this time that I for one, and I am sure
most every hon. member of this House, was
impressed by the 20 points brought forward
the day before yesterday by the hon. Min-
ister of Economics and Development (Mr.
Macaulay), a most remarkable and imagina-
tive, a most encouraging, programme for the
future development of this province, a pro-
gramme that pales the Opposition criticism-
Mr. Whicher: It pales the past of the
Tory party.
Mr. White: It pales the programmes that
are put forward here and shows them to be
completely inadequate, completely lacking
in faith in this province and in its future.
1186
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
(3) The Hon. member for Bruce (Mr.
Whicher) advocates a searching review and
reshaping of the entire tax structure by
federal and provincial authorities but he did
not say that this is exactly what the hon.
Prime Minister of Ontario (Mr. Robarts) has
been urging time and time and time again
for months, witii the growing support of
businessmen and taxation authorities in all
parts of the province.
(4) He suggests an Ontario development
fund but must know that this idea was sug-
gested by hon. members of the government
months ago and is being studied intensively
right now.
(5) He says the Ontario government should
induce automobile manufacturers to cease or
decrease parts importation but ignores the
Bladen report and the fact that tariflFs are a
federal responsibility.
(6) The hon. member suggests retraining
labour but ignores the revolutionary expan-
sion—yes, the revolutionary expansion of
trades, technical and technological training
in Ontario during the past 18 months. May
I say here, sir, that I still do not know what
the Liberal policy is in the matter of technical
education.
An hon. member: Nobody else does.
Mr. White: I think it was January 24 or
31, 1961, that the hon. leader of the Op-
position (Mr. Wintermeyer) was quoted at
great length on the bottom of the front page
of tlie Toronto Globe and Mail to the efiFect
that he did not think technological education
was perhaps the answer. He thought more
trades training was the answer. And now, in
more recent weeks, we find spurious com-
plaints against trades training, as if even
automation, as if even electronic equipment,
is going to do away with every internal
combustion engine in the world or against
people getting haircuts, etc., etc., etc.
I think that the hon. members of the
Liberal party would be doing the people in
this province a great service if they would
say what their policy is concerning education
and technical education. I do not know, and
they do not know, and the people of this
province do not know.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. member will find
out soon enough.
Mr. White: It is different every week; it is
different with every speaker.
Mr. Speaker, these suggestions, all of which
have been or are being implemented by the
present government, are called the policies
and programmes of the Liberal party, which
forces us to conclude that, while they speak
in terms of 1971, they think in terms of 1941.
There is not one single new constructive idea
or criticism in the 66 pages of verbiage and
carefully selected statistics produced by the
financial critic, his colleagues, and the
Liberal glee club. When he states that these
are the pohcies and programmes worthy of
the people of Ontario he deceives himself and
insults the men and women of this province.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Would
the hon. member permit a question? Did I
understand him correctly to state that the
government is putting into effect the pro-
gramme that the Liberals are advancing and
this is proof that the Liberal programme is
equivalent to 1941?
Mr. White: Well, the hon. member has
misconstrued that deliberately. I worded that
with the greatest of care so that mistake
could not be implied.
Mr. MacDonald: I was listening carefully.
Mr. White: I am saying purely and simply
that the Liberals have seized upon six of 100
good ideas that this government is working
on and is implementing—
Mr. MacDonald: You have proven well that
your policies-
Mr. White: Well, feel free to read this in
Hansard, and I think—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would point out to
the hon. members of this House once again
that all members will have an opportunity to
speak in this debate, and I am going to see
to it that those who do speak obtain order.
Mr. White: This Liberal programme has
the strength and consistency of a mouthful
of warm tapioca. It is not worthy of the
remains of tlie once-great Liberal party, let
alone the province as a whole.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention
some of the galloping Galbraithian theories
of the hon. member for Woodbine (Mr.
Bryden). It should be said at the outset that
while the NDP financial critic talked in terms
of concerted federal-provincial action in each
of his five major proposals, the fact is that
the federal government has almost 100 per
cent of the responsibility and authority to
implement these ideas.
This is not to say that the hon. member
MARCH 16, 1962
1187
for Woodbine was ill-advised in putting these
suggestions forward in this place. In my
judgment, it is entirely suitable and even
desirable for a provincial member to oflFer
suggestions in this Legislature on matters of
national concern. On the other hand, it is
likely not desirable that prolonged debate be
undertaken here on such national aflFairs and
I do not propose to enter into detailed dis-
cussion.
I cannot resist the observation that the
CCF, having failed once again to attract wide-
spread support by changing its name, now
seems determined to woo the Canadian elec-
torate by changing its clothing. The raiments
of the Regina manifesto— 1933 model— were
thrown aside, tattered and torn, when the
1956 Winnipeg mantle was put on. This garb
in turn was replaced by the new look of the
Ottawa declaration of 1961. Now the hon.
member for Woodbine wants to change the
suit again in a desperate eflFort to attract the
public fancy.
The Woodbine manifesto of March 9, 1962,
is a radically different style from its fore-
runners but the label is the same. It is the
continuing label of class antipathy that re-
vealed itself time and time again during the
hon. member's speech, and it is this label of
class antipathy that alienates the support of
the Canadian people in the market place, or
should I say the polling places of the province.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) for a budget
that is exciting while sensible, expansionist
while businesshke, and dynamic while respon-
sible.
I congratulate the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development (Mr. Macaulay)
on an economic statement that reflects his
own great ability, his own vitality, energy and
dedication. While his courage and character
are such that he needs no defender, I am
compelled to say and to deplore the fact that
the Opposition attacks on this hon. Minister
are becoming maliciously unfair in quality
and quantity.
The economic statement refers to the
European Common Market and enumerates
the potential advantages and disadvantages to
Ontario. The hon. Minister's approach is a
constructive one, as hon. members would
expect from this extremely capable public
servant. He said:
As standards of living rise in western
Europe, there will be large potential
markets and greater opportunities for
exporters of consumer goods as well as
industrial raw materials.
Walter Lippman thinks that Britain's entry
into the European Common Market will be
the most significant world event in decades,
dwarfing the Berlin crisis and all other similar
temporary crises. I would Hke the hon.
Minister of Economics and Development to
consider appointing one or several of his
senior economists to spend all of their time
studying the European Common Market and
scrutinizing its expansion and evolution.
Our economic well-being may depend to a
large extent on our ability to adapt to chang-
ing world markets, and the European Common
Market is going to be the key to this revolu-
tionary development. Our industries deserve
to be extremely well-informed and assisted to
the full by our government, and we in Ontario
cannot do too much to prepare them in this
way for changing competitive conditions.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would
permit a question?
I wonder if he agrees with the Ottawa
theory on the common market, or the
Macaulay theory?
Mr. White: I believe that the European
Common Market is going to be of immense
concern and direct economic influence to
every hon. member of this House and every
member of the Ontario public. And I think
that if we in this government, or governments
elsewhere than Ontario, fail to keep very well
informed, fail to keep our pohcies and pro-
grammes flexible and changing to meet this
changing pattern of world trade, we will have
failed the people in our economy. As a matter
of fact, I am amazed that the financial critics
have not spent a great deal of time on the
European Common Market; the reason, of
course, is that once again they have failed
to recognize the really important changes
that are taking place in the world. They
have failed to keep in touch with it and, of
course, the penalty is going to be continued
apposition.
The economic report states:
Our merchandise trade deficit with the
US as well as our deficit on tourist account
are matters to which we must give increas-
ing attention.
Without offending our American friends, I
wonder if we could not encourage some of
those who seek warmer climes at this time
of the year to go to British Commonwealth
resort areas in the Caribbean rather than to
the southern States. It used to grieve me
some years ago to see members of the federal
government flock to Florida, and I seem to
1188
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
note an encouraging switch in recent years
to the Bahamas and other Commonwealth
countries. It is not the money that these
style leaders spend themselves that is so im-
portant; what is important is the money spent
by the thousands of people who follow their
example.
Since it is more difficult and expensive to
get to Bermuda and other islands, the govern-
ment might find a way to encourage low-
priced excursion transportation for tourists
who otherwise would drive to Florida.
Exactly how this could be done I do not
know, but perhaps some other hon. member
of this House can enlarge on the nucleus of
this idea.
Another quotation from the economic
report reads:
Development of quality control tech-
niques and the improvement in design con-
stitute objectives at which Canada and
Ontario industry must constantly aim.
The Japanese, I understand, have estab-
lished a powerful quality control export com-
mittee which approves or prohibits goods
being exported so that their exports will en-
hance rather than detract from the newly-
acquired Japanese reputation for quality. A
like committee in Ontario perhaps would not
coincide with our philosophy of free enter-
prise, but the new Ontario Economic Council
should establish a subcommittee to study at
the very least the desirability of establishing
a quality-control committee to encourage
research and stimulate improved design and
better production of consumer goods for
export. The hon. George Drew suggested
federal tax incentives for this purpose eight
years ago, and the merit of this approach
seems more obvious with each year that
passes.
Mr. Speaker, the new budget reinforces
my firm belief that Ontario stands on a new
threshold of bold achievement under the
leadership of a new government whose depth
of purpose and breadth of vision is quickly
becoming known to our people.
I was pleased to learn that the govern-
ment had underspent its budget in the fiscal
year 1961-1962 by introducing economies and
improving efficiency, thus saving the tax-
payers of the province $34 million. The care-
ful scrutiny given every expenditure by the
Treasury board is well known to every hon.
member on both sides of this House, whose
whose own ambitions for personal requests
have failed to pass the severe test of Treasury
board investigation. This same hardheaded
business approach has enabled the govern-
ment to expand its essential services for 1962-
1963 in the fields of education, healtli and
welfare, without any additional taxes, or
increase in existing taxes. This news was
greeted with huzzas by the press and public
of the province. There is the headline from
the London Free Press:
Record Budget Holds No Tax Boosts
This news was greeted with huzzas by
the press and public of the province, and
so the new Prime Minister and his new
government move from strength to strength
in an ever-progressing programme of
human bettennent.
The Treasurer's declaration that: "This
year's budget like its predecessors, has
been formulated to exert a positive effect
upon the Ontario economy," was borne
out by the policy statements and fiscal
information that followed. Investment in
the education of Ontario youth increased
$61 million to $330 million, thereby
accounting for half of this year's budgetary
increase.
Investment in health and welfare is in-
creased by $19.2 milhon to a new total of
$205 million. One exciting innovation was
the introduction of special bursaries for
medical and dental students willing to
serve in outlying areas of the province.
Very imaginative, and I congratulate the
government on it.
Enlarged also were the out-patient serv-
ices provided under the Ontario Hospital
Services Plan. The cost of this improve-
ment is likely to be offset by the savings in
hospital beds.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would call to the
attention of the hon. members of this House
that quietness must reign while a member
is speaking. Once again I say that other
members will have their opportunities. Other
members, indeed, have had their chances to
speak, and when they have I have preserved
order and I intend to do it this morning.
Mr. White: The cost of the enlargement
of out-patient services is likely to be offset
by the savings on hospital beds— reduced
capital maintenance expenses in that other
direction.
This is what I call good business. This is
what I call good government. Listen to
just a few of the important provisions of
this new budget: new five year plan for
economic development; 200 more provincial
policemen; broadened exemptions in retail
sales taxes and simphfied collection pro-
MARCH 16, 1962
1189
cedures for small retailers; stabilized hospi-
tal insurance premiums; new low-rental
housing plans; increased pensions for those
qualifying for old age assistance, blind per-
sons' and disabled persons' allowance; addi-
tional assistance for northern Ontario
enterprises; additional assistance once again
for the municipalities of the province; and
on and on it goes— an endless list of bold
achievement.
The hon. members of this House will
agree with me, I am sure, Mr. Speaker,
that the new hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts), with his wisdom and stability, the
hon. Treasurer (Mr. Allan) whose dignity;
ability and integrity illuminate this House,
the hon. Minister of Economics and Devel-
opment (Mr. Macaulay) whose vision, initia-
tive and dedication are an inspiration to
all members of this Legislature— yes, sir, we
all agree that these hon. Ministers and their
distinguished colleagues in the Cabinet are
leading this province to greater accomplish-
ment, greater prosperity, and greater glory
for all of the people of Ontario. Mr. Speaker,
Ontario is "A-OK," and the economic sig-
nal is "GO."
Mr. W. B. Lewis (York-Humber): Mr.
Speaker, after the storm comes the tranquil
waters quietly down the stream. Mr.
Speaker, as this is the second time this ses-
sion I have addressed you, the felicitations
I conveyed to you before, of course, still
apply in this instance.
In speaking on the debate on the budget,
I will be very brief. But I would be remiss
if I did not bring to your attention what I
consider the rather precarious and deviat-
ing course of Metropolitan Toronto.
Metropolitan Toronto, Bill No. 80, was
the master production of three outstanding
and able men. It took Lome Cumming to
build it. It took the former hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost) to make it. And it
took "Big Daddy" Gardiner to carry it out.
That was some years ago. Metro has since
become a successful international curiosity,
to the extent that everybody from Tokyo to
Winnipeg is or has been studying the sys-
tem. But it is becoming obvious now that
the Metro system, to some degree, has out-
lived its very useful beginning.
Let us face the facts!
Downtown Toronto — Bay Street if you
want to identify it as that, but I defy any-
body to actually define what Bay Street is
—downtown Toronto is a tremendous asset,
not only to Toronto but also to Metro,
Ontario and the whole of Canada. But
along with progress and development, the
trend of concentration is changing. There
is already a full flight of industry and busi-
ness to new locations in the suburbs.
We as legislators cannot let that great
asset of downtown Toronto, the very heart
of this great metropolis, deteriorate as it very
well could.
Metro is now faced with multi-million
dollar expenditures on expressways and
subways, as well as all the other commitments
that Metro was set up for. On one hand
The Department of Highways has decreed
in its wisdom that the Spadina Expressway
must be constructed to Bloor Street in its
initial phase, with a Spadina subway ex-
tension. On the other hand, the Ontario
Municipal Board is strongly suggesting that
Metro make a very complete reappraisal of
all its financing. Not only the projects it
is already committed to, but also TTC pro-
jects which the TTC now admits can no
longer be carried out without raising fares
to the point of diminishing returns.
Obviously Metro has reached a new stage
in its development.
Metro is no longer a super municipal
government, although like any municipal
government Metro is always a creature of
Queen's Park.
Metro is now something between a muni-
cipal and a sovereign Ontario government.
There is still plenty of wealth in down-
town Toronto, at least enough to pay the
costs of works such as subways, express-
ways, etc., to maintain and guarantee down-
town's Toronto essential existence. The
question is: how do you tap that great
wealth?
The answer must lie with this government.
Either it gives Metro a broader tax basis, to
be applied where Metro sees fit, and get the
monkey oflF the residential taxpayers* back, or
it gives Metro the money from provincial
revenues to do the job Metro has to do. It
must be one way or the other. A special
Metro tax, or special grants to Metro. There
appears to be no other solution, Mr. Speaker.
Since no one really expects any government
to farm out its taxing powers, the grant
system on a special basis appears to be the
overall answer.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion
that Metro government is in a state of
transition and economic and political evolu-
tion. No one expects to produce an answer
overnight to this great problem. However,
my people do expect that our government
will grapple with this situation, and come up
1190
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in the near future with— if not all the answers
—at least the solution to some of the problems
involved.
Mr. J. Chappie (Fort William): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak, sir, on this budget
debate.
When the speeches to the Throne were
completed during that particular afternoon
I happened to be flying over the city of
Toronto and over tliis Legislature. The plane
that I was in, because of a 500-foot ceiling,
was unable to land. The pilot informed us
that if we could not land in Toronto— of
course he said he would try to land and
after zooming back and forth he finally
decided it was too tough— we would try to
land in London and if we did not land in
London we would land in Cleveland. For-
tunately I was able to land in the riding
of the hon. member who spoke just before
the last speaker— whether the airport is in
his particular part of the riding I am not
sure. However, we landed safety in Toronto
after the low ceiHng had moved off to the
east.
An hon. member: He is still up in the air.
Mr. Chappie: I would like to talk a little
bit about the problem that the government
seems to have in being economical in its
spending. During the length of time I have
been here I have been very worried about
this feature of government and have tried on
most occasions to assist through a certain
amount of criticism, although I have always
tried to make it constructive.
But before I go on with the gist of what
I was going to say, I would like to inform
the House that a matter reached my desk this
morning concerning the particular problem
the government seems to have— I do not see
why it should— but seems to have, in spending
money in such amounts that seems to be more
or less, at least in my opinion, to a great
degree more than is absolutely or actually
necessary.
This refers to a farm which is in my
particular area. In the Tuesday issue of the
Port Arthur News Chronicle, this statement
is made. This is of course, a federal concern
but it is a good indication of the type of thing
that does happen, and in this case actually
has happened.
Mr. Hamilton, the hon. Minister of Agri-
culture, wrote that the area under cultivation
north of Lake Superior is increasing, but
tliere is no experimental farm between
Kapuskasing and Winnipeg. The purpose of
the farm will be to grow test forage and
pasture crops. No Hvestock will be involved.
It is hoped to have a laboratory and a few
small buildings for a staff of half a dozen
by 1963.
Now this involves a property of 70 acres
and, hon. members, the amount involved for
the purchase of these 70 acres is $315,000.
This $315,000 is, of course, the amount that
was announced directly from the government
in tlie Port Arthur paper. But when we come
to the Fort Wilham paper— Fort WiUiam
Times Journal— we find the cost to be about
$225,000.
On the basis of $315,000, the property is
worth $4,500 an acre. I know about this
particular property, it is within a 100-acre
lot of my own. It is actually divided, I
believe, into two parts. One follows Highway
130 along the line towards adjoining High-
way 61. On the left hand side of the road,
or to the east, there are 50 acres of land
which are made up of a sandy loam; on the
right hand side, the owner of the property
had divided an area along the road for two-
acre lots according to the zoning bylaw and
many of these lots are sold. Farther on, on
the other side of the 100-acre lot he has
approximately 20 acres. So I imagine that
the total amount which was sold to the
government was the combination of this 50
acres on the left hand side of the road
and tlie 20 acres on the right hand side of
the road.
Back in 1946, in this area farther to the
south, I purchased a 100-acre lot for $11
an acre or $1,100 for this particular lot,
which was cleared except for an area where
a ravine cuts off a portion which could not
be used.
Also, there is a farm lying between this
particular part that was purchased, or is in
the throes of being purchased, and my own
which consists of 300-acre lots and has a
dairy herd consisting of around 70 head. It
is better land than the land which was already
purchased, because on this particular land the
soil had been well fertihzed and well
developed.
I was offered this land a year ago for
$150,000-that is the whole farm for $150,000
—because the wiie of the owner of this
property had died just recently and he wanted
to get cash for the property. It was a matter
of a family deal where he felt that division
of the property could be better made on a
cash basis. He finally came down to the point
where he said: John, I am offering you this
whole deal here, I will give it to you for
$100,000 cash. I did not want the farm so
the Jeal did not go through; I had enough
MARCH 16, 1962
1191
to do without taking on another farm of this
size.
But I would hke to point out to hon.
members that 300 acres of land which is
still there in this particular farm— there are
a number of buildings on it, there are bams
on it and other types of buildings on it—
these whole 300 acres are still there. I
imagine if the government were to contact
this farmer, he might want to sell it. This
farm I am sure could have been purchased
by the government at a greatly reduced price,
Mr. Speaker; a much better farm, with
greater acreage.
This is what I am afraid of with govern-
ment spending and government operations.
It is very unfortunate that government money
lias to be wasted in this manner.
I was very interested last night— the hon.
Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) is not in
his seat, I hoped he would be— but I was
very interested in his remarks last night.
Twenty-five years ago when I was in Gerald-
ton we had a mining community and there
were times when it was stated across the
Dominion that the streets of Geraldton were
paved with gold. Well, the gold never did
come on the streets. We had a great many
mines there which are ghost mines today,
but we never did get the streets of Geraldton
paved with gold.
If hon. members go up to Atikokan they
Avill find at certain times of the year that
the streets of Atikokan are paved with the
iron ore dust emanating from Steep Rock
ore mine open pits. This actually happens
and I hope it can continue to happen, because
it shows that the industry is still in operation.
But so far we have not found that on the
streets of Port Arthur we are able to walk
along and pick up diamonds.
Diamonds, I understand, are a possibility as
far as mining is concerned in Moosonee. I
certainly hope that the hon. Minister is able
to find these diamonds and to distribute them
among the members of his riding. I hope
that in the adjoining riding of Fort William
Ave will be privileged to participate in the
good luck or good fortune of the hon. Minister
himself.
About the economic setup of northwestern
Ontario. It is something on which we feel
Ave are making progress. We also feel that to
a great extent we are doing it ourselves. The
government is helping, yes, in certain areas;
T3ut I think hon. members will find that back
in 1960 northwestern Ontario went ahead
Avhen we were in an unemployment situation
which was very aggravating at the time. The
labour councils were interested in it. What
finally came out of it was the northwestern
Ontario commission on employment.
The commission was set up under the
auspices of both cities and the whole district
and a study was made. The commission was
set up in December, 1960, to study employ-
ment problems in the region. Money for the
study was contributed by the cities of Fort
William and Port Arthur and by the north-
western Ontario development association.
Each commissioner made a personal con-
tribution of his energy, experience and time
during the year of the study. A senior eco-
nomist from the federal Department of Labour
helped tlie commission to organize such pro-
cedures. During the first few months of 1961
the commissioners familiarized themselves
with national employment trends and fore-
casts. It became clear that the regional prob-
lem was too serious and too complicated to
permit a short study.
The commissioners prepared and mailed
detailed questionnaires to 3,100 employers
and 120 union locals in northwestern Ontario
to obtain information and opinions of the
short and long term employment problems.
The questionnaires were returned from 800
employers and locals covering a labour force
of over 27,000 men and women. The informa-
tion and opinions from the questionnaires
were combined with the commission's own
fact-finding studies during the summer
months. This report consists of material
selected from the 40 graphs, 100 tables and
charts and 40,000 words collected and pre-
pared during the study.
The brief covers many things and basically
puts forward the problems in northwestern
Ontario, probably to a much more detailed
degree than anything we have had. From this
particular report— through its suggestions— we
have brought into being the committee which
was recommended.
The committee as recommended was this:
a regional advisory council should be formed
in northwestern Ontario. The council would
be responsible for continuing investigation,
public education and the co-ordination of
regional development proposals. The council
should consist of not more than 11 representa-
tives from the public and private sectors of
our economy. The council's function would
be different from that of the northwestern
Ontario development association which is a
promotional organization of the province and
local municipality. The regional advisory
council would work in close Haison with
chambers of commerce, municipal associa-
tions, the northwestern Ontario development
association and similar agencies.
1192
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This council actually has been appointed
and I have the names of those who have been
appointed and a start has been made.
The next suggestion made by this particular
commission was that a regional economic
conference be held in March. I doubt very
much whether this will happen. But in the
meantime we have had appointed from the
government another council for northwestern
Ontario and this council is going to be headed
up by Mr. D. A. Clark who is a very
prominent man at the head of the lakes. I
have known him myself for a great many years
and appreciate his knowledge and ability. I
am not sure whether the members have as yet
been appointed or designated, but I do know
that the advisory council appointed by the
northwest Ontario commission on employ-
ment was set up.
This regional advisory council is an in-
dependent group of citizens of the region who
will, by their experience and training, repre-
sent the major facets of economic and social
life in northwestern Ontario. The council
consists of two men from Fort William, two
from Neebing, two from Paipoonge, two from
Port Arthur and two from Shuniah, which
covers that whole general area. The council
should consist of members who are prominent
and outspoken in the fields of agriculture,
investments, iron ore, gold, law, pulp and
paper, real estate, retail trades, transportation
and unions.
The secretary of this board, Mr. Harry
Parsons, says that in the time since the
publication of the report the government of
Ontario has established a northern develop-
ment committee to be chaired by Mr. D. A.
Clark. The commission does not know the
exact terms of reference of this proposed
organization and has decided to go ahead
with its own programme until the situation
is clarified. Duplications can be avoided by
liaisons or mergers with the northern develop-
ment committee.
Now, this is all very good and—
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a
question please?
Mr. Chappie: Certainly; it is a pleasure.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I just want to say that
the information that the hon. member has
given is factual. I know all the men he is
speaking of and they have done a good job.
The other day I had a letter from Mr. Clark-
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): Question
—no speeches. What is the question?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well, I wanted to
to know if he knew that this group was work-
ing with this new economic council he is
speaking of. Mr. Parsons is in touch with
them and they are working together.
Mr. Chappie: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cer-
tainly thank the hon. Minister for the infor-
mation he gives me. I know he is very well
informed, particularly about diamonds.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I thank the hon.
member for Fort William; I appreciate that.
The more advertising he gives it the better.
He may be surprised one of these days.
Mr. Chappie: Unfortunately, in north-
western Ontario, in spite of what the hon.
Minister of Mines says, it is not all easy
going. I would like to read a small item
taken from the Port Arthur News Chronicle.
This is an article which makes us feel very
depressed about the future of our part of
the country. The heading of the article is:
Lose $1 Million Pulpwood Market
Because of Costs
A familiar sight in Port Arthur— their
residence for over 30 years— a harbour filled
with pulp logs awaiting the spring thaw,^
has disappeared this year due to cost prob-
lems, said D. A. Clark, president of the
Great Lakes Lumber and Shipping Com-
pany today. Mr. Clark said that for many
years his firm had exported 35,000 cords
of wood valued at about $1 million to the
Silveny Pulp and Paper Company at
Taconna, Wisconsin. Rising costs of our
wood due to increased labour and operating
costs have made the company seek a new
market, he explained. The paper company
now gets its wood in the form of chips
from sawmill operations in Denver, Col-
orado.
"I do not see how we can get the market
back," Mr. Clark stated. "Production costs
in those areas of the United States are
cheaper than ours and it will be difficult
to regain the business unless conditions here
have changed.
"This raised quite a complicated prob-
lem with many of the smaller operators
at the head of the lakes. Unfortunately,
the northern part of the United States, in
the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin and so
on, there are many areas where the growth
of trees is coming to the point of maturity.
Here we have operators who can, or seem
to be able to, cut their lumber or their
pulpwood cheaper than we can do it."
I
MARCH 16, 1962
1193
Now I have had many representations to
me from labour at the head of the lakes tell-
ing me that they are not getting enough for
their cutting, per cord, for what they are
prodvicing. They say it is not enough, they
need more; they have to have a larger cordage
price for what they are selling. They can-
not operate because of tlie fact that they are
not getting enough for the labour that they
do.
Well, I can agree with this; it is quite
possible that they are not and I can agree
witli them to that extent. But the cost of
getting cordage from our particular area has
risen to the point where competitively the
men who are selling this pulp to the United
States or to whoever they sell it, are not
able to be competitive with the areas of the
northern States. It is very unfortunate.
If the costs are raised higher more of these
operators are going to go out of business and
when it comes to this point, there will be
no jobs at all for tlie people interested in
this type of development.
Now if Mr. Clark, as chairman of this new
committee that has been set up, can solve
this particular problem, he will certainly be
doing something really great for northwestern
Ontario. Not that pulpwood is not moving
out of northwestern Ontario to all the mills
around creating a certain amount of work in
the woods and the bush; a great deal of this
was done this year; but not nearly to the
extent that it has been done in former years.
One of the things that I wanted to bring to
the attention of the government is what I
consider possibly to be of more importance
than anything, for the best interests of this
province. That is the Trans-Canada highway
or the lack of same. We have not only one
Trans-Canada highway, we have two Trans-
Canada highways, yet we have no Trans-
Canada highway. That may sound a little
complicated but it is actually the case.
The government should have shown leader-
ship in this regard. If the government had
said: "We are going to have a Trans-Canada
highway," the federal government would
have said, "You shall have a Trans-Canada
highway. We will help you; we are going
to supply a good percentage of the cost of
the Trans-Canada highway."
But the government was not satisfied with
this. A Trans-Canada highway across the
province of Ontario would have done more
for the people of Ontario as a whole than
anything we can possibly think of. Look
what it would have meant to us. The people
in the States would have come up here and
gone across by this highway. They would have
had at least some ingress to the province on
both sides instead of having a province
witli one Trans-Canada highway called
Highway No. 7, another called Highway
No. 11, and then Highway No. 17. It
should be Trans-Canada Highway No. 1.
This would have been something important
and this should have been done 20 years
ago. But what have we got?—
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Outline that
route.
Mr. Chappie: I am going to, that is just
exactly what I am going to do, and I am
not going to do it with a great deal of
pleasure because I feel very unhappy about
it. I would like to point this out: first you
have Highway No. 17 running from the
Quebec border, through Ottawa to North
Bay. But have you ever travelled on High-
way No. 17? That is not a highway; it
needs to be rebuilt— and all I am asking
for is a two-lane highway.
After North Bay you continue on High-
way 17, you go to the Sault. Well, I am
not sure about how that highway is, but if
it is in the same condition it was when I
last travelled it, it would not be too good.
You go on from Sault Ste. Marie and you get
to tlie area which has just been newly built.
This is a very good highway, but the unfor-
tunate part of this particular section of the
highway is that you cannot find it.
The people in the Sault say: "Well, here
is this highway, fine, we will find it." So
they travel for 70 miles over a poor road
and they finally hit it. The people of Fort
William say: "Well, this is a lovely high-
way, let us find it," you travel for another
75 miles before you hit it and when you
do hit it of course, well, it is a very nice
highway. But why for goodness sake did
not the government complete this highway
before they opened it?
Take the highway encircling Lake
Superior, something of which we are very
proud, and which I travelled around when
it was opened, being what we called at that
time a Lakehead admiral— I do not mind
being an admiral as long as they do not
ask me to go on the water. Sixty of us
made this trip around Lake Superior. Now
how can the government sell something that
is not there?
If the former hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost) had opened this highway at Wawa,
if he had opened it when it was completed,
there would have been no complaint; we
1194
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
would have had something really worth-
while to offer the people of the States and
our other tourists. But here is a half-finished
highway presented to the people of the
States as something wonderful. Can The
Department of Travel and Publicity adver-
tise a highway unless, with any degree of
— an hon. member suggests the word
"accuracy," well the accuracy of the state-
ment is pretty faint— around Lake Superior we
still have not got anything of which we can
be proud.
Then Highway 11, the second highway
tliat nms across Canada, which originally
was supposed to be a part of the Trans-
Canada Highway— and, of course, in 1941
that highway was so-called completed. I
was there at Sturgeon River when the ribbon
was cut, the highway was opened; and to-
day, a few years later, this liighway still
has not been completed, not to highway
specifications— particularly around Cochrane,
Hearst and these areas. A little bit is being
done every year and it is being stretched
out and stretched out and stretched out.
If one goes on farther from there you
say, well the hon. Minister says, we have a
highway from Fort William to the Mani-
toba border. We have; but 120 miles of
this highway is still not up to Trans-Can-
ada Highway specifications. And if the hon.
Minister knows what that means he will
agree with me that no tourists, particularly
American tourists, are going to come across
our country until we have a highway that
is up to these standards. You have high-
way—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Is it true that the
tourist business in our area, over Highways
17 and 11, increased 100 per cent last
summer over the year before?
Mr. Chappie: I would be very pleased
to answer that question. I would be very
pleased to answer it this way; that if this
increase the hon. Minister says occurred,
and I feel he may be approximately right,
it does not mean anything to Ontario.
These people came up to see good high-
ways, these people came up to go through
Ontario, and what do they say when they
go back to the States; just what vnU they
say?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: They will say they
are surprised.
Mr. Chappie: They are not going to come
back; is the hon. Minister selling Ontario?
Of course not. The tourist rate would in-
crease 10 times if we had a decent hi^i-
way across Ontario. The hon. Minister does
a false selling job, and anybody can do a
false selling job, and he knows what hap-
pens afterwards. There is no second trip;
there is no proper job being done in On-
tario, none whatever; but the waste which
was done on highways, of duplication— high-
ways which were done and had to be redone
—readjusted, being levelled, the turns, the
sections that have to be taken out, the
bridges that have to be built and so on, is
a terrific waste which has been accepted by
this department of the Ontario government^
and accepted by the federal government, and
which should not have been accepted.
The leadership of the Ontario government
in this regard is just out of this world; into
orbit, the way— well, we will not go into
orbit, we will get right down to earth and
tlie Liberal government will see that a high-
way is built for us. And it will get done.
But we do not want a costly highway; we
want a good, straight highway built to speci-
fications; and only a two-lane highway— that
is all we want. We have never had it, we
never will get it at the rate that the job is
being done. Of course, the hon. Minister
knows as well as anyone else that we have
another highway. No. 11, which is a part of
this deal; it is a straight dupHcation of high-
way 17— it runs from Highway 17 to Atiko-
kan; some day it is going to get to Fort
Frances at terrific cost— why did the govern-
ment not go ahead and build one highway
first? Why not have one highway first?
The others can come. And what about the
transportation across Ontario or the lack of
same? The hon. Minister knows what is
happening as well as I do. Most people who
want to go from the west to the east go down
south of the lake; they by-pass us.
On top of that again, all the transportation
from eastern Canada to western Canada goes
the same route and by-passes our part of the
country. It is ridiculous. He knows it as
well as I do. It is something that is straight
governmental lack of decision.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Trans-
port): Mr. Speaker, that is an entirely errone-
ous-
Mr. Singer: What point is this? He is out
of order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chappie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know
what the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr.
Rowntree) is mumbling about, but I do Imow
the facts.
MARCH 16, 1962
1195
I have been worrying about different things
that go on in this province. It has bothered
me; it has bothered me over the years. I
think the hon. Minister from Port Arthur (Mr.
Wardrope) will recognize the fact that, as
chairman of the tourist committee back in
1947-1948, I worried about this problem then
and I got nowhere. I am still worrying about
it now and I still do not think I will get
anywhere.
Tliere is one thing I feel, being a retailer
—the unfortunate problem that retailing is
faced with in this province. We have as
retailers a job to perform, and unfortunately
this job is not being performed to the degree
to which it should. Unfortunately it is mostly
through control that the problem arises; there
is control on the municipal level, and not
only does this control on the municipal level
seem to grow but retailers themselves are
asking for more control. The control that
I am referring to is the control of store hours.
As far as store hours are concerned
I have had a great deal to do with this. I
have always been of the opinion that a
merchant has a job to perform; and if he
does his job right he will be successful. His
management will be successful but he must
have the ability and the type of operation
which gives him sufficient volume, and suflBci-
ent and good administration, to do the type
of job a retailer should do. A retailer is a
service, does a service, is a service man.
This problem in controlling store hours does
not emanate from the general public at all;
it does not emanate from council; it emanates
from the poor retailer— the retailer who cannot
operate himself but puts himself into a posi-
tion where: "I cannot get what I want so
therefore I am going to put everybody else
in the same position." And this is unfortunate,
because if we do not have proper competitive
outlets, and they are there— one can go to
England, go anywhere one hkes and one will
find stores of all lands open according to the
demands and desires of their management
which relates entirely to the service that they
can and do, to and for their customers.
It is unfortunate that retailers do not
realize this, do not realize that they should
have their hands free to do the kind of
operation that they can do to the best
interests of all. I do not feel that a retailer
should come to the government to have his
problems solved, because he cannot have his
problems solved by government; he must have
his problems solved through good manage-
ment.
In the last day or so we have had the
game and fisheries convention here and The
Department of Lands and Forests have been
holding their meetings for people who are
interested in this particular vocation. I would
like to make a comment on three things that
came up during these meetings which I feel
are important to me and for which possibly
other people may have the same feeling.
One was a bill which I go along with
entirely, suggesting that we be very careful
with the handling and the distributing of
sprays— spraying of, indiscriminate use of
sprays over areas, any areas, particularly by
airplane and so on; because this type of thing
not only looks after the disease or that
particular job that the spray is supposed to
eradicate, or disease that the spray is supposed
to eradicate, it also kills the living bacteria,
the living insects, animals, birds and so on
in the area. This is deplorable.
The indiscriminate use of spray is one of
the things which is going to ruin our natural
habitat; there is no doubt about this. I am
not against spraying as used on some partic-
ular project, or for some particular project,
which is going to be definitely looked after
by the person concerned. It is something
at which he makes a living; he has to have
spray to protect himself in this particular area,
therefore he is quite satisfied to kill off the
insects, all the birds, in that particular area
to look after this job. That is fine, that is
OK. But for the government, or Department
of Agriculture, or any individual who takes
this particular job on, indiscriminate spraying
of our forest areas for any purpose at all is
not conducive to the best development of
our wild life.
I would advise the government therefore
to be very careful in this regard, and to look
after this with kid gloves, because we all
know that accidents happen through people
who do not understand the use and the
strength of the spray that they are using.
Another thing I would like to comment on
is this: a resolution came up which said that
we should have placed tailored trees along
our highways. This tailored tree idea is fine,
it possibly would increase the beauty of our
highways, but when one puts out these trees
first one has to have the proper type of soil
to put them in. I have seen trees put up
by the department and by people, who find
wthin a year, maybe six months, that these
trees have died because they were not put
in proper soil.
The next thing is the proper moisture; how
are you going to supply these trees with the
proper moisture. ,
How are we going to prevent these trees
being killed through frost? This is something;
1196
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I feel the government should not go into.
The government sliould not go into this type
of thing at all. It is something that is not
needed in the first place. It is not necessary.
They are generally put in between highways,
a four-lane highway with an opening in the
centre, they put trees in between there. These
trees are a hazard if tliey grow big, or even
if they do not grow big, particularly in night
travelling.
I do not see any use, any real use, for trees
on any highway. The trees can be growing
naturally like they do up in our country
away from the highways, but they do at least
grow.
The third thing that came up which was a
very contentious thing and which the depart-
ment, I hope, will look into because it was
demanded by a great many of those present,
is the department's policy towards research
in connection with wolves and deer. In
Algonquin Park they are studying a method
by which they can control deer within the
park by the use of wolves. But those tourist
operators who are outside this particular area
are not interested in wolves controlling deer,
they are interested in deer being in evidence.
Because of wolves being indiscriminately
allowed to go in packs through these areas,
many deer have been killed, particularly in
the winter time. The wastage of animals by
these deer being killed by wolves lies in the
fact that an animal will be killed and maybe
five pounds of meat or so taken by the wolf
and then the carcass is left to rot. This is
very unfortunate.
The Department of Lands and Forests
would do well to concentrate on some way,
some type of regulation, which will make it
possible for the farmers, the tourist operators
to control wolves— the farmers, of course, are
having trouble with wolves because of the
fact that sheep are being destroyed by them.
If we start out trying to find a way to
study wolves, we should be trying to find a
way of destroying wolves. If these wolves
are destroyed and taken out of the area
entirely, we can control the growth of the
areas as far as the land is concerned and we
can also control the number of deer in any
area through sportsmen who would be asked
to come up and have something to shoot. Or,
if in some areas the deer are destructive,
these deer can be moved to areas that are
not overrun to the extent where the growth
is being destroyed.
Those are the three things I got out of
tlie committee meetings held by The De-
partment of Lands and Forests and the three
tilings on which I felt criticism was necessary
for the better operation of our government.
I know the ND Party will not be very
happy about me bringing up this next subject,
but I am going to bring it up anyway. I know
that there is a problem here, it is a problem
no one can really handle without a great
deal of soul searching. This particular item
which I have in my hand is headlined:
Offence to Discriminate in Hiring,
Board Decides
The Ontario Labour Relations Board in
a precedent-setting decision has ruled that
employers are prohibited by law from re-
fusing employment to all who become
because of minimum of union activity.
An hon. member: The hon. member should
read the rest of it.
Mr. Chappie: I cannot read the rest of it.
Mr. D. C. Macdonald (York South): He
cannot read, period.
Mr. Chappie: One reason why I am not
going to read the rest of it— it is a Httle
funny, this particular point is— I think I can
cover it without doing so. My glasses do
not seem to be operating too well, the print
is a bit small, and the difficulties which are
entailed, will possibly make it better if I
were to explain the situation more or less in
my own words.
The company involved— actually it is not
one company, it is two— this particular com-
pany took over, a company from the States
took over a company in Canada, a powdered
milk company. In the taking over of this
company there was a dispute as to whether
two particular members of a union should
or should not be kept on by the company
that did the purchasing.
Now let us go back to the basis of these
things. Why would a Canadian company, if
it were operating properly, why would a
Canadian company want to sell out to an
American company? When hon. members
have a business, if it is a profitable business,
they are going to keep it, it is going to be
worthwhile. But unless within the company
itself there is a feeling of common purpose
on what they are doing, that they are all
working together for one purpose, then that
particular company will not operate and
continue to operate.
It is the basic thing that we are all worried
about here in Ontario. The fact that not only
do our big companies have to come together
or amalgamate in order to keep operating.
MARCH 16, 1962
1197
through cost, competition and all the other
things involved, but the fact that so many
of our small companies, the companies which
are the life blood of the whole of Ontario,
these particular companies that are important
to us are disappearing.
Yet in this particular case, as I read more
or less between the lines, the big problem
with this company was the fact that it coxild
not operate. The reasons it could not operate
could be varied, could be many, I know from
my own experience. But in this particular
case, the company that took over the Cana-
dian company ran into the same difficulty
witli which the company was faced.
Mr. K. Bryden (\Voodbine): Why did they
not fire the union leaders or refuse to hire
them?
Mr. Chappie: The union leaders in this
particular case— the labour members— were
fired. And the unfortunate part of this, we
have legislation which can discriminate.
Tliere is a law that went through that we
can discriminate, but who are we going to
discriminate against? Is it the operator, the
manufacturer, the fellow who is trying to
stay in business? Are we going to discrimin-
ate against labour or are we going to dis-
criminate against the people who want and
need these businesses in operation so that they
can be taxed so that they can help to carry
the load which this government is prepared-
Mr. Bryden: This is the full flower of
Liberalism.
Mr. Chappie: This is the important thing
that we have to face. I am not saying that
we should help—
An hon, member: Is this Liberal policy?
Mr. Chappie: This is not a demand that we
fire the union, this is not a demand that we
put businesses out of business; what we are
doing is this one thing: we are trying to bring
this together to the point where the best
interests of the people of Ontario are served.
Mr. MacDonald: By killing the unions?
An hon. member: He did not say that.
Mr. Chappie: The unions serve a very
worthwhile purpose; the hon. member knows
it and I know it. But there are discriminations
in many areas and I feel that the board has
too much responsibility in this regard. There
is no doubt about this if the problems within
the businesses cannot be solved. This partic-
ular board said that the two union men had to
pay back the back pay; that was fine, this is
an order, and I imagine the company accepted
it; but what is going to happen in the opera-
tion of this company— is there going to be
good feeling, are the people going to work
together and do a good job? Is this thing
going to be worthwhile?
Mr, MacDonald: Is there going to be good
feeling if the government does not treat the
unions the right way?
Mr. Chappie: All right. They are being
treated according to the best interests of any
operation. These have to be based on the
decisions of management on the whole, and
if management cannot get the job going-
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is hke
the Irish. He is neutral but who is he neutral
against?
Mr. Chappie: Who is the hon. member for
York South neutral for? That is the thing I
have been wondering about.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chappie: I find the ND Party amusing
if nothing else. There is no doubt about it
that there is a certain feeling of respect, and
always has been and always will be, by the
Liberal Party for labour. Labour has done
more to really develop the real basic means
of the labouring people; the hon. member
knows that, we know that; this is something
that, as far as democracy is concerned today,
is universal. But it is the adjustment of these
different things that is important; it is the
balance between all these things, and if one
does not get a proper balance one gets
nothing, nothing worthwhile.
In my particular business we had our
labour problems. We appreciated these
problems, we accepted these problems, and
we turned the whole business over to labour
to operate; that is what they are doing with
it today. I do not see how one could be
more, do more, to give something than to
actually turn one's business over to labour.
How can one help labour except to give
them everything that they can have and more;
give them the works.
Mr. MacDonald: Tlie voice of Liberalism
rampant.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): His actions speak louder than
his words; he did a very commendable thing.
Mr. Chappie: I think my words have been
interpreted in the right manner, and speak
for themselves.
1198
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would like to get around to another prob-
lem which I feel is important. This is the
problem of agriculture. It was stated by the
hon. Minister the other day in his estimates
that the farmer's lot was being improved, that
the farmer was doing a better job and that
he was being paid better for it, and he was
much more successful than he had been in
the past. However, I would like to quote
this particular clipping from the Financial
Post which says:
Net Farm Income Down
24 Per Cent
Although the cash income received by
farmers in 1961 was at a record of
$2,929 million, adjustments for lower
farm inventories of grain and livestock
and increasing costs reduce their net
income to $1,006 million compared to
$1,319 million for 1960.
The lot of the farmer is not improving
when it comes down to his net worth, and
his net worth is the only criterion I feel
on which he can be judged. It is very
unfortunate; if we do not make it possible
for the farmer to make a good living, the
costs of our agricultural products are going
to rise so high that it will affect all of us.
When the prices of our farm products go
<lown, there is a surplus on the market;
the farmer has to accept such a small
amount for his produce that he cannot con-
tinue in business. If he does not continue
in business it is automatic that the price of
the product will go up because in this par-
ticular case scarcities will develop. But not
only the development of scarcities aggra-
vate this problem; if there are scarcities
and if the price of our agricultural products
do go up, then products from all over the
world will come in to almost eliminate the
farmer's place in this province.
Well, we must do all we can for the
benefit of the consumer, for the benefit of
ourselves; do all we can to assist, make it
possible, for the farmer to get a worthwhile
price for the products he sells, a price
which will cover the cost of his operations
and make it possible for him to continue as
a farmer and in the type of life that farm-
ing does entail. We are actually getting
nowhere on this particular thing; nothing
has been devised yet to make it possible
for the farmers in this province to make a
worthwhile living. A farmer is either a
fanner making a worthwhile living, or he
is a farmer getting by as best he can, gen-
erally with some extra job to keep his farm
in operation.
Now as far as the problem of Hydro is
concerned, I would like to dwell on that a
little. I am sure the hon. Minister of Energy
Resources (Mr. Macaulay) would be hearing
what I have to say on this.
The hon. Minister has come up with three
lovely bills to amalgamate all Hydro opera-
tions. This is a very interesting thing, but
why was it that Hydro was allowed to
divide into two or three different parts in the
first place? The Hydro commission had made
a decision that it was too complicated, cost
too much money as far as development opera-
tions by the original Hydro commission were
concerned. As this was going to happen, they
had a separate division set up to look after
the costs of the new properties, which were
the eastern and western divisions. These two
divisions, of course, were known as northern
properties.
What were the advantages and dis-
advantages? The advantage of having it
divided into two areas were so that the rates
could be kept at a minimum in southern
Ontario, and the costs involved in the northern
properties could be separate. This is fine; it
was a very good move but financially, on
the part of the Hydro commission, it meant
that they were not tied up too much and they
could borrow a great many more million
dollars than they would have otherwise.
Since it was separate the people of north-
western Ontario, because of this separation,
found it possible to get a better connection, a
better working agreement by dealing with the
government direct, than they could by deal-
ing with the Hydro commission itself. This
is the reason why, in northwestern Ontario,
we wanted the properties separate, Mr.
Speaker; this was the thing that was important
to us.
All of a sudden Hydro wants to bring the
whole thing together. It is just apparently a
paper entry; I do not know why it means
so much to Hydro; I cannot really understand
because they can do this whole job without
having bills to bring the thing together.
Mr. MacDonald: Did the original resolution
not come from the northwestern OMEA?
Mr. Chappie: Well, whether it did or
whether it did not makes no difference. I
do not see why these technicalities should be
brought up by the— I have great difficulty
in pronouncing that name or initials because
I get them, I will not say—
An hon member: The NDP party, or the
"new dems."
MARCH 16, 1962
1199
Mr. Chappie: Well, if I call them the New
Democrats, which the hon. leader of the party
advises, I cannot understand this because we
are all democrats here. Why is he being any
•different from anybody else?
Mr. Singer: Tell him about the six people
in York Centre who came to listen to Stanley
Knowles the other night.
Mr. Chappie: The big problem in this
regard is the fact that Hydro finds itself under
terrific pressure. The pressure is so great that
they have to find every way and means of
covering the situation as much as they
possibly can. So they cover it all and hide
it away and put it in one nice little basket
and use the public relations people to say
everything is okay with Hydro. This is fine,
but it is certainly not only getting away from
the facts, but it is really covering them, call
it what they like.
What is this going to mean for the people
of Ontario? Around $1.5 billion is already
on the books for Hydro and we do not know
if Hydro is going to develop the policy of
economically operating hydro; we do not
know if they are going to do this or not. We
Tiave no indication from the hon. Minister
of Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay) that he
is going to pull this thing together, that he
is not going to demand more millions for
more development in northeastern Ontario.
We do know this. I asked a particular ques-
tion—and I thought it was a good question
at the time— and I did not get an answer as
far as I know in any publication that has been
TDrought out since. The answer has not come
out.
I do know that the hon. Minister and his
henchman at the head of the lakes said that
the costs would be over $1 million as far as
the straight operation of the area is concerned
because of the expansion of the plant on the
island near Fort William and this would con-
tinue on until the whole costs of the operation
would be paid. They knew this, they pub-
lished this, but they did not tell us the one
fact that I would like to know and that is:
what did the plant cost in the first place?
Hon. R. W. Macaulay ( Minister of Energy
Resources ) : I am sorry, what is the specific
question on the information for which the
hon. member is looking?
An hon. member: What did the plant cost?
Mr. Chappie: The plant was supposed to
cost $26 million, as far as the original esti-
mate was concerned.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Yes.
Mr. Chappie: I asked a direct question in
committee to one of the men who was there
representing Hydro, who was supposed to
know the facts and he said he would not
tell me because he did not know the facts.
Now, how Hydro cannot know—
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Just a moment. Is
the hon. member saying that some Hydro
officials said up there that they did not know
the facts? >/l -1
Mr. Singer: Stand up to him. He is out
of order. The hon. member is making the
speech.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Could I ask the hon.
member a question?
Mr. Chappie: If the hon. Minister is going
to answer now.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: No. I said: could I
ask the hon. member a question?
Mr. Chappie: I would be very interested
in hearing the question.
An hon. member: Leave him alone.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: The question I am
asking the hon. member is: did he say some
official of Hydro told him they did not know
the answer to some question that he had
asked him? What official was that?
Mr. Chappie: Does the hon. Minister want
me to answer that question? The reason I
may that remark is because maybe he might
not like the answer. However, in this partic-
ular committee room, I think it was at the
beginning of this session, one of the first any-
way—no, it was not, it was at the end of last
session.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: What is the gentle-
man's name? That is what I am trying to
find out.
Mr. Chappie: Many of the Hydro gentle-
men have peculiar names, but this particular
one, I cannot remember his name.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: Was this in the com-
mittee—the energy committee?
Mr. Chappie: It was in the committee. He
said at that time— and our hon. leader (Mr.
Wintermeyer) was right beside me when I
asked this question. He was an official of
Hydro, one of the important officials or he
would not have been there, I do not think, he
told me at that time that they had not enough
1200
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
information concerning the cost of this build-
ing to be able to even intimate a possible
total amount as far as the cost of the plant
was concerned. At that time he did not
know; why did he not know? Surely there
are enough Hydro officials in Hydro to be
able to at least estimate a partial cost; and
when I asked him if he would be prepared
to give me an approximate cost, he said "No."
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member asks
these difficult questions.
Mr. Chappie: When it comes to Hydro, we
might say it is no laughing matter. It depends
on how serious we consider Hydro costs, as
well as the development or real worth of this
province. These extra costs, the costs of
these new developments that are being
brought out here in northwestern Ontario and
northeastern Ontario, the big plants that are
operating more or less according to demand,
force the rates up; and if Hydro had been
more economical in its thinking, in its fore-
thought—of course, the whole thing goes right
back to this government. The government
at no time ever questioned Hydro. Hydro was
never questioned. They could go out and
spend anything they want; their ideas never
came to the floor of the House; nothing was
questioned at any time as far as Hydro was
concerned. And here we are with a situat-
tion that we cannot control at the present
time because we have obligated ourselves to
the terrific expenses which Hydro has placed
on the people of this province.
And another comment I might like to make
came out in the papers just this morning.
This was the fact that Hydro is going to have
a little trouble with union negotiations, which
is interesting. What is going to happen if
the lights are turned out all over Ontario?
It is rather an interesting thing to think
about, I gather. I am not suggesting that the
lights will be turned out at nights, I am sug-
gesting that the lights will be turned out
through the 24-hour period.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay: All the lights in the
province?
Mr. Chappie: All the lights will go out.
Mr. Chappie moves the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that when this House adjourn at the present
sitting thereof it do stand adjourned until
2 o'clock on Monday next.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday we will meet at 2 o'clock
and go on with the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Highways, and a night session. We
will have night sessions on Tuesday night
and Thursday night.
An hon. member: If the lights do not go
out.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, will the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) give us more informa-
tion about the particular estimates that will
be called in the balance of next week? The
Department of Highways has been identified
for Monday but what about the other several
days?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The Department of
Energy Resources, and at present that is all.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Those two?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes. If there is any
change I will give the hon. members all the
notice possible.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1.05 of the clock.
p.m.
I
No. 41
ONTARIO
I^egisilature of (J^ntario
debates;
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Legislature
Monday, March 19, 1962
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable William Murdoch
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1962
Price per session $3jOO. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, March 19, 1962
Statement re winter works programme, Mr. Spooner 1203
Presenting report, Mr. Yaremko 1204
Expression of sympathy to Mr. Cordon, Mr. Robarts 1205
Estimates, Department of Highways, Mr. Goodfellow 1205
Estimates, Appendix A 1245
Recess, 6 o'clock 1244
1203
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always glad to have
visitors to the Legislature and today we wel-
come as guests students from the following
schools: in the east gallery, Itzchaim Parochial
School, Toronto, and in the west gallery,
William Burgess Pubjic School, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the order of the day for resuming the
adjourned debate on Bill No. 47, An Act to
amend The Retail Sales Tax Act, 1960-1961,
be discharged and that the subject matter of
the bill be referred to the standing committee
on public accounts for consideration.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I might
just say, Mr. Speaker, that I have spoken to
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Winter-
meyer). This is carrying out my undertaking
with respect to the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion's proposals regarding what revenue would
be produced by the sales tax with his amend-
ments and what comments I had to make on
what the amount would be.
I undertook to put that matter before the
public accounts committee. I am using this
method of doing it. It will be dealt with by
the committee next Monday.
I have discussed this with the hon. leader
of the Opposition, as I told him I would give
him some notice in order that he could bring
his people together.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Before the orders of the day, I have
a short statement I would like to present to
the House in connection with the winter works
Monday, March 19, 1962
programme involving The Department of
Lands and Forests.
By agreement with the federal government
our parks branch has been able to substantially
expand its park development programme
during the winter works programme. This, I
think, is an eflFective measure for providing
employment in a great many areas extending
from southwestern Ontario right across the
province to the northwest. I might add that
with the location of many parks in those parts
of Ontario where there is normally less oppor-
tunity for winter employment, this develop-
ment work does provide a useful outlet for
constructive use of manpower in these more
or less remote areas.
The total extent of work accomplished is
substantial. It involves the many ramifications
of facilities required to serve the public, such
as camp and picnic ground development, park
roads and trails, boat launching and dockages,
fire hazard clearances, tree planting, nature
trails and so on. I would also add that these
winter work projects are in line with our
park plans and designs.
The federal government has recently
announced that this programme of assisting
in winter works projects has been extended to
May 31 of this year. The funds provided for
these purposes will reach a total of about
$1.3 million, over half of which covers pay-
rolls for those employed on the job. The
balance is for hire and operation of con-
struction equipment and material necessary
for carrying on the work. The federal con-
tribution is 50 per cent of expenditures,
provided one half of the total expenditure is
for labour. Preliminary estimates indicate
that about 60,000 man-days of labour will be
realized up to the end of May. This extension
to May 31 will provide us in Lands and
Forests with the opportunity to complete many
projects after the spring break-up, and at the
same time provide useful work for many
people.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): May I ask the hon.
Minister a question following that anounce-
ment? If this project is in effect next year,
will he see that some of the UNR funds are
1204
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
used in access roads rather tlian just in parks
only, because I understand now that most of
it goes to parks and very Httle to access roads.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, it is rather
difficult to answer the hon. member's question.
I do not think his question relates to what I
was speaking about at all.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary) pre-
sented to the House the following:
The report of the hon. Minister of Public
Works, Ontario (Mr. Connell), for the 12
months ending March 31, 1961.
^ Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
two questions which I would like to address
to the appropriate hon. Ministers, copies of
which I have submitted to them through you.
The first one is to the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts): in view of the misgivings
expressed by Hydro spokesmen and the lion.
Minister of Energy Resources (Mr. Macaulay)
on the question of a national power grid,
would the hon. Prime Minister indicate to the
House what the general stand of the Ontario
government will be at the interprovincial con-
ference meeting in Ottawa on this proposal?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I checked
and I was unable to find any misgivings ex-
pressed by the hon. Minister of Energy
Resources (Mr. Macaulay). However, the
meeting is taking place today in Ottawa and
there are three principal questions that are
being considered at this meeting. The first is
the general advantages which might be de-
rived from regional and inter-regional, and
■under certain circumstances international,
intercommunication of electrical facilities. The
second question will be the principal prob-
lems involved in long-distance transmission
and what might be done to meet them. The
third question is the role which the federal
and provincial governments could play in
the planning, research and development which
would be required in order to obtain the
greatest possible benefit to the provinces and
to the country as a whole.
The whole subject matter is so broad, and
this is what might be termed only the begin-
ning of a beginning, that the government has
no particular position on the matter at this
stage, other tlian we are prepared to investi-
gate, along with our sister provinces that are
interested and the federal government, the
whole question in order to see exactly what
is involved including both disadvantages and
advantages. In other words, the present
meeting is entirely exploratory and any policy,
any government policy, will have to await
the settlement of many questions which I
indicated are being discussed there today.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr, Speaker, I will not
abuse the rules of the House now but I am
surprised at the comment of the hon. Prime
Minister that he is not aware of any mis-
givings, as the hon. Minister of Energy Re-
sources, on a number of occasions in the
public prints and in the committee on energy,
has expresed serious misgivings with regard
to economic feasibility.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That may be so.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my second
question is to the hon. Minister of Labour
(Mr. Warrender). Will the hon. Minister
of Labour indicate the reasons for continued
delays in introducing the bill to provide more
effective industrial safety legislation, and
when can this legislation be expected?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, may I say in reply,
the question was not worded in that way.
As I got the question, it said: "Delay in not
introducing tlie bill to provide more effective
industrial legislation."
Mr. MacDonald: Industrial safety legisla-
tion.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: That is not the way
I got it, Mr. Speaker. However, assuming
that he meant it in relation to industrial
safety, I wanted to make this statement: the
hon, member will recall that shortly after the
session commenced last November an amend-
ment to The Department of Labour Act was
passed and received Royal assent. This
amendment established the Labour Safety
Coimcil of Ontario and the members of the
council were appointed on December 21,
1961. The council met on January 8, for the
first time.
A Construction Safety Act was drafted and
submitted in preliminary form to the council
for its consideration and advice. This pro-
posed Act is in the final stages of drafting.
I have not given notice of introduction of
the bill because of the fact that the report
of the Royal commission on the construction
industry will likely be available before long
and it will be as well to consider its refer-
ences to safety in that industry, if there
should be any, before introducing the bill.
A'S I said about a week ago in the House,
I hope that we will soon have the bill before
MARCH 19, 1962
1205
the House. I am sure that the hon. member
will agree that it should be introduced in
the light of all pertinent material available
in respect of its subject-matter.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, by way of
a supplementary question: are we assured
that the Goldenberg report will be down, so
that we can be certain that this will be
coming in this session?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I would say to the
hon. member that matters in respect of the
Goldenberg report will be coming in this
session.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether
the Goldenberg report has been made to
the hon. Minister or his office?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The Goldenberg re-
port has been made, Mr. Speaker, and is now
being studied by myself and by members of
my department. It is in the process of being
printed, and as soon as it is available it will
be presented to the hon. members of the
House.
Mr. Wintermeyer: And when can the hon.
members expect it?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I will
arrange that it be distributed as soon as it
is available and when we have enough
copies. There is no question of holding it
back. It will be in here as soon as we get
it in. It might take a week or so to have
a sufficient number of copies printed in order
to make a complete distribution.
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I would like, on behalf of all the hon.
members of the House, to express our sym-
pathy to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr.
Gordon) who suffered such a very serious
tragedy in his personal family life over the
weekend. I think that some of the hon.
members who are not here today are attend-
ing the funeral in Brantford and I would
simply like to express the sympathy of the
House to Mr. Gordon and the remaining
members of his family in this very great
tragedy that befell them.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair, and the House re-
solve itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to. House in committee of
supply; Mr, K. Brown in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of
Highways): Mr. Chairman, presenting the
estimates of The Department of Highways
for the first time, I do it with a sense of
humility, realizing the calibre of the two of
my colleagues who are my predecessors as
the Minister of Highways. I refer to the
hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan), and
the hon. Minister of Municipal A£Fairs (Mr.
Cass).
I have had copies of this address placed
on the desks of the hon. members because
I realize that many hon. members are much
better readers than I am; not only that,
perhaps they can get more out of it by
reading it than they would get out of my
delivery.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Leader of the
Opposition): I think the hon. Minister is to be
commended on doing this.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: As a matter of
fact, it was not my intention that the speech
would be distributed until just as I was
beginning, because now it is possibly go-
ing to be old stuff for a few of the hon.
members.
Mr. Chairman, before settling down to
the presentation of my estimates, I wish
to record here in this House my pleasure
in finding such a high degree of efficiency
and esprit de corps throughout all levels of
my new department.
In an address such as this it is customary
to review briefly some of the major con-
struction either completed, or on which the
department had work in progress in 1961.
Because of the magnitude of the over-all
programme it is possible to touch on only
a few of the highlights. I am confident that
any of the hon. members who travelled
over Ontario's highways in 1961 have ample
evidence of the breadth of the department's
programme of new construction, reconstruc-
tion and maintenance over the past year.
Indeed, to go into detail would require far
more time than I should take from a busy
Legislature.
During the year, 75 miles of Highway No.
401 were completed and opened to traffic.
With this addition, more than 377 miles of
trans-provincial Highway 401 are now in
use. The sections which were opened dur-
ing 1961, from west to east, were: Tilbury
by-pass, five miles; Highway No. 2 East-
wood) to Highway No. 8 (Preston), 25
miles; Highway No. 28 (Port Hope) to High-
1206
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
way No. 30 (Brighton), 28 miles; Odessa to
Highway No. 38 (Kingston), seven miles;
and from Highway No. 16 to Iroquois, 10
miles.
As 1961 came to an end, construction was
in progress on practically every uncompleted
mile of Highway No. 401, and within the
next few weeks we propose to award the
last grading contract on this highway from
Windsor to the Quebec border.
The widening of the Queen Elizabeth
Way to six lanes from Highway No. 27 to
Highway No. 10 was completed in Decem-
ber. In the late summer, work began on
widening a further section west from High-
way No. 10 to the Mississauga Road.
Work continues on the province's second
skyway, located near St. Catharines, which
will carry the Queen Elizabeth Way over
the Welland Canal. When completed, the
Homer Skyway will eliminate the last
bottleneck on the Queen Elizabeth Way.
The second stage of the $35 million Ottawa
Queensway, from the combined interchanges
for Carling and Kirkwood avenues to the
western Ottawa city limits-i-a little better than
four miles— was opened October 2. Comple-
tion of the lO-mile Ottawa Queensway is
scheduled for 1965. The Queensway forms
part of the main Trans-Canada route through
the province but is being constructed under a
separate agreement with the federal govern-
ment, The Department of Highways, the
city of Ottawa and the National Capital
Commission.
On the main Ontario route of the Trans-
Canada highway, more tlian 212 miles of
existing highway were reconstructed to meet
or better standards set for this highway by
the federal government, and 12 new bridges
were completed and opened to traflBc.
Along the 1,453-mile main route of the
Trans-Canada highway, major projects were
in progress at many points. Going from
east to west, some of these were: completion
of the second stage of the Ottawa Queens-
way, which I have mentioned; the completion
of a $1 million grading and granular base
job or the first stage of the reconstruction of
Trans-Canada Highway 7 from Sharbot creek
west for 10 miles; the seven-mile Peter-
borough by-pass and the Gamebridge diver-
sion on Trans-Canada Highway 12, north of
Beaverton. Farther north, on Trans-Canada
Highway 69, 33 miles of new highway, with
a paved surface, were put in service.
Between Sault Ste. Marie and Havilland
Bay on Trans-Canada Highway 17, 25 miles
of new highway were paved and placed in
service. Continuing north and west from the
Soo, around Lake Superior on Trans-Canada
Highway 17, reconstruction of a continuous
stretch of 55 miles, from Schreiber to Nipi-
gon, was completed in 1961.
West of Nipigon, on Trans-Canada High-
way 17, by the end of August paving had
been completed over 20 miles of new high-
way between Ouimet and a point opposite
Amethyst Station. Toward the end of the
year the same highway was reconstructed
east from Port Arthur for eight and a half
miles.
Between Fort William and the Manitoba
boundary, 87 miles of Trans-Canada High-
way 17 were under construction during the
past year. Of this total, paving was com-
pleted on 50 miles and work continues on
the remaining 37 miles.
My reason for going into as much detail
as I have— with respect to work on the main
route of the Trans-Canada highway— is to
emphasize the magnitude of the work and
the accompanying expenditures which the
government, through The Department of
Highways, is carrying out, particularly in
northwestern Ontario, on this important trans-
provincial route. It is worth observing here
that the cost of the reconstrucion of a 16-
mile section of Highway No. 17 between
Cavers Hill— some 33 miles east of Nipigon—
and the eastern end of the Selim diversion,
which was completed this past year, works
out to $229,000 per mile. For purposes of
comparison, the average cost per mile of two-
lane Trans-Canada highway in southern
Ontario has been approximately $100,000.
It is pertinent to note here that, of the
total of 212 miles which The Department of
Highways reconstructed to Trans-Canada
highway standards along the 1,453-mile route
of the Trans-Canada highway in Ontario in
1961, more than 150 miles are located be-
tween Sault Ste. Marie and the Manitoba
boundary.
While the cost of building completely new
sections and reconstructing existing sections
of Trans-Canada Highway 17 throughout
northwestern Ontario— to close the former
165-mile gap between the Agawa river and
Marathon was a $40 million project in itself
—has been staggering, we were gratified in
the great increase in traffic on the Canadian
section of the increasingly popular Lake
Superior circle route in 1961, the first full
tourist season since the gap was closed. Traf-
fic between Sault Ste. Marie and the
Lakehead, and from there south to the inter-
national border at Pigeon river on Highway
No. 61 was, in 1961, double that of any
previous year.
MARCH 19, 1962
1207
In this connection, I am pleased to report
the completion last fall of a new inter-
national bridge at Pigeon river, the cost of
which was shared equally by the department
and the Minnesota state highways depart-
ment. The new structure, with new ap-
proaches on an improved alignment, cannot
help but make a most favourable impression
on the great number of people entering Can-
ada at this point, the western end of the
500-mile long Canadian portion of the Lake
Superior circle route.
At Fort Frances, good progress was made
on the spectacular Rainy Lake Causeway on
Highway No. 11. The causeway itself is
scheduled for completion late this year.
The paving of 53 miles of Highway No. 11
between Hearst and Kapuskasing in 1961
marked the completion of the department's
sustained programme over several years to
pave the entire 267 miles between Longlac
and Cochrane. A new 900-foot bridge to
carry Highway No. 11 over the Missinaibi
river at Mattice, west of Hearst, costing more
than $750,000, was opened last October. This
bridge represents the accomplishment of the
department's long-term programme to replace
all major structures on Highway No. 11 be-
tween Longlac and Porquis Junction.
Immediately south of Cochrane work was
in progress in 1961 on the reconstruction of
22 miles of Highway No. 11. A litde further
south, new pavement was laid on Highway
No. 11 from a point just north of Porquis
Junction south for eight miles, the work
being completed last April. In September a
new structure over the Black river at Mathe-
son was put in service. Still farther south,
the reconstruction of Highway No. 11
between Englehart and Earlton was brought
to the stage in 1961 where a base course
of pavement could be laid. May saw comple-
tion of the extensive improvements to High-
way No. 11 between Earlton and New
Liskeard, including the Earlton by-pass.
Between New Liskeard and Latchford,
south of Cobalt, work on the multi-million
dollar tri-town by-pass made such good
progress that grading of the first six miles of
the 12-mile route has been completed.
The projects to which I have referred are
convincing proof of the scale of improve-
ment, on a continuing basis, which the de-
partment has been carrying out on the 625
miles of Highway No. 11 between North
Bay and Nipigon that provides the northern
route of the Trans-Canada highway through
Ontario.
In the Timmins area, the extension of
Highway No. 101 west through the wilder-
ness for 60 miles to reach Chapleau, is open
and gravelling will be done in the spring,
with an official opening planned for June,
1962.
Although construction and maintenance on
Trans-Canada Highway 17 and other King's
Highways represent the major expenditure
on road building, significant projects were
under way on roads-to-resources and forest
access roads. These roads play an important
part in the economy of the district, not only
in opening up new areas, rich in natural re-
sources and scenic beauty, to industry and
tourists but also by employing local labour
in their construction.
The Spruce river road, running north
from King's Highway No. 17 just east of
Port Arthur is one of the roads being built
under the roads-to-resources programme. Al-
ready 56 miles of this road have been com-
pleted, and clearing the right-of-way for an
additional 8.5 miles is now under way.
Construction of another resources road
from Savant lake south to connect with
Trans-Canada Highway 17, in the vicinity of
Ignace, has continued during the year. The
15 miles immediately south from Savant lake
has been completed and the construction of
an additional 13 miles, as well as construc-
tion of a bridge over the Sturgeon river, is
progressing according to schedule.
As the examples which I have cited bear
witness, The Department of Highways again
in 1961 made a most impressive contribution
to the economic growth of northern and north-
western Ontario through a great expansion of
the highway system.
I shall conclude my tabling of some of the
highlights of the highway programme in
northern and northwestern Ontario in 1961,
with the observation that the changes which
have been wrought on the King's Highways
in that part of Ontario in the past few years
would, less than a decade ago, have been
considered desirable but well beyond achieve-
ment in so short a period of time.
Time does not permit a similar examination
of highway construction in other regions of
this far-flung province and so I shall refer only
to some of the freeway construction. In
southern Ontario the major emphasis in 1961
was to continue the accelerated programme
on Highway No. 401 and progress was excel-
lent. On Highway No. 401 alone we com-
pleted 77 miles of grading, 75 miles of paving
and 47 structures.
Work continued on the section of a new
controUed-access Highway No. 403 which will
pass through and around Hamilton, the section
J208
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
know locally as the Chedoke Expressway.
For some months now, work has also been
under way on the section from the Queen
Elizabeth Way, in the Burlington area, west
to connect with the Hamilton section, in the
vicinity of Highway No. 6.
Construction is progressing well on High-
way No. 405, a high-speed freeway to connect
the new international bridge between Queens-
ton and Lewiston with the Queen Elizabeth
Way.
To summarize the work done in 1961
throughout the province, these are the vital
statistics: Capital contracts were completed
on 611 miles of grading, 506 miles of paving,
and 103 structures— 96 of which are already
in service.
During 1961 a total of 168 miles of roads
of various types were incorporated into the
provincial highway system. These roads,
previously under the jurisdiction of local
authorities, were assumed by The Department
of Highways to improve and extend our pro-
vincial highway network. In many instances
an increasing volume of traffic on these routes
placed a heav>^ maintenance burden on the
municipalities concerned.
The most notable among the roads assumed
were: the 37 miles of county road between
Winchester and Smiths Falls, which became
part of Highway No. 43; the 25 miles of
county road between Highway No. 3 at Court-
land and Long Point provincial park became
part of Highway No. 59, and Highway No. 60
was extended 17 miles east from Eganville
to Highway No. 17.
The summary which I have given of high-
way construction in the year now ending
leaves unmentioned, as I have indicated, a
much greater number of projects than those
to which I have referred. This therefore
seems to be a fitting point at which to report
that since 1945 the department has improved
in one way or another 88 per cent of all King's
highway mileage. That is, the mileage in
existence today which has not been either
built as new mileage, reconstructed or re-
surfaced since 1945 represents only 12 per
cent of the total.
Maintenance of Ontario's 12,000 miles of
King's Highways and secondary highways re-
mains one of the department's most challeng-
ing and complex jobs. The assumption of 168
miles of road, to which I have just referred,
coupled with the natural growth in mileage
through new construction each year— par-
ticularly the new four-lane sections of High-
way No. 401— means an ever-increasing work
load for the maintenance crews. Without go-
ing into detail, I need only point out that the
mileage of multi-lane King's Highways snow-
plowed this winter is 740 miles, compared
with 577 only the winter before— an increase
of more than 25 per cent. The mileage of
two-lane highways being maintained has
shown a jump from 11,509 to 11,947.
A forward step which was completed before
the end of 1961 and which has already been
of very great help in enabling the maintenance
crews to keep up with the growing demands
upon them, was the expansion of the depart-
ment's own mobile radio communication
system. The system now covers most of
southern Ontario with about 300 mobile units.
The instantaneous, on-the-spot reports which
the system makes possible has year-round
advantages for the department, but its bene-
fits for motorists are greatest in the winter
months because it speeds by many hours the
work of winter maintenance crews in keeping
the highways clear and in the safest possible
travelling condition.
That the winter maintenance crews are
doing a wonderful job is obvious to everyone
and I here wish to congratulate them for this,
as well as for their year-round performance.
The combination of men devoted to their
work, coupled with the finest, most modem
equipment, has earned for the province a
reputation for highway maintenance second
to none on this continent.
I shall conclude this review by mentioning
only two or three developments of impor-
tance in the field of policy during 1961. One
of these was the announcement in July by
my hon. predecessor that The Department of
Highways, realizing the place which air travel
now holds in the total transportation system
of the province, planned to construct new
controlled-access roads between major air-
ports and the communities they serve. The
earliest possible start will be made on new
routes between Malton Airport and Metro-
politan Toronto, to be followed by similar
road construction between Uplands Airport
in Ottawa, and at London.
In 1961 the decision to provide service
areas on Highway No. 401 was made and it
is expected that some of these will be in
operation this year.
The Department of Highways some years
ago instituted pre-qualification procedures
for the purpose of expediting the work on
many of our major contract awards. Now that
these procedures have been in efiFect a suffi-
cient length of time we are making a complete
re-examination of these procedures. Far from
being an indication that the procedures have
MARCH 19, 1962
1209
not been successful— which they most
definitely have— this latest step on our part is,
in fact, a search for ways and means of
possibly making the present procedures even
more e£Fective. I am pleased to report that to
date not a single contractor who was awarded
one of our pre-qualified contracts has failed
to complete the contract satisfactorily.
Before giving the hon. members details of
The Department of Highways programme for
the coming fiscal year I should like to draw to
their attention the fact that the net expendi-
tures—after allowing for estimated refunds—
for which we are budgeting, will be
$7,994,000 more than the estimated total for
all sources of revenue which will be made
available to The Department of Highways in
the same period. These sources include the
collection of the gasoline tax, the issuing of
motor vehicle permits and licenses, the motor
vehicle fuel tax— diesel— and miscellaneous
sources, such as property sales. Total
estimated revenue is $256,306,000, almost $8
million less than our estimated net expendi-
ture.
There is just not sufficient money available
for The Department of Highways to do all
the new construction as well as reconstruction
desirable unless the provincial debt is to in-
crease beyond all reasonable limits.
We are proposing a gross expenditure of
$274.8 million and estimated refunds of
$10.5 million from Trans-Canada highway
and other agreements, leaving an estimated
net expenditure of $264.3 million.
The table below provides a comparison
of the estimates for the forthcoming fiscal
year with the one just ending.
We are raising our municipal assistance
by almost $9 million— from a net now esti-
mated at $81,190,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing-to an estimated $90,085,000. This
increase follows an upward trend which has
continued since 1957. In that period not
only have the amounts increased considerably
but they have also increased in terms of the
percentage of our net total expenditure.
Another significant trend is that each year
the total annual expenditures by the munici-
palities on road construction and maintenance
keep getting closer to the net expenditure
by The Department of Highways for its
own highways. The climb upward has come
from 70.5 per cent for 1957-1958 to an esti-
mated 97.5 per cent for the coming fiscal
year. It is estimated that for the 1962-1963
fiscal year the municipalities will spend—
including the subsidies from the department-
no less than $169,697,000, compared to the
department's estimated net expenditure of
$174,215,000 on King's highways proper; that
is, before allowing for municipal assistance
and other additional amounts.
An Appendix A attached to copies of this
address— see page 1245— provides in tabular
form, figures to show the types of comparison
I have mentioned.
The trend to urbanization in many parts of
Ontario is evident on all sides. Many areas
have doubled their population since World
War II, while others have multiplied almost
beyond recognition. What is not so evident
is the strain which this expansion has placed
on the roads and streets and, of course, the
financial resources of the communities con-
cerned. Many roads under municipal jurisdic-
tion are now carrying daily traffic loads well
above those found on a number of our King's
highways.
What has been happening in the urban
centres is also taking place in the rural areas
and the government is aware of the ever-
increasing load being borne by many rural
roads. These roads must be built to, and
maintained at, a high standard to promote
economic growth and to keep pace with
greatly increased traffic— for example, the
growing number of school buses which travel
an ever-greater number of miles each year.
It has been truly observed that many a rural-
appearing township road has become, of
necessity, a high-capacity road differing in
designation only from the highest standard
of King's highways.
1962-1963
King's Highway - capital $ 135,552,000
King's Highway — maintenance 45,153,000
Municipal assistance 90,085,000
Head office expense 4,010,000
Gross expenditure $ 274,800,000
Less: Refunds 10,500,000
Net expenditure $ 264,300,000
1961-1962
$ 144,105,000
44,526,000
85,335,000
3,974,000
$ 277,940,000
10,000,000
$ 267,940,000
1210
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
There is a financial limit to what the
municipalities can do to try to cope with
their road and street problems, notwithstand-
ing the fact that the department does assist
them very substantially indeed. The Depart-
ment of Highways is well aware of their diflS-
culties and wants to assist them in every
way possible to the end that roads at all
levels of municipal jurisdiction will be
adequate to the traffic using them. Roads
and streets, wherever they may be, have a
vital function in the total transportation needs
of Ontario.
In the summer of 1961 The Department of
Highways set in motion a special study proj-
ect to make an exhaustive review of fiscal
policies for highways, roads and streets
throughout Ontario. Working in close co-
operation with the provincial Departments
of Economics, Municipal Affairs and Trans-
port, the department has solicited the opinion
of all the many interested bodies in the
province. Thus the research project will have
a basis sufiiciently broad to bring out all
pertinent facts. Municipal financing, as it
pertains to road and street construction, will
be subjected to a most painstaking examina-
tion. It is expected that these studies will
point the way to new approaches for the
financing of highways, roads and streets and
offer a measure of relief to the hard-pressed
municipalities.
It is anticipated that those directing the
study project which I have just described,
will be in a position to make a preliminary
report this spring. One critical problem on
which it is hoped progress can be made
before too long is the matter of sections of
King's highways passing through or around
urban centres, particularly with regard to
controUed-access highways, and the financing
of them. The department is equally concerned
with the municipalities to find solutions in
this sphere which will be mutually satis-
factory.
The implications of the special study of the
financing of highways, roads and streets now
in progress, are so far-reaching that I wish
to commend the man whose idea it was, a
man who has been in the vanguard of so
many progressive procedures in highway
engineering, the Deputy Minister of High-
ways, Mr. W. J. Fulton. Since coming to
this department as Deputy Minister, Bill
Fulton has been a tower of strength to me,
as he was to those who came before me.
I do not think I could do better than quote
from the remarks that were made on the
occasion when the Deputy Minister, last
September, was awarded an honorary life-
membership in the Canadian Good Roads
Association in recognition of his 40 years of
long and dedicated service in the develop-
ment of Ontario's highways:
If you want to see a tangible testimony
to the effectiveness with which he has
worked, take a look at the tremendous
system of highways in the province of
Ontario. . . . More than any other man.
Bill Fulton has been responsible for the
planning of them.
One aspect of our budgeted expenditures
in the field of municipal assistance, which I
wish to underline, is the increase of $1 million
for the construction of development roads,
marking a new high of $9 million, compared
with the previous total of $8 million. This
increase means that greater expenditures on
development roads can also be expected in
the years to follow because of the fact that
the new work begun in 1962 will be mainly
pre-engineering.
The basic concept of development roads
is that The Department of Highways, on a
100 per cent basis, undertakes to improve
local road systems materially throughout the
province where such work cannot be financed
by the local authorities. In most cases, the
work involves improving existing sections of
county or township roads, rather than the
construction of an entirely new road.
The stepping-up of our programme of
development road construction is another
instance of the department's concern that the
greatest possible total mileage of roads of all
types will provide the maximum service in
all parts of Ontario.
The year 1962 may well come to be re-
garded in later years as one which marked
a turning point in the drawing closer of the
municipal road jurisdictions and The Depart-
ment of Highways— for reasons which are all
around us. Not only are the physical re-
quirements for roads increasing at a rate
never before experienced, but the techniques
of road building and maintenance are becom-
ing increasingly complex and varied. In
fact, one problem constantly confronting The
Department of Highways is that of finding
the best means by which this mass of engin-
eering and technical knowledge can be passed
on to the municipal road authorities, in ways
which will be of the greatest practical assist-
ance to them so that they can gain from the
specialized knowledge of many fields ac-
quired by this department's engineers.
There is no doubt in my mind that the
adoption of many of these new techniques
by the municipalities will enable them to
MARCH 19, 1962
1211
obtain the best possible results from the funds
available to them. We realize that many of
the techniques of which I speak are not
applicable to all municipal jurisdictions, but
we are equally sure that many of them could
be adopted by a large number of muni-
cipalities.
Since the proof of the pudding is in the
eating. The Department of Highways has
decided to carry out in the very near future
some actual demonstration projects of some
of the new practices and techniques on
carefully selected township roads. Owing
primarily to geographical factors which af-
fect construction costs, construction tech-
niques vary throughout the province.
Nevertheless, some of these new methods
have wide application within fairly large
areas in diflFerent parts of Ontario. For this
reason, I do not feel it is necessary to carry
out very many such demonstration projects,
nor does it require doing so over any sub-
stantial length of road. The department will
supervise and pay in full for the actual con-
struction required to demonstrate the new
techniques.
The department has been working much
more closely in recent years with the muni-
cipalities to help them in many ways other
than the financing of their respective pro-
grammes. An excellent example is our co-
operation in assisting many of them to solve,
in part at least, some of the pressing trajffic
problems which confront them. The depart-
ment has encouraged many municipalities,
both individually and, in some cases, on a
regional basis, to undertake traJBBc studies.
In addition to subsidies of up to 75 per
cent for such studies— when carried out in
a manner approved by the department— we
also provide, when requested, expert tech-
nical personnel.
The response to our oflFer has been most
heartening. It is our conviction that only
through proper and overall planning of this
type— having regard to the complete trans-
portation requirements of any given area
and the various forms of transportation
available, such as public transit— can ade-
quate road systems be provided without
duplication and at minimum cost.
Very recently the department began to
implement the final stage of the integration
of its municipal roads branch with the
King's highway or operations branch, the
result of which will be that the district
municipal engineer will now be directly
responsible to the district engineer. In eflEect
this means that the district engineer will
now be concerned with the projects being
planned or currently in progress in the
municipalities within his district adminis-
tration—and not only King's highway work
as formerly. This move holds many advan-
tages for the municipalities and it is ex-
pected that more and more of them will
avail themselves of engineering and techni-
cal assistance through our 18 district ofiices.
I wish to stress the point that the inte-
gration I have described had, as one of its
principal motives, the objective of making
still more assistance available to the munici-
palities, with no intention whatsoever of
imposing some measure of control on them.
We have experts, some of them leaders in
their field on this continent, for soils analy-
sis and a whole host of highly specialized
forms of road engineering, and we hope that
the municipalities will call upon these skills,
for the benefit of all concerned.
I have, admittedly, gone to unusual length
in my remarks to point up the change in
road requirements— that is, roads of all types,
and not the King's highways alone— which
we are witnessing in the province. At a
time like this we might well ask ourselves,
"What direction should the highway pro-
gramme, as a whole, be taking?" It is my
conviction that we should consider the im-
portance of roads from the standpoint of
the service they perform five days— or even
better, seven days— a week, 52 weeks of the
year, rather than how they accommodate
heavy week-end traffic to the resort areas or
other "once-a-week" places.
There is, however, one significant change
in the year's capital construction programme
about which there is no question at all: the
decision to complete, as quickly as possible,
several projects which we have been attack-
ing on a more gradual schedule until now.
In the past, simply in an effort to get under
way as many as possible of the projects
most urgently needed, we have, at times,
spread some of these over a number of
years. We feel, at the present time, that
some of these should be completed as soon
as possible so that the roads may serve the
purposes for which they were intended.
The most notable of these are: the com-
pletion of Highway No. 11 between Atiko-
kan and Fort Frances; the extension of
Highway No. 101 from Chapleau to Wawa
on Trans-Canada Highway 17; and the
speedy completion of the reconstruction of
Highway No. 68 from Espanola to Little
Current. Work on all these projects has
been under way for some time, but our
1962-1963 programme has been scheduled
to ensure their completion at the earliest
1212
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
possible date. I have described the speedup
as a "crash" programme and that is just what
it is. This poHcy will guide our future plan-
ning.
Before outlining briefly some of the more
notable projects on the new programme I
wish to say once more that we cannot do
everything at once. I notice, for example,
tliat we are carrying forward work on 176
capital contracts, almost exactly the same
as the 174 we carried forward into the year
ending March 31.
With respect to the work we have plan-
ned for northern and northwestern Ontario
—that is, everything north of North Bay— I
should point out that the value of the new
work we plan to award will be greater this
year than last. Looking farther ahead, we
have already planned work for the 1963-
1964 programme which we anticipate will
be still higher in dollar value.
The annual level of expenditure in each
of our 18 districts is not, and cannot be,
either stable or constanlty rising. It is
definitely the case that there is an ebb and
flow in southern Ontario as there is in the
other parts of the province, which is what
we would expect when we consider the
nature of highway construction. At the
height of a major project, such as the clos-
ing of the gap on Trans-Canada Highway No.
17 north of Sault Ste. Marie, there are,
obviously, higher than normal expenditures
ear-marked for that single project over sev-
eral years. Once it is completed, it takes
time before a similar stage is reached on
other projects which compare in magnitude.
The same situation has been duplicated on
Highway No. 401. Once the route has been
completed over the full distance it will not
require the annual expenditures we are
making now to complete four lanes on sec-
tions where there are now only two lanes.
The programme which I am presenting
ensures continuation of the improvement of
tiie King's highways, dispersed equitably
throughout the province, and the same high
standard of maintenance for which the de-
partment is justly noted.
There will be an acceleration of the work
on several special projects in northern and
northwestern Ontario, which I have previously
r''^t''^lrd. In southern Ontario emphasis will
be placed on the section of Highway No. 403
from the Queen Elizabeth Way to the
western limits of Hamilton and a start will
be made on the Brantford by-pass section of
this freeway. Work will be carried forward
on Highway No. 405 from the site of the new
international bridge at Queenston to the
Queen Elizabeth Way, and on the Homer
Skyway over the Welland canal.
Construction will get underway on a four-
lane, controUed-access highway. No. 58,
within the city of St. Catharines. When
completed, this trunkline highway will con-
nect the major population centres along the
Welland canal from Port Colbome to the
Queen Elizabeth Way at St. Catharines.
Considerable work will be done on the
Trans-Canada highway to bring more miles
up to standard; and the third stage of the
Ottawa Queensway section of this highway
will have several contracts in progress.
Other special projects are the widening of
Dixon Road to four lanes between Highway
No. 27 and the new Toronto International
Airport at Malton and a new, multi-lane,
controUed-access route from the Renforth
Drive interchange on Highway No. 401 to the
same airport.
We plan to open 89 miles of Highway No.
401, which will bring the total miles in serv-
ice to 466 by the end of 1962 and make
possible a through drive from Cornwall to
Highway No. 76, west of London.
Construction of the first phase of widen-
ing sections of the Toronto by-pass section
of Highway No. 401— from the Hogg's Hollow
bridge to Avenue Road— will get underway,
as well as the widening of structures between
Avenue Road and the CNR line, just east
of Keele Street.
Questions have been raised in connection
with the department's decision to pave only
two lanes on some sections of Highway No.
401 instead of doing all four at one time.
In the hope of clarifying this matter once
and for all, I wish to state that the depart-
ment's primary concern from the beginning
has been to put in service a paved surface
over the full 510-mile route of Highway No.
401 at the earliest possible date. In order
to meet our promise of achieving this objec-
tive in 1963 we have had to build several
sections on which only two lanes have been
paved. However, let me assure the House that
paving operations will continue without inter-
ruption until four lanes are completed over
the entire length of Highway No. 401.
The programme which I am tabling in
this House has, like the ones which have pre-
ceded it, been most painstakingly assembled,
having in mind the funds available and the
urgency of the specific projects which sur-
vived the final selection. The yardstick has
been the measurement of the contribution
which each project of new highway construc-
tion will make in promoting the economic
MARCH 19, 1962
1213
growth of tlie province and the welfare of its
people.
Copies of the capital construction pro-
gramme, the municipal roads programme,
and a copy of this address have been placed
on the desk of each hon, member.
On vote 701:
Mr. R. C. Edwards (Wentworth): I would
remind the hon. Minister that his timing is
somewhat out. The copies of the two volumes
he spoke of have not yet been placed on hon.
members' desks.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like
to congratulate the new hon. Minister on his
very important appointment. He is person-
ally well regarded in this House. We know he
will administer his department with the same
conscientious endeavour that has always
characterized his work in the past. We wish
him well and sincerely hope and trust that
he will bring order into the administration of
this very important function of government.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a
natural desire, when considering estimates,
for us to want to be complimentary to our
hon. friends opposite. Nevertheless, sir, we are
reminded of our duties to this House and to
the people of Ontario and, while still cast in
the role of Opposition members, to our present
system of government. If then, sir, the
remainder of my remarks are not compli-
mentary in a sense that the government would
like, it is my hope that they will at least be
courteous so that perhaps as a result of these
suggestions the hon. Minister will in the years
ahead make such changes as to change the
tenor of any remarks that we might be
persuaded to make in next year's estimates.
Broadly speaking, my criticism of the govern-
ment today can be classed in the following
broad headings: (1) The lack of detail in the
information submitted to this House, and the
estimates which are still being considered;
(2) The inconsistency in the amount of the
estimates as related to previous estimates of
the department, and as related to the study
and the need for economic growth in this
province; (3) The lack of order in the stated
method of financing our roads, in the matter
of assistance to our municipalities, and in
relation to the over-all programme of roads
and highways in Ontario; (4) The continuing
lack of efficiency which could be eliminated
by an announced, priority-rated, long-term
approach to the construction of our roads,
conducted on a basis of need, and free from
political interference; and (5) My general
observations indicating hardship to the over-
burdened taxpayers of Ontario, as a result
of the disorder engendered by the foregoing
weaknesses in government
Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to again
draw to the attention of the government the
manner in which we are again being asked to
vote the estimates of this department, in con-
sideration of the very substantial amount of
money that is involved.
The amount of money that we will be
required to vote today will approximate 25
per cent of the entire cost of the provincial
government over the next year. Over the
past four years over $1 billion have been
voted to The Department of Highways. It
is significant, then, that these estimates are
without parallel in any of the other depart-
ments when related to the amount of detail
which is given to hon. members. I might
stop here long enough, if I may, to com-
mend the hon. Minister for his courtesy in
making available to the hon. members an
advance copy of his address. It allowed us
suflScient opportunity to follow his remarks
and to be familiar with his general comments
this afternoon.
While I am in a congratulatory mood, I
think it would be proper, on this side of the
House, to congratulate the Deputy Minister
on the very notable achievement which was
made mention of by the hon. Minister this
afternoon. We too share in that honour in
congratulating him, and we are very pleased
that he has been given this place of
distinction. However, Mr. Chairman, I tliink
that is about as far as I can go in congratulat-
ing the department.
Hon. members will recall that only last
week we were asked to approve the expendi-
tures of The Department of Economics and
Development. The detail of those expendi-
tures of some $12 million was broken down
into 12 dijfferent votes and yet here today we
are given the duty of considering the expendi-
ture of some $265 million under only three
summary headings which are completely void
of detail.
The matter of the information submitted
in the book entitled Capital Programme,
Mr. Chairman, shows a scornful disdain for
the intelligence of the hon. members of this
House. The information which is available
in these publications is deliberately withheld
so as to make it useless for anyone who
seriously wanted to examine the operations of
the department. This type of procedure
emanating from the hon. Minister can only
leave hon. members suspicious of the motives
involved, since this matter has been raised
regularly by this side of the House.
1214
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
If one were of a suspicious nature, Mr.
Chairman, I submit that this action gives
considerable scope to enlarge those suspicions.
I am led to wonder just what the department
is endeavouring to hide. In any event, I
submit that this procedure makes it physically
impossible for Opposition members to perform
their function in this House, and for this the
hon. Minister must assume the full respon-
sibility.
I I am speaking— and at this particular point
I still have not had delivered to my desk a
copy of the broad basis from which these
estimates were compiled. I ask the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) and I ask the
hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow)
if in conscience they really consider that it is
possible to do any type of examination of the
work which is being suggested this afternoon.
It consists of 165 pages in one booklet alone.
The information that is contained in that
booklet is necessary— it must have been neces-
sary to compile the estimates— and yet we are
not given even the scanty details that are
available in the booklet until after the time
has come to prepare our criticism of the
government.
Mr. Chairman, it can very well be good
politics to withhold this information from
the House, to hamper and frustrate the Op-
position in their criticism of the government.
This may be good politics in that it enables
the government to cover up its failures, but
it is not in the best interests of the people
of Ontario. It frustrates the very purpose
for which we were sent here, and that is to
consider the wise expenditure of taxes, to
ensure that it accrues to the best interest of
the people of Ontario. t '
Before leaving the subject, Mr. Chairman,
I should like to again appeal to the hon.
Prime Minister of tliis province to remedy
this situation before another year lapses. I
have been impressed by his apparent desire
to improve the manner in which reports are
distributed to hon. members of this House, as
a result of complaints from this side of the
House under the other estimates. I would
respectfully draw this to his attention again
today in the hope that he will remedy this
unsatisfactory situation which is not condu-
cive, I submit, to good government.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I would say that
I am in agreement with the hon. member for
Wentworth (Mr. R. C. Edwards). I think
these estimates, or the information for the
whole House, should be broken down in
greater detail; and it is my proposal to this
House that this will be done next year.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I thank the hon. Minister for conceding this
far. I wonder, while we are discussing it, if
the hon. Minister would agree to consider
the placing of the money value and further
details in the Capital Programme booklet
which is available to hon. members? Would
he consider expanding it that far? I do not
think, while dealing with the subject, that
it is unreasonable for us to suggest, if the
government is truly endeavouring to bring
about the wisest expenditure of the tax fund,
that it be brought out into the open so that
it can be fully criticized by the Opposition.
It is true that our responsibilities are to be
critical, but only in the efiFectiveness of that
criticism will the taxpayers of the province
benefit.
As we look around the province we see
great construction taking place within The
Department of Highways, and yet we are
frustrated when we endeavour to find out
whether or not the actual carrying out of
that construction works to the best benefit of
the taxpayers. I shall have some further
questions to put to the hon. Minister with
respect to these matters later on, but I do
thank him for this concession. It is my hope
that he will be sufficiently informative so as
to enable us to do our job eflFectively.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Chairman, while
we are on this subject, I would not want
the hon. member to take all the credit because
I might say that the estimates were prepared
for this budget before I took office. I pointed
out to the hon. Prime Minister in the month
of December that I thought the estimates
were too scanty as presented to the House.
That is why they are not changed this year.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I think
the hon. Minister's attitude does indicate that
he is interested in doing an efficient job here.
I commend him on his attitude.
With respect to the amount of the esti-
mates, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the hon.
Minister has failed today to offer a reasonable
explanation for the order of development of
our roads system, when we consider the cut-
back of the estimates before us now. For
instance, I note that the appropriations for
King's highways and secondary roads is some
$18 million below last year's estimates. These
figures relate directly to the engineering
needs study which was completed by The
Department of Highways in 1958 and which
has been referred to frequently in this House
since that time.
We are all aware of the conclusions of that
report, which indicated the need for a gradual
MARCH 19, 1962
1215
build-up over a 20-year period, and we also
know that this report suggested that it was
desirable for the build-up to take place
during the early years following this study.
Perhaps then, it is now in order to ask the
hon. Minister how his present programme
fits into the study which has been referred
to by the previous Minister as a blueprint
for future operations. If the department has
discarded this programme, I suggest that hon.
members of this House should be so notified.
I find it difficult, Mr. Chairman, to recon-
cile the programme before us today when
the statements of fact, as given on page 42
of the needs study to which I referred, states
as follows, and I quote from that report:
The economic growth of the province
and the safety and convenience of its
people call for the earliest possible improve-
ment of all highway, road and street sys-
tems consistent with a sound financial
position.
It is difficult to co-relate the position taken
by the department today with the position of
the hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment (Mr. Macaulay) a few days ago. That
hon. gentleman indicated that not a stone
would be left unturned in an effort to stimu-
late the economic growth of the province.
Notwithstanding tlie fact that our road
system is of extreme importance in achieving
that goal, the hon. Minister in his estimates
today has indicated that the government
really has no intention of meeting the needs
of our highway system, which are so neces-
sary to the orderly economic growth of the
province. I suggest that this truly indicates
that either there is no co-ordination between
the two departments— that is. The Department
of Economics and Development and The De-
partment of Highways— or else the grandiose
statements of the hon. Economics Minister are
intended for window-dressing. To the ob-
server, in any event, the two hon. Ministers
appear to be working in opposite directions.
Let me say here, Mr. Chairman, that it
seems to me that there does not appear to
be any imagination with respect to the true
purpose of highways in our development.
There are many who would tell us that the
economic growth is directly related to our
communications and our transportation
system; and higliways certainly could, to a
large extent, help that programme if we
really wanted to proceed with the matter of
decentralization. I think that good and
orderly planning in our highways system
would have a very decided effect on de-
centralization, which hon. members on both
sides of this House have suggested in previous
years was desirable to the over-all develop-
ment of this province. We believe that the
roads should be constructed, and planned,
before the need is already there. I think that
highways should go in advance of that need,
rather than always be in the position of
trying to. catch up on the backlog of con-
struction which we should have foreseen in
the first instance.
Dealing with this subject, Mr. Chairman,
I think one of the most glaring weaknesses
in The Department of Highways at the
present time is this lack of planning with
respect to the financing of our highways pro-
gramme. There really does not seem to be
any government planning with respect to the
clear-cut responsibilities of the departments
that are supposed to be responsible for de-
termining this policy.
You will recall a few days ago, sir, while
dealing with the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Transport, I quoted from two differ-
ent government publications which indicated
that one of the responsibilities of that depart-
ment was to determine plans for taxing
vehicles to provide the funds for construc-
tion and maintenance of our roads. It only
adds to the confusion when we realize that
The Department of Highways is likewise
conducting a study, ostensibly for the same
purpose. For instance, on May 2, 1961, the
then hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Cass)
requested the automotive transport associa-
tion to submit their views on this very same
subject to The Department of Highways.
Perhaps at an early date, Mr. Chairman, the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) will inform
this House which department is responsible
for this very important policy determination.
Since these conclusions are so important to
our entire transportation problem, it should
not seem unreasonable if we were to ask
that we be given some answers now. Hon.
members will recall the words of the hon.
Minister of Highways, and I quote from
March 16, as far back as 1959, from the
Hansard report. The then hon. Minister of
Highways said:
May I say this about policy considera-
tions. Because of the importance of pro-
vincial subsidies in road and street devel-
opment, and the new challenges which
arise because of the job ahead, the need
for re-expanding studies is apparent. The
Department of Highways has recognized
this and a study is under way.
This statement did not take place in 1961,
or 1960; it took place in the year 1959. Yet
the hon. Minister of Highways comes to the
1216
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House today and tells hon. members that
a study was commenced in 1961.
Now there is a difference in the statements
which are made, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest
that it is the responsibiUty of the hon. Min-
ister to tell us whether or not a study did
take place in the year 1959 and 1960 and up
until early 1961, or whether or not the state-
ments which were made by the hon. Minister
at that time were, in effect, just so many
words. We have been complaining, on this
side of the House, for a number of years,
about the lack of actual policy in determining
the financing of our roads. It is a serious
problem, and until the financing study is
completed, I suggest that the work indicated
in need study cannot be carried out in an
orderly and businesslike fashion.
There are many in this province who feel
that revenue from vehicle taxation will be
more than sufficient to take care of tlie long-
run cost of our roads. They feel that revenue
from this method should not be used to
finance other phases of government activity.
They feel, instead, that perhaps other facets
should continue to contribute to our roads
programme.
We are reminded by the automotive trans-
port association in their brief, a copy of which
was forwarded to hon. members of this
House, that the tourist industry is very de-
pendent upon adequate roads for the devel-
opment of that part of our economy. They
suggest that the development of our natural
resources is dependent upon our road system,
and likewise education— I think the hon. Min-
ister mentioned it this afternoon—is more
dependent upon our roads which enable
school bus services to develop central school
organizations.
These problems simply serve to emphasize
the need for some type of an announced,
long-term plan of financing for our highways.
It seems useless, Mr. Chairman, to analyze
our problems as has been done by the need
study if we do not seek to solve the problem
in an orderly fashion. If we had such a long-
term plan we would not be facing the
problem that has become familiar to this
House, when the estimates are up one year
and down the next. When this happens, Mr.
Chairman, it only leaves the observer with
one opinion and that is that the amount of
the estimates in The Department of Highways
had no direct bearing with the needs, but
rather only the political considerations of the
over-all budget.
The municipalities in turn have a right to
some guidance and leadership from this
government in the matter of solving their
problems. Certainly there does not seem to
be any equity in the method of distribution
of subsidies at the present time. It would be
interesting some time, if the hon. Minister
would explain the formula which permits
rural municipalities one rate, towns and cities
another, and so it goes. It is not easy for a
town or city in turn to receive 33% per cent
of costs of roads while Metropolitan Toronto
in many cases receives 50 per cent.
It is well known, Mr. Chairman, that muni-
cipalities are unable to carry out the needed
road projects simply because the funds are
not available. Because of their limited tax
base, which is restricted to real-estate taxation,
their problems are getting worse. The lack
of positive action by the government in meet-
ing this problem is not helping these people
at all.
Again, referring to our need study, we are
reminded that the backlog of construction
need is at the municipal level and sooner or
later some kind of relief will be necessary
from this level of government if the lower
levels of government are to carry out their
responsibilities.
I was interested, this afternoon, in the
remarks of the hon. Minister when he sug-
gested that the government is aware of these
problems. I suggest to you, Mr. Chainnan,
that simply being aware of the problems is
not enough. I think the time has come when
this government has got to come forward with
some positive method of financing these roads
and bring some order into the entire depart-
ment.
For some years, Mr. Chairman, we on this
side of the House, have been advocating a
federal-provincial-municipal conference to
work out some readjustment of responsibility.
These roadways could very well be part of
that problem and should be included in any
such conference.
Summing this up, Mr. Chairman, I am
simply suggesting that, as long as the govern-
ment delays the determination and long-term
plan of financing our road system and
announcing it, independent of other taxation,
the longer we vdll have to wait to attack this
problem of road building in a businesslike
manner.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it would
not be difficult for The Department of High-
ways or for the government to sit down and
estimate the revenue which will be forth-
coming from our highways system over the
next 20 years for planning purposes. Having
done that— and we have suggested it before—
they could borrow against those revenues
without having any effect on the economy of
the province.
MARCH 19, 1962
1217
Hon. Mr. Coodfellow: We have all that
information projected 20 years into the future.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I appreciate the fact
—I intend to ask the hon. Minister later with
respect to the information he has— but let me
remind him— and I appreciate the fact that he
is new to this department; I hope that he is
going to bring a conscientious approach to it
—that he is supposed to endeavour to solve the
problems of The Department of Highways
and not the problems of keeping the Con-
servative government image satisfactory be-
fore the pubhc. As long as we keep juggling
these affairs we are never going to bring
order into the matter of financing our high-
ways. When we consider the relative
importance of the cost of those highways in
the overall budget I suggest, Mr. Chairman,
the time has come to bring some order into
the financing.
Now let me say here that if we were to
build the roads now we could to some extent
plan the development of the province, par-
ticularly with respect to decentralization. If
we have the roads the revenue from those
roads would very well serve to pay off the
money which was necessary to be borrowed
to construct them now.
If we were to follow this programme, Mr.
Chairman, and construct the roads now, we
could do something about planning the
development of the province; but I submit
to you, sir, that as long as this matter is
left without positive action it does not make
much sense for the hon. Minister of Economics
and Development to come here and tell us
that the government is really attacking the
problem. Highways are elementary to the
attacking of this problem; and unless some
positive order comes into this particular phase
of the development I do not think that we
can expect a maximum result to come from
The Department of Economics and Develop-
ment.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, it
actually amuses me when I come to this
House and have some of the hon. members
opposite, who have been here a lot longer
than I have, start talking about the Mitch
Hepburn era. Apparently the hon. member
for Sault Ste. Marie ( Mr. Lyons ) is not aware
that this took place some 20 years ago, and
this type of comment shows that they really
do not want to attack the problem at all; they
are simply interested in hurling remarks for
political purposes. If the hon. members
opposite are going to live in the past, that is
their prerogative, but let me tell the hon.
members that as long as I take my place
in this House I am going to make my con-
tribution as I see it to the orderly develop-
ment of this province in the future.
Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the matter
of priorities in highway development, I think
the government could make public any such
priority system, if indeed one does exist.
Certainly such publication would leave the
department free of charges of political
expediency in the choice of road develop-
ments.
I certainly would not accuse the present
hon. Minister of being responsible for this.
I was very pleased to hear his remarks this
afternoon that he intends to pull together
all these loose ends of the little projects that
were started here and started somewhere
else, and which we on this side of the House
feel might have, at some time in the past,
been due to political considerations rather
than the actual needs of the roads. I am
likewise sure, Mr. Chairman, that the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) would want
me to draw his attention to the fact that
there are people in the province of Ontario
who are somewhat suspicious that political
expediency did have a hand in at least one
of the recent announcements made by The
Department of Highways.
It seems somewhat more than coincidence
that the time of the last by-election would
be chosen to announce the rebuilding of the
Cockshutt road, part of which runs through
the riding of Brant which was in the throes
of a by-election. It might not have seemed
quite so apparent, Mr. Chairman, if anyone
other than the Conservative candidate had
had a hand in that announcement. I am
sure, sir, that there will be those opposite who
will be quick to assure me that this was all
a matter of coincidence in the timing of the
announcement. I would simply point out
to the hon. Prime Minister that an announced
priority system of development, that was well
known in advance, would preclude any future
possibility of political manoeuvring and in the
long run would result in the roads being built
where they were needed, rather than where
they were convenient politically.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would say this:
that as long as we refrain from bringing
this matter of priority in the road system
out in the open, any government that is in
power will have to bear the consequences
of being accused of political considerations.
Certainly there is no reason why this whole
thing cannot be brought out in the open so
that everybody would know our policy over,
say, the next five years. We in the Opposi-
tion certainly have no indication, other
1218
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
than some broad general statements, as to
where the roads are going to be built in
the next five years, what the planning is
with respect to those roads; nor have we
any opportunity to comment on the desira-
bility of the priorities which are effected
in the first place. I suggest that such a
plan would have an effect on the orderly
economic growth of our province and might
assist, as I have said earlier, in encouraging
decentralization of industry to the benefit
of all municipalities of this province.
Certainly, if we can determine what our
20-year needs are, it should likewise be
possible to determine a 20-year programme
for the development of those needs. These
must be known to the department. The
department must very well know what our
needs are and where the programme is go-
ing to be, because these matters would be
elementary to the production of the study
that we have talked about so often in this
House.
In dealing with this same matter of the
announced programme of The Department
of Highways, I should like to deal briefly
with a recent announcement of The Depart-
ment of Highways which resulted in con-
siderable hardship and financial losses to
many of the taxpayers of this province. I
refer in particular to the decision to place
service station outlets on Highway No. 401.
Let me make it clear at this time, Mr.
Chairman, that I am not criticizing the
establishment of these centres, but rather
the method by which it was accomplished.
This decision is about the best example we
can currently find to indicate the bungling
and lack of planning by the government in
the first place. This highway has been in
the process of construction over a 20-year
period. During most of that period the gov-
ernment has indicated publicly that outlets
would not be permitted on the road and no
provision was made for them. Because of
this policy on the part of the government,
numerous taxpayers established service facil-
ities at what seemed to them to be strate-
gic points of access from the highway; I
would think it is not unreasonable to sug-
gest that the provision of these services
necessitated expenditures of considerable
sums of money by the individual taxpayers
to enable them to be in a position to ade-
quately service the traffic which was using
Highway No. 401.
As the road progressed, Mr. Chairman,
it became increasingly evident to the gov-
ernment that facilities would in some degree
be necessary on the road rather than off the
highway. As a result, the government re-
cently announced the decision to purchase
sufficient rights-of-way to permit the instal-
lation of service outlets on the road itself.
It does not—
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Excuse me. These
locations were established years ago. As a
matter of fact, the drilling for water was
accomplished at least three years ago in my
own area, so The Department of Highways
has owned this property. It was surplus
land that was acquired with the building
of Highway No. 401— we have not purchased
any land for this purpose.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I recall last year bringing this matter to
the attention of the department, and it
seems to me at that time I recall having
seen clippings in the press of announce-
ments emanating from the department indi-
cating that service facilities would not be
permitted. If the hon. Minister is today
telling me that this is not case—
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I am not refuting
that. I am just saying, to keep the records
straight, that The Department of Highways
has owned this property for years.
Mr. V. M. Singer (York Centre): All the
sites?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Yes.
Mr. Singer: What about Oxford county?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Well, I think all of
them—
Mr. Singer: Oh, no. The hon. member for
Oxford (Mr. Innes) said directly the opposite.
He will tell you tonight when he comes back.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman,
the fact of the matter is that whether or not
the department has owned the land over a
long period of time, and I am sure that if the
hon. Minister tells me they have owned all
of the land necessary over a long period of
time—
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: That was my under-
standing. I know that is true of the four sites
east of Toronto, because I am familiar with
them.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: I am sure he would
not mislead the House. On the other hand, if
this land was acquired subsequent to the
purchase of the original right-of-way, I
wonder if the hon. Minister would tell us
MARCH 19, 1962
1219
whether or not there was any difference in
cost to the taxpayer as a result— on a per acre
basis, say— of this decision being made after
the original purchase. I strongly suggest that
the existence of the highway right-of-way
would have influenced the second purchase
if such was necessary. But if they held the
land, and if they had held the land all the
time, then the onus was all the greater, in my
opinion, on the department to make a public
announcement indicating that these rights-of-
way would be extended. The Minister of
Highways was not prepared to make such
an announcement during the estimates of this
department last year.
Mr. Singer: The former hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost) would not let him.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: My hon. friend says
the former Prime Minister would not let him.
Unfortunately, the former hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. Cass) is not here to speak for
himself. My hon. friend could be right, or
there might be another reason. But the fact of
the matter is that these announcements were
not made and there are people in the province
who have been hurt because the department
did not have a long-term policy and did not
announce it. I submit to the hon. Minister
of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow) that this has
cost these people money which many of
them could not afford to pay. They took a
calculated risk which was determined in part
upon what seemed to be the policy of the
government.
Before we leave the particular problem of
these outlets, I think it is necessary that the
hon. Minister inform the House with respect
to the manner in which these facilities will be
provided. I would hope that it will not be a
matter of leaving this to maybe the large oil
companies to determine who is going to have
an outlet and who is not. I hope that it
will riot be the case that only the very
wealthy are given an opportunity to benefit
from these facilities. If the outlets are to be
farmed out to the oil companies on some kind
of a priority basis, and if they are the only
ones that are going to be permitted the oppor-
tunity of bidding, I hope that the department
will ensure that the individual operators of
those outlets will not be exploited as many
of them have been exploited.
I think I delivered an address in this House
during my first term, pointing out the plight
of the service station operators. I think that
now is the time to determine a fair policy.
Now is the time when the government should
lay down a fair policy, so that the benefits
from these enterprises will not be restricted
to the very wealthy; and so that a few will
not be in a position to exploit the actual
operators of the facilities. Perhaps the depart-
ment might consider giving some priority to
some of the people who have already been
injured as a result of this decision not being
made known in the first place.
Mr. Chairman, I have one other matter
which I would like to touch on. I refer to
the matter, or the subject, or the problem, or
whatever you want to call it, of toll-roads in
this province. At the present time, there are
several bridges which are international in
character and upon which tolls are required.
In addition, we have the Burlington Skyway
bridge which is the only inland structure that
is tolled. The hon. Minister might correct me
if I am wrong, but I believe that is a fair
statement.
I suggest to the hon. Minister that since this
is the case, people who use that particular
bridge, when taken in relation to the rest of
the people of this province, become citizens
who are discriminated against because of the
policy of this government. On one hand, sir,
they are called to pay general taxes for the
upkeep of our road system; and on the other
hand they are forced to pay tolls every time
they use this particular facility which happens
to be in their own area.
The present indications, as nearly as 1 can
determine, are that the Homer Skyway bridge
over the Welland Canal will likewise be
tolled. If such is the case, a particular group
of people who use that bridge will likewise
be discriminated against. I think the time
has come for the government to announce
some type of a policy. Certainly, it does not
seem reasonable that some people should be
subjected to tolls and other people not. I
think that the government should indicate a
policy with respect to this matter of tolls.
When do they charge tolls? Do they, for
instance, only charge a toll when a bridge
comes to so many millions of dollars; and if
such be the case, why do they not charge a
toll for some of the facilities on the expensive
Gardiner Expressway? I am not suggesting
they should charge tolls there; I am merely
pointing out that there is a discrepancy,
and as long as the government continues
without some kind of an announced policy
with respect to this matter of tolls, discrimin-
ation will continue and certain groups of the
population will be penalized to the benefit
of others. I think that the time has come
to have some firm announcement as to where
tolls are required and where they are not
required.
1220
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
- Mr. Chairman, there are others matters
with respect to the estimates of the depart-
ment which we shall endeavour to deal with
under the individual votes. As I pointed
out earlier, there is certainly plenty of scope
because there are only three votes. I sup-
pose it would almost be in order for all of
us to stand, make general observations, and
still be in order. I do not think that is our
intention. I am delighted that the hon. Min-
ister has told us there will be a greater
opportunity to go into detail next year. I
thank him for that concession and with that,
Mr. Chairman, I leave this general portion of
my remarks.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, as far as our group is concerned,
we do not propose to take a great deal of
time on the general discusion of the estimates,
because most of what we wish to raise can be
dealt with in specifics in these three grab-bag
votes that we have to contend with as esti-
mates for about $275 million. However, by
way of a general comment, I do want to con-
gratulate the hon. Minister on two accounts;
one, his elevation, or move— I do not know
whether he considers it an elevation, he shook
his head negatively— to The Department of
Highways.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I am looking for
sympathy.
: Mr. MacDonald: More important, I con-
gratulate him for his comment during the
observations of the last speaker that he was
going to do something about this question
of the presentation of the estimates. This
was something that we were assured by his
predecessor would not happen again. Wq
would have these books placed on our desks
so that we would be really equipped to do
the kind of serious job that should be done
from the Opposition benches. I suppose we
have to content ourselves in getting things
in one or two steps rather than all at once.
I also want to note and commend the one
phrase in his introductory statement— the cor-
rection of some past errors in the department
that we have been pounding away on relent-
lessly. In one instance, I do it with a degree
of reservation. For example, I am pleased
that we are getting on with the building of
Highway No. 401 so that it will be completed^
and we will not have a series of bits and
pieces of highway that begin nowhere and
end nowhere. This, it seemed to me by any
common-sense assessment, was the wrong
approach from the outset; and I am a little
puzzled as to how we got off on that pro-
cedure other than perhaps by the old business
of political pressures. A right amount of
political pressure-
Ron. J. P. Roberts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, I might just comment. It is easy
for those of us who do not live in Toronto to
understand why this road was built in pieces.
For instance, there is a 30-mile section built
around London, Ingersoll and Woodstock;
and I think the hon. member for Oxford (Mr.
Innes) would recognize what a benefit that
has been to that part of Ontario, to have it
built there two or three years before the
entire road was built, because it has taken a
great deal of traiBBc ofiF the downtown streets
of London, Ingersoll and Woodstock.
The hon. members who live in Toronto
might not be aware of these things, but if
they lived in the outlying parts of the prov-
ince they would know that this is not political
expediency, this is just good planning.
Mr. MacDonald: Of course not. I quite
understand. I sat on the so-called toll roads
committee with the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts)— or rather under his direction on the
committee— for some time, and he will know
that in the early stages this was the official
approach. The error in it was acknowledged
quite frankly at a later stage, during or
immediately after the sittings of the toll
roads commitee, and it has since been cor-
rected. Despite his high-toned rationalization
of what happened, undoubtedly what played
a very major role was the right amount of
pressure being put at the right amount of
time by the right person, so that a section was
built in one area rather than somewhere else.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I cannot agree.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, I know the hon.
Prime Minister cannot agree— for political
purposes, but it does not alter the truth. The
other inst'-nce, however— and this is the one
I had some reservations on because I noticed
the hon. Minister was a little coy— was in his
change of policy with regard to building that
highway from Atikokan to Fort Frances. He
said ♦hat is going to be completed, but he did
not say when.
Mr. W. G. Noden (Rainy River): Is the
hon. member against it?
Mr. MacDonald: I am not against it. I
have been pleading for it to be completed.
As a matter of fact, I happened to be in
Atikokan last spring after the Lions Club
had held an entertainment in which some of
tlie local poets had come up with a song.
MARCH 19, 1962
1221
It was in the lusty tradition of northern
Ontario and I shall not repeat it down here
because it would oflFend some of the staid
southerners, but it really did a job on the
hon. Minister's predecessor for no action, or
no real promise of action. I commend him
for indicating that tliey are going to move
and complete this at something other than
10 miles at a stretch, which would have meant
another five or six years, at least a couple
of elections.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: We have cut it
about four or five years, we are not sure. We
hope to have it open in 1964, but it may be
1965.
Mr. MacDonald: In 1964 or 1965! In other
words, the hon. Minister is going to do about
15 miles a year instead of 10 miles?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: From both ends.
Mr. MacDonald: From both sides! All I
can say, Mr. Chairman, is that my reserva-
tions were more solidly based than I thought
and I will be interested to see the new version
of the song that they will have for the present
incumbent in this ministry.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Does the hon.
member not think it is a good idea?
Mr. MacDonald: A good idea to speed it
up.''
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, really speed it up
instead of dribbling it on for the next two
elections, which is about what is to be done.
However, Mr. Chairman, let me not get into
this idle and somewhat futile politicking, as
there are endless examples of it. We saw in
a by-election in Timiskaming a year or two
ago, in which they had spent all the money
for the surveys and pre-engineering and yet
for purposes of garnering a few more votes
and coping with the feeling of opposition that
the by-pass was too far away, the late
Minister of Mines had his picture resurveying
the whole route. For the purposes of the by-
election it was going to be replaced, but I
think it went back to the original afterwards.
It had served its purposes for the by-election.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I think they found
engineering difficulties on the road.
Mr. MacDonald: They undoubtedly did find
engineering difficulties.
• *■ Mr. Chairman, there are two aspects of this
study which have been announced and re-
announced and re-re-announced and now it
is revealed that it was initiated, apparently
in 1961, with regard to a review of fiscal
policies for highways, roads and streets
throughout Ontario. I am not going to take
a great deal of time speculating on this, but
I want to submit that this is one of the most
important things that we need at the present
time.
There are two aspects of it, important
points within this study, that I want to touch
on briefly. One is that this past summer— I
believe it was in the summer, yes in June 23,
1961—1 was interested in reading in the Port
Ardiur News Chronicle a statement with
regard to an agreement that had been made
by the hon. Minister's predecessor with the
Marathon Lumber Company to open the road
north of Manitouwadge, which would connect
with Caramet and give the Caramet, Stevens
and Rocky areas access through Manitou-
wadge to the Trans-Canada highway and the
Lakehead.
The point that I want to make is as
pertinent to The Department of Lands and
Forests as it is to The Department of High-
ways. I have made it before in this House,
but I reiterate it again, I want to suggest to
this House that it is time that we integrate
our road development programme and our
forest development programme, because I
submit that in the province of Ontario we
have been going about it very much in the
wrong way from the very outset.
If I may make a contrast without getting
into the details; in a province like British
Columbia, when a company is given a timber
limit, one of the first things that this company
must do, before it starts any cutting at all, is
to build its basic road system. If the company
requires assistance in the financing of it, they
in eflFect get the loan from the government
and the loans are paid back on an amortized
basis by the company over a specified number
of years. The number of years is of no
relevance at the moment.
The net result, Mr. Chairman, is that there
is a basic structure of roads which, if they
become part and parcel of the public roads
system, would end up in a public roads system
throughout the whole area.
Now what do we do in Ontario? We have
a company comes in, company "X", and it
spends $50 million to establish a mill and it
will spend $500,000 to run a few basic roads
out from wherever the mill happens to be.
Over the years they plow back profits
slowly each year— and it is painfully difficult
to get profits put into roads. They can go
]222
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in many other directions, but they will not
go into roads. So the very serious likelihood
is that 25 years later this company still has
not built its basic system of roads, the hinter-
land is completely beyond reach— inaccessible.
Therefore there is difficulty in firefighting,
frustration of any possibility of a modem
forest management programme because they
are not cutting to that limit, in the hinterlands
of the limit. Overmature timber is being lost.
In some areas disease gets in and destroys
the timber resource. All of this stems from
the failure to build the basic road system.
It seems to me that it is just plain com-
mon sense that we should alter our policies
so that if a company is going to be spend-
ing $50 million on a mill, they should be
obligated to an expenditure of a good many
millions of dollars to build the basic road
system. Now if that is done on the one
hand by The Department of Lands and For-
ests, and this is integrated with The Depart-
ment of Highways, it would seem to me
that the whole of northern Ontario could
have a network of highways, or at least
public roads, that would become available
to the pubhc to be used, instead of the
kind of feudal atmosphere we have at the
moment where in many instances people
come and find that there is a road block
because it is a company road and they can-
not get in.
As a matter of fact, with the right amount
of pressure, everybody can get in except
the union organizer; but with no amount
of pressure can the union organizer get in.
The hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Good-
fellow) surely is not surprised at this. I
wonder where he has been living for quite
some time if he is surprised at that.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I have not been
up north as much as I would like.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I was
struck with the potentiality of this kind of
development some two or three years ago.
Like most people who have not been in
on the limits of a company like Marathon
I had thought of northern Ontario as hav-
ing the northern Trans-Canada route and
the southern Trans-Canada route, and I
viewed all of this great area between as a
great hinterland or jforest wilderness in
^•]rIch there was no means of road transport.
But after spending a couple of days on the
Marathon limit I found that there was a
world within the world, so to speak. Out
of Manitouwadge there is a network of
company roads that— when I visited them
it was in the summer time, I know they
might be rather grim in the spring— but at
that stage there were very good roads— a
network so one could get around in all of
this great area.
Now, having learned this, I was im-
pressed once again with the basic validity
of the approach in British Columbia, and I
think in many other jurisdictions, and I am
wondering why we have to delay as long as
we have—
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: We have done this
in a number of places.
Mr. MacDonald: You see, Mr. Chairman,
the hon. Minister interjected that it was
done, but he is doing it in such little bits
and pieces. Here I will support the hon.
member for Wentwortli (Mr. R. C. Edwards)
who spoke a few moments ago. Why not
announce a policy with regard to this, and
launch it, and not do it in bits and pieces,
so that each little opening of a 15- or 20-
mile stretch of road can become a great
event for the little Tories instead of really
getting down and meeting the needs of the
people.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I have a list here,
which the hon. Minister of Lands and For-
ests (Mr. Spooner) gave me, of five places
where we have done this in order to open
up the forest resources.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Lands
and Forests): It is done all the time, the
hon. member is years behind.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not hear that.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: I said the hon. mem-
ber is years behind.
Mr. MacDonald: I am years behind? I
will submit to the hon. Minister that if I
am years behind I am right with him, be-
cause that is where he is— years behind in
the announcement of a policy in setting up
this kind of road system. He has not yet
come to grips with the basic business of it
in his own department. However, we will
get to that when his day comes with his
estimates.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Pardon me, but if the
hon. member looks at the capital pro-
gramme, for instance Highway No. 101,
that is a glaring instance of exactly the
kind of thing that is being talked about.
It is being done. We do not have to an-
nounce any policy, the policy is there.
Mr. MacDonald: Is Highway No. 101 the
one west from Timmins?
MARCH 19, 1962
1223
Hon. Mr. Spooner: It runs from the Que-
bec border westerly through Matheson,
Timmins, Foleyet, Chapleau to Wawa.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to get into an argument with the hon.
Minister, but this is not the point I was
raising at all.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Sure it was.
Mr. MacDonald: This was just a new road
carved out of the bush.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Well, it was not carved
out of the bush, just to carve a road out of
the bush, and the hon. member knows that.
Mr. MacDonald: Was this an adaptation
of a forest road before?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Well, certainly, it
started out as a mining and access road for
the development of mineral resources and
timber resources, and that is exactly what it
is doing, plus all of the other services that
the highway is going to provide. In the
case of the highway from Hornpayne to No.
11, the same thing applies; or the road from
the Lakehead north through the Abitibi
limits; the same thing applies again.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the hon. Minister is
doing it in bits and pieces without any over-
all policy, and furthermore he has set the
stage so that he will have to do it in bits
and pieces because of his whole financial
approach, and the failure to impose an obliga-
tion on the pulp and paper companies down
through the years because they do not have
to get out and do it.
Now, a comparable kind of thing down in
the more heavily populated southern part of
the province, Mr. Chairman, of course is the
whole complex of financing roads in an area
like Metro. Why, for example, the govern-
ment has persisted as long as it has— and
whether it will change after it gets the result
of this study, I do not know— with the proce-
dure in which it will finance 50 per cent of
the cost of expressways and will not share
in any meaningfvil way in other modes of
transport in the Metro area, I simply do not
know. The result, of course, is that the local
municipalities get into the business of build-
ing expressways. At the moment we have
had one of the most striking displays of poli-
ticking—in the public battling over the exten-
sion of the Spadina expressway— that has ever
taken place in the Metro area.
In fact, I would go one step further, Mr.
Chairman, and say that the kind of thing
that has happened in the last two or three
months— where one month there is a sizeable
majority against and the next month there is
a majority in favour, is one of the most sus-
picious switching in votes that has ever been
recorded in Metro history. I think it might
be interesting to find out what goes on behind
the scenes. But my greatest concern, Mr.
Chairman, is the kind of policy that emerges
because of the basic fiscal arrangement of
this government.
I can speak rather feelingly on this issue
because the Spadina extension will run liter-
ally within 100 yards of my own front door.
I live in a township, for example, which— like
many other built-up areas— has a relatively
small amount of parklands, and now faces
the prospect that one of its major park areas
is going to be lost; and when it is suggested
by local township people that they are going
to fight this through the courts because they
have no intention of losing it without a fight,
then the word is dropped as a warning of
things to come, that if they are going to fight,
then a bill will be introduced in the Legis-
lature and that will be the end of it, the fight
will be over before it starts.
This sort of rough, tough approach is in
contrast to the municipal autonomy that is so
often preached from the government side of
the House. The only alternative is to knock
down a lot of homes and provide some other
parkland area and this, of course, results in
a permanent loss of assessment in a mimici-
pality which, like all municipahties, is fighting
for an increase in its assessment.
However, sir, these are aspects of fiscal
policy. I would just plead with the hon.
Minister to hasten with his study so that
we can re-examine the whole basic approach
rather than delay any longer.
Mr. Chairman, I did want to make one final
comment— again on the question of the gen-
eral financing of our highway programme. I
was interested in the observations made by
the hon. Liberal spokesman in introducing
estimates— in fact, in one of two instances, I
was puzzled by them. He envisaged the day
—or he expressed the views of those who
envisaged the day— when the highway
revenues are going to exceed what we need
for building our highways. I may be wrong,
Mr. Chairman, but I think this is a never-
never day that we do not need to worry
about. I think the need for highways in a
vast, development province such as the prov-
ince of Ontario is such that we are never
going to be faced with the problem of an
excess in highway revenue over what we
require to continue with our highway pro-
gramme.
1224
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As a matter of fact, T almost wonder
whether this was not setting the stage for
another plea to oppose the weight-distance
tax, or something of that nature, such as he
was indulging in last year. I have fought
almost a lone battle since we had unanimous
support for this proposal on the toll roads
committee some four or five years ago— unani-
mous including the Liberals, the Conserva-
tives and myself on the committee. I was
most refreshed to be assured by the hon.
Minister of Transport (Mr. Rowntree) a few
days ago that he, for one, on the government
side of the House acknowledges the basic
validity of the battle that I have been carry-
ing on. All I can hope is that we will soon
get greater equity in our highway revenues.
However, on the question of toll roads, this
is another on which we in this group have
been fighting a lone battle. I am interested
to learn that the hon. member speaking on
behalf of the Liberal group, appears now—
in this new posture of vigorous opposition—
to be taking up this issue instead of leaving
it go by default. When we fought the toll
roads issue in the toll roads committee the
best that can be said for the Liberal spokes-
men is that they changed their minds every
six months— as to whether they wanted toll
roads or not.
I submit that if it had not been for the
consistent fight of some of us, there was a
serious danger that we would have had tolls
on Highway No. 401 because there were
people who were seriously thinking of the
proposition of putting toll roads on Highway
No. 401, as an excuse for getting it completed
quickly. It is like the poor folk up at Fort
Frances who, if I may use the vernacular,
were "sucked in" on the deal of a toll on the
causeway there in the hope that they could
get this government to move on this issue
instead of stalling on it for much longer.
However, Mr. Chairman, there was so
much vacillation on the issue of toll roads,
particularly by the Liberal spokesmen dur-
ing that committee, that we got ourselves
into the position where today the government
has toll roads on the Homer bridge, and
others. Whether or not we can reverse this
policy at this stage and get them taken off,
I do not know, but the case, of course, for
having them taken off is valid. It is valid
not only for the reason the hon. member ad-
vanced, but it is valid for another reason.
These people have been suffering the con-
sequences and the inconvenience and the
overall economic loss of bottlenecks in traffic
for years, and having suffered the conse-
quences of these bottlenecks they are now
going to have to suffer the consequences of
having the bottlenecks removed by paying
the toll— which is discrimination against them
—and they are going to be paying it for
an indefinite time in the future. If we had
had a consistent fight on this issue down
through the years, instead of the waffling
in one section of the Opposition, we maybe
would not have had this problem with us
today.
Mr. Chairman, the rest of the items that
I and other members of my group wanted to
raise, I think, fit in as isolated items dealing
with one or another of the three estimates
and I will leave them for later consideration.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
deal, at the moment, with one isolated item.
The hon. Minister may recall that on De-
cember 11, in the Throne debate, I had
certain remarks to make about the township
of Clarence. The hon. Minister may recall
that a special audit was ordered by The
Department of Municipal Affairs. It was done
by a firm of auditors, Demarais and Pari-
sienne. There were certain other inquiries
that I made which have not yet been
answered directly— more particularly to the
hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Cass).
I will come back to those at the proper time.
The point I want to direct to the hon.
Minister's attention, and perhaps solicit an
answer from him, was this: I was advised,
and I stated at that time that, as a result of
the audit conducted by Demarais and Pari-
sienne it became apparent to The Department
of Highways that some $25,000 had been
paid to that municipality improperly. I was
further advised, and I stated at that time, as
well, that the department having conducted
its own audit was working out its system
of recovering those improperly paid funds
by withholding further grants.
What I want to ask the hon. Minister is
this: as a result of this audit, did the depart-
ment take any disciplinary action or did they
take up with the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) the discoveries that they had found
in this audit, and if so, what action, if any,
was taken? It is a very serious thing, Mr.
Chairman, to my mind that, in a municipality,
some plan is worked out, or some scheme is
worked out whereby a department, such as
The Department of Highways, improperly
pays some $25,000 in highway grants. And
it is rather surprising to me that we did not
hear—
Mr. Chairman: Order. Is this under vote
703?
MARCH 19, 1962
1225
Mr. Singer: Oh, no. It is under the general
office. I want to know how they conduct the
general office, Mr. Chairman. I want to
know why, when the department had con-
ducted this audit of their own, they did not
take some disciplinary action and indicate to
the hon. Attorney-General that some disci-
plinary action was indicated.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I always understood
it was The Department of Municipal Affairs
that conducted the inquiry into Clarence;
and as a result of their findings The Depart-
ment of Highways withheld subsidies to the
municipality to make recovery. We never
had anything to do with it because I hap-
pened to be Minister of Municipal Affairs at
the time the inquiry was instituted; I was
not there long enough to see it completed.
Mr. Singer: With great respect, Mr. Chair-
man, as I stated on December 11, and as I
state again today— as a result of the audit
ordered by The Department of Municipal
Affairs and done by Demarais and Parisienne,
Highways went in and did their own audit,
and then discovered that $25,000 had been
paid that should not have been paid.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: We do that as a
matter of course anyway as far as the muni-
cipal audit was concerned.
Mr. Singer: Oh, yes. But there was a
special audit done as a result of what had
been ascertained by Demarais and Parisienne.
As a result of this special audit it was
ascertained that $25,000 was paid that should
not have been paid. The question that I am
asking the hon. Minister is this: as the result
of this special audit, what disciplinary action
was indicated and what reports were made
to the hon. Attorney-General; and if there
was none made, why not?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Well, the chief
accountant says that we assisted The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs in this audit of
Clarence township. It was just routine as far
as our people were concerned, working with
the other auditors, because our people were
most conversant with the matter of subsidies.
Mr. Singer: Well, with the greatest respect,
Mr. Chairman, this is not my impression of
the facts at all. There was this report, and I
read certain portions of it into the record on
December 11. Desmarais and Parisienne dealt
very summarily, in a very short report, with
anything touching the highways department.
I stated, and I think the hon. Minister has
confirmed it this afternoon, that I was advised
that the department went in and did its own
special audit. As a result of The Department
of Highways' own special audit, it came to
the conclusion that some $25,000 had been
improperly paid.
What I am trying to find out is, having
made this discovery, what disciplinary action
did the department take itself or indicate to
the hon. Attorney-General should be taken?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: It was not up to The
Department of Highways to take any action,
because the audit was instituted by The
Department of Municipal Affairs. Ours was
just a routine audit when our people went in.
Mr. Singer: Oh, Mr. Chairman, surely there
is something more than this. Here it is indi-
cated in a certain municipality that grants
have been improperly paid by one of the
departments of this government. This has
been indicated to the department. The depart-
ment takes steps to recover those monies by
withholding other grants. The Department
of Highways' own investigation that took place
after the Municipal Affairs audit showed this.
Then surely there should have been some
follow-up. I am asking the hon. Minister:
was there a follow-up? If there was no
follow-up, why not?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I would not know.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am very dis-
appointed in the hon. Minister if he does not
know. I think the hon. Minister owes a duty
to this House to ascertain—
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: It was no concern
of The Department of Highways, because it
was Municipal Affairs that instituted the
inquiry.
Mr. Singer: Oh, Mr. Chairman, surely it is
the concern of The Department of Highways
when $25,000 of Highways money has been
improperly paid.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: But we cannot have
two departments conducting an inquiry. I
remember instituting the inquiry in Municipal
Affairs, it was definitely Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I have the
greatest respect for the hon. Minister but I
am sorry that he will not face this matter
head on. When a department of government
has certain funds to allocate, and this depart-
ment allocates more than any other depart-
ment, and when it is ascertained that some
$25,000 of those funds have been improperly
1226
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
allocated, and when there is more than a
suggestion that there has been wrongdoing,
one would think that the department that has
improperly allocated funds would initiate
some sort of disciplinary action.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Chairman, I can
assure you that if an inquiry had been
instituted or The Department of Highways
had found funds, or overpayments had been
made, we would have a full inquiry— I can
assure the House of that— not only through
the hon. Attorney-General's department but
through the provincial auditor.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, let me review
what I said-
Mr. C. H. Lyons (Sault Ste. Marie): The
hon. member has repeated himself six times.
Mr. Singer: Let me review what I said,
Mr. Chairman, for the seventh, eighth, ninth
or, if necessary, the tenth time. I said that an
inquiry was made by The Department of
Municipal AfiFairs, they instructed a firm of
auditors called Demarais and Parisienne. This
firm conducted an audit and brought in a
very brief report which indicated that there
were certain things wrong in that municipality.
Certain actions were taken and, as I say, the
Municipal AfiFairs aspects of it properly do
not come within these estimates and I will
deal with those at a later time. But I said
that I was advised, and I said this on Decem-
ber 11, and the record is in Hansard, that as
a result of what Demarais and Parisienne
ascertained The Department of Highways then
caused a special audit to be made.
Demarais and Parisienne did not state in
their report that there had been $25,000 of
Highways money improperly allocated; they
hardly mentioned The Department of High-
ways at all.
But I say that my information is, and I
gather this has been confirmed as being
correct by the hon. Minister this afternoon,
that after the Municipal Affairs report, after
the Demarais and Parisienne report, The De-
partment of Highways went in and did its
own audit. As a result of its own audit, it
found that some $25,000 of Highways monies
had been improperly given to this munici-
pality.
I was further advised, and I understand
the hon. Minister has confirmed this this
afternoon, that the department, having dis-
covered this, withheld future grants to re-
cover its $25,000. Probably the department
is not now out of pocket in the monies it
advanced because it took steps to recover
them. But what I am saying, sir, is this:
this is a very serious matter, and if someone
has worked out a method of getting money
improperly from The Department of High-
ways one would expect The Department of
Highways would indicate to the hon.
Attorney-General that certain disciplinary
types of action might be taken.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chairman,
I would like under this vote to raise a specific
matter relating to the sale by the department
of a property near Kingston. This sale oc-
curred in 1958, but it came to my attention
only recently.
At first sight, it might appear not to be a
matter of tremendous import as the total
amount of money was relatively small, but
it raises an important question of principle
since it involves a clear cut conflict of inter-
ests on the part of an elected municipal
representative which, as far as I have been
able to determine after careful study, was
not only condoned but actually facilitated by
the government through the hon. Minister of
Highways of the day. Repeated revelations
of instances of conflict of interests—
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister without Port-
folio): Who is the municipal official, if the
hon. member pleases?
Mr. Bryden: I will come to that.
Repeated revelations of conflict of interests
at the municipal level have been causing
increasing concern in many quarters in recent
years and so also has the government's lax
attitude to them. Since the new administra-
tion took oflSce last fall the public has been
reassured to some extent by an apparent
stiffening of the government's policy in this
field as revealed by announcements of the
new hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr.
Cass), formerly the Minister of Highways.
Unfortunately, the episode that I am about
to describe gives rise to serious doubts as to
the genuineness of the government's new
policy.
Admittedly, sir, it is only one episode, yet
it came to my attention by pure coincidence.
One can only speculate as to how many
similar episodes there may be which have not
come to the attention of anyone outside the
government.
I do not want to put myself in the position
of making vague allegations without adequate
evidence to back them up and for that reason,
Mr. Chairman, I plan, with your permission,
to present all the relevant facts of this case
as far as. I have been able to discover them.
MARCH 19, 1962
1227
I will begin by stating that I plan to place
on the table of this House certified copies of
the following three instruments which are
registered in the Kingston Registry Ofiice:
1. Instrument No. 104119, being a deed
dated June 2, 1958, conveying a portion
of Lot 14, east side of the Great Cataraqui
river in Pittsburg Township on the out-
skirts of Kingston in Frontenac County,
from The Ontario Department of High-
ways to the corporation of the Township
of Pittsburg. This land, which is popularly
known as the Poston property, has an area
of 17.032 acres.
2. Instrument No. 106003, being a deed
dated September 25, 1958, conveying the
same land, minus a little less than three
acres, from the corporation of the Town-
ship of Pittsburg to Minnie Pearson. This
land consists of two parcels with a total
area of 14.47 acres.
3. Instrument No. 106004, being a deed
which is also dated September 25, 1958,
conveying exactly the same land as was
conveyed to Minnie Pearson by Instru-
ment No. 106003 from Minnie Pearson to
Eric R. Pearson.
Handwritten notations on the deeds indi-
cate that the prices paid by Pittsburg town-
ship to The Department of Highways, by
Minnie Pearson to Pittsburg Township and
by Eric R. Pearson to Minnie Pearson were
in all cases $14,000.
The land which was conveyed by The
Department of Highways to Pittsburg Town-
ship is a rectangular block bounded on the
east by Highway No. 15 and on the west by
the Great Cataraqui river. The slightly less
than three acres which the township retained
when it resold the land to Minnie Pearson
consists of a strip 100 feet wide running
diagonally across the main property from
Highway No. 15 to the river.
It will be noted that title to all of the land
in question, except the diagonal strip, was
acquired by Eric R. Pearson less than four
months after The Department of Highways
sold it to the township.
Eric R. Pearson is at present the reeve of
Pittsburg Township and was deputy reeve in
1958 when the above transactions took place.
Minnie Pearson, to whom the township sold
the land and from whom Eric R. Pearson
acquired it on the same day and for the same
price, is his mother.
According to the stamp on the back of
instrument Nos. 106003 and 106004, the sales
from the township to Mrs. Pearson and from
Mrs. Pearson to her son were both handled by
the Kingston law firm of Rankin and Wright.
I understand that this was the firm of the late
D. J. Rankin, who, at the time, was the
Progressive-Conservative MPP for Frontenac-
Addington. I mention this fact because Mr.
Rankin also appeared in this a£Fair at an
earlier stage, in a manner which I will
describe later.
On January 29, 1962, I wrote to the King-
ston registry ofiice asking for certified copies
of the above three instruments. Not having
received a reply to my letter by February
16, 1962, I telephoned the registrar on that
date and she undertook to forward the cer-
tified copies to me immediately. I received
them in the regular course of mail on Febru-
ary 20, 1962.
On the next day, February 21, I sent
letters asking for further information to the
clerk of Pittsburg Township, C. J. MacLean,
to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Cass) and to the hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. Goodfellow).
My February 21 letter to the township clerk
asked if there were any by-laws or minutes
of the township council relating to the
purchase of the land from The Department
of Highways and the subsequent sale of most
of it to Minnie Pearson, and if so, if it would
be possible for him to send me copies. The
letter also asked if the strip which was not
sold to Minnie Pearson is still owned by
the township, and if so, the purpose for which
it is now being used.
I had not received a reply to my letter by
March 15, so on that day I sent a registered
letter to the clerk, forwarding a copy of my
original letter and asking for a reply at his
earliest convenience. I have still not received
any reply, although admittedly my second
letter went out only a few days ago.
My February 21 letter to the hon. Minister
of Municipal Affairs asked if any oflBcer of
his department had conducted an investiga-
tion into the affairs of Pittsburg township
in 1959 or 1960, and in particular, if the
department had ever investigated the con-
veyance of a portion of Lot 14 east of the
Great Cataraqui river by the township to
Minnie Pearson. I also asked if it would be
possible for me to inspect the file relating
to any investigation that may have been
carried out.
The hon. Minister's reply, which was dated
March 13, 1962, ignored my request to see
the file but provided the following infor-
mation, and I am now quoting from his
letter:
One of my supervisors, Mr. Hill, visited
the Township of Pittsburg during a routine
1228
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
visit to eastern Ontario. The purix)se of
his visit to the Township of Pittsburg was
to acquaint the clerk and reeve of a com-
plaint we had received from a ratepayer
regarding the sale of this property.
Mr. Hill said that he advised the clerk
that the question of the sale of the Poston
property had been brought to the attention
of the department and from the information
received it would appear that, in view of
the position of the reeve in this matter,
the sale was voidable as against the munici-
pality under the provisions of what was
then section 57 of The Municipal Act. The
clerk arranged a meeting with Mr. E. R.
Pearson, the reeve, who explained that he
had acted on legal advice respecting the
transaction and that since the property
had been acquired through his mother's
name and quite openly, he was satisfied
that the transaction was quite legal. He
agreed, however, to contact his solicitor
again and get further advice on the matter.
The statement of revenue and expendi-
ture in the auditor's report for the Town-
ship of Pittsburg for the year ending
December 31, 1958, shows on the revenue
side, "sale of Poston property $14,000"
and on the expenditure side "purchase of
Poston property $14,000," This is the only
entry in the audit report in respect of this
property.
My February 21 letter to the hon. Minister
of Highways asked simply if I could inspect
the department's file relating to the site of
the property by the department to the town-
ship.
Under date of March 6, 1962, the hon.
Minister sent me photographic copies of
correspondence on the department's file
relating to this sale, together with a covering
letter summarizing this correspondence. He
explained in his covering letter that:
There are several difFerent files in the
department relating to this matter and a
great deal of this correspondence relates
to the routine matters of payment of rent,
taxes and the necessary paper work in
relation thereto. The enclosed corres-
pondence, however, does cover all the
phases of the transactions in so far as The
Department of Highways is concerned up
to the time when we finally disposed of
the property to the Township of Pittsburg.
A review of this correspondence brings
to light the following main facts:
The Department of Highways acquired the
property in 1943 for $5,000. At the time the
land and buildings were under lease to a
concern known as Smart's Fisheries Limited
for $25 a month. The department continued
to rent to this concern, although it ultimately
raised the rental to $75 a month.
The property was apparently acquired for
a Kingston by-pass. In time the department
changed its plans and the property became
surplus, although a small portion of it con-
tinued to be used for incidental purposes of
the department.
As the word got around that the property
was surplus, several persons, including Smart's
Fisheries, wrote to the department expressing
an interest in buying it. The first such letter
appearing in the material provided to me was
dated January 2, 1947, and similar letters
appeared periodically for several years there-
after. The usual reply of the department was
to the effect that, if and when a decision
should be made to dispose of the property, it
would be advertised for sale and all interested
parties would have an opportunity to submit
bids.
Smart's Fisheries Limited is apparently not
an incorporated company, and I am not
certain about the nature of E. R. Pearson's
connection with it. I understand, however^
that at the present time he and William Smart
are equal partners in the business, though I
do not know how long that arrangement has
existed.
A letter of May 6, 1953 to the department
listed E. R. Pearson on the letterhead as
assistant manager and was signed by Mr.
Pearson on behalf of the firm. The letter
stated that the firm had established a large
wholesale fish business on the location and
was anxious to expand its facilities. It there-
fore reiterated a request made on previous
occasions to buy the property.
The department had been giving some
consideration to putting the property up for
sale for at least three years prior to the receipt
of this letter, and now, apparently, it decided
to proceed. As a first step, it arranged for
an appraisal by a realtor in Kingston. The
appraisal report, dated September 19, 1953
placed a valuation of $13,500 on both land
and buildings.
On January 19, 1954, E. R. Pearson on
behalf of Smart's Fisheries made a written
offer of $10,000. A memorandum of January
22, 1954, written by the department's acting^
chief property evaluator, suggested that, since
this firm had occupied the property for a
long time, their offer was "deserving of every
consideration." A year later, the services
manager stated in a memorandum to the
MARCH 19, 1962
1229
superintendent of properties dated February
3, 1955:
In making your recommendation to the
property committee, I think you should
point out to the committee that this
property has been under lease to a Mr.
Smart, of Smart and Pearson, for a great
number of years and that they have made
many improvements. This information
might influence the opinion of the com-
mittee whether this property should be
publicly advertised.
Judging by other memoranda on the file,
however, the department appeared to consider
it necessary to advertise the property. One
such memo suggested that Mr. Pearson's offer
of January 19, 1954 could be considered along
with other offers. On February 19, 1955 Mr.
Pearson, again on behalf of the firm, increased
his offer to $11,000.
The first steps to offer the property for sale
were taken early in 1954. For reasons which
are not entirely clear, progress was slow, but
by the beginning of 1955 arrangements had
been made for another Kingston real estate
firm to make a new appraisal. This appraisal,
which was dated March 2, 1955, valued the
land and buildings at $11,500, as compared
with $13,500 in the earlier appraisal.
At this juncture a new factor was intro-
duced. In a letter dated February 24, 1955,
the mayor of Kingston stated that his city
was considering plans to build a bridge which
would end on the Poston property and re-
quested that no steps be taken to sell the
property until these plans had advanced be-
yond the preliminary stages. The department
complied with this request.
By now, however, it was quite anxious to
sell because, as one memorandum put it, "this
property will require an extensive mainte-
nance outlay in the very near future." Some
pressure was therefore put on Kingston, but
at the same time that city's interest was
recognized.
In a letter of June 3, 1955, the city was
advised of the two valuations which had been
placed on the property and was invited to
make an offer. Further correspondence was
exchanged and finally, on December 14, 1955,
Kingston offered $11,500, being the lower of
the two valuations.
The department accepted this offer and was
ready to complete the transaction, when
Kingston discovered that it would have to
back out. A letter of March 19, 1956 from
the clerk-controller stated that the city had
received legal advice to the effect that it
could not spend money for a pubUc highway
wider than 100 feet in an adjoining munici-
pality.
The clerk-controller inquired as to the
feasibility of the department placing a
"covenant in the deed to the effect that if
any portion of this land which is not built
upon should eventually be required for public
purposes, the purchaser agrees to convey it
to the Crown at cost price, plus expenses
incurred to the date of sale."
At this point, a Mr. J. B. Sampson, who
has operated a real estate business in Kings-
ton for many years and who had indicated an
interest in bidding on the Poston property as
far back as 1947— and frequently thereafter—
immediately renewed his request. In a letter
of March 19, 1956, he stated that, if the
department would sell him the property, he
would undertake to provide the city of
Kingston, free of charge, with any land it
might subsequently require for a bridge. It
is impossible to say how much Mr. Sampson
would have offered for the land on these
terms, because his offer was not pursued.
The department dismissed as impractical
the restrictive covenants proposed by Kings-
ton and proceeded to advertise the property
for sale by public tender. Advertisements
appeared in the Kingston Whig-Standard in
May and tenders closed on June 7, 1956.
The department's summary of "Tenders
Received for Property Sale No. 107" shows
that nine bids were made and the four
highest were:
Samuel Springer and John Burke Sampson,
Kingston, $18,700.
Rosen Fuels Limited, Kingston, $18,200.
Frank A. Branscombe, Niagara Falls,
$17,500.
E. R. Pearson, c/o Smart's Fisheries, Kings-
ton, $16,700.
A notation at the bottom of the summary
reads "Awarded to Samuel Springer and John
Burke Sampson, Kingston, Ontario."
The same J. B. Sampson wrote to the
department on June 18, 1956, asking advice
as to the successful tenderer and stating,
"We are anxious that a right-of-way should
be provided for a connecting road through
this property, across to the city of Kingston."
Unaccountably, the sale was not proceeded
with. On July 3, 1956, the department's
tenders secretary sent a laconic memorandum
of "All Bidders" stating that, "The property
committee. Department of Highways, has
ruled that no award is yet to be made," and
returning the deposit cheques. On October
1230
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
26, 1956, F. A. Branscombe, who was the
third highest bidder, wrote to the depart-
ment asking if tenders would be called again.
There is no indication, however, in any of
the material provided to me that the depart-
ment took any action for about a year and
a half, notwithstanding its apparent anxiety
at an earlier date to dispose of the property.
Apparently, some approaches were made
by the township of Pittsburg in the early
part of 1958, because on March 19, of that
year, the late D. J. Rankin, then MPP for
Frontenac-Addington, wrote to the then
hon. Minister of Highways, now Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan), as follows:
I am very anxious to get a decision on
whether the department will sell the
Poston property to the township of Pitts-
burg. You have their application on file.
I miglit mention, Mr. Chairman, that the
application referred to was not included in
the material sent to me, so I am not in a
position to comment on it. Continuing from
Mr. Rankin's letter:
The township are satisfied that this
property will eventually be required for an
, extra high level bridge across the Cataraqui,
and feel that if they acquire it at this time
they will save a great deal of money if
the land is allowed to develop in the
meantime. They figure that the township
should, in any event, at this time, have
access to the Cataraqui river for its people
and that, pending a further growth of the
Kingston area, the people can use this
property as access to the river.
A memorandum of April 14, 1958, from
the superintendent of properties to the hon.
Minister contained the following paragraphs:
The property is quite valuable and I feel
that a sale would realize at least $20,000.
,;. As you know, sales are by public tender
or auction. However, in the case of muni-
cipal bodies wanting DHO land, our
property committee will authorize a direct
sale based on a fair market value. Such
sale price is arrived at by having inde-
pendent appraisals made and then offering
the property to the municipality at a figure
based on the appraised value.
If the township of Pittsburg is seriously
considering purchase I will arrange for
appraisals to be made and then advise
township of price. In the event it is
- acceptable to township I will then recom-
mend to our property committee that a
' direct sale be made to the township of
Pittsburg.
On April 28, 1958, a new Minister of
Highways was appointed in the person of
the present hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Cass). On May 9, 1958, he wrote to
the superintendent of properties as follows:
The clerk of Pittsburg township, together
with Mr. D. J. Rankin, MLA for Frontenac,
called on me the other day, and after a
good deal of discussion, left a brief which
I attach to this memorandum, and an offer
of $14,000 for the property.
Perhaps you would consider this and
I would be glad to have your advice and
discuss it with you and Mr. Fulton before
any decision is made.
After that it did not take long to com-
plete the deal. The superintendent of prop-
erties replied to the hon. Minister four days
later, on May 13, 1958, stating that:
A recommendation will go forward to
the property committee on Friday, May
16, recommending to them that they
accept the offer of $14,000 submitted by
the Township of Pittsburg for these lands
and buildings.
As I have already indicated, the deal was
closed shortly afterwards.
The Pittsburg brief referred to in the
hon. Minister's memorandum of May 9,
1958, is lengthy and I will summarize it by
stating that it made the following three
main points:
(1) It was important from a planning
point of view to provide a right-of-way for
a future bridge connection with Kingston.
(2) Under the official plan which the
township was then drafting, this land would
be zoned as commercial and it was impor-
tant from the township's point of view to
increase commercial assessment.
(3) And on this point I am quoting the
exact words of the township brief, Mr.
Chairman.
The township has an opportunity to dis-
pose of this property after keeping the
proposed 100 foot right-of-way, without
profit— after splitting the lot— to the people
who have used it as a fishery wholesale
depot and who agree, if they can obtain
title, to immediately erect a spacious
modern wholesale depot and fish process-
ing plant in keeping with federal and pro-
vincial standards.
These, then, are the facts, as far as I
have been able to determine them from the
material provided to me by the present hon.
Minister of Highways (Mr. Goodfellow).
Since certain points seemed to require
MARCH 19, 1962
1231
further explanation, I wrote a second letter
to the hon. Minister on March 9, 1962, in
which, among other things, I asked the fol-
lowing two questions:
(1) Why was the sale by tender, held in
June, 1956, not proceeded with?
(2) Were the appraisals suggested by H.
Barry, superintendent of properties, in a
memorandum dated April 14, 1958, under-
taken and if so, what valuations did they
place on the property?
The hon. Minister replied to this letter
on March 12, 1962, and, for reasons which
I will attempt to explain, his explanations
were far from satisfactory. I will deal first
with his answer to the second question as
follows;
The appraisals referred to by Mr. Barry
in his memorandum of April 14, 1958,
were not obtained since we already had
two independent appraisals. The first of
these was for $13,500 and the second was
for $11,500. These appraisals had been
obtained when the department was con-
sidering the transfer of the property to
the City of Kingston and it was felt that
circumstances had not varied sufficiently
to warrant the expenditure for additional
appraisals.
It is true that two appraisals had been
obtained, but subsequent to these appraisals
the land had been put up for sale by tender
and four firm bids had been received from
responsible parties in amounts ranging from
$16,700 to $18,700. That was in 1956. By
1958 Mr. Barry had come to the conclusion,
according to his memorandum, that the
property was "quite valuable" and that "a
sale would realize at least $20,000."
How then could it reasonably be con-
cluded that the earlier appraisals were still
valid?
The hon. Minister's answer to my first
question was equally unsatisfactory. He
said:
There is nothing in the files of The
Department of Highways which would
indicate the specific reason why the sale
held in June, 1956, was not proceeded
with. . . . However, the surrounding
circumstances immediately before the
sale and those subsequent to the sale
would, to my mind, indicate that the
property was desired for municipal pur-
poses by either the City of Kingston or
the Township of Pittsburg, even though
the City of Kingston had been having
difficulty in establishing its authority to
make the purchase.
I am aware that there is need for an
alternative access to Kingston from the east
and that a high level bridge over the Cata-
raqui river connecting with Highway No.
15 is the preferred method of achieving
that access.
By 1956, however. The Department of
Highways had clearly decided that, though
it was sympathetic to Kingston's problems,
it could no longer hold up the sale of the
Poston property on account of them. Its
action in offering the property for sale by
tender was the outward manifestation of
this decision. In any case, the highest
bidder, Mr. J. B. Sampson, had clearly indi-
cated both before and after submitting his
tender that he was fully aware of Kingston's
plans and quite ready to co-operate in realiz-
ing them.
Indeed, Pittsburg does not appear to
have come into the picture at all until
about a year and a half later. No doubt
the known fact that Kingston wanted a
right-of-way for its proposed high-level
bridge provided the township with an excuse
for asking for the land, but it was hardly a
reason for selling to them.
Certainly Pittsburg itself could not have
had any plans for building the bridge at any
time in the foreseeable future, for its total
assessment in 1958 was less than $3.25
million. If it was casting itself in the role
of a sort of trustee for Kingston, its efforts
were unnecessary since the high bidder had
expressed willingness to do that. If it had
some sort of arrangement with Kingston, I
would like to see evidence of it.
I would also like, Mr. Chairman, to see
evidence, which I have not been able to
obtain as yet due to the failure of the town-
ship clerk to answer my inquiries, that the
township council of Pittsburg actually ap-
proved the purchase of land from The
Department of Highways and the negotiations
leading up to that purchase, and that it
approved the later sale of the land to Minnie
Pearson.
This, however, brings one into the realm
of speculation, so I will now turn my atten-
tion to another hard fact of the case. The
brief which the township presented to the
then hon. Minister of Highways, now the
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Cass), in
May, 1958, clearly indicated the township's
future plans for the land. It was to be dis-
posed of, minus the 100 foot right-of-way, to
"the people who have used it as a fishery
wholesale depot." The hon. Minister was
clearly in a position to know that the people
referred to were Smart's Fisheries, Ltd. After
1232
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
all, his department had been tlie landlord
of this firm for 15 years.
He was also in a position to know that one
of the principals in the firm was E. R.
Pearson, the deputy reeve of the township.
Since the beginning of 1954, Mr. Pearson
had been the person who had written to the
department on behalf of the finn in attempt-
ing to advance the firm's efforts to buy the
property from the department. It is interest-
ing to note that the bid submitted in response
to the call for tenders in 1956 was made not
by the firm, but by Mr. Pearson personally
and that he merely used the firm as an
address.
One would have thought that all these facts
would have given pause to the hon. Minister.
It is not for me to say that the township's
re-sale of the land was voidable as against
the municipality, but there can be no question
that it was improper. The use of Mr. Pearson's
mother as an intermediary was nothing but a
subterfuge. The substantial facts were that all
the land other than the 100-foot strip was sold
by the township to its deputy reeve and
that this was clearly the intention from the
time the township clerk and the local MPP
first spoke to the then hon. Minister of High-
ways, now the Minister of Municipal AflFairs.
Not only did the hon. Minister not try to
dissuade the township representatives JFrom
this questionable course of action, but he
positively facilitated it.
I can understand the anxiety of Smart's
Fisheries and Mr. Pearson to acquire the
Poston property. They had a business
operating on that property, and it was natural
for them to want to hold their location and
develop it.
The department, however, had considered
this factor and had decided that if the land
was to be sold to a private party it had to
be offered for sale by tender. I think the
department was right in that decision. When
public land is disposed of, there should be no
favourites, every citizen has a right to put
in a bid if he so desires.
The intervention made in the name of
Pittsburg township— and I am not certain that
it was made by the township— enabled the
deputy reeve, now reeve, to accomplish what
he had failed to accomplish when the land
was offered for sale by tender. In other
words, he got the land. Morever, he got it
for $2,700 less than he himself had bid two
years earlier, and for $4,700 less than the
top bid at that time. Surely there had
been some advance in the value of the land
in the two-year interval?
True, Mr. Pearson did not obtain title to
the strip reserved by the township but this
hardly reduced the value from his point
of view. His house is on one side of the
strip and the fish warehouse is on the other
side. The construction of the high-level
bridge is merely a future possibility, and in
the meantime there is nothing to prevent
Mr. Pearson from using the strip to cross
from his house to the warehouse, which is all
he needs it for. And if the bridge should
ultimately be constructed, the probability is
that the value of Mr. Pearson's holdings will
be enhanced. His property will then lie
on the two corners formed at the point where
the new connection with Kingston joins
Highway No. 15.
When the deal was brought to the attention
of The Department of Municipal Affairs in
1959, that department expressed considerable
concern; but, in keeping with the laissez-
faire attitude to such matters which charac-
terized government policy in those days, it
did nothing more. The new hon. Minister
of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Cass), formerly
the Minister of Highways, has indicated in
recent months that he intends to take a
stricter attitude to conflicts of interest at the
municipal level than was the case in the past.
His announcements along this line were
welcomed by most people, but unfortunately
the role he played in the Poston property
affair gives rise to serious doubt as to his
capacity to carry out his announced policy
effectively and forcefully.
I will now place on the table of this House
all of the documents to which I have referred
in the foregoing recital. These consist of:
1. Certified copies of instruments Nos.
104119, 106003 and 106004 from the Kingston
registry office, which I will identify as exhibits
1, 2 and 3;
2. File copies of letters of February 21
and March 15, 1952, from myself to the
clerk of the township of Pittsburg— exhibits
4 and 5;
3. File copy of a letter of February 21,
1962, from myself to the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs, and his reply dated March
13, 1962-exhibits 6 and 7;
4. File copy of letter of February 21, 1962,
from myself to the hon. Minister of Highways,
and his reply dated March 6, 1962— exhibits
8 and 9;
5. Copies of correspondence and other
documents provided for me by the hon.
Minister of Highways under cover of his
letter of March 6, 1962-exhibit 10; and
6. File copy of letter of March 9, 1962,
from myself to the hon. Minister of Highways
MARCH 19, 1962
1233
and his reply dated March 12, 1962— exhibits
11 and 12.
Mr. Chairman, I think it will be agreed
that I have done everything I possibly could
to find out exactly what happened in rela-
tion to this matter which, in itself, is merely
one episode, but which in its basic principle
and the insight it provides as to government
administration is, in my opinion, most impor-
tant. I have done everything I could to get
the facts. I have not been entirely successful
because of certain inquiries I made not
having been answered. But on the basis
of the facts that I have been able to dis-
cover and which I have presented to this
House, I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that
there was a clear-cut conflict of interest which
the government of the day, through the hon.
Minister of Highways of the day, now the
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Cass),
clearly facilitated. I will now place the docu-
ments referred to on the table, Mr. Chaimian.
Mr. J. R. Simonett (Frontenac-Addington):
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wood-
bine (Mr. Bryden) seems to go to a lot of
trouble to find trouble in the province of
Ontario, and this time he happened to hit
part of the riding which I represent. This
happened before I was elected representative
of Frontenac-Addington. I feel no responsi-
bility myself but, having lived there all my
life, this is the first time 1 have heard there
was anything wrong with this transaction. I
might say, for the benefit of the House, and
the hon. member who is trying to cause
trouble, that I happen to be the president of
Rideau Marina (Kingston) Limited who own
property adjacent to the property of which
he is talking.
I also would like to say that we bought
our property privately in 1958, and when he
is talking values he had better go down and
look up that deed; because we bought it for
much less than The Department of High-
ways sold this to the principals he is talking
about. Furthermore, he says that Mr. Pearson
bought this property for the same price, or
near the same price, as the township paid for
it. Now, that, in itself, is not the truth. The
township bought this property for the simple
reason that they did want a 100-foot right-
of-way for road allowance if at some time
a bridge should be built from Kingston-
Mr. Bryden: I covered all that
Mr. Simonett: All right, he said all this; but
he did not say that this roadway is running
diagonally across the property and it would
have no value— no resale value— once they
fenced their property. It would be broken
in two lots. The property along there goes
to the river and to the highway and the
price there is paid mostly for river property.
I do want to clear this up— that we looked
it over; we were not in a i)osition to pay
near as much as Mr. Pearson. Living in that
area all my life I never heard anybody com-
plain about it; in fact, I have a letter from
a Mr. Sampson, to whom he referred today,
stating that he had phoned him within the
last ten days to try to get some information
from him. And Mr. Sampson, who, as hon.
members heard, was the high bidder there
in 1956, wrote and told me that he had no
hopes of ever buying the property nor did
he want it; and he could not understand why
the hon. member for Woodbine should be
questioning him or anyone else on the sale.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I think it
should be stated it is quite true, as the hon.
member said, that I phoned Mr. Sampson
some time ago, a week or two ago, and
asked him if he would be prepared to talk
to me about this matter. He said he thought
it was a hot potato and he wanted to keep
out of it. But I think it should be stated
again and emphasized, that Mr. Sampson
made a firm bid of $18,700 with a 10 per
cent deposit; and if the department had seen
fit to go through with the deal as I believe
it was morally obligated to do, then Mr.
Sampson had a firm deal and was committed
to buy the property.
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a
word on this score. My hon. friend started
out by making the comment that he had some
inquiries that he wished to make in reference
to the sale of a certain piece of land in the
great and historic riding of Kingston, which
is not true. It has nothing to do with my
riding directly or indirectly. But I can
remember, Mr. Chairman, a great many years
ago as a young man— more years ago, sir,
than I, perhaps, care to remember— being
associated with Anthony M. Rankin. He was
the Conservative member for the riding of
Frontenac in this Legislature at a time when
Mr. Ferguson was Prime Minister, at a time
when my father was the Attorney-General.
The name Rankin down in the county of
Frontenac, and in the city of Kingston, stands
for everything that is good and decent and
sincere. Dave Rankin's lips at this hour are
sealed in death, and of David Rankin I can
say, having practised my profession— that of
the law— with him for many years, his lips
sealed now in death cannot today defend the
slander that has been levelled against him.
1234
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As far as I am concerned, and I go a step
further about his partner, Mr. Harry-
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
privilege—
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Will the hon. member be
quiet for a minute; I want to settle with him
for a while.
Mr. Bryden: I stated what was on the
record.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Interjections by hon members.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I do not beheve the hon.
member. I think he is lying.
Mr. Bryden: Look at the record.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I will look at the record.
When I get through with the hon. member
he will know about the record.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister should withdraw—
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Sit down!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, has the
hon. Minister withdrawn that statement?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman. Are you asking the hon. Minister
to withdraw the charge of a liar?
Interjections by hon. members.
An hon. member: It is not his point of
privilege.
Mr. MacDonald: Are you asking the hon.
Minister, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: The hon. member
slanders the dead and then he works in
behind the corpse.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Mr. Bryden: Is the hon. Minister with-
drawing or not?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I am withdrawing
nothing.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a
ruling. The hon. Minister said that what I
said was a lie, or consisted of lies, and I sub-
mit that he should withdraw it. If anybody
wants to check whether I was lying or not
they can look at the records.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I am going to check it;
the hon. member need not worry!
Mr. Bryden: I submit that he should with-
draw that statement.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: The hon. member is
going to be checked as he has never been
checked before.
Mr. Bryden: That is fine, go ahead and
do it; but withdraw.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: All right; it's withdrawn.
Now let me go on and finish. Harry Wright
was David Rankin's partner and he died a
few weeks ago of cancer and I am telling
the hon. member, he has to be responsible
this afternoon for what he has said-
Mr. Bryden: I am responsible for it.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: When he goes down to
the county of Frontenac and his hon. leader
and he get in the city of Kingston in the
county of Leeds and Prince Edward county,
this New Democratic Party that they are
associated with—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on
a question of order-
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Will the hon. member
be quiet!
Mr. MacDonald: I rise on a question of
order, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: They are going down to
defeat-
Mr. MacDonald: I rise on a question of
order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister has
risen and described what the hon. member
for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) has said as
"slander." He is now going off on a political
tirade with regard to the New Democratic
Party-
Hon. Mr. Nickle: So it is!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I submit
that the facts were presented and if there
is going to be any argument let it be on the
facts instead of personal vilification and the
kind of charge the hon. Minister is making.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Mr. Chairman, when I
go down to Kingston this weekend I am
MARCH 19, 1962
1235
going up to the law office of Rankin and
Wright and I am going to have the accoun-
tant of that firm make a check. I will
gamble my political reputation that Dave
Rankin did not charge a dime and what he
did was prompted by sincerity of purpose
and honesty.
Mr. Bryden: I did not say he did.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Yes he did, he did every-
thing but condemn the man, he slandered
the dead and should hang his head in shame.
Mr. Bryden: I quoted from documents on
the file of The Department of Highways and
nothing more.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: The hon. member has
ruined his party down my way, and I will
look after it until the time comes.
Mr. Bryden: Why can we not deal with
the issue?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Never mind!
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Chairman, as
has been indicated by the hon. member for
Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) this matter was first
brought to my attention on February 21. I
immediately requested a study be made of
the complete file— I might say it is quite a
comprehensive file because from the time of
the original purchase by The Department of
Highways the city of Kingston was also
interested and wanted to get this property
for a right-of-way for a future bridge and
causeway.
Then it was found that it was outside the
jurisdiction of the city of Kingston to acquire
this property. The township of Pittsburg
made application to acquire this property—
this is subsequent to when it was oflFered by
public auction— but in the intervening period
both the city of Kingston and the township
of Pittsburg expressed interest in acquiring
this property as a riglit-of-way for a future
causeway and bridge.
I am just speaking off-the-cuff because I
am clear in my own mind that there is
absolutely nothing improper as far as the
transaction of The Department of Highways
is concerned, and the file went back to
Downsview. About one hour ago I asked to
have the file brought down and it is not
here yet, but it will be, so I am just speaking
off-the-cuflF and bearing in mind the assurance,
after going over it with Mr. Fulton and Mr.
Dick, who is our chief legal adviser, that the
department was absolutely within its rights
to sell this property to the township of Pitts-
burg at a price above the two appraised
values placed on it. The Department of
Highways instituted two appraisals on this
property when the township of Pittsburg was
interested in purchasing it.
Mr. Bryden: What about the bids that
were made afterwards?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: That was before
that-
Mr. Bryden: No, they were after.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Well, anyway I will
get the file and table in the House the full
explanation of this whole affair; but, up to
the day the deed was granted and payment
was made by the township of Pittsburg to The
Department of Highways I am satisfied as the
responsible Minister that nothing unto-
ward took place. It was a legitimate deal.
There is not a week goes by that some muni-
cipaHty does not express interest in a certain
surplus property which The Department of
Highways owns. Instead of selhng it at
public auction, when it would appear to be
in the interests of the municipaUty to secure
it for road purposes, commercial or industrial
purposes, we offer it to the municipality at
the appraised value by qualified appraisers.
In my opinion this is a perfectly legitimate
deal, what happened between the mother—
and the deputy-reeve. I do not know whether
she is the mother or the wife or what she is
of the person the hon. member for Woodbine
refers to; I would not know anything about
the relationship— what happened there I know
nothing about and I care less. I am interested
in the transaction up to the time the deed
was given to the township of Pittsburg for
this property, and the fact that the township
of Pittsburg paid The Department of High-
ways the appraised value for the property.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would hke
to point out that is exactly the same explana-
tion as the hon. Minister gave to me by letter
and, as I stated in my presentation, I con-
sidered it entirely unsatisfactory. I may say
that if I had got from him what appeared to
me to be a satisfactory explanation, I would
never have raised the matter in the House at
all. I wrote to him to try to find out if there
was any reasonable explanation of what
happened. The explanation he gave to me—
and I am not blaming him, he was not in The
Department of Highways at the time— the
explanation he gave to me in my opinion was
1236
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not a reasonable or convincing explanation
for the reasons I have given.
I have put facts on the record and I have
also put on the record my reason for not
accepting his explanation. I am willing to
let the matter stand or fall on those facts.
I may say that I have also placed on the
table all of the departmental records which
the hon. Minister let me see, so there is a
substantial portion of the departmental
records, or copies thereof, on the table
already.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman,
I am authorized to say that the Pearsons
mentioned by the hon. member for Woodbine
(Mri. Bryden) have no connection and are not
related to any Pearsons that we know. I leave
it at that.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things I submit
that we are entitled to know from the new
hon. Minister of this department in presenting
his estimates is whether, when he asks for the
vast sum of money that he is asking for this
year— which totals $254 million— whether in
fact that is the amount of money that he
wants, or is it as in the previous year, as I
shall show, just somewhat in the form of a
wild guess of the amount of money that he
feels is required?
I might say, by way interpolation, here
that last year when the sales tax dawned upon
us, that at the same time the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan) was in full hue and
cry and full throat about the magnificent
fact, or it seemed to be magnificent, the way
it was propagandized, that the budget of
the province of Ontario was going to exceed
$1 billion for the first time in human history.
Now as it turned out, if that was a record
sought to be achieved, they did not make the
record and they did not spend the $1 billion.
I would not necessarily criticize them for
that, but one of the reasons they did not spend
$1 billion in the Treasury department last year
was that The Department of Highways
apparently spent some $20 million less than
they asked this House to vote and which this
House was pleased to vote to them. I think
the figures, as I glean them and as I under-
stand them from the hon. Provincial
Treasurer's budget speech made on March 1,
is that whereas they had asked for $267.9
million last year, actually they spent $247.2
million; a diflFerence, a tidy difference, of
$20.7 million.
A number of things flow from that, but
let me say by way of preface that I do not
condemn any measures of economy. First,
I wonder when they fall short by $20 million,
and I hope they are not falling into the same
habit of thought as a certain government of
recent history that used to think in big terms,
])ut when they fall short, sir, of an estimate of
$20 million, it might be said it is a rather
sizeable chunk of money by which they have
miscalculated. I wonder myself— the falling
short or the acquisitiveness, if I may put it
that way, of The Department of Highways in
asking for $267.9 million— what effect that has
in Treasury board circles.
We never know what goes on in the
Trea.sury board. It would be a day of three
moons in the sky that one of us was ever
invited to listen in to the utterances that are
emitted in that sanctum sanctorum, but when
they do meet together and Highways ask for
$267.9 million and they have miscalculated
by $20 million, then I just wonder, as a dti-
zen of this province and as an elected repre-
sentative, what effect that has in its rever-
berations upon the requests of the other
departments and other fields of government
endeavour, where perhaps penury is being
practised, or policies are being delayed, be-
cause the Treasury board says there is no
money available. I hope I have made myself
clear on that score. In other words, I feel,
sir, that we are entitled to criticize The De-
partment of Highways in their estimates and
in their calculations and in their arithmetic
and geometry— and whatever other arts and
sciences they use in coming to a decision on
the amount of money that they are going to
ask for from the public Treasury of this
province.
Then they make a mistake of $20 mil-
lion, and other departments— they w^ould
never tell us, but I would imagine that
when they see that inviting figure of $20
million, any reasonable hon. Minister who
had some pet project or some pressing need
or was influenced by some pressure group,
might look back ruefully and say— he would
not say anything stronger than dam: "If
that darn Department of Highways had not
asked for that $20 million they did not use,
perhaps the Treasury board would have
given it to me to put this programme into
action."
Well, to sum it up, I submit that, at the
very least, it is bad accounting.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Bad business.
Mr. Sopha: Bad business, my hon. friend
from Bruce, who is a very good businessman
himself, says, and he says it very aptly.
The second thing is that the $20 million
MARCH 19, 1962
1237
engenders in me a personal feeling because
I know, I know as well as I stand here,
that the $20 million if used could have
built the road to Timmins. They had it
last year. And I say to my hon. friend from
Kingston (Mr. Nickle), who is a man of
great sentiment and feeling and understand-
ing-^he will appreciate what I say when I
try to repeat for him through you, sir, the
depressed, resigned, defeated feeling that is
in my breast as I stand here, and I look at
this capital works project and I see not a
cent, sir, for the road to Timmins in the
forthcoming year.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, and they had the $20
million last year and it was about a year
ago that an enterprising group in Sudbury,
under the aegis of the chamber of com-
merce, decided to go by snowmobile from
Sudbury to Timmins to show the feasibil-
ity of that route in the winter time, and
there is a road, there is a bush road built
by the Portelance Lumber Company, which
throws itself some 20 or 30 miles north of
Capreol. They got a goodly portion of the
distance done to Timmins on that road
before they took to the Hydro and the
transmission lines and completed the jour-
ney up to the home town of the hon. Min-
ister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Spooner).
There was nothing wrong with that out-
ing. Nothing wrong. Some were elderly
men who should not perhaps exert them-
selves in such physical endeavour, but one
would assume that in preparation for the
trip they took along sufficient medication
and medicaments and food and warm cloth-
ing and everything.
They were all but on the point of depar-
ture—I think it was in the month of Febru-
ary about a year ago— and just on the eve,
I remember it well, the hon. member for
Victoria (Mr. Frost) who then occupied a
more esteemed office, announced in his
office — you see, sitting in his office at
Queen's Park he just could not quite picture
the fun and pleasure and joy of such a trip,
sitting looking at the four walls around
him, and having heard about this, it hav-
ing been brought to his attention that such
a safari— if one may adopt the language of
Africa and transplant it to northern Ontario
—such a safari was about to embark for
Timmins, then I never saw that side of his
nature before and I have not seen it since.
Just as they are about to depart he
announces to the gentlemen of the press
gallery whom I assume, he called down to
the office, and he said, "Get it in the papers
quick. They do not have to make that
arduous trip through the northern wilderness
without the aid of even aurora borealis, tell
them we will build the road."
Hon. members can imagine the happiness
that caused in Sudbury that night, as they
put their sleeping bags away, they put their
mukluks back into storage. All that medica-
tion that they had assembled, one assumes
that they took it back to the stores, pharma-
ceutical stores, and got their money back,
when those headlines came out. I think they
even interrupted Perry Como or something
to announce it on the television, that he had
said that.
Not many people in Sudbury are as scep-
tical as myself of some of the utterances of
some of the hon. members of this government.
But I wondered, because I knew this was
about the ninth time that he had promised
the road to Timmins, at least the ninth time
in his career as leader of the government.
It had been promised many times by those
who preceded him and, well, since that they
have not got the courage, those who were
engaged in the organization of the trek, they
have not had the courage to start another
one.
I sum it up this way, here is the final note
that I put on it. Tomorrow the representa-
tives of the northeastern chambers of com-
merce come to see the Cabinet, to present
a brief to the Cabinet, and I have been in-
vited. I have not been invited by the
Cabinet, I hasten to add, I have been invited
to accompany them. I take pleasure in report-
ing here and now that I have been invited
to accompany them tomorrow because in case
I am not welcome perhaps someone in the
Treasury benches will send me a note and ask
me not to come. My feelings then will not
be hurt. However, they are going to be there
tomorrow and many of the people who are
vitally interested in the construction of this
road link from Sudbury to Timmins are going
to be there and I assume that it is going to
be part of their brief.
They are going to be disappointed when
they look at the capital works projects and
see that there is not a penny provided for
even any survey of the feasibility, or the
practicahty, of the layout of that road. It
is a poor way to greet those fine people from
northeastern Ontario.
I merely say this in conclusion: they had
the money last year, $20 million they did not
spend. That money could have been used
for that very important piece of construction
of highway.
1238
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I say to the hon. member for Wentworth
(Mr. R. C. Edwards) who is accustomed, being
the fine Christian gentleman that he is, to
take things sometimes at face value when
perhaps people of more sour nature are in-
chned to look a gift horse in the mouth— I say
to him that one of the reasons that they do
not provide us with this book called
Capital Construction Programme until the
very last moment is they are ashamed of it.
They are ashamed of its inaccuracies.
If the hon. members want to see a glaring
inaccuracy in it, I invite them to turn to
page 137 and have a look at it with me. I
pause, Mr. Chairman, like any good clergy-
man would, having announced the hymn.
Page 137, hon. members will see three-
quarters of the way down the page, this state-
ment: "Granular base, ditching, culverts and
hot mix. Highway 634, junction Highway 544
and Highway 634 northerly, length miles,
1.0."
Now that is not very good English, because
there is not a complete English sentence any-
where on that page. But we will not stop or
pause to analyze the grammatical construc-
tion, but I would like hon. members to look
at that one mile. If they look at the chart
over on the opposite page there, at the top,
they will note that according to the symbol
used— proposed new work roadway is indi-
cated with a heavy solid black line— all that
crooked road that they are building there is
proposed new work. Now I testify here and
now that that distance, and confirmed by the
scale of miles-
Mr. Chairman: This comes under vote 703.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I am almost finished. I
am talking about inaccuracies in the main
oflBce, and until the hon. Minister corrects the
inaccuracies, sir, I cannot feel justified in
voting for his salary.
But you will note the distance as shown
on the map is about nine miles from the
point of Highway No. 544 to the hamlet of
Val-Caron. The hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Wintermeyer) will remember the
last time he was in Sudbury, when we drove
him to the airport after nominating the man
who will defeat the hon. member for Nickel
Belt (Mr. Belisle) at the next election, that
that was the highway over which we crossed
to the airport. I say in a somewhat serious
vein that, if the hon. Minister is going to
build one mile of highway, then why in his
chart, does he have to show it at about nine
miles, when he is not going to build nine
miles, he is going to build only one.
I suspect the reason they show it to be such
a distance is because there is so little high-
way work to be done in the district of Sud-
bury this year that they are ashamed of it.
And I would ask the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) and the hon. Minister of Highways
and his colleagues on that side of the House
to remember that I represent an urban riding,
the city of Sudbury, and any assistance we get
in the city of Sudbury from The Department
of Highways is from his municipal programme
which is statutory, generally statutory. All
the rest of this vast area here outside the
urban centre of Sudbury has presently an
hon. member from the Conservative party.
Perhaps the hon. Minister has forgotten
but the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr.
Belisle) who has not been here much, is one
of the supporters of his government.
Maybe, as my hon, friend from Windsor-
Walkerville (Mr. Newman) says, maybe that
is the reason why he is not here, that he is
so displeased and upset with the pittance that
the hon. Minister gives him. I think the total
for this year is about 44 miles of road in the
whole vast district of Sudbury, that are going
to be built. Not many of them will be
adjacent to Sudbury, some on the island, some
down towards Little Current and White Fish
Falls, and even Elliot Lake is included.
Elliot Lake is in the district of Algoma,
it is part of the Sudbury highway district,
but the longest stretch of road that is going
to be built under the Sudbury district is the
10 miles that is going to be built in Elliot
Lake. Subtract the 10 miles and the hon.
member for Nickel Belt gets virtually nothing
from this government at all.
I will say this in conclusion: that at least
Highway No. 634, I ought to point out to
the government, goes past his door, goes
past where he lives. I do not know whether
that will assist him to be re-elected or will
help to defeat him, if the only road being
built adjacent to Sudbury goes past the door
of the hon. member. I think that most of
the electorate would take a very dim view of
that. However, I will leave it but maybe he
will be back soon— perhaps he will be back
tonight— and he will be able to make his
own plea to this government for the road to
Timmins.
Now, sir, under the main oflBce there is
one other item that I should like to take up,
just one item. I was reading only yesterday
that H. L. Mencken said, if a person attempts
to expose foolishness, the foolishness will be
destroyed; it will go away, people wiU cease
and desist from being foolish.
And I want to turn to something, a foolish
act on the part of this department, the foolish.
MARCH 19, 1962
1239
act done not when the present hon. Minister
was in charge, and not when his immediate
predecessor was in charge, but a foolish act
when the dairyman from Dunnville was in
charge and it is not many years ago. Now
under The Highway Improvement Act—
Hon. J. N. Allan ( Provincial Treasurer ) :
Is the hon. member going to compliment me
for all the roads we built at that time?
Mr. Sopha: Oh, yes. Oh yes, indeed. Under
The Highway Improvement Act, as it was
before the revision, under 87: "Every portion
of the King's highway shall be maintained
and kept in repair by the department." Then
it goes on to stipulate that if it is not kept
in repair and the fault is with the depart-
ment, that the department is liable, in
damages, for injury or loss caused as a
result of the non-repair.
Sub-section 2. These words are important:
In case of default by the department to
keep any portion of the King's highway
in repair, the department shall be liable
for all damages sustained by any person
by reason of the default." etc.
Now, that is repeated, almost verbatim, in
section 33 of the revision. Nothing, so far as
is material to what I say hereafter, has been
altered. Now anyone, aside from a lawyer,
looking at that, looking at those words, would
think that the institution responsible for keep-
ing a highway in repair was The Department
of Highways, the department. I notice in
the book here, where we are asked to vote,
we vote money to The Department of High-
ways. There is the significant word, "the
department."
When a resident of Sault Ste. Marie sus-
tained damage, September 19, 1955, and he
brought an action, then the action of the
department— I expect it will be said by way
of affirmation that the department insures
itself. The department buys insurance to
protect it against this liability. Is that so,
Mr. Chairman? It insures through a private
insurance company? Well, that is even worse.
Now this individual— it is difficult to pro-
nounce his name— Mr. Perepelytz, whom, I
am told, is a man of very limited means,
started an action on September 19, 1955
in the office of the local registrar at Sault
Ste. Marie, against the township of Korah
and The Department of Highways, as named
defendants. Notwithstanding all I have said,
and what I have recited from the book about
the liability to keep in repair by The Depart-
ment of Highways, the department, under the
aegis of the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Allan)— who, apparently, was very sensitive
about such things as that— after the action
had been started and The Department of
Highways had been named in that way as a
defendant, they apparently pointed out to
the solicitors for the plaintiflF in Sault Ste.
Marie, to look a little further down that long
section 87. When one does so, one sees in
sub-section 8— it goes to 10; 10 sub-sections
to that section 87— these words:
In any action under this section against
the department, the defendant may be
described as "His Majesty the King in the
right of the province of Ontario, represented
by the Minister of Highways for the prov-
ince of Ontario."
In other words, they are pointing out to the
solicitor how to name the Crown in the writ
of summons. But you note, Mr. Chairman,
the words "may be described." Now I would
not believe for a moment that Perepelytz,
having issued his writ— if the township of
Korah, and The Department of Highways; I
would not believe for a moment that the
former hon. Minister was sensitive about the
way he was described. I would not think
that, knowing the man as I do, that it was a
case of sensitivity and "either I am going to
be described right, or you are not going to
proceed."
But it is like, to draw an analogy— suppos-
ing Perepelytz had walked in to buy his
licence plates over there in the building, that
he had said, "Where is The Department of
Highways?" to some uniformed attendant.
One would not expect the attendant to say,
"You do not mean The Department of High-
ways, you mean His Majesty the King in the
right of the province of Ontario, represented
by the Minister of Highways for the province
of Ontario."
Now, one would never expect that response.
The Department of Highways is fairly well
known throughout the province, and aside
from its name, I suspect that a great majority
of the people in the province, know generally
what its duties are. However, after the year
had gone by from the date when Perepelytz
sustained his damages, the solicitors for the
insurance company, the claim had been sub-
rogated, pointed out to the solicitors for the
plaintiff: "Well, you have not sued the right
body. You have named The Department of
Highways but you have to call it Her Majesty
the Queen, in the right of the province repre-
sented by the Minister of Highways."
So the solicitors for the plaintiff, and I ask
hon. members to pay careful attention to what
went on after this, they moved before Judge
McDonald of Sault Ste. Marie, a very able.
1240
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fair-minded and sympathetic judge, to amend
the writ. They said: "We should not really
have the department in here, we should have
this long style of clause here to properly
describe the Minister of Highways." I say
to those hon. members of the House who
do not know the details of such things, that
the Queen, the Crown, cannot be sued in her
own courts unless there is statutory permission
to do so. But in common law, the Queen
could never be haled into her own court.
That is one of the prerogatives of the Crown.
The only way one can sue the Crown is if
there is some statute that abrogates the pre-
rogative of the Crown, and this is one of
them.
Anyway, it went before Judge McDonald
for that simple amendment and Judge
McDonald was pleased to grant it. He issued
an order striking out Department of Highways
and putting in Her Majesty the Queen as
represented by the hon. Minister of Highways
in the right of the province of Ontario. Now
hon. members would think the hon. Minister
of Highways, even the insurance lawyers
to whom he had subrogated the claim, would
not indulge in pettifogging, would not indulge
in the trivial, that they would let Perepelytz
get on with his action and find out whether
the department on the merits of the case had
failed to keep in repair a road that they were
liable to keep in repair. Have done with the
thing. See if Perepelytz was entitled to any
compensation. Pay him or, in the other case,
if he was not entitled to his compensation,
then let it be tried by a judge and his claim
adjudicated upon and be dismissed.
One would think that would be the way for
a government department or Minister of the
Crown to approach such things. But what
did they do? Well, they got into high
dudgeon. Judge McDonald had issued the
order amending the writ. That was the only
statement that had been issued— no statement
of claim, just the writ— at this point. They
take Perepelytz to the court of appeal, they
appeal Judge McDonald's order, they go down
before the court of appeal, and the lawyers
are getting more expensive as we go along.
Some of the leaders of the bar are involved
in it and from page 553 to 580—27 pages in
the Ontario Reports— three of Her Majesty's
learned judges are exercised about whether
Perepelytz has done the right thing in suing
The Department of Highways or Her Majesty
the Queen, etc., and they split two to one.
Mr. Justice Hogg and Mr. Justice Schroeder
go through the prerogatives of the Crown as
far back as 1382, tracing the history, defend-
ing the honour of the hon. Minister of High-
ways to be described in the proper way. How-
ever, the hon. Minister of Highways and his
solicitors do not put it over Mr. Justice
McKay. He is on Perepelytz's side, and from
page 570 to 580 Mr. Justice McKay comes
down four-square for justice and says: "What
does it matter? You call it The Department
of Highways, or call it the Minister of
Highways, or Her Majesty the Queen, etc.
It is all the same outfit." All right, so they
win there, two to one.
One is entitled to wonder at this point
where Perepelytz, the poor man, is getting
all his money, getting all his money to resist
this assault hon. members see to have his
action tried by The Department of Highways.
They have got lots of money, $267 million,
but Perepelytz finds it hard to scrape up
enough, no doubt, to pay his lawyers.
So, as a result let me read hon. members
the head note of section 87 of The Highways
Improvement Act permitting the bringing of
an action against the department for damages
arising out of non-repair of the King's high-
way. It introduces a new right of action
and derogates from two established pre-
rogatives of the Crown. The procedure de-
scribed by the section must therefore be
strictly followed and the defendant must be
described in the writ as provided by sub-
section 8 as Her Majesty the Queen, in right
of the province of Ontario, represented by
the Minister of Highways, the province of
Ontario. A writ in which the defendant is
described as The Department of Highways
for the province of Ontario is a nullity and
cannot be amended by substituting the name
of Her Majesty as the defendant.
So hon. members see at that point, Mr.
Perepelytz had never had his action tried, but
he is out of court. He is out of court. The
writ is a nullity, Mr. Chairman. The year has
gone by.
This is a great victory for the department,
and who knows, perhaps there was wassailing
in the corridors of the department, in the
offices, that Perepelytz's attempts to get
money out of the department had been de-
feated—defeated on a technicality albeit,
never yet defeated on the merits. But they
reckoned without Mr. Perepelytz, because he
was determined to go further and he went.
Yes, sir.
Now, to take an appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada from a decision of the
Court of Appeal, in such a case— I think I
am right but I am open to correction— but in
such a case he must first argue for leave to
appeal before a single judge of the Supreme
Cour*^. My hon. friend from Kingston (Mr.
MARCH 19, 1962
1241
Nickle), who has practised at the bar for
many years, nods to me.
He must apply for leave to appeal. That is
one trip down to the ultimate in marble
architecture, the highest court of judicature
in this land, at Ottawa. Then, if he is suc-
cessful—and he was, he got leave to appeal
—then what must he do? He must put $500
in court, he must scrape up $500 and deposit
it in court to pay for costs, security for costs.
Then he must proceed to get his factum
printed.
A factum is the statement of all the evi-
dence and material, a reproduction of all the
material and all the evidence that has been
taken up to that point and his argument of
law. At a conservative estimate, it costs
about $1,000 to have the law publishers
publish the factum, and that must be de-
posited in the court in 25 copies, 25 copies
must be deposited with the Supreme Court
of Canada. So before his lawyer has uttered
a word down in the Supreme Court, Mr.
Perepelytz is out at least $1,500, not count-
ing the money he had spent in resisting the
appeal brought by the department in the
Court of Appeal. All that is already down
the drain, a further $1,500.
As I said, Mr. Perepelytz was a very deter-
mined man and away he went to the Supreme
Court of Canada. This time there was no
dissent, no dissent. This exercised the time
and attention of five judges, the Chief Justice,
Messrs. Justices Taschereau, Rand, Locke
and Cartwright. They were unanimous in
their opinion and they managed to dispose
of the contention of The Department of
Highways and the hon. Minister of Highways
in exactly six pages. Let me just read to
hon. members what Mr. Justice Rand had to
say. He is no longer on the court, he is
now dean of a law school. Hearken how
short his judgment is:
The effect of the several statutory refer-
ences to The Department of Highways in
respect of duties and the created liability
toward injured persons is to permit an
action to be brought against the Crown
'designated by that expression as a name.
Any other construction would be little
short of a statutory snare for the practi-
tioner. The permission to bring the pro-
ceeding in the name of Her Majesty does
not exclude that, but taken as furnishing
an additional mode. I would therefore
allow the appeal and restore the order of
the district court judge as proposed by
the chief justice.
And let it be said Perepelytz got his costs
against them throughout.
An hon. member: How much were they?
Mr. Sopha: At a guess the costs at that
point were probably somewhere between
$5,000 and $6,000-$5,000 and $6,000 of
taxpayers' money.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): What
was the name of the plaintiffs solicitor who
made the error in the first place?
Mr. Singer: He did not make an error
because the Supreme Court of Canada said
so.
Mr. Sopha: There was no error. There
was no error. Mr. Justice Rand said there
was no error. He said Perepelytz could bring
his action against The Department of High-
ways or against Her Majesty the Queen as
represented by the hon. Minister of High-
ways. There were alternative modes.
I started by calling it foolishness and is
it not foolishness? Is it not foolishness when
a litigant seeks to assert right in the court
for damages because of alleged non-repair?
Then certainly public policy must demand,
it is only common sense, that you get on to
the trial of the action and let the judge
decide. Let the judge decide, not the jury,
because they do not permit juries. This
department would not risk itself before a
jury. It has to be tried by a judge alone.
Hon. Mr. Allan: It was the insurance
company.
Mr. Sopha: I am glad the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan)— the fastidious dairy-
man from Dunnville who had to be described
correctly— I am glad he mentioned the
insurance company. Because, you see, it is
not the case of the litigant against the
government at all.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I heard the hon. member
the other day speaking about ministerial
interference.
Mr. Sopha: It is not the case of the litigant
against the government at all; it is the litigant
against the insurance company— against the
insurance company. And what have they
done? Here is the sacrilege. Here is the
sacrilege of what they have done, that in
subrogating their claim to insurance com-
panies and letting them defend, then from
their offices, in their marble edifices on Bay
Street, this government, this department,
almost picks up the prerogatives of the
Crown, puts them in a suitcase and takes
them down to the insurance company's office.
Here, they say to the insurance company.
1242
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
all the special rights that inhere in the Crown
—all the privileges of the Queen in her own
courts— they are yours and you can use them.
Here are the insurance companies and their
lawyers using all these devices and this legal
pettifoggery in order to obstruct and block
and prevent Perepelytz from having his case
tried in court.
To put it in another way, one would assume
that if it were the department's solicitors,
or the hon. Minister was concerned— but I
venture to say that when the writ comes into
the department the hon. Minister never sees
it, he never sees it. It comes in and imme-
diately it is sent down to the insurance
company's lawyers downtown.
If there was a personal touch, if Perepelytz's
problem came on the desk of the hon. Min-
ister, when he saw the nature of the injury
and the claim for compensation, the hon.
Minister might look at it, assess it, and say,
"Has this man a just claim?" One would
never think an hon. Minister in the exercise
of his good common sense would permit his
solicitors to indulge in such trumpery and
pettifoggery as to resist a claim because the
defendant had not been named properly.
"You did not call me by my right name.
You cannot sue me because you did not
call me by my right name." Well, who has
such fastidious care about what he is called?
Tou should hear some of the things I am
called sometimes.
The situation is that government has
gotten so far away from the people now that
the hon. Minister never sees a case like
Perepelytz; he never sees it. Immediately
it comes through the door, the document
with the red seal on it is sent down to the
insurance company's office downtown.
Hon. Mr. Allan: What would the hon.
member do?
Mr. Sopha: What would I do? I would
insure myself. I would insure myself, my
car— the reason I looked into this was because
I had occasion to bring action against the
department and I see the type of pettifogger>'
the litigants meet with. I never bothered to
look to see how Perepelytz made out finally.
I do not know. But I hope— I am afraid to
look, because when I see a man of the
assiduity and the tenaciousness and the spirit
of Perepelytz, who takes the department to
the Supreme Court of Canada in order to
uphold his rights on a question of principle,
then I hope that finally in the ultimate trial
of his case that he won his damages. I hope
be won, because I would be depressed if the
department licked him.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The hon. member must
be depressed then.
Mr. Sopha: I hope after all that trouble
tliat the hon. Minister and the insurance com-
pany and the smart lawyers down on Bay
Street gave him about such a picayune,
puerile, petty business as not naming the
department properly— I hope they had the
decency to settle with him out of court.
Hon. Mr. Coodfellow: Mr. Chairman, I
am really interested. You know, at times one
of the great disappointments of my life is that
I did not have the opportunity to go through
for law, but for once I am glad I did not
go through for law.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, the hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury raised the matter about the
fact that The Department of Highways did
not expend the budget approved by the
House last year. I want to assure him that
this year's budget is a realistic budget.
I find that we voted $144 million last year
and there was $136 million expended, a
difference of $8,105,000, and that can be
accounted for, whether it is good or bad,
by the contractors in this province bidding
away below the estimates of The Department
of Highways in the past 12 months.
That accounts for $8,105,000. We esti-
mated we would receive $10 million in
refunds from the federal government on the
Trans-Canada highway and the Queensway
and actually we received $16.6 million, so
we have received $6.6 million more than we
anticipated, so that $14,705,000 is added to
$8,105,000.
Then I find on maintenance of King's high-
ways, a year ago, as many of us will recall,
we did not have as much snow as usual, so
we spent $1,614,000 less than we estimated
for maintenance, mostly owing to the fact
theic ..as a light snowfall.
Then we also find tliat the municipal assist-
ance was $4,145,000 less than we had
budgeted for, or less than we expected.
Then I find another one here, $301,000,
which was effected through economies in
the department. That makes it up to the
$20 million the hon. member spoke of.
Mr. Sopha: Perhaps the hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. Coodfellow) will remember,
if he was in the House the other night when
the hon. Minister of Economics and Devel-
opment (Mr. Macaulay) refused to answer a
question because there was no money voted
for it in the estimates. Now I tender to the
hon. Minister of Highways the converse:
MARCH 19, 1962
1243
-where in these estimates is there a dollar
asked for insurance premiums for the depart-
ment's liability under section 33 of The
Highway Imtprovement Act?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: It is in the main-
tenance vote.
Mr. Sopha: Where?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: It is included in the
general maintenance.
Mr. Sopha: I have examined the public
accounts for the last three years and I do
not find anywhere in the public accounts a
dollar for insurance premiums, nor do I find
a recital of a five-cent piece for paying any
liability, any judgments for damages under
section 33 of The Highway Improvement
Act. I do not see a reference anywhere in
the public accounts for the last three years.
Perhaps the provincial auditor had better
have a look at the hon. Minister's department
and see where that money is.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 701 agreed?
Mr. Singer: Oh, no! Just let us wait and
see if we get an answer to some of these
things.
Mr. Sopha: The hon. Minister of Economics
and Development (Mr. Macaulay) got so
smart the other night about no money voted.
Well, if they are using money, show us in
the public accounts or in the estimates from
which the money is coming.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Chairman, if
the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha)
has quieted down now, the department carries
the following insurance: fleet policy on autos,
trucks and trailers, protection for public
liability and property damage claims; fire
and transportation policy, protection of
vehicles from loss from fire or damage from
being transported; non-ownership policies on
motor-operated trucks and cars, protection
from the Crown for third party claims not
covered by employees' insurance, employees
using own vehicles on authorized government
duty; house-moving policy, protection from
claims for negligence. Department of High-
ways employees supervising house-moving;
road liability policy, protection from public
liability or property damage claims made
under The Highway Improvement Act; ferry
liability policy, same protection for ferries
as under road liability policies; ferry, hull
and marine policies covers loss by collision,
sinking, etc.; traffic counters poHcy covers
losses by theft or damage to traffic counter
equipment; Rainbow Bridge and Canadian
Plaza policies, protection of pubUc liability
and property damage claims, also covers
damage to heating and lighting equipment,
plate glass, government maps, etc.; fidelity
bond on staflF.
Total insurance premiums paid by the
department, and this can be found in the
pubhc accounts: 1958, $193,849; in 1959,
$198,789; 1960, $196,110; 1961, $193,151;
1962, estimated $247,000; and these esti-
mates, 1963, $270,000.
Mr. R. C. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if the hon. Minister would table a
breakdown. I understand that those charges
cover all departments and when we tried to
get this from another department we were
told to inquire here. Would the hon. Min-
ister give us a breakdown of that coverage
as related to departments?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Yes, according to
the chief accountant we do carry complete
insurance for all government departments
and we recover approximately $100,000 a
year. If the hon. member refers to the 1960-
1961 estimates on 835, he will find an item
there for insurance, $299,204.46. This is
just for the information of the hon. member
for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha).
Mr. Sopha: Why does the hon. Minister not
insure himself?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I do, but I pay my
own premiums.
Mr. Sopha: Why does the hon. Minister
bother sending it out? Why does he not self-
insure? As far as I can tell, he never loses a
case.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Chairman, the
only thing I would be afraid of is that the
hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) might
accuse us of playing political favouritism on
our settlements. I think it is much better to
have independent appraisals on these settle-
ments.
Mr. Sopha: Then finally, does the hon.
Minister believe it is right for a private
insurance company to have the right to use
all these legal devices, the prerogatives of
the Crown, to defeat claims of litigants?
Does he feel that is just?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Chairman, I
would have to get advice from the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) or the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) as lawyers. I
would not pass an opinion on this.
1244
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: Does the common- sense of the
hon. Minister tell him? Cannot he tell by his
own common^sense?
Let us put it this way. The Legislature
having given a right to the litigant to sue the
Crown, and derogation of the prerogatives of
the Crown, does the hon. Minister then think
it is right to interpose a third agency between
the state and the litigant, to interpose a third
agency in the form of a private insurance
company that then uses all these pettifogging
devices to defeat his claim? Does he think
that is— does he believe that is the way govern-
ment ought to be conducted, against the
citizen? Is that what he believes?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I will let the hon.
member know tomorrow. I will have to think
it over.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I thank the Lord that I
am for the poor plaintiflFs. If the hon. Minis-
ter is for the insurance company and such
pettifoggery as this, I am glad I act for
plaintifFs.
Mr. L. Troy (Nipissing): Mr. Chairman, on
page 14 of the hon. Minister's statement in
regard to the qualifications for procedures; a
final sentence in the paragraph is: "I am
pleased to report that to date not a single
contractor who was awarded one of our pre-
qualified contracts has failed to satisfactorily
complete the contract."
Did the contract for asphalt on Highway
No. 401 between Cobourg and Brighton,
which was given to the British American Oil
Company, fulfil the pre-qualifications that the
hon. Minister wanted? Does that jibe then,
because I understand from this statement that
the new asphalt is defective on 20 miles of
401— Cobourg to Brighton. If they certainly
could not satisfactorily complete the contract,
if the-
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Chairman, in
order to clarify this, the company that had
the contract did not supply the asphalt. The
Department of Highways supplies the asphalt
to the contractor.
Mr. Troy: Where does The Department of
Highways get the asphalt? They got it from
the British American Oil Company, did they
not?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Right.
Mr. Troy: Well, then, how can they satis-
factorily—I suppose that satisfactorily com-
pleting the contract is giving the department
some asphalt, no matter what it is. Defective
asphalt— is that satisfactory?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: No, no. I do not
know what—
Mr. Troy: Well, that is what the hon.
Minister says in his paragraph.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I understand from
the Deputy Minister that satisfactory settle-
ment was made, as far as the department was
concerned, from the oil company for this
asphalt which was defective.
Mr. Troy: What was the settlement?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: OflFhand, the Deputy
Minister says $15,000.
Mr. Troy: The damages were paid by the
contractor; is that it?
it being 6 of the clock, the House took
recess.
MARCH 19, 1962
1245
1957-58
1958-59
1959-60
1960-61
1961-62 (9/3 est.)
1962-63 (est.)
APPENDIX A
Total Net
Department
Expenditures
Assistance To
Municipalities
Municipal
Assistance
As Percentage
Of Total
Expenditures
212,669,000
58,273,000
27.41
227,547,000
62,050,000
27.27
248,514,000
71,316,000
28.70
237,994,000
79,812,000
33.54
247,175,000
81,190,000
32.85
264,300,000
90,085,000
34.08
1957-58
1958-59
1959-60
1960-61
1961-62 (9/3 est.)
1962-63 (est.)
King's Highway
Net Expenditures
Excluding
Municipal Assistance
Total Municipal
Road Expenditures
Including
D.H.O. Assistance
Municipal
Expenditures
As Percentage Of
King's Highway
Expenditures
154,396,000
109,068,000
70.65
165,497,000
117,096,000
70.76
177,198,000
133,811,000
75.52
158,182,000
150,307,000
95.03
165,985,000
152,702,000
92.00
174,215,000
169,697,000
97.41
JOURNALS AND PROCEDURAL RESBAKCHHMaiCa
DIRECTION DBS JOURNAUX ET DES RECSBBlllUSUNlStOCBDnSB
ROOM 1640, WHITNEY BLOCK
QUEEN'S PARK, TORONTO, ON M7A 1A2
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11