Skip to main content

Full text of "Official report of debates (Hansard) : Legislative Assembly of Ontario = Journal des débats (Hansard) : Assemblée législative de l'Ontario 1969"

See other formats




* 



No. 1 




ONTARIO 



legislature of Ontario 




OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION 



Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature 



Tuesday, November 19, 1968 



Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C. 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C. 



THE QUEEN'S PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 



Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto. 






CONTENTS 



Tuesday, November 19, 1968 



Speech from the Throne, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor 3 

Evidence Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 5 

Morion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 6 



; 



LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 



Tuesday, November 19, 1968, being the first day of the second session of the twenty-eighth 
Parliament of the province of Ontario for the despatch of business pursuant to a proclamation 
of the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald, Lieutenant-Governor of the province. 

Tuesday, November 19, 1968 



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 pleased to open the 
session with the following gracious speech. 

Hon. W. Ross Macdonald (Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor): Mr. Speaker and members of the 
Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I extend 
warmest greetings and a sincere welcome to 
each and every one of you. 

Each session of the Legislature is an impor- 
tant and memorable event in the life of our 
province. This occasion is made particularly 
memorable for me because, for the first time 
since assuming my duties as the representa- 
tive in Ontario of our beloved Sovereign, 
Queen Elizabeth II, I have the privilege of 
addressing the opening of a session of the 
Legislature. 

As my government convenes this second 
session of the 28th Parliament of Ontario, the 
people of our province continue to enjoy a 
full and rich life almost unmatched in the 
world today. Opportunities for human better- 
ment abound on every hand. Dynamic growth 
and prosperity are apparent at every turn. 
The quality of the social, cultural and artistic 
life of our people improves daily. Ontario 
continues to be a predominant choice of those 
who seek to establish new homes in a peace- 
ful, dependable, stimulating and rewarding 
environment. 

While we enjoy the sum of the labour of 
past years, the people of Ontario accept with 
confidence the substantial, yet exciting, chal- 
lenges of the days ahead. Happily, the chal- 
lenges we face are those born of success, 
prosperity, development and progress. 

Throughout its history, and especially in 
recent years, my government has been privil- 
eged to play a vital and significant role in 
constitutional and fiscal discussions involving 
the federal and provincial governments of this 



country. My government has always viewed 
these events not as struggles between com- 
petitors but as joint, cooperative ventures of 
sovereign partners building on the wisdom 
of the Fathers of Confederation with one 
objective: a greater, stronger, more unified 
Canada. 

My government has always sought the co- 
operation of the federal government in our 
mutual objective of assuring that the people 
of this province are not unduly or unfairly 
taxed. While our endeavours to secure such 
cooperation have met with little constructive 
response in recent months, my government 
expresses the hope that, in the interests of 
equity, fiscal stability, and national unity a 
more reasonable, constructive and understand- 
ing attitude toward the financial needs and 
constitutional position of the provinces will 
be recognized. 

In my government's continuing recognition 
of its responsibilities to the people of this 
province, it will advance measures and propo- 
sitions in the session now beginning, designed 
to ensure the maintenance of a vigorous and 
dynamic Ontario in the context of the broader 
interests of Canada. 

In a renewed determination to hold taxa- 
tion to the minimum consistent with a high 
level of service to the people of Ontario, and 
in its firm resolve to maintain the enviable 
credit rating of the province, my government's 
comprehensive programme to reduce costs and 
increase efficiency is being pursued with the 
utmost vigour. Included in the programme 
are increased control over that portion of 
spending within the direct scope of the prov- 
ince; tighter scrutiny by Treasury board of 
all matters having financial implications; re- 
evaluation of procedures, methods, forms and 
equipment; re-appraisal of existing pro- 
grammes; re-scheduling and deferment of new 
programmes; and renewed emphasis on effi- 
ciency and economy in every branch and 
agency of the Ontario government. 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



All programmes financed in whole or in 
part by provincial taxpayers but administered 
by other public authorities, including munici- 
palities, boards of education, universities, col- 
leges of applied arts and technology, Crown 
corporations and other boards and commis- 
sions, will be subject to intense public scrutiny 
to ensure that maximum efficiency is attained. 

In the session of the Legislature upon 
which the House is now embarking, my gov- 
ernment will submit in the budget statement 
and in other legislative proposals, measures 
which will reflect a determination to achieve 
the fullest efficiency of government and the 
greatest utilization of tax revenues. All cur- 
rent programmes that contribute to the public 
good will be continued with undiminished 
vigour. New proposals are being designed to 
achieve a greater equity and efficiency in the 
administration of government, in our system 
of taxation, and in our relationship with our 
municipal partners. 

My government has reviewed in substan- 
tial detail the constructive and definitive 
recommendations of the Hon. J. C. McRuer 
in his report upon civil rights in our province. 
Legislation will be introduced for the con- 
sideration of the hon. members which will 
implement several of the most basic recom- 
mendations contained in this report. In par- 
ticular, a bill respecting the expropriation 
laws of Ontario will be brought forward for 
your consideration. In addition to including 
some of the recommendations made by the 
Hon. Mr. McRuer, the bill will also reflect 
the recommendations of the Ontario law 
reform commission in its report upon the basis 
for compensation for expropriation. The legis- 
lation will be designed to ensure equity and 
justice for all whose lands may be expropri- 
ated or affected by land acquisition pro- 
grammes necessary in the public interest. 

Among the measures to be placed before 
the hon. members will be proposals to institute 
regional government in various areas of the 
province where sufficient study has been 
completed. 

To provide further equality of service 
throughout the province, amendments to The 
Assessment Act will improve the assessment 
function. Included will be the implementation 
of certain recommendations of the Ontario 
committee on taxation and the select com- 
mittee of the Legislature on the report of 
the taxation committee. 

During the session an opportunity will be 
afforded hon. members to give serious and 



responsible attention to the machinery of 
collective bargaining and related labour and 
management matters arising out of the recom- 
mendations contained in the report of the 
Royal commission inquiry into labour disputes. 

Hon. members will be asked to consider 
legislation respecting mechanics' hens and the 
manner in which they are dealt with in the 
construction industry in Ontario. 

To further ensure that every person in 
Ontario is free and equal in dignity and 
rights, hon. members will be asked to approve 
the strengthening of the Ontario Human 
Rights Code. 

Hon. members will have placed before 
them for approval revisions of the hearings 
and appeal procedures of a variety of sta- 
tutes which give protection to the people of 
Ontario in their business transactions both as 
buyers and sellers. In addition, the far-reach- 
ing and important legislation relating to busi- 
ness corporations, which was introduced 
during the first session of the 28th Legisla- 
ture, will be brought before the House. 

The availability of reasonably priced homes 
will continue to be vigorously pursued by my 
government, with further expansion of the 
highly successful Home Ownership Made 
Easy programme. As further encouragement 
to individual home ownership and to bring 
home ownership within the reach of an even 
larger segment of our people, you will be 
asked to approve policies which will facilitate 
the construction of substantial numbers of 
condominium dwellings. 

The goal of equality of educational oppor- 
tunity will continue to be a prime objective 
of my government. During this session, 
implementation of the legislation creating 
larger units of school administration will be 
pursued, together with consideration of the 
report of the provincial committee on aims 
and objectives of education in the schools of 
Ontario. 

Legislation will be introduced creating an 
educational communications authority and to 
implement certain recommendations of the 
report relating to the Ontario College of Art. 

My government, mindful of the continuing 
requirements of social services for the people 
of Ontario, will place before you legislation 
which will allow the steady development of a 
programme to assist children with mental and 
emotional disorders. 

Your approval will be requested for a 
number of additional progressive programmes 



NOVEMBER 19, 1968 



within the field of correctional services, in- 
cluding the establishment of a fresh approach 
to the counselling of families. 

Placed before you for consideration will l>e 
a health protection Act, embodying the most 
modern concepts in public health legislation. 

My government's vigorous programmes 
designed to prevent and reduce abuses of our 
environment in the Various fields of pollution 
will be pressed forward with the utmost 
determination. 

The policies of my government in assisting 
the agricultural community of Ontario to 
improve both the production of food and 
recompense to the farmer will be pursued 
with continued intensity. 

Among the continuing programmes ensur- 
ing the steady growth and development of 
the communities and industries of northern 
Ontario will l>e legislation to create a Ixxly to 
coordinate all northern transportation policies. 
Included will be legislation affecting the min- 
ing industry through important changes in 
The Mining Act and related statutes as well 
as a thorough overhauling and updating of 
legislation affecting safety requirements in the 
mining industry. 

My government will increase its efforts to 
ensure that our forest industries will share in 
the predicted increased demand for wood 
and wood products. The programme of 
acquisition of land to provide additional 
recreational areas, provincial parks and con- 
servation authority facilities will be pursued 
with vigour. 

The highly successful programme to equal- 
ize industrial opportunity will continue to 
extend its beneficial effects throughout our 
province. 

To fulfill the demands of the motoring pub- 
lic and to encourage economic development 
in all aspects of the province's industry, the 
construction and maintenance programmes of 
The Department of Highways will be pressed 
forward throughout the province. Every 
region of Ontario benefits from its pro- 
grammes. 

Recognizing not only the increasing com- 
plexity and severity of municipal problems, 
but also the dynamic opportunities that lie 
before our municipal partners, my govern- 
ment will propose a number of financial and 
other measures designed to be of substantial 
assistance. 

In summary, you will have placed before 
you an extensive legislative programme. This 
programme is designed to further enhance 



and enrich the lives of all the residents of our 
Ixjloved province and our beloved country 
while striving for attainment of the greatest 
possible efficiency. 

May Divine Providence guide you in your 
deliberations. 

God save the Queen and Canada. 

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 obtained a 
copy of I lis Honour's speech, which I will 
now read. 

(Reading dispensed with.) 



THE EVIDENCE ACT 

Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General) 
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act 
to amend The Evidence Act. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr. 
Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Min- 
ister of Financial and Commercial Affairs (Mr. 
Rowntree), that the speech of the Honourable 
the Lieutenant-Governor to this House be 
taken into consideration tomorrow. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment 
of the House. 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): 
Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, perhaps 
you will permit me a moment or two to 
make some comments on this, the first day of 
the session, when the opportunity is available 
without the intrusion of any political con- 
siderations to mark the occasion. 

I would like to draw to your attention, sir, 
that this is the first occasion that His Honour 
the Lieutenant-Governor has spoken to the 
opening session of the Legislature and we, 
as residents of Ontario, are proud of this 
man, and I speak, of course, as a citizen of 
Brant county, from which he himself comes; 
and I want to draw your attention, sir, to the 
fact that he is considered one of our first 
citizens. 

As I look around the House I am glad to 
see, sir, that there are no vacancies resulting 




ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



from our recess and I particularly am de- 
lighted to see that our good friend, the hon. 
member for Middlesex South (Mr. Olde), has 
recovered and is back among us. 

I will not occupy your attention unduly, 
sir, but I feel that, since this is the first occa- 
sion since 1961 when we have had the 
opportunity to discuss public affairs this early 
in the year, we look forward with great 



anticipation to the discussion of His Honour's 
remarks that were presented to us this after- 



noon. 



Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the House do 
now adjourn. 

Motion agreed to. 

The House adjourned at 3:35 o'clock, p.m. 



No. 2 




ONTARIO 



Hegtelature of Ontario 




OFFICIAL REPORT -DAILY EDITION 



Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature 



Wednesday, November 20, 1968 



Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C. 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C. 



THE QUEEN'S PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 



Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto. 



CONTENTS 



Wednesday, November 20, 1968. 

Reading and receiving petitions 9 

Motion for provision for printing reports, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 9 

Motion to appoint standing committees, Mr. Reilly, agreed to 10 

Motion to appoint select committee re standing committees, Mr. Reilly, agreed to 21 

Federal-provincial conferences on the constitution and tax matters, questions to 

Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 22 

Nuclear power generating station at Douglas point, questions to Mr. Simonett, 

Mr. Nixon 22 

Report of investigation into air pollution at Dunnville, questions to Mr. Dymond, 

Mr. Nixon 23 

Peterborough "Examiner" strike, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. Nixon 23 

Law reform commission report on landlords and tenants, question to Mr. Wishart, 

Mr. MacDonald 23 

Recreation and park facilities along Lake Erie lakefront, questions to Mr. Brunelle, 

Mr. MacDonald 24 

Cream producers marketing board, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. MacDonald 24 

Ontario hospital services commission, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Sargent 25 

Outside audit to determine Ontario government finances, questions to Mr. Robarts, 

Mr. Sargent 25 

Ontario Hydro rates, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Sargent 26 

Area designation by the OWRC, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Bullbrook 26 

Financial losses of Mrs. Janet Gurman, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Shulman 26 

Compensation re Larry Botrie, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 26 

Legal expenses of Magistrate Gardhouse, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 27 

Purchasing policy for equipment in secondary schools, questions to Mr. Davis, 

Mr. T. Reid ,. 27 

Bargaining procedures for teachers and trustees, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid .... 28 

Crown attorney for Sudbury district, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sopha 29 

Hall-Dennis report, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Pitman 29 

Commission on religious teaching in public schools, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Pitman 30 

Ontario Provincial Police, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Bullbrook 30 

Transfer review board, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Martel 31 

Severances of land in rural areas, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Paterson 31 

Acreage control of agricultural products, question to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Paterson 31 

Fertilizer costs, question to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Gaunt 32 

Imports of tractors, question to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Gaunt 32 

Hardy report, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Knight 32 

Nursing personnel, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Knight 32 

Wire-tapping equipment, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Singer 33 

Aldermen in the city of Toronto, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Singer 34 

Lay-offs in Windsor, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. B. Newman 34 

Dominion Forge Company strike, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. B. Newman 35 

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 35 



LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 



The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr. Speaker: We start our session today 
with the following guests in the galleries: In 
the east gallery are members of the King 
City women's institute and students from 
Appleby college in Oakville. I am sure we 
welcome these people here on the first work- 
ing day of this session. 

Petitions. 

Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr. 
Speaker, I would like to present this 12,700- 
signature petition from the most neglected 
part of Ontario, northwestern Ontario. 

While I recognize the petition has already 
done its good, I still feel that I have been 
charged with the responsibility to bring it to 
the floor of the Ontario Legislature which I 
am seeking to do today. I would like to 
formally turn it over to the Premier (Mr. 
Robarts) at this time. 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order! 

The member will of course realize, because 
he has now had some experience in the 
House, that petitions to be brought before 
the House must be brought in the proper and 
normal manner. If the member is not aware 
of the proper procedure I am sure that the 
Clerk of the House will give him guidance 
and tomorrow it may perhaps be presented 
in the appropriate manner. 

Clerk of the House: The following petitions 
have been received: 

Of the corporation of the city of Ottawa 
praying that an Act may pass permitting the 
corporation to establish a rental authority. 

Of the Ontario Co-operative Credit Society 
praying that an Act may pass authorizing an 
increase in its capital. 

Of the corporation of the city of London 
praying that an Act may pass vesting the 
management, operation, equipment and con- 
trol of the hospitals of the city of London in 
a board called The Board of Hospital Trustees 
of the city of London. 

Of the corporation of the borough of Scar- 
borough praying that an Act may pass author- 



Wednesday, November 20, 1968 

izing the borough to pass by-laws respecting 
advertising devices. 

Of the corporation of the town of Burling- 
ton praying that an Act may pass establishing 
a parking area. 

Of the corporation of the city of Niagara 
Falls praying that an Act may pass authoriz- 
ing it to exempt, by agreement, owners and 
occupants of buildings from the necessity of 
supplying parking facilities. 

Of the corporation of the village of Dutton 
and the corporation of the township of Dun- 
wich praying that an Act may pass permitting 
them to maintain a home for the care of the 
sick and distressed in the area. 

Of the corporation of the town of Lindsay 
praying that an Act may pass authorizing the 
removal or demolition of buildings that are 
in a ruinous or dilapidated condition. 

Of Cyril W. March, Daniel McLean and 
Donald Graff praying that an Act may pass 
reviving March Diamond Drilling Limited. 

Of the corporation of the town of Parry 
Sound praying that an Act may pass provid- 
ing that the time limited for appealing the 
1963 decision of The Department of Muni- 
cipal Affairs with respect to the equalization 
factors for that year may be extended to 
allow such an appeal to be made. 

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports. 

Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary and 
Minister of Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I beg 
leave to present to the House, the annual 
report of the liquor control board of Ontario 
for the year ending March 31, 1968. 

Mr. Speaker: Motions. 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves, 
seconded by Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Pro- 
vincial Treasurer) that, during the present 
session of the legislative assembly, provision 
be made for the taking and printing of reports 
of debates and speeches, and to that 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 arrange for the 
printing of the reports in the amount of 



10 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



2,500 copies daily, copies of such printed 
reports to be supplied to the Honourable the 
Lieutenant-Governor, to Mr. Speaker, Clerk 
of the legislative assembly, to the legislative 
library, each hon. member of the assembly, 
to the reference libraries of the province, to 
the press gallery, to the newspapers of the 
province 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 moves that commenc- 
ing on Friday next this House will meet at 
10:30 a.m. each Friday until further order; 
and that commencing on Monday next we 
will meet at 2:30 p.m. each Monday, Tues- 
day, Wednesday and Thursday until further 
order. 

Motion agreed to. 

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton) moves, sec- 
onded by Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria), that 
the standing committees of the House for the 
present session be appointed as follows: 
Agriculture and food committee; education 
and university affairs committee; govern- 
ment commissions committee; health com- 
mittee; highways and transport committee; 
legal and municipal committee; labour com- 
mittee; natural resources and tourism com- 
mittee; private bills committee; privileges 
and elections committee; public accounts 
committee; social, family and correctional 
services committee; standing orders and 
printing committee; which said committees 
shall severally be empowered to examine and 
inquire into all such matters and things as 
may be referred to them by the House, and 
to report from time to time their observations 
and opinions thereon with the power to send 
for persons, papers and records. 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi- 
tion): At the first session of the Legislature 
a year ago I drew to your attention, sir, and 
to the attention of the other members of the 
House, the view the official Opposition has 
that our committee system is entirely inade- 
quate as it has been set up during previous 
years. 

It is not my intention to recount to you, 
sir, the arguments that have been put before 
you in the past but to express the displeas- 
ure that we on this side of the House have 
that the leader of the House has not under- 
taken some initiative in this matter to im- 
prove the situation which in fact, under his 
jurisdiction, has been deteriorating since 
1961. 



There have been honest proposals put be- 
fore the House and before the government, 
Mr. Speaker, which in fact would expedite 
the work of this Parliament. It would in 
fact make the deliberations on matters that 
are intended to come before these commit- 
tees much more meaningful than they can 
now be made with the stylized and formal 
and inadequate approach that the Premier 
of this province takes. 

Now there are many examples of this very 
matter that I would like to call to your atten- 
tion. For the edification of the barrackers 
in the back row, where they will stay for 
another two years, surely they would listen 
to this matter and give it their full attention, 
because they are the ones who are driven 
out of the back rooms, they have to set 
down their euchre hands- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! 

Mr. Nixon: —so that they can come and be 
a majority, so that they can come and be a 
majority- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! 

Mr. Nixon: —and maintain the position that 
the Premier has ordered for so many years. 

Now let us look at this reasonably and I 
ask you, Mr. Speaker— 

Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue): 
Let us be constructive. 

Mr. Nixon: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to keep 
the backbenchers and the new Minister of the 
Crown silent for at least a moment until we 
can- 
Is the Minister getting up on a point of 
order? 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order! 

While we all realize that this is the opening 
of a new session and that there are many 
things to be said by all members, I would 
ask that the members give the leader of the 
Opposition a hearing, and thereafter I am 
sure there are those who will be capable of 
speaking to the matter. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your 
interjection, but my view is that we must get 
on with the business of the House. I do not 
intend to hold it up at this time, but I do 
propose to you, Mr. Speaker, that the best 
suggestion to improve the committee system 
in many years has come from this side with 
the proposal that we enact the facilities for 
an estimates' committee which would take 
much of the discussion on the detailed spend- 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



11 



ing procedures of this government into a com- 
mittee situation, where those people who lead 
the various branches of the civil service 
would be prepared to give their views on 
factual matters and the Ministers would be 
present to state the policies as they are con- 
cerned. 

There are many definite proposals that 
should be considered. The most important 
besides an estimates' committee would be, for 
example, that the education committee would 
not wait for the tardy Minister's approach to 
legislation, which usually comes on in April 
and May, but that we in fact constitute this 
standing committee as a continuing one to in- 
vestigate the situation of education in the 
province of Ontario. 

This is what we are here for and this is 
what I propose, Mr. Speaker, that we can 
undertake if we have a proper approach to 
the committees that would be constituted by 
the government Whip's motion. 

As a matter of fact I was quite surprised 
that the chief government Whip made this 
motion. I seem to recall that the motion is 
usually the prerogative of the leader of the 
government, but it has been put by the mem- 
ber for Eglinton— 

Mr. Reilly: I am quite sure the hon. mem- 
ber wants to be correct, and if he checks 
Hansard last year he will find it was proposed 
by the government Whip. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Nixon: Well Mr. Speaker, I am glad to 
see that the Whip is here almost in a new 
identity. I understand he has new facilities 
and is building an empire just outside the 
Legislature, and we can expect a much better 
job from him than we have seen in the past. 

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It has 
gone to his head. 

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps a laurel wreadi would 
go with this! 

But Mr. Speaker, if I might put to you my 
serious consideration that the House would 
be well served by the addition to the commit- 
tee list that has been put before us just a few 
moments ago, by the addition of an estimates' 
committee which would expedite the business 
of the House. 

And while I am concerned with that, it 
would do something far more important. It 
would give us a much more democratic and 
efficient means to examine not only the Min- 
ister but his chief advisors in the expendi- 
tures of the swollen budgets that have been 



put before us in the last two years, and which 
no doubt will be put before us in the near 
future. 

With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I want to 
move an amendment to the motion put be- 
fore us by the member for Eglinton, moved 
by myself and seconded by the member for 
Downsview (Mr. Singer), that to the list of 
committees proposed be added an estimates' 
committee. 

Mr. Speaker: It is moved by Mr. Nixon, 
seconded by Mr. Singer, that to the list of 
committees proposed be added an estimates' 
committee. 

Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre): I 
move, seconded by the hon. member for 
Windsor West (Mr. Peacock), that the motion 
be further amended by adding thereto the 
following: housing and urban problems com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Renwick moves, sec- 
onded by Mr. Peacock, that the motion be 
further amended by adding thereto the fol- 
lowing: housing and urban problems com- 
mittee. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would 
rise to say that I find it necessary to vote 
against both these amendments. If the hon. 
member wants to check Hansard for the 
opening day or the second day, for probably 
the last three years, the government's position 
will be found as far as an estimates' commit- 
tee is concerned. 

As far as the committee system itself is 
concerned, as I said last year, the committee 
system, its efficiency and what it is able to 
achieve, really rests in the hands of the mem- 
bers of the committees. If the hon. members 
read and listen to the motion, they will note 
it says the committees may deal with any- 
thing referred to them by this House. There 
has never been any intent on the part of the 
government to prevent any committee from 
dealing with any matter it wishes to, within 
its terms of reference. 

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Oh, non- 
sense! 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: I might say the member 
for Downsview said "nonsense" last year at 
precisely the same juncture. 

Mr. Singer: It is the same nonsense. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am not going to go 
into the question of attendance at committee 
meetings, but we have kept attendance rec- 
ords quite carefully and it has been said in 



12 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



this House before that the major delinquents 
in attendance at committees are the official 
Opposition. 

I am greatly interested in making the com- 
mittee system work better. I am interested 
in anything that will make the deliberations 
of this House and committees of the House 
more meaningful. 

Last year I undertook to provide staff if 
that were necessary to the committees in 
carrying out their duties. Now, if these com- 
mittees wish to arrange programmes of exam- 
ination of various matters that fall within the 
terms of reference of a specific committee, 
this government will not block them in that 
attempt. 

I would suggest to the leader of the Oppo- 
sition that, instead of waving his arms around, 
shouting and making rude remarks across the 
floor, he should instruct some of his mem- 
bers on the committees to get to work and 
make some concrete proposals as to what 
they would like to do in committee; that 
would be a good deal more constructive than 
this same speech we hear every year. 

The whole secret of this lies in the mem- 
bers' own hands so do not thump the gov- 
ernment for it, just activate the committees 
and let us see what happens. 

As far as the estimates' committee is con- 
cerned, the estimates are very thoroughly 
examined in this House. No doubt before the 
Budget comes down there will be some dis- 
cussion in this House as to how we are to 
handle the estimates this session. 

If, in our examination of different pro- 
cedures here, we can come to an agreement— 
I do not object to an estimates' committee 
per se— but I do object to appointing a com- 
mittee which is simply going to do in one 
form what then will be repeated in this 
House. And that is precisely what would 
happen at the present time. 

Now, if we can work out some form of 
committee that would not simply lead to 
duplication, I would be quite prepared to 
look at it; but simply to establish an esti- 
mates' committee at this stage with this 
amendment, does not seem to me to be very 
practical. 

I really do not think it is necessary to have 
a select committee of the House to deal with 
housing and urban problems. I might say 
that this suggestion has not been made to 
me up until this time. I do not know whether 
the Whips met, but ordinarily they do to go 
over the list of committees because we have 
changed them around and broadened them. 



I do not know whether this suggestion has 
ever come forward but I think there are all 
kinds of areas in which housing and urban 
problems can be considered, and I do not 
think that at this stage, it is necessary we 
establish another committee of the House. 
We have enough difficulties in getting atten- 
dance and getting some meaningful work 
done as it is. 

I recall, when I was Minister of Educa- 
tion, that I got hold of the chairman of the 
committee on education and, over a period 
of two or three years, we examined every area 
of that department and how it functioned. 
We brought all the civil servants before the 
committee to answer any questions the mem- 
bers might have. 

That went on very nicely for about two 
years but I dropped it eventually because 
the attendance faded away and I had the 
officials from the department there but I 
really did not have much attendance from 
the members. But however, these things- 
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. 
Speaker, if you will permit me. The standing 
committee on education to which the Prime 
Minister refers was chaired by the present 
Minister of Revenue and I must say that 
that committee has not functioned properly 
since he gave up that chairmanship. Perhaps 
he should have been kept there rather than 
given his new responsibility. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, I accept full re- 
sponsibility for the appointments to this gov- 
ernment but— 

Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): The Prime 
Minister has got to live with them. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: I will live very comfort- 
ably with them for the foreseeable future. 

But I mention this simply to illustrate my 
point that the committees contain within 
themselves the ability and the power to 
accomplish just about anything the members 
on the committees want to accomplish. There- 
fore, I do not think the point made by the 
leader of the Opposition— is well taken and I 
propose to vote against these two amend- 
ments. 

Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Let them 
make up their own minds. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! Order! 

The member for Riverdale has the floor if 
he wishes to avail himself of it. 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



13 



Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I listened to 
the same remarks of the Prime Minister this 
year as we heard last year about these stand- 
ing committees of the legislative assembly. 

I was fascinated by the paragraph at the 
bottom of page three of the Speech from the 
Throne which says that all programmes 
financed, in whole or in part, by provincial 
taxpayers but administered by other public 
authorities, including municipalities, boards of 
education, universities, colleges of applied 
arts and technology, Crown corporations and 
other boards and commissions, will be subject 
to intense public scrutiny to ensure that maxi- 
mum efficiency is attained. 

I had thought, of course, that the intense 
public scrutiny would be carried on by the 
standing committees of this Legislature. I 
had assumed that under the government com- 
missions the majority of the boards and com- 
missions and Crown corporations would 
appear for this public scrutiny, which has 
not as yet, taken place before that committee. 

I had assumed also, that the boards of 

education, the universities and colleges of 

applied arts and technology, would be 

appearing before the standing committee on 
education and university affairs. 

If this is not to be the case — and the 
Speech from the Throne seems to be explicit 
on the matter— then I would ask in what way 
are these various emanations— including the 
municipalities and the other bodies listed— 
in what way are they going to be subject to 
intense public scrutiny? 

Mr. Speaker: It would be my opinion that 
the matter raised by the member for River- 
dale is extraneous to the discussion before 
the House at the moment. 

I would also like to say to the members 
that I have had a note from the press gallery 
that the speaker system is not working very 
well and they would request that the mem- 
bers speak up. Perhaps the technicians listen- 
ing might check on it. 

The member for Scarborough Centre now 
has the floor. 

Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, surely the 
concern of providing a place for the public 
unrest in housing and urban problems to 
come, rather than having them fester out 
there, as they are at this present time, is 
an overriding consideration as to whether 
this government could bear the burden of 
another committee. 

The unrest that is in our society in the 
metropolitan area of Toronto right now has 
to have a place to come. The reason why 



the Prime Minister has not heard from this 
side of the House, from my own particular 
seat, on this question before is that in re- 
viewing our committees today, Mr. Speaker, 
I felt that it was urgent that we provide a 
place where the people of this province can 
come with their briefs, with their complaints, 
with their unrest. 

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. 
Speaker, I would like to comment on the 
two ammendments that are now before the 
House. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. MacDonald: There is no doubt as to 
who is leader of the party, if you have not 
heard. News travels slowly to the Tory 
benches but I thought I would help them. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! 

Mr. MacDonald: I do not wish to rehash 
the debates of earlier years, but apparently 
it becomes necessary as sometimes rather 
serious matters get lost. 

Let me deal first with the question of a 
committee on estimates. There would be one 
value in a committee on estimates. Some 
cabinet ministers on that side of the House 
know their departments and, if you ask them 
a question, they can reply. Other cabinet 
ministers have not a clue. They have their 
ear down, trying to get fed the information 
so that we have to have the information from 
the people in the department who do know, 
strained through a minister who is nearly 
incompetent. 

Do not force me to name names because 
I will if I have to. 

There will be one value, Mr. Speaker, in 
having an estimates' committee and that 
would be, to have come before the estimates' 
committee, Deputy Ministers and various 
other experts in the department so that we 
could quiz them directly. 

However, there are two factors that flow 
from that. The first is that some people think 
—and this is really the important point I 
want to make— that if you have a discussion 
of the estimates before the estimates' com- 
mittee, there will be less discussion in the 
House. It does not happen. 

In Ottawa they discovered that the repeti- 
tion does not reduce the consideration in the 
House. If I have to choose between whether 
or not we are going to have a little greater 
flexibility out in a committee or deal here 
with the Minister, who, in the final analysis, 



14 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



is responsible— if he is incompetent let his 
incompetence be spread before the world 
starting with this House— that is the important 
thing. I want to see the estimates considered 
in this House on the record as fully as this 
House deems necessary so that we know 
precisely where we are. The reason why I 
have some hesitation in getting drawn into 
the proposition of an estimates' committee is 
because I foresee the prospect that it will 
become a substitute for debate in this House, 
and in my view that is the top priority. 

On the second issue, I am not going to 
repeat what the hon. member for Scarborough 
Centre has said. She has made the case for 
a committee, but unfortunately the Prime 
Minister has rather a closed minded approach 
to it. He just automatically discards it, as 
is the usual fashion by this government. 

Housing and urban problems— you review 
them and where will they come up? Housing 
will come up, I presume, under government 
commissions. I suspect maybe most of them 
may be brought under government commis- 
sions, so that you have a committee that deals 
with literally 80 or 90 commissions through- 
out the whole range of the affairs of this 
province, and in it the question of housing 
and urban affairs gets lost. 

Mr. Speaker, if this government does not 
know as yet that it is sitting on a time bomb 
in terms of unmet housing and urban prob- 
lems, then it will find out in the next 
election. Let it now ignore a more rational, 
sensible approach to this kind of problem, 
because it will suffer the consequences at the 
next election. Maybe that is the appropriate 
way to do it them, if it is intent on being 
stubborn. 

Mr. Singer: In the second session of the 
28th Legislature, we are again embarking on 
the ritual rain dance that has heralded sessions 
of this Legislature since 1867, and before 
that when it was the Legislature of Upper 
Canada. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that 
in a time when we have so many serious 
problems to face, we must revise our pro- 
cedures in order to deal with our problems 
in a sensible and logical way. 

If we listen to the words of the Treasurer, 
and listen to the words of the Premier, the 
province is on the verge of a fiscal night- 
mare, and we are now going to spend four 
to six weeks listening to the debate on the 
Speech from the Throne, a meaningless docu- 
ment as it was enunciated yesterday. We are 
going to hear the speeches about "the hills 
and the valleys of my riding" coming from 
117 or a lesser number of members, and we 



are not going to get down to the fiscal prob- 
lems that face this province, Mr. Speaker, 
until we have sat for another eight or ten 
weeks. 

It would seem to me that since we are 
forced into the straitjacket of that kind of 
procedure, perhaps at this time we could 
depart just a little bit so that, hopefully, 
members of this House can get down to 
some of the real problems that face it. That 
is why the resolution, or the amendment, 
moved by my leader, makes abundant good 
sense, and the reply made by the Premier 
makes no sense at all. 

The Premier says, for instance, that the 
committees can deal with anything they want. 
Now, collectively their decisions are the view 
of the government majority, and as the gov- 
ernment majority dictates, and as the gov- 
ernment chosen chairman dictates, so the 
committees act. 

Hon. Mr. White: That is not so. 

Mr. Singer: It is not what the members of 
the House want to deal with, it is what the 
government ordains that the committees shall 
deal with that is considered. Mr. Speaker, I 
would have hoped that the elevation of the 
hon. member for London South to the cabinet 
would have removed him from the position 
of director of the House, but apparently it 
has made no difference. His capacity is so 
great that apparently he can run the House 
and run his department as well. I wish him 
good luck but I am sure he is going to need 
it. 

Mr. Speaker, an example occurs to me, or 
a very obvious example, about committees 
being able to do anything they want, and 
that is the committee on commissions. For 
several years we tried to find out what 
happened in the Niagara parks commission. 
For several years the government refused us 
this privilege and one day when we had a 
couple of hours— and that is all that was 
allocated to the Niagara parks commission— a 
vote was forced as to whether or not that 
matter could be discussed, and what 
happened? 

As the discussion took place and the debate 
took place in that committee, it became 
obvious to the deputy whip, the member for 
Durham, that his party was outvoted, so as 
the debate progressed and it was obvious that 
the record, the tawdry record, of the Niagara 
parks commission was going to be made 
public, what did the deputy government 
Whip from Durham do? He ran out into the 
corridors and just in time as the vote was 
being called, he literally marched in— "go, go, 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



15 



go, go"— a half a dozen back benchers who 
did not know what was under discussion so 
that they could vote against the matter be- 
coming a public issue. 

Now that is the sort of thing that in the 
Premier's words, means that "the commit- 
tees can do anything they want". Mr. 
Speaker, that is a denial of democracy. 

Let us get on with this. The committees 
only meet when the chairman calls them to 
meet and they can only do what the govern- 
ment majority will let them do. 

Surely the time has come when we should 
become practical in dealing with the affairs 
of this province, and when we should have 
more time and more ability to examine the 
estimates, and to bring before us the senior 
civil servants who are responsible so that 
they can be asked questions and there can 
be sufficient time to do it. For that reason 
it makes good sense if the amendment moved 
by my leader be supported. 

Let me comment briefly on the amendment 
moved by the member for Scarborough 
Centre. Surely we must adapt our procedures 
to the problems of the present day world, and 
anyone with half an eye can see that there 
is a very serious problem existing in the big 
cities here in Ontario. 

You do not have to be any genius— you do 
not even have to sit in the government 
benches— to discover that there is a housing 
crisis in Ontario, and what better way could 
there be to deal with a housing crisis, and 
with urban problems, than to have a special 
committee of this House dealing with that at 
regular times and with a regular agenda? Mr. 
Speaker, I think it is time that we brought 
our procedures up to date and I would hope 
that the hon. members of the House would 
support both of these amendments. 

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. 
Speaker, the last session was my first experi- 
ence as a member of this Legislature and 
one in which I participated with interest 
because it was the first time that I had had 
an opportunity to compare the method of 
reviewing procedures and operations of gov- 
ernment versus business. I was a member of 
four different committees, two of which were 
quite active— namely, private bills and the 
education committee, it being involved with 
a contentious bill that required a lot of hear- 
ings. 

The private bills committee, of course, was 
on the regular business of private bills. The 
other two were municipal affairs and trans- 
port, which had in one case, two or three 



meetings, and in the other one, I think one 
meeting. 

In each case, it did not give those of us 
on that committee an opportunity to look into 
the operation of the department concerned, 
or question people about it. To my mind we 
are, in effect, directors representing the share- 
holders or people of this province and instead 
of a few thousand shareholders in the case 
of companies there are— 

Hon. Mr. White: That is the C. D. Howe 
approach to government. 

Mr. Deacon: —millions of them in con- 
nection with the people who pay the taxes 
in this province. They are, as the hon. 
Minister from London South knows, terribly 
concerned about the way our money is being 
spent— and we heard that more than we heard 
anything else this summer. They see the 
amount we are going to have to raise and 
they say, "Surely to goodness, can we not 
find more efficient ways of spending those 
dollars?" As it now stands, each Minister is 
fully occupied with his own department. He 
is speaking for his own department in the 
cabinet, which is in a way, the inner circle 
which is deciding how much money is going 
to be spent by the government. There is no 
one from the outside looking on, as is the 
case with the boards of directors of com- 
panies, where shareholders have someone 
from the outside looking in and questioning 
the way departments are being operated. 

I think that we must take a new look at 
this committee system. We must not just be 
called when there is a bill before us that is 
contentious. We must be given an oppor- 
tunity to discuss with members of the depart- 
ment—with the Minister present, of course— 
what the procedures are and the policies in 
each of the various branches of the depart- 
ment. 

In one of the departments for which I was 
given responsibility last year, I was given, by 
the Minister, an absolute open hand to go 
in and ask questions and find out what I 
wanted. In the other case, I was told "hands 
off". The only opportunity I had to speak or 
question the department was when it came 
before the estimates of the House. This is 
not the time that we can really dig in and 
find good sound reasons and facts, because it 
is just wasting the time of the House. Many 
of these things are detailed— things that you 
want to assemble and then come to a con- 
clusion as to how wisely the administration 
is being handled. 

I do urge that the Prime Minister recon- 
sider the roles of the committees and make 



16 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



much more use of them. Perhaps cutting out 
our evening sessions and calling committee 
meetings then. On more than one occasion 
I had two or three committee meetings all 
at the same time and if our attendance was 
not always good, I suggest that this is one 
of the reasons. 

I know in the case of the education com- 
mittee that many times the Opposition out- 
numbered members of the government, as far 
as representation there— 

An hon. member: Until the vote came and 
they dragged them in by the coat collars. 

Mr. Deacon: But those of us who are 
willing to find out how departments for 
which we have concern are operated should 
be given a much greater opportunity than 
now is available to us in the open sessions of 
the House. 

An hon. member: Well said. 

Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr. 
Speaker, I just want very briefly and as vigor- 
ously as I can, to ask the Prime Minister to 
reconsider his opposition to the establishment 
of a committee on housing and urban prob- 
lems. 

He cannot offer his objections that this will 
be one of those committees which will not be 
well attended. I can assure him that the 
urban members from both sides of this House 
will be in full attendance at such a commit- 
tee, if the scheduling of committee sessions 
is properly drawn up. 

He has now had an opportunity to consider 
the arguments of the official Opposition in 
support of the establishment of an estimates' 
committee. He may well not be able to re- 
consider that proposal. But I urge him to 
reconsider, if he cannot do so at this moment, 
his position on the establishment of a com- 
mittee on housing and urban affairs and, at a 
subsequent session, at his pleasure, introduce 
a motion for the establishment of such a 
committee after he has reflected as to who, 
among his members, could properly be ap- 
pointed to this chairmanship. 

I appeal to the Prime Minister to do this, 
Mr. Speaker, because the urgency of this area 
of our provincial affairs is so great— and de- 
spite the progress that his own Minister 
asserts the government is making with it— I 
feel that the Prime Minister himself feels it 
is so great that it is deserving of the atten- 
tion that only a committee of this House can 
give to that problem. 



Mr. Reilly: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would 
like to say that I listened to the hon. leader 
of the Opposition at the last session at the 
same time introduce the same thoughts that he 
repeated here today. May I suggest to him 
that as far as the estimates' committee is 
concerned this was discussed by the repre- 
sentative Whips of all three parties. We, as 
members of the government, were not op- 
posed to an estimates' committee, but the 
members of the Opposition were opposed to 
an estimates' committee. We could get no 
unanimity among the Whips themselves for 
an estimates' committee. 

Mr. Nixon: Nonsense! 

Mr. Reilly: This is not nonsense. This is 
fact, if the hon. leader of the Opposition 
wants to reflect upon it. 

To hear the hon. member for Downsview 
suggest that the government ordains whatever 
committee work the committee is going to 
deal with is nonsense. This is nonsense, be- 
cause I was the chairman of a committee in 
this House and I was never instructed by the 
government what should appear before this 
committee. It was left to the chairman and it 
was left to the members of the committee to 
deal with whatever they wanted to do. 

Mr. Nixon: Subject to the majority Tories 
who are notoriously dull. 

Mr. Reilly: Well let us not deal with 
absenteeism, because I do not think, Mr. 
Speaker, that we accomplish anything in this 
House by dealing with who attends and who 
is absent and what the attendance is. 

Mr. Nixon: I agree. 

Mr. Reilly: Because if you want to deal 
with this I have facts and figures that might 
prove a little embarrassing to the Opposition, 
but I see nothing accomplished to bring this 
up every time. What I am suggesting— 

Mr. Singer: The hon. member left his toga 
off today. 

Mr. Reilly: What I am suggesting to you, 
Mr. Speaker, is that as far as the estimates' 
committee is concerned, the members of the 
government and all the members in the 
House are rather anxious to do anything that 
will improve the efficiency of the House. So 
far today, I have heard nothing that is going 
to help to improve the efficiency of the House. 
Under the circumstances, of course, I would 
vote against both amendments. 

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. 
Speaker— 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



17 



Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lake- 
shore has the floor. 

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I will speak very 
briefly on this. 

As far as the question of attendance is con- 
cerned, I noticed last year that very often- 
one being on a committee— we are expected 
to be in two places at the same time. The 
scheduling of these things in part accounts, I 
suspect, for the attendance on certain occa- 
sions. 

Now a second thing touching this attend- 
ance situation. I can well recall, Mr. Speaker, 
two or three occasions in the education com- 
mittee—which I think the Opposition, over 
here, attended assiduously because of the 
importance of the issues. We very well might 
have scuttled the whole of Bill 44 in it— and 
the whole set-up of education that went 
through this House last year. We used to sit 
around and joke a little bit about it. It is you 
people over there that are ineffective in pro- 
ducing the bodies, not to speak of produc fag 
the minds— necessary to advert to these mat- 
ters. 

Finally, Mr. Speaker, on the third point, 
why cannot the hon. Prime Minister give 
consideration to updating these committees 
anciently contained in Alex C. Lewis's book 
here? When pressing problems of the day 
arise of an extraordinary character, why can- 
not a committee be set to work such as in this 
area of housing— which is a major concern to 
all of us at this time— so the public may have 
a greater access to us? So that briefs may be 
heard, so that a voice is given and methods 
worked out that are directly referable to the 
members in this Chamber! So that we are 
made thoroughly cognizant, not that we are 
not already well acquainted with, the prob- 
lems involved! 

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the 
hon. Prime Minister reconsider, update, be 
open, and bring this Legislature into con- 
formity with the times. 

Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. 
Speaker, I would just make one or two com- 
ments, one of a general nature and another 
of a specific one. 

The first is really in the form of a question 
to the Premier of the province. It is a con- 
tinuing question, and that is, when are we 
going to get down to a very hard-headed 
look at the total reform of the way this Legis- 
lature conducts its business? I would have 
liked to have seen in the Premier's state- 
ment at least an indication that he is serious 



about reforming the outdated ways of doing 
business in this province. 

You are running, if you like, a very large 
enterprise, spending a lot of money, and I 
for one am very worried that we cannot cope 
with the social problems, housing and urban 
affairs, along the same lines as this House has 
tried to cope with other problems over the 
past 25 years. 

I think this year is the time to reform the 
procedures of the House, to reform the way 
in which criticism can be effective from Her 
Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and I would like 
to see that started this year. So, I would 
suggest to the government, Mr. Speaker, that 
we must move to reform the procedures of 
this House, to update them, so that we can 
better provide the services to the people of 
this province than we have in the past. 

I am worried in particular that all mean- 
ingful democracy, to quote the member for 
Port Arthur (Mr. Knight), must move out of 
the Legislature onto the front steps of the 
legislative building. I believe— 

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is 
speaking to a motion with respect to an 
amendment to a motion with respect to the 
creation of committees of this Legislature. 
As yet, he has not yet reached that particular 
area of discussion and I would ask him that 
he do so. 

Mr. T. Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I simply say 
that I am glad at least that we have a com- 
mittee system. I would like to see it part of 
a much larger programme of reform in this 
House. 

The specific suggestion I would like to 
make to the government is that the commit- 
tees of the Legislature, the standing commit- 
tees of the Legislature, not be staffed by 
departmental officials. I think these com- 
mittees, since they are legislative committees, 
should be staffed through the Clerk's office. 
I would like to see services provided not by 
civil servants of the government side who see 
their role as providing services to government 
members only, but by members of the Clerk's 
staff. 

I would like to have objective secretaries 
of those committees writing objective re- 
ports, instead of leaving out many valuable 
comments that many Opposition members 
make in any notes they take. 

And finally, Mr. Speaker, I would hope 
that the government members and particu- 
larly, in this case the Minister of Education 
would take their responsibilities and his 



18 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



responsibilities more seriously and show up 
at more of these meetings of the education 
committee. 

Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, 
I will not spend any time on the question of 
a committee for the estimates. I believe that 
we had considerable dialogue on that mat- 
ter at the beginning of the last session, and 
I think the situation has not differed from 
that time and so I think our position is very 
clear in that regard. 

But this question of a housing and urban 
problems committee is a new suggestion to 
this House. I recall, during the session, that 
I asked this government to initiate a special 
discussion on the whole question of housing. 
Obviously this fell on deaf ears and this 
debate never really took place. So the sug- 
gestion that has been made by my colleague 
is that we do provide a forum to— 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I can only 
point out to the member that we spent days 
and days discussing the whole problem of 
housing in this province during the esti- 
mates of the hon. Minister who is in charge 
of the housing corporation. So it really is 
not accurate to say that there is no forum 
for discussion of housing in this Legislature, 
because, of course, there is. 

Mr. Pilkey: I withdraw those remarks on 
the basis that I recognize there was some 
discussion but I think we must have a con- 
tinuing forum, not just a forum where we 
discuss it during the Minister's estimates. We 
must have a continuing forum, because this 
problem has not been met. 

It is not only in the Metro area, I sug- 
gest, Mr. Speaker; it is right across the 
length and breadth of this whole province, 
this question of housing. And it is critical. 
I raised it because I experienced problems 
in my own area. Now do not tell me that 
the backbenchers of the Conservative gov- 
ernment are not meeting these same prob- 
lems in their areas. 

Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc- 
tional Services): All right, we shall not tell 
the member. 

Mr. Pilkey: Okay, do not tell me, but I 
suspect very strongly that you do meet these 
problems and what better way to bring those 
problems to the attention of the government 
than through a committee instead of raising 
them continually here in the Legislature? As 
a matter of fact as I pointed out earlier, the 
forum is not provided on a continuous basis. 
So I support my colleague's motion and I 



think the government should give this sug- 
gestion top priority in terms of its imple- 
mentation. 

Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox): 
Mr. Speaker, relative to the discussions that 
have been held, I would like to refer back 
to two years ago, the 1966 session I think it 
was, when I was chairman of government 
commissions. At that time, at our first meet- 
ing, the committee made suggestions as to 
the particular commissions it would like to 
have brought before the committee. 

To the best of our ability we followed 
the suggestion that was made regardless of 
the party or the politics of the member 
making the suggestion. During that session, 
I believe we had some 15 government com- 
missions or more before us, and I might say 
that one of the commissions that the Opposi- 
tion members were most desirous to deal 
with was the water resources commission. 

Our member on the water resources com- 
mission was kind enough to make arrange- 
ments to take us out to their laboratory and 
to have a detailed discussion with key offi- 
cials, describing the whole situation. We 
saw the testing of water, and they made a 
most interesting day of it. Yet on that occa- 
sion there was just one Opposition member 
present. So consequently I do feel that the 
Opposition is not giving credit to the efforts 
made by the government to make informa- 
tion available. That concludes my remarks. 

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, 
I wish to make just a few comments on the 
need for a housing and urban problems 
committee. One area that has not yet been 
touched and one that is creating great prob- 
lems throughout this province is the matter 
of tenancy. This would be a committee 
where tenants throughout the province could 
come to air their views and to explain to 
the government the cruel conditions of ten- 
ancy that are presently being forced upon 
them. 

There is a great need for reform; there 
is a need for a place where people of this 
province can come and explain to this gov- 
ernment—which is obviously so far out of 
touch— the great problems they are being 
confronted with at this time. And I urge 
every government member, and especially 
those who come from urban areas, to reflect 
for a moment about the problems of ten- 
ancy in the areas from which they come and 
to support the formation of a committee on 
housing and urban problems. 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



19 



Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough 
West. 

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like the 
government and the Prime Minister to realize 
that the sub-amendment placed by the New 
Democratic Party today springs from the 
overwhelming magnanimity which we have 
for the government on occasion. It is the 
milk of human kindness, Mr. Prime Minister, 
which charges through our veins. 

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, 
that one must exercise a little compassion for 
this government because it will be brought 
down in the next three years by the dis- 
integration in its ranks around urban prob- 
lems and housing— make no mistake about it. 

What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, 
with that beneficence which is characteristic 
of social democrats, is to provide a certain 
funnel for the obvious public discontent which 
animates this area, and I must say, Mr. 
Speaker, that there is a magnificent obtuse- 
ness on the part of the government in this 
field. 

The fact that the Ontario housing corpora- 
tion no longer functions in any meaningful 
way; the moment this committee was raised 
in the House the Minister of Trade and 
Development fled for his very life; the— 

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I advise the 
member and the members of the House that 
I had a note from the Minister who had an 
appointment in Trenton which he had to 
keep and, therefore, had to leave. 

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I accept that and 
I hope that he is building a house in Trenton. 
It would be a refreshing turn of events. 

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has 
busied himself frantically with paper work 
in order to avoid joining the issue, Mr. 
Speaker, and the Prime Minister himself 
trembles quietly in his seat because he 
knows, as all of us know, that the sands of 
time are running out around the issue of 
urban problems. 

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario housing corpora- 
tion no longer functions. The area of low 
rental housing has not been adequately 
attended to. The HOME plan is exposed 
everywhere through the province of Ontario 
as a ludicrous fantasy on the part of govern- 
ment. It is evident, in terms of the tenant 
situation here, even in metropolitan Toronto, 
that that is reaching an explosive ignition 
point 

For its own sake, let alone for the sake of 
the people of the province, the government 



would be wise to allow a committee on hous- 
ing and urban problems so that there can be 
some frontal coping with the situation. That 
is what we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, and 
that is why we support this sub-amendment. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! Orderl 

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, 
in rising to support this amendment, I think 
that every member of this House knows of 
the need for compassion in this area we are 
talking about. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, 
that if I ever have a need for a heart trans- 
plant, I hope to get John Robarts', because 
it has never been used. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! 

Mr. Sargent: When pay day comes again 
next election— 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Is that the way the hon. 
member is going to get my heart? 

Mr. Sargent: —this will be one of the key 
points in the re-election or defeat of the 
government. Today will be a day to re- 
member if you vote against this amendment. 

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member 
who wishes to speak to the motion or the 
amendments? Then we will vote, of course 
first on the second amendment moved by 
Mrs. Renwick, seconded by Mr. Peacock, that 
the motion made by Mr. Reilly be amended 
by adding thereto the following: "housing 
and urban problems committee". 

The House divided on the further amend- 
ment to the motion made by Mrs. Renwick, 
which was negatived on the following 
division: 



Yeas 



Nays 



Braithwaite 


Allan 


Breithaupt 


Apps 


Brown 


Bales 


Bukator 


Bernier 


Bullbrook 


Boyer 


Burr 


Brunelle 


Davison 


Connell 


Deacon 


Davis 


Deans 


Demers 


De Monte 


Downer 


Edighoffer 


Dunlop 


Farquhar 


Dymond 


Ferrier 


Evans 


Gaunt 


Gilbertson 


Gisborn 


Grossman 


Good 


Guindon 



20 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Yeas 

Haggerty 

Innes 

Jackson 

Knight 

Lawlor 

Lewis 

MacDonald 

MacKenzie 

Makarchuk 

Martel 

Newman 

(Windsor-Walkerville) 
Nixont 
Paterson 
Peacock 
Pilkey 
Pitman 
Reid 

(Scarborough East) 
Renwick 

(Riverdale) 
Renwick (Mrs.) 

(Scarborough Centre) 
Ruston 
Sargent 
Shulman 
Singer 
Smith 

(Nipissing) 
Sopha 
Stokes 
Trotter 
Worton 
Young— 45 



Nays 

Hamilton 

Haskett 

Hodgson 

(Victoria-Haliburton) 
Hodgson 

(York North) 
Jessiman 
Johnston 

(Parry Sound) 
Johnston 

(St. Cartharines) 
Johnston 

(Carleton) 
Kennedy 
Kerr 
Lawrence 

(Carleton East) 
Lawrence 

(St. George) 
MacNaughton 
Meen 

Morningstar 
Morrow 
McKeough 
Newman 

(Ontario South) 
Olde 
Price 

Pritchard (Mrs.) 
Reilly 
Reuter 
Robarts 
Rollins 
Root 
Simonett 
Smith 

(Simcoe East) 
Smith 

(Hamilton Mountain) 
Snow 
Stewart 
Villeneuve 
Welch 
White 
Whitney 
Winkler 
Wishart 
Yakabuski 
Yaremko— 55 



Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the "yeas" 
are 45, the "nays", 55. 

Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. 

The vote will now be on the first amend- 
ment to the main motion, moved by Mr. 
Nixon, seconded by Mr. Singer, to the list 
of committees proposed be added an esti- 
mates' committee. 



Mr. Nixon: In the interest of efficiency, we 
will accept the same vote. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker— 

An hon. member: Nice try, Bob. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the in- 
terest of accuracy we will not. 

Mr. Speaker: Then shall we start this 
again? The vote is on the first amendment to 
the main motion. The amendment moved by 
Mr. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Singer, that to 
the list of committees proposed be added an 
estimates' committee. As many are in favour 
of the amendment will please say "aye," as 
many are opposed will please say "nay." 

In my opinion, the "nays" have it. 

Mr Nixon: I would suggest Mr. Speaker, 
that for this vote we could do without ring- 
ing the bell. 

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreeable to the House 
that the official Opposition be shown as vot- 
ing in favour and all the other members 
against this amendment? 

The House divided on the amendment by 
Mr. Nixon which was negatived on the follow- 
ing division: 



Yeas 



Nays 



Braithwaite 


Allan 


Breithaupt 


Apps 


Bukator 


Bales 


Bullbrook 


Bernier 


Deacon 


Boyer 


De Monte 


Brown 


Edighoffer 


Brunelle 


Farquhar 


Burr 


Gaunt 


Connell 


Good 


Davis 


Haggerty 


Davison 


Innes 


Deans 


Knight 


Demers 


MacKenzie 


Downer 


Newman 


Dunlop 


(Windsor-Walkerville) Dymond 


Nixon 


Evans 


Paterson 


Ferrier 


Reid 


Gilbertson 


(Scarborough East) 


Gisborn 


Ruston 


Grossman 


Sargent 


Guindon 


Singer 


Hamilton 


Smith 


Haskett 


(Nipissing) 


Hodgson 


Sopha 


(Victoria-Haliburton) 


Trotter 


Hodgson 


Worton-25. 


(York North) 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



21 



Yeas 



Nays 
Jackson 
Jessiman 
Johnston 

(Parry Sound) 
Johnston 

(St. Catharines) 
Johnston 

(Carleton) 
Kennedy 
Kerr 
Lawlor 
Lawrence 

(Carleton East) 
Lawrence 

(St. George) 
Lewis 
MacDonald 
MacNaughton 
Makarchuk 
Martel 
Meen 

Morningstar 
Morrow 
McKeough 
Newman 

(Ontario South) 
Olde 
Peacock 
Pilkey 
Pitman 
Price 
Pritchard (Mrs.) 

Reilly 

Renwick 
(Riverdale) 

Renwick (Mrs.) 
(Scarborough Centre) 

Reuter 

Robarts 

Rollins 

Root 

Shulman 

Simonett 

Smith 
(Simcoe East) 

Smith 
(Hamilton Mountain) 

Snow 

Stewart 

Stokes 

Villeneuve 

Welch 

White 

Whitney 

Winkler 

Wishart 

Yakabuski 

Yaremko 

Young-75. 



Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment 
lost. 

We now come to the main motion. 

Mr. Reilly moves, seconded by Mr. Hodg- 
son (Victoria-Haliburton), that standing com- 
mittees of this House for the present session 
be appointed as follows: 

1. Agriculture and food committee. 

2. Education and university affairs com- 
mittee. 

3. Government commissions committee. 

4. Health committee. 

5. Highways and transport committee. 

6. Legal and municipal committee. 

7. Labour committee. 

8. Natural resources and tourism com- 
mittee. 

9. Private bills committee. 

10. Privileges and elections committee. 

11. Public accounts committee. 

12. Social, family and correctional services 
committee. 

13. Standing orders and printing commit- 
tee, 

which said committees shall severally be 
empowered to examine and enquire into all 
such matters and things as may 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. 

As many as are in favour of the motion 
will please say "aye," as many as are opposed 
will please say "nay." 

In my opinion the "ayes" have it. 

I declare the motion carried. 

Mr. Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded 
by Mr. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton), that 
a select committee of 15 members be 
appointed to prepare and report, with all 
convenient despatch, lists of the members to 
compose the standing committees ordered by 
the House, such committee to be composed 
as follows: Mr. Olde, chairman; Mrs. Prit- 
chard; Messrs. Carruthers, Farquhar, Gilbert- 
son, Henderson, Newman (Ontario South), 
Price, Rollins, Rowe, Smith (Nipissing), Stokes, 
Winkler, Yakabuski and Young. 

Motion agreed to. 

Mr. Speaker: Motions. 
Introduction of bills. 

Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South): Mr. 
Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. My 
point, sir, has to do with an issue of the 



22 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Globe and Mail dated today, Wednesday, 
November 20, and a picture that appears on 
the front page of the third section of the 
issue that was circulated last evening, sir. 

Mr. Lewis: The member has never been 
so popular. 

Mr. Reuter: This picture, sir, includes 
several members of the New Democratic 
Party- 

An hon. member: All friends of yours. 

Mr. Reuter: It includes myself having a 
private little friendly conversation with two 
members of the New Democratic Party, but 
my point, sir— 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That will teach the 
hon. member. 

Mr. Reuter: My point, sir, has to do with 
the caption that appears below the picture. 
I want to set the records straight, sir, that 
my name is not Jack Stokes, I do not repre- 
sent the people of Thunder Bay, nor am I 
a member of the New Democratic Party. 

Mr. Speaker, it may well be, sir, that my 
point of privilege is expressed to the House 
on behalf of the New Democratic Party as 
well as myself, because I am sure, sir, that 
they realize full well that I am a true blue 
Conservative, one of those tried and true 
fully loyal Tories. I doubt very much that 
they would want the impression that has been 
conveyed by the picture to hold true that 
such a tried and true Tory is in fact, sir, a 
member of the caucus. I simply want to set 
that record straight. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 
for the hon. Prime Minister. 

What are the dates for the federal-provincial 
conferences on the constitution and on tax 
matters? Secondly, can arrangements be made 
for me to attend these conferences as an 
observer? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there is a 
constitutional conference which, I believe, is 
on December 17, 18 and 19. There is an- 
other meeting to be held of the Ministers of 
finance, but I do not believe any date has 
been set for that. 

As far as your attendance at these meet- 
ings as an observer is concerned— frankly, I 
have had no communications from Ottawa as 
to what the procedural arrangements will be. 
I can assure you however that my attitude 
in these matters has not changed from the 
Confederation of Tomorrow conference. I 
will be proposing to the federal government 



that these conferences be open to the press, 
open to the television cameras. 

We have nothing to hide when we go to 
these conferences and I would like to see the 
meeting of the Ministers of finance opened 
to the press too, so that we are going to— 

An hon. member: Let the people see. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not have the re- 
sponsibility of conferences convened by the 
federal authorities but if it can be arranged, 
I would be delighted to have you there as 
an observer. I would be delighted to make 
the same arrangements for the leader of the 
New Democratic Party. 

We will be discussing matters of great 
moment to our people and I think that they 
deserve the fullest attention that is humanly 
possible to give them. I would like to think 
that we would involve the people of the 
country in these matters to the greatest extent 
we can and all my efforts will be directed 
to that end. 

Mr. Nixon: If I might ask a supplementary 
question, Mr. Speaker. 

The conference on fiscal matters is attended 
only by Treasurers and not by the Prime 
Ministers as well? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, that is so. 
In some provinces the leader of the govern- 
ment is also the Treasurer— I believe Mr. 
Bennett is his own finance Minister, but— 

Mr. Nixon: But in this case you do not 
expect to attend? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, I do not, really. 
Although if I think it might be the thing to 
do— I would not close the door to the fact 
that I would not go, but it is really called as 
a meeting of finance Ministers. 

I recall when we set up the tax structure 
committee, that ill-fated committee that is 
now being talked about to be reconstituted, 
I hope with some better effect than last 
time. At that time I asked, I believe, to be 
put on that committee as well as the Treas- 
urer, in order that I could attend the meet- 
ings. I do not think there would be any 
objection to the leader of the government 
going, but it is scheduled as a meeting of 
Ministers of finance. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 
for the Minister of Energy and Resources 
Management. 

Is Ontario Hydro's atomic generator plant 
at Douglas Point now commissioned? 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



23 



Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy 
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, it 
has frequently been explained to this House 
that it is misleading to refer to the nuclear 
power generation station at Douglas Point as 
an Ontario Hydro atomic generator plant. It 
is still owned for the federal government by 
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and sup- 
plies power to the Ontario Hydro system at 
an agreed rate. 

The answer to the question as to whether 
this plant is commissioned is "yes". 

Mr. Nixon: The Minister might give us the 
date of that commissioning. 

Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, the sta- 
tion was commissioned on September 26. 

Mr. Nixon: Then it would be incorrect, Mr. 
Speaker— if I may be permitted another sup- 
plementary question— to refer to that plant as 
a part of the Ontario Hydro system? 

Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, this plant 
is not a part of the Ontario Hydro system. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I may have 
misled you. I note you say that this confer- 
ence is on December 16, 17 and 18. I may 
well have said 17, 18 and 19, but it is Decem- 
ber 16, 17 and 18. 

Mr. Nixon: I have a question for the hon. 
Minister of Health. 

When did the Minister receive the report 
of the investigation into air pollution at Dunn- 
ville and when will that report be tabled in 
the Legislature? 

Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health): 
Mr. Speaker, I have not officially received the 
report yet. When it went to the printers 
about three weeks ago I was given a draft 
copy— that is the typewritten copy, not com- 
pletely corrected. I expect that it will be 
tabled in the House either the last week of 
this month or the first week of December. 
That is the date I am advised the printers will 
have it finished. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a question for the 
hon. Minister of Labour. 

Will the hon. Minister of Labour report 
to the House on the state of the strike 
between the Peterborough Examiner news- 
paper and the Toronto Newspaper Guild, sir, 
and advise the Legislature when he will bring 
the parties together to resume negotiations? 

Secondly, is it a fact that the guild's request 
for a union security clause, which is now 
standard in most collective agreements of this 



character, is proving an obstacle to negotia- 
tions? 

Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr. 
Speaker, in reply to the question from the 
hon. leader of the Opposition, it is the prac- 
tice of the conciliation branch to review the 
strike situations throughout the province al- 
most on a daily basis, in order that we may 
determine what assistance can be given to the 
parties to help them resolve their disputes. 
This has been done in reference to the Peter- 
borough situation. I cannot say at this time 
when the parties will be brought directly 
together again to resume negotiations. 

In reference to the second part, there are 
a number of issues outstanding in reference to 
this matter between the parties. It would 
really be inappropriate for me to attempt to 
judge publicly the relative importance of 
those particular issues because they concern 
the parties themselves. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the 
Minister would be prepared to say whether or 
not this union security clause is one of the 
matters at variance? 

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I think it is 
fair to say that it is one of a number of 
issues. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before ask- 
ing my question, may I express my apprecia- 
tion to the Prime Minister for indicating that 
an observer status can be granted to Opposi- 
tion leaders and that it will be accorded to 
me also. He answered the question before 
I had an opportunity to ask it, for once. 

My first question is to the Attorney Gen- 
eral. Can the Attorney General advise the 
House whether the Ontario Law Reform 
Commission report with regard to landlords 
and tenants will be made available during 
this session and, if so, can the Attorney Gen- 
eral give the House an approximate date on 
which such a report might be expected? 

Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): 
Mr. Speaker, I expect the report in the im- 
mediate future— by that I mean very shortly. 

I know that the research and study lead- 
ing to the preparation of that report has been 
done. I might perhaps let the hon. member 
for York South know that I asked the law 
reform commission some months ago to 
devote special attention to the field of land- 
lord and tenant law as part of their overall 
study on the real property— which is the 
study they are doing— and the chairman 
agreed to that. That work has proceeded 
with despatch. 



24 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



I may say this— I know that the report is 
now in the course of preparation and I would 
feel it can be prepared in a matter of days, 
I would think. To say that we might get it 
this month, I am not sure, but very shortly. 

Mr. MacDonald: My second question, Mr. 
Speaker, is to the Minister of Lands and 
Forests. 

Has the government instituted expropria- 
tion procedures to increase park facilities 
along the Lake Erie lakefront? 

Secondly will the government take steps to 
open the Michael road in Humberstone town- 
ship, especially at this time when the Pro- 
vincial Gas Company is laying a line along it? 

Third, what steps has the government 
taken to avoid repeated violations of public 
rights by fencing being run out into the 
water by adjoining property owners? 

Fourth, is the government giving any con- 
sideration to the development of the east Erie 
lakefront into a continuous green belt joining 
the Niagara River and Welland Canal? 

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and 
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. 
member for York South: 

Question number 1— the answer is "yes". 

Number 2— opening of road allowances is 
under the jurisdiction of the municipalities. 

Number 3— the government is not aware of 
any violations of public rights by fencing. If 
unauthorized occupation of Crown land is 
discovered, remedial action is taken. 

Number 4— although mention has been 
made of such a development, no detailed pro- 
posals are under consideration at this time. 
The greatest need would seem to be acquisi- 
tion and development of land for parks pur- 
poses in that area. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard 
to point three, may I ask the Minister a 
supplementary question? Since it is widely 
alleged that this goes on all the time, is it 
not a legitimate proposition for the law en- 
forcement agencies to check it continuously 
— the running of fences out into the water? 

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would say, Mr. 
Speaker, that this matter is under active 
consideration and we should have some 
answers on this matter at a later date. 

Mr. MacDonald: My following question, 
Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Agriculture 
and Food. 

1. Are only two of the nine members of 
the cream producers marketing board actu- 
ally cream producers at this time? 



2. Do the regulations permit of such mas- 
sive representation by non-producers? 

3. If not, what does the Minister propose 
to do about it? 

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul- 
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, in reply to this 
question, I am not aware as to the number 
of cream producers on the cream producers 
marketing board. The hon. member says there 
are only two of them who are actual pro- 
ducers—this may be the case—three, the hon. 
member says, as of elections yesterday. I am 
not worried about this. 

I do know that the regulations that estab- 
lished the cream producers marketing board 
some years ago intended that the members 
should be actual cream producers. 

There are something like 13,000 cream pro- 
ducers in the province of Ontario. As a matter 
of fact, one of these men, quite by chance 
yesterday, happened to be seated next to me 
at the cream producers' lunch at their annual 
meeting. He mentioned to me that he was 
no longer a cream producer and he suggested 
to his board— that is to the producers in his 
zone— .that he should be relieved of his 
responsibilities, but, he said, "they simply 
said to me, V ou have the time now to attend 
these meetings'." 

I would like to point out through you, Mr. 
Speaker, to the hon. members of the House, 
that these 13,000 cream producers in this 
province generally speaking run one-man 
farms. They do not have a lot of help around 
them. They are not specialized farms. Cream 
production really is sort of a side issue to 
the main objective of the farm. 

It is very difficult for these men to get 
away to meetings either in their own county, 
their own zone, or in the provincial organiza- 
tion. So they have, of their own volition, sug- 
gested that those men, who have contributed 
so much throughout the years in the direction 
of the programme, might continue in their 
office as provincial directors on the marketing 
board. 

I am sure the leader of the New Demo- 
cratic Party would not want The Department 
of Agriculture and Food to step in and sug- 
gest to these men that they were no longer 
competent. They are competent, because they 
have had, in many instances, a lifetime of 
experience, not only in the production of 
farm separated cream, but in the development 
cf a programme which, through its own pro- 
motion, has created the fact that butter is 
perhaps in the least surplus position of any 
of the dairy products in Canada today. 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



25 



They have done a magnificent job of 
promotion of their product. I would say that 
the cream producers of this province have 
not only promoted the use of butter on a 
very large scale, but they have held of! the 
market sizeable quantities of skim milk which 
could have gone into dry powder and further 
aggravated the enormous surplus of this 
which we have in Canada today. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, by way of 
a supplementary question. Do the regula- 
tions permit of a non-producer sitting as a 
director? 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The regulations, as I 
understand them, do not specifically say that 
it must be a producer. They imply that it 
should. 

Mr. Speaker: In view of the impending 
departure of the Prime Minister on an 
appointment, I would ask that those members 
who have questions of the Prime Minister, 
beginning with the hon. member for Sarnia, 
be given the floor. May I have the agree- 
ment of the other members for that? Thank 
you. The hon. member for Sarnia. 

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Mr. Speaker, 
my question directed to the hon. Premier: 
Will the Premier advise if he will permit a 
delegation from the council of the city of 
Sarnia to discuss with him the proposed 
designation of the Sarnia area by the Ontario 
Water Resources Commission? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the hon. 
member wrote me about this on October 30. 
It so happens, I have a reply ready for him 
today, which I will send across the floor 
to him. As it is a local matter, it is all 
explained in the letter and I will not take 
up the time of the House. 

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for 
Grey-Bruce wish to ask any questions? 

Mr. Sargent: A question for the Prime 
Minister, Mr. Speaker: ( 1 ) Would the Prime 
Minister assure me and the people of Grey- 
Bruce that the Ontario Hospital Services 
Commission, will not close any hospitals in 
our area; and (2) Will the Prime Minister 
assure me that in the future the OHSC will 
let the people decide before any hospital 
changes are made in their areas? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would say the answer 
to both questions is "no". I cannot give the 
member any assurance of what the Ontario 
Hospital Services Commission might do in 
the exercise of the powers and discretions 



given to it in the legislation which estab- 
lished it. 

Certainly, as far as the second question is 
concerned, ". . . let the people decide before 
any hospital changes are made in their 
area?", the whole concept of what the 
member is getting at there, I assume, is 
before any change is made in any hospital, 
any place in this province, you would have 
to have a vote of the people concerned. 

Of course, that idea is completely ridicul- 
ous. I would have to say in answer to both 
the questions that I cannot give any assur- 
ance that the Ontario Hospital Services 
Commission will not order the closing of 
hospitals they may not consider adequate to 
provide health care. I just could not give 
such an assurance. 

Mr. Sargent: In that regard, Mr. Speaker, 
either the member for Grey South, or the 
Prime Minister, will have to eat their words 
then. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! If the hon. member 
has any further questions- 
Mr. Sargent: A supplementary question 
dien, Mr. Speaker, of the Prime Minister: 
Will the Prime Minister agree that these 
people pay the same rates for hospitalization 
as other people; that they have to drive 20 
or 30 miles to a hospital in the winter time; 
and that the OHSC is a commission not 
responsible to the people? The Prime Min- 
ister will have to eat those words some time. 

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member wish 
to ask any more of the questions he has 
filed? 

Mr. Sargent: A question of the Prime Min- 
ister: Will the government agree to an im- 
mediate outside audit to determine the exact 
financial position of the affairs of the Ontario 
government because of the financial night- 
mare facing the province? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, we do not 
face a financial nightmare. I have no inten- 
tion of introducing any outside auditors. 
There will be an interim financial statement 
furnished in the normal course of events, 
so the answer is "no". 

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker I wonder if 
the hon. Prime Minister would permit me a 
supplementary now since I have received his 
epistle. 

Mr. Speaker: Not until after the hon. mem- 
ber has completed his series of questions to 
the Prime Minister. 



26 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry, I thought my 
colleague was finished. 

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Mu- 
nicipal Affairs): The hon. member was wish- 
ful. 

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary to this, in the 
Throne Speech it said "full disclosure". We 
are asking for a full disclosure in an outside 
audit. Will the Prime Minister go along and 
back up the Throne Speech in this regard 
then? 

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member any 
further questions? 

Mr. Sargent: Yes, I have, but he should 
answer the supplementary question. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will realize 
that supplementary questions are answered 
only at discretion. 

Mr. Sargent: He has no heart. 

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member 
would go on to his next question. 

Mr. Sargent: Another question along the 
same line: Will the government then call an 
immediate probe into the ten per cent in- 
crease of the Ontario Hydro this year? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, I will not. 

Mr. Sargent: That is all. I have some fur- 
ther questions but— 

Mr. Speaker: Only to the Prime Minister. 
The hon. member for Sarnia. 

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I 
am wondering if I would be in a position to 
advise the people of Sarnia that their council 
will be permitted a delegation before the 
Prime Minister before there is a designation 
of the area by the Ontario Water Resources 
Commission? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there are a 
whole series of meetings going on at the pres- 
ent time and when these are completed and 
we see what the situation is, then we can 
decide whether there would be any point in 
receiving a delegation from the city. Not that 
I do not want to— if it would do any good I 
will— but at the moment there have been no 
decisions made, so it would be simply a mat- 
ter of presenting a point of view, which I 
believe I already have. 

Mr. Bullbrook: If I might, would the Prime 
Minister entertain one supplementary ques- 
tion? Does he recall that in my letter of 



October 30 to him, I gave him my consid- 
ered opinion that, in my judgment, the dele- 
gation had some points of substance to bring 
to the attention of the Prime Minister and 
his Cabinet colleagues? 

Now, can I not have an assurance from the 
government that before there is a designation 
—this is of vital importance to the people in 
my area— that they will at least have the 
opportunity of meeting with the Prime Min- 
ister? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes, certainly. 

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. Thank you very 
much, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Speaker: Except for the hon. member 
for High Park, is there any other member I 
have missed who has a question of the Prime 
Minister? 

The hon. member for High Park has the 
floor for that, and for two other questions, so 
that he may leave the House also. 

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Thank you, 
Mr. Speaker. To the Prime Minister: Does 
the government intend to reimburse Mrs. 
Janet Gurman for her financial losses caused 
by the government's closing of her nursing 
home? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: No. 

Mr. Shulman: May I ask a supplementary? 
Is the government giving any consideration to 
any help in re-establishing Mrs. Gurman? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. Shulman: I have two questions for the 
Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Will the 
Attorney General intervene in the case of 
Larry Botrie, whose family was refused com- 
pensation as a result of his death which 
occurred while he was attempting to aid the 
police? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, no, there 
is no intention to intervene in the matter. The 
application was heard by the law compensa- 
tion board and the unanimous judgment was 
delivered that compensation was not allow- 
able. 

Mr. Shulman: Will the Attorney General 
allow a supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes. 

Mr. Shulman: Does the Attorney General 
feel that the judgment which was handed 
down was in fine with the remarks and the 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



27 



intentions he expressed here in his estimates 
last year? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome 
the supplementary question. I think perhaps 
I might be permitted to say that when this 
legislation establishing the compensation board 
was introduced last year, I believe, I did indi- 
cate that, in our consideration of it, we con- 
sidered it perhaps as a preliminary step in this 
whole matter of compensation to victims of 
crime or those assisting in the enforcement of 
law. 

I am aware, of course, of the comments of 
the Hon. Mr. McRuer in his report on civil 
rights. I did say, too, I believe, and I think 
my remarks are in Hansard, either in my 
estimates or at the time the board was set 
up, to the effect that I felt the language of 
the Act as it stood was wide enough to per- 
mit a discretion in certain cases where a 
policeman was not actually present, but this 
particular case I think went beyond that. 
There was no assistance to the policeman; it 
was an attempt to get to a phone to call 
police. So that if you opened it to that 
extent, you would be really compensating a 
victim of crime where many cases of that 
kind would arise. 

I think I am at liberty to say that the 
whole matter of compensation to victims of 
crime is still being reviewed as a matter of 
policy of government. 

Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 
Now, I have a second question, sir: Does the 
government intend to reimburse Magistrate 
Gardhouse for legal expenses incurred in the 
hearing into his conduct? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the an- 
swer is "no." Application was made by coun- 
sel for Magistrate Gardhouse after the hearing 
was concluded and the application was 
refused. 

Mr. Shulman: Will the Attorney General 
accept a supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes. 

Mr. Shulman: Why? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would say this was a 
matter of involving the administration of 
justice in which with respect to one of those 
persons who came before the inquiry— his 
conduct was called in question— 

I did not want to have to say this in the 
House because I well realize that Magistrate 
Gardhouse was found not guilty of anything 
wrongful in his conduct. The commissioner, 



nonetheless, did say his conduct was indis- 
creet. Notwithstanding that, he was immedi- 
ately re-instated by the Attorney General to 
his position. But in the circumstances, it 
was not felt that he should be entitled to 
have his legal costs paid. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- 
borough East has the floor. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have ques- 
tions of the Minister of Education. Does 
The Department of Education have a stan- 
dard purchasing policy for equipment that 
is used in secondary schools which have 
technical programmes? Is there a policy for 
tendering for all such equipment? Do schools 
require a course of study outlined before 
such equipment is purchased? 

Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education): 
Mr. Speaker, the policies with respect to 
purchasing and tendering are the responsi- 
bility, of course, of the local boards. The 
way we do this is that the department pays 
a grant on the receipted invoices from the 
boards for technical equipment. This has 
been basically under the federal-provincial 
agreement until, I guess, about a year ago 
last October. The manual of school business 
procedures sets out the maximum approval 
which the department will give for equip- 
ment in any given shop. 

For example, for an electrical shop the 
maximum is $40,000. The department pays 
a grant of 75 per cent of the boards' expen- 
ditures up to that particular limit and if the 
boards purchase more for any particular 
shop, in excess of this limit, they pay for 
the total amount themselves. 

An equipment list is submitted to the 
department for this approval and the list is 
examined for reasonable consistency with the 
course of study that it is to relate to, making 
some allowance for special local needs in 
some parts of the province. The suggested 
course of study for technical schools is avail- 
able to the boards and is used as a reference 
in purchasing equipment. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if I could ask a 
supplementary question, or just ask the Minis- 
ter if he would respond to my question— is 
there a policy for tendering for all such equip- 
ment? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: The tendering is done by 
the local boards. We do not tender for the 
equipment. The local boards tender for the 
equipment the same way they do for their 
other procedures. 



28 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, then I am correct 
—again in the form of a question. Does the 
department not require proper tendering pro- 
cedures before a specific board can get a 
grant from The Department of Education? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, we re- 
quire the board to carry on their responsibili- 
ties in the way they would for any purchase 
of any equipment or school supplies, or for 
construction of the facility. It is done in 
most instances, of course, by way of tender 
and this policy would apply throughout. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have another 
question for the Minister of Education. Is it 
the Minister's intention to propose (a) an 
amendment to The Labour Relations Act so 
that teachers are no longer excluded from the 
right to bargain collectively and, (b) to intro- 
duce new legislation outlining special bargain- 
ing procedures for teachers and trustees, in- 
cluding clauses which would first, compel 
both parties to call on a provincial govern- 
ment mediator if negotiations break down; 
secondly, have the dispute settled by compul- 
sory arbitration if the mediator fails to settle 
the dispute; and third, forbid both strikes and 
lockouts in this specific category? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am just 
going by memory here. I do not believe we 
have had any specific representations on these 
two questions and the Minister is not consider- 
ing introduction of amendments related to 
these two questions. 

Mr. Speaker: The member still has the floor. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, a third question 
for the Minister of Education. How many 
school trustee candidates have been nomi- 
nated for the new school boards created by 
Bill 44, and how many of these candidates 
attended the series of conferences planned for 
them during September, October and the first 
two weeks of November by The Department 
of Education to outline to them the role of 
the new boards? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not in 
a position to tell the hon. member how many 
candidates have been nominated because the 
election is to be held on December 2. We 
have no way of knowing this at this stage. I 
believe that the majority of nominations were 
held perhaps on Monday of this week. 

I can only say from personal experience in 
attending one or two of the conferences that 
were held. They were not sponsored really by 
The Department of Education — they were 
sponsored by the Ontario trustees council with 



the co-operation of The Department of Edu- 
cation and the OTF. 

Really, they were initiated to a substantial 
degree by the Ontario trustees council and 
in attending those gatherings I gained the 
impression that a number of the trustees who 
were involved in the conference, and this 
goes back some two to three months, were 
interested in becoming candidates. Now, 
whether in fact they did, I do not know. 

To give the hon. member some indication, 
I think the total number to date of those 
who attended these conferences is in the 
neighbourhood of around 950 and the major- 
ity of these would be trustees. But to try and 
relate how many of the 950 actually are can- 
didates for the forthcoming election, I do not 
know. But I hope, Mr. Speaker, the House 
will permit me to refer to these elections. 

The member has given me an opportunity 
to make a general observation that we are 
encouraged to date by the numbers of people 
who are seeking election and, more import- 
antly, from what little information we have, 
the interest of these people in running, and 
I want to make this further point: I am very 
anxious that the people of this province re- 
spond on December 2 and vote for these 
candidates because I think it is in their own 
interests to see that there is a great deal of 
interest and involvement in these elections 
that will take place on December 2. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a supple- 
mentary question arising out of what the Min- 
ister has said. Am I correct in understanding, 
Mr. Speaker, that only persons who were 
already school trustees could get into these 
conferences, or were they open to someone 
who was thinking of the possibility of becom- 
ing a candidate but who was not, at that 
time, a school trustee? Were these open to 
these people or was it open only to people 
who were already school trustees? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I say, we 
did not organize these particular seminars. 
The invitations as I recall, and I am only 
going by memory, were initiated or developed 
by the trustees council and I would just 
assume that the bulk of these invitations 
would go to people who were members of the 
ISOC committees, and who were active 
trustees. I just do not know how you would 
invite them to a conference whether they have 
made up their minds to run or not. I think it 
would be impossible to do. 

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury has 
the floor. 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



29 



Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 
for the Attorney General. Would the Attorney 
General advise the House when he might be 
expected to fill the office of Crown attorney 
for the district of Sudbury, which office has 
been vacant since July 14? When such ap- 
pointment is made will the Crown attorney 
for the district of Sudbury have the additional 
responsibilities of acting as Crown attorney 
for the districts of Parry Sound, Temaskaming 
and Manitoulin? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I thought 
the hon. member might have been aware that 
Mr. Spencer Stewart was appointed Crown 
attorney for Sudbury, I think about a week 
ago. He is— 

Mr. Sopha: Nobody in Sudbury knows. 
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well- 
Mr. Sopha: He said this morning that he 
does not know it. How do you like that? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am sure he knows and 
he, of course, has been acting there and is 
the appointed Crown attorney for Sudbury. 
With respect to the other part of the ques- 
tion, for the time being at least, we would 
expect the Crown attorney and the assistant 
Crown attorney in Sudbury to serve particu- 
larly Manitoulin, at least, for the time being 
and Parry Sound and some of the Temiska- 
ming area. 

Mr. Sopha: He is going to be a busy fellow. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: He is not going to do it 
all alone as the hon. member knows. He will 
have sufficient assistance to see that the work 
is done and I think that I should point out 
to the House that the volume of criminal 
work on Manitoulin, for instance, is extremely 
small. Likewise, in Parry Sound— there is one 
day a week perhaps for the time being. But, 
these matters are being looked at and re- 
viewed and the House may rest assured the 
Crown attorney will have sufficient assistance 
to see that the work is done properly. 

Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a sup- 
plementary question? May I invite the Attor- 
ney General to inform the Sudbury Star, a 
loyal supporter of this government, forthwith 
that the Crown attorney has been appointed? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, just on 
that point, I may say that the hon. member 
for Nickel Belt at least received the informa- 
tion and I know that the Sudbury Star has 
been informed. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter- 
borough. 



Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr. 
Speaker, in view of the long discussions we 
have had here about committees and the 
mythology of the Prime Minister in regard 
to what motivates them, I think, possibly, this 
question should be addressed to the member 
for Carleton East (Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence). 

However, I shall have to address it to the 
Minister of Education. Will the Minister refer 
to the Hall-Dennis report, or at least encour- 
age the chairman and members of the educa- 
tion committee, to refer to the Hall-Dennis 
report early in the session and encourage the 
committee to hear witnesses forthwith? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. 
member will recall in the Throne Speech, it 
was suggested that there should be, and will 
be, consideration of the Hall-Dennis report. 
I personally would have no objection whatso- 
ever to the committee considering the report. 
I am not sure, however, of the phraseology, 
"the calling of witnesses". I am sure there 
are many people who would like to appear 
and give their views and so on, but I do 
not know that one would wish to refer to 
them as witnesses per se. I think they are 
people wishing to make a contribution and 
this, perhaps, could be a very excellent way 
of coming to grips with some of the sugges- 
tions in the Hall-Dennis report. I have no 
objections whatsoever. 

I should point out to the member for 
Scarborough East while I am on my feet— 
and it is related to this, Mr. Speaker— when 
he was concerned about my lack of appear- 
ance at the education committee during the 
discussion of Bill 44. This was mentioned to 
one or two of his colleagues and one or two 
other members opposite, and the feeling was 
that the Minister, during these presentations, 
should perhaps absent himself so that they 
would not feel at all inhibited, as some of 
them did. 

Mr. Bullbrook: The Minister never feels 
inhibited. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, well I did, Mr. 
Speaker, I recall very well attending all those 
when the final legislation was finished and 
I was even here the last two or three weeks 
of the session when I was going to discuss 
some other matters with the member for 
Scarborough East, but I could not find him. 

I think, Mr. Speaker, that answers the 
question. 

Mr. Pitman: I think, Mr. Speaker, it more 
than answers the question. I wonder if I 
could ask the Minister whether he would be 
good enough to send a copy of his remarks 



30 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



to the member for Carleton East so that we 
might get this education committee started, 
and so that we might thereby get this report 
before the Legislature. 

A second question to the Minister, Mr. 
Speaker. Can the Minister indicate whether 
the Keiller Mackay commission on religious 
teaching in public schools will be brought 
before the House during this session? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would 
answer, hopefully, "y es "- 

Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a 
supplementary question: Perhaps the Minister 
will not remember, but this was the first ques- 
tion that I asked him the first day of the last 
session, and I am wondering whether he can 
explain the reason why there is such a long 
delay on this matter of such great importance? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the 
answer to the question is rather obvious. The 
hon. member has answered it himself; it is a 
matter of great importance and it has taken 
the committee a great deal of time to listen 
to all those who wish to make representations. 
I would think, not being a member of the 
committee, that it will be one of the most 
difficult reports that any group of individuals 
have been asked to write and I do know they 
have been working very diligently. 

As I related to the House at the last 
session, they did run into delay because of 
the passing away of two members of the 
committee which was most unfortunate, and 
all that I can say on this occasion is that, 
hopefully, it will be here for consideration 
in this session. 

Mr. Pitman: As a supplementary question, 
will the Minister have this report passed on 
once again to the education committee? I 
see the member for Carleton East is now in 
his seat. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think 
what we do with the report really should 
wait until we get the report. Then we can 
have some discussion as to how we might 
treat it. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia. 

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
question for the hon. Attorney General. Will 
the Attorney General advise what discip- 
linary action or corrective measures have 
been taken by the Ontario Provincial Police 
relevant to the officer or officers who had 
issued a directive establishing a quota sys- 
tem of summonses, or the laying of a certain 
number of charges? 



Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, if you 
will pardon me for a moment, I had this 
question before me and I have been occu- 
pied with something else. I had considered 
it of considerable importance and I have 
prepared an answer to this question. 

I would say that the officer who issued the 
particular document has been interviewed by 
the commissioner, interviewed immediately, 
and I am sure that matter has been made 
clear to him. But, Mr. Speaker I must dis- 
agree with the principles stated by the hon. 
member for Sarnia which he attributes to 
the nature of that directive. The document 
in its complete context is based upon the 
Ontario Provincial Police programme of 
selective traffic enforcement, which is not, 
and never has been, anything like a so-called 
quota system. 

It is a programme based upon accident 
statistics designed to guide policemen in 
traffic law enforcement so that appropriate 
attention can be given to the enforcement 
of the traffic laws that appear to be closely 
involved with traffic fatalities suffered on 
our highways. 

In the particular case that generated this 
question, Mr. Speaker, little publicity has 
been given to the fact that the Ontario Pro- 
vincial Police were directing their minds to 
the local and difficult situation in the inter- 
ests of the travelling public, and that in the 
area concerned in 1968, from the date of 
the directive, 11 people have been killed in 
accidents. Eleven lives in those violent 
traffic accidents— that was against the statis- 
tic of six people in the same period last 
year, an increase of almost 100 per cent. 

In the light of those facts, Mr. Speaker, 
the police were not pursuing a quota system 
and all that that suggests, but stressing to 
the police officers that these were selective 
methods of law enforcement to stop the 
slaughter on the highways. I think they 
would be grossly remiss, I may say, if they 
did not stress the need for that type of law 
enforcement. 

Mr. Bullbrook: I am wondering, Mr. 
Speaker, if the hon. Attorney General would 
entertain a supplementary question in this 
connection? Is the Attorney General aware 
of a statement purportedly made by the OPP 
assistant commissioner Jack Whitty, and re- 
ported in the Toronto Star of November 12, 
1968, as follows: 

Whitty said one detachment officer, 
whom he refused to name, issued a direc- 
tive that more charges were required 
from his staff. 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



31 



Now, sir, my first supplementary: Is the 
Minister familiar with this? Second, does his 
department agree in principle with directives 
of that nature? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am not familiar with 
it, Mr. Speaker. I may have seen the article 
but I do not recall it. As I take it— as it 
was read by the hon. member— he said that 
one detachment superintendent or officer had 
required more charges? 

I think this still goes along with what I 
pointed out, that the effort of the Ontario 
Provincial Police was directed to the par- 
ticular area of traffic law enforcement where 
they were concerned, as in this case, with the 
great increase in fatalities. It is not a case 
of just going out and laying any kind of a 
charge, but of seeing to the enforcement of 
the law where it relates to traffic fatalities on 
the highway. 

Mr. Bullbrook: Is the Attorney General 
assuring this House that the Ontario Provin- 
cial Police, either in its hierarchy or its 
officers, at no time directs the officers of that 
department to issue more charges just for 
the sake of charges? That is the assurance 
I am interested in. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think I could give 
that assurance— that is as I understand it 
from the commissioner of the Ontario Pro- 
vincial Police. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has other 
questions? 

Mr. Bullbrook: I do not have any further 
questions. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud- 
bury East. 

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): I have 
a question for the Minister of Education. 
Does the Minister intend to amend The 
School Administration Act to include a pro- 
vision for a transfer review board in each 
jurisdiction? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there has 
been no decision on this matter as yet. The 
matter is still being discussed and will be 
again within the next four or five minutes. 
Some members of the OTF have been wait- 
ing since four o'clock to see the Minister; 
they are now in the gallery and I am sure 
on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, we would like 
to welcome them here. This is just how 
recent the discussions are. 

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



Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a few questions, the first to 
the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Does 
the hon. Minister have, under review, the 
policy whereby severances of land in rural 
areas from a parent to a member of the 
immediate family are to be changed? Will 
such allowances be continued if the party 
in question is to work on the farm; and 
further will this policy be changed if the 
party is working in another endeavour and 
only wishes to reside on the lot so severed? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, ad- 
ministrative policies are always under review 
and, because of the importance of equity in 
dealing with citizens who want to build 
homes for their families, the policies relating 
to the subdivision of land and the granting of 
consents is kept under particularly careful 
review. The main concerns are to ensure a 
good living environment, to avoid unduly 
high cost of services and to prevent urban 
sprawl from disfiguring the countryside, in- 
terfering with the agricultural economy and 
reducing the efficiency and safety of our 
roads. 

In carrying out these policies, leniency has 
been shown where a single new lot is being 
created to accommodate a farmer who is 
retiring and whose son is taking over the 
operation of the farm. The same applies 
where a farmer's son who is helping to run 
the family farm decides to many and set up 
his own home on the farm. There is no 
present intention of departing from this prac- 
tice in bona fide cases. 

I think question two is answered in that. 
Question three: As indicated, the current 
policy is to encourage residential development 
to locate in an area best suited to it and to 
avoid urban sprawl. 

A family relationship in itself will be un- 
likely to justify departure from this policy. 
However, if the hon. member has any specific 
problems in this connection, I would be glad 
to have a look at them. 

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and 
Food. Does the hon. Minister intend to intro- 
duce, in this session, an amendment to The 
Farm Products Marketing Act that will make 
permissive, regulations concerning acreage 
control, and provisions similar to those now 
pertaining to tobacco allowable on other agri- 
cultural products? 

Second, is the hon. Minister negotiating 
with the province of Quebec and the federal 



32 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



government to minimize the imports of agri- 
cultural products that may flow into our prov- 
ince if our producers place voluntary limita- 
tions on the volume of their productions? 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, first of all 
I would advise the hon. member that he 
would have to wait and see in reply to ques- 
tion (a). With regard to matter (b) it is a 
purely hypothetical situation. I would say 
this, that it is a matter of constant concern 
to our department and to myself personally. 
I have had many discussions with the Minis- 
ter of Agriculture in the province of Quebec 
as well as with the federal government's De- 
partment of Agriculture, at ministerial level, 
concerning the problem of agricultural com- 
modities flowing into the province of Ontario 
where there are now types of mandatory con- 
trol on production of those commodities. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron- 
Bruce; does he need copies or has he his 
copy? 

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): No, Mr. 
Speaker, I think I have the wording fairly- 
pretty close here. I have two questions, both 
directed to the Minister of Agriculture and 
Food. 

Why is the cost of commercial fertilizer so 
high in Ontario in comparison to the United 
States prices, as reported by the Federation 
of Agriculture? 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Speaker, we 
have not had time to look into this matter 
entirely. It is within the terms of reference 
of the farm . income committee which, I 
assume, has already given that matter con- 
sideration. It is certainly within the terms of 
reference of the present farm income commit- 
tee which has been designated to investigate 
all aspects of the corn industry. 

I would assume it to be likely that farmers 
will avail themselves of the suggestion made 
by the federal Minister of Agriculture when 
he suggested to certain people that they 
should take advantage of the opportunities to 
purchase their fertilizer in the United States 
cheaper than they can in Canada according 
to their figures. There is no import restric- 
tion and there is no duty involved. 

Mr. Gaunt: The other question, Mr. 
Speaker: Has the Minister referred the speci- 
fic problem of the high cost of importing 
British and European made tractors into Can- 
ada, which was brought to the attention of 
the public at the annual meeting of the On- 
tario Federation of Agriculture, to the farm 
machinery committee? 



Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the 
Ontario farm machinery committee has a 
great deal of information concerning this 
price differential and I would say that, as well 
as other matters pertaining to this item that 
have been brought to our attention, some 
Ontario farmers, I understand, have already 
availed themselves of the opportunity of 
bringing in tractors from the United Kingdom 
by passing the normal channels. 

I understand the Ontario Federation of 
Agriculture has compiled a document outlin- 
ing how this can be accomplished. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port 
Arthur has the floor. 

Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 
for the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Is 
the Minister prepared to review his decision 
that a plebiscite should not be held at the 
Lakehead to consider the Hardy report be- 
cause of recent developments concerning the 
future of Fort William city and Neebing 
township? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The answer, Mr. 
Speaker, is "no". 

Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, if I might be per- 
mitted a supplementary question. Does this 
mean that the door is completely closed on 
the chance for the people in the Lakehead 
cities, who would be affected by amalgama- 
tion as proposed by the Hardy report, to vote 
on this matter? Is the door closed? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have answered the 
question. 

Mr. Knight: I did not hear the Minister. 

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is not accepting 
a supplementary question on the basis that 
he has already answered the question. 

Mr. Knight: He has already answered it. 
The door is closed. Thank you very much. 
I have a question now, Mr. Speaker, for 
the hon. Minister of Health. It is in three 

parts. 

Part one: Is there a shortage of qualified 
personnel who are graduates of Bachelor 
of Science in nursing in the province? Would 
the Minister like all three questions, Mr. 
Speaker? 

Part two: What is the salary cut proposed 
for 1969 for new nursing teachers who have 
completed the Bachelor of. Science in nurs- 
ing programmes? 

Part three: Is the Minister prepared to 
institute an attractive bonus system to encour- 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



33 



age more university graduates to enter nurs- 
ing service as recommended by the Registered 
Xurses Association of Ontario? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I am 
somewhat at a loss to understand the first 
part of the hon. member's question. Any 
holder of the Bachelor of Science degree in 
nursing is, I presume, automatically qualified 
or she would not have that degree. 

However, I think I know what the hon. 
member is getting at. There is a shortage 
of these people; 5.4 per cent of the almost 
38,000 nurses actively engaged in nursing 
hold a Bachelor of Science degree in nursing. 
This amounts to just a little over 2,000 and 
we could use a great many more of them. 

OHSC till the present time has— in reply 
to part two of the question— approved a 
salary differential or educational increment 
of $80 per month in recognition of the 
B.Sc.N. degree, and this is being provided for 
teachers in nursing. Nurses in nursing ser- 
vices in hospital with a similar degree, how- 
ever, received an educational increment of 
only $50 per month and recently these two 
groups were equated and an educational 
increment of $55 per month granted to both: 
that is reducing those who were engaged in 
teaching in nursing by $25 per month. OHSC 
this year proposed an increase in the educa- 
tional bonus of $5 per month for the nurse in 
hospital service who holds the bachelor de- 
gree, thus equating the increment to those in 
teaching positions in nursing. Both nurses 
hold the same academic qualifications and it 
has been believed, for some time, that they 
should both be paid the same salary incre- 
ment in respect of this. 

To number three: Two years ago, The 
Department of Health instituted a very 
attractive bursary system to encourage more 
nurses to take advanced training in all 
branches of nursing, but with particular 
emphasis on clinical nursing. We believe the 
educational bonus as just outlined is a reason- 
ably attractive system, joined to the bursary 
system that is provided for in preparation 
for higher responsibility. 

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview. 

Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a 
question for the Attorney General. What 
action does the Attorney General intend to 
take with respect to Chief James Mackey, 
the chief of the Metropolitan Toronto Police, 
and his admission on November 14, that his 
officers have seized privately owned wire 
tapping equipment during the previous two 
weeks— and the question should have gone 



on to say, that he admitted he had no 
authority to so act. 

Hon, Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
propose to take any action. The situation is 
that the material seized was, I think, four or 
five instances over a recent period of time 
where the Bell Telephone employees reported 
to the chief, or police authorities, that they 
had found electronic devices attached to 
their telephone lines. 

They turned the material over to the 
police and reported the matter to them. 
There is no evidence and no way of finding 
out, at the moment at least, who this belonged 
to and, of course, nobody is coming forward 
to claim it. So it is just a matter of these 
things being reported— equipment which has 
been delivered to the police. I think there 
is nothing indicated that we should do at 
the moment. 

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary 
question. Is the Attorney General not shocked 
when the chief of police of the largest city in 
this province says "we have no authority to 
act as we did?" I would be shocked if I was 
thi' Attorney General. 

Mr. MacDonald: He has no authority— 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not know as I 
agree. I mean, I did not read what the chief 
of police said. There is a Telephone Act- 
Mr. Singer: I am talking about the chief of 
police. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am reciting the facts 
of the matter. 

This was equipment found attached to 
telephone lines— found by telephone employ- 
ees. It was turned over to the police. We 
do not know whose it is. Nobody is going 
to come forward to claim it. We can con- 
tinue to investigate. It is against T,he Tele- 
phone Act, but what is to be done? 

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared 
to leave it, but what the Attorney General 
says is not in accordance with what the 
chief is quoted as having said: "We picked 
up five bugs in the last two weeks." 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, if I must 
pursue this. 

In the last session, in public, in representa- 
tions made to Ottawa we have requested, we 
have suggested, we have urged that there be 
a law against electronic eavesdropping, and 
that some provision be made for the police to 
do it under strict control. Now, if that law 
were passed— and I understand the Minister 



34 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



of Justice has made a statement he will pro- 
duce such legislation, which I had also sug- 
gested should be national or federal, one law 
across the country. When we have that, then 
the chief of police will have the law he is 
perhaps looking for. But in the circumstances 
I recited, I do not know there is anything to 
be done. 

Mr. Singer: One can only conclude the 
Attorney General is not concerned about 
chiefs of police breaking the law. 

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for 
the Minister of Municipal Affairs. 

Would the Minister state the position of his 
department in the manner— this question is 
worded— of the vacancy, the anticipated vac- 
ancy in aldermanic representation of ward 3 
in the city of Toronto? 

And the second part of the same question: 
Has the Minister received any resolution from 
the city of Toronto council to suggest that 
there should be provision in The Municipal 
Act to permit a by-election to be held in this 
particular case and in any similar situation 
in the future and, if so, is he prepared to 
take any action? 

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member 
would ask his question in the terms in which 
he submitted it and, if he did not add a 
further question when he submitted it this 
morning, he should not do so now, except 
by way of supplementary question. 

The last question should not be taken by 
the Minister except as a supplementary ques- 
tion. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In reply to the first 
question, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that 
as far as I am aware there is no vacancy for 
aldermen in the city of Toronto at the present 
time. 

As far as the second question is concerned, 
the answer is "yes". 

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor- 
Walkerville. 

Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister 
of Labour- 
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, with apology to 
my colleague, by way of a supplementary 
question, what action is the Minister pre- 
pared to take in answer to the resolution that 
he has received? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I received the resolu- 
tion and I have written to them. 



Mr. Singer: Is the Minister prepared to act 
on what they recommend? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That matter is public 
knowledge. It has been quoted in the press. 

Mr. Singer: Well, I am asking the Min- 
ister here. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Does the member 
want me to put it on record here? 

Mr. Singer: Would the Minister tell us 
whether he is prepared to act or not? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am prepared to act. 

Mr. Singer: Is the Minister going to act in 
this session? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have indicated so to 
the city of Toronto. 

Mr. Singer: Then why did the Minister not 
say so, instead of shadow-boxing? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is in the paper. 
Does the member want everything repeated 
ten times? 

Mr. Singer: What is the Minister hiding? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, why 
does he not answer the questions intelligently 
and then we would not get into this mess. 

Mr. Singer: That is what I was asking for, 
Mr. Speaker, an intelligent answer. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I just 
wanted to know. He added to the question 
all the way through it. 

The second question, "Has the Minister 
received any resolution from Toronto?". My 
answer was "yes". 

Why does not the member ask what my 
answer was, instead of going through all this 
gibberish and then coming up with innumer- 
able supplementary questions? 

An hon. member: And then he accused the 
Minister of shadow-boxing. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, who is shadow- 
boxing who? 

Mr. Speaker: Order! Perhaps the members 
will allow the member for Windsor- Walker- 
ville, who has been very patient, to ask his 
questions now. 

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 
I have a question of the Minister of Labour 
and it reads as follows: 

What steps is his department taking to 
assist the one thousand or so workers of the 



NOVEMBER 20, 1968 



35 



Ford Motor Company, Windsor, who will be 
on a temporary lay-off, which, for some, may 
last as long as one year? And, by the way, 
this lay-off will affect 451 people next week. 

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, the answer 
to the question of the hon. member for 
Windsor- Walkerville : 

The department, through its training serv- 
ices, will be supporting and co-operating with 
the federal manpower department in whatever 
steps it may take in response to the situation 
in Windsor. From the announcement that I 
received, this contemplated conversion will 
start next May. 

Mr. B. Newman: If I may put a supple- 
mentary question, is not the department at 
present actively working on some type of pro- 
gramme for the 451 that will be laid off next 
week? 

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, the matter of 
451 people had not come to my attention 
previously. I received notification of the con- 
version two days ago. 

Mr. B. Newman: I will send over to the 
Minister the newspaper clipping that specific- 
ally indicates the numbers that will be laid 
off. And a lot of these, Mr. Speaker, do not 
qualify for supplementary unemployment in- 
surance benefits, so they may find themselves 
severely handicapped. 

A second question of the Minister: What 
steps is his department taking in an attempt 
to settle the three-month-old strike at the 
Dominion Forge Company in Windsor? 

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, my officials 
are keeping in close touch with the company 
so that we can render all assistance possible 
to them, and we have done this over a period 
of time. 

Mr. B. Newman: Has the Minister not been 
called in by both labour and management in 
an attempt to settle this? 

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I think I 
indicated that to you; we have been in close 
touch with them constantly on this. 

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Peacock: Mr. Speaker, I have a point 
of order which I have been holding on to for 



some time until the end of the question 
period, but I would like to put it to you now. 

I felt myself to have been somewhat misled 
—and perhaps you yourself were— by the ex- 
planation given during our earlier discussion 
on the motion to establish a committee on 
housing and urban affairs, to the effect that 
the absence of the Minister of Trade and 
Development was due to his preparations for 
a trip to Trenton. It has just come to my 
attention, Mr. Speaker, that in fact he is on 
his way to preside over the inauguration of 
the Quaker Oats Company's entry into the 
frozen baked goods business. He will be 
participating in the enjoyment of cream puffs 
from a plant financed perhaps in part by his 
agency, instead of being in his place to deal 
with the business of housing when we were 
talking about it. 

Mr. Speaker: It is unfortunate that the 
hon. member did not accept the explanation 
which I was able to give of the Minister's 
absence, which I believe was quite correct. 
It has been elaborated on, of course, by the 
hon. member. 

At this time I would like to recognize a 
distinguished member of the House of Repre- 
sentatives of the Dominion of New Zealand, 
Mr. John Luxton, who is in Mr. Speaker's 
gallery, who, with his wife is returning from 
the Commonwealth Parliamentary Associa- 
tion gathering held in Nassau a short time 
ago. 

Orders of the day. 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr. 
Speaker, tomorrow we will call the first order, 
the motion will be moved by the member 
for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger) and 
seconded by the member for Fort William 
(Mr. Jessiman). 

Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment 
of the House. 
Motion agreed to. 

Mr. Speaker: I just wish to explain to the 
members that I did not wish to bring them 
back at 2:30 tomorrow, and I had forgotten 
the exact wording of the Prime Minister's 
motion. 

The House adjourned at 5:40 o'clock, p.m. 



No. 3 




ONTARIO 



legislature of (Ontario 




OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION 



Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature 



Thursday, November 21, 1968 



Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C. 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C. 



THE QUEEN'S PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 



Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto. 



CONTENTS 

Thursday, November 21, 1968. 

Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, first reading 39 

Head office for Ontario Hydro, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 39 

Ontario's succession duty laws, question to Mr. White, Mr. Nixon 40 

Toronto International Airport expansion, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Kennedy and 

Mr. Ben 40 

International bridges, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Bullbrook 41 

Minister's committee re training secondary school teachers, questions to Mr. Davis, 

Mr. T. Reid 43 

School building costs, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 44 

Control of sale and use of firearms, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 44 

Persons arrested for minor offences, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 45 

Justices of the peace, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 46 

Tenants' rights, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 47 

Loans by Ontario development corporation, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Sargent 47 

Tenants in Green Meadows subdivision, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Worton 48 

Subsidizing research on effects of noise, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. B. Newman 48 

Decision by Magistrate McMahon, question to Mr. Haskett, Mr. B. Newman 48 

"Dimensions" magazine, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Innes 49 

Standard form of OHC lease, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Singer 49 

Larry Botrie case, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Singer 49 

Public beaches on Lake Erie shoreline, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Breithaupt 50 

Clerical work at Perth county jail, questions to Mr. Grossman, Mr. Edighoffer 50 

Throne Speech debate, Mr. Belanger, Mr. Jessiman 51 

Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Jessiman, agreed to 66 

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 66 



39 



LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 



The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to 
have visitors to the Legislature and today we 
welcome guests from the following schools: 
In the east gallery, students from Wilcox 
public school, Toronto; and in the west gal- 
lery from Georgian Bay secondary school, 
Meaford. 

Petitions. 

Presenting reports. 

Motions. 

Introduction of bills. 

THE MUNICIPAL ACT 

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munic- 
ipal Affairs) moves first reading of bill in- 
tituled, An Act to amend The Municipal Act. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, section 
1 is a technical change; section 2 is the main 
reason for the bill. It straightens away the 
hours of voting on December 2 next, along 
with Bill 44. I sent a memorandum to all 
members of the Legislature, or a copy of the 
memorandum about this, and our notice to 
bring this bill in. 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): 
Mr. Speaker, there does not seem to be much 
competition on this side of the floor, but I do 
have a question for the Premier (Mr. Robarts). 

Does Ontario Hydro status require it to get 
government approval before proceeding with 
its announced plan to build a $28 million 
head office to be located on the corner of 
University Avenue and College Street and to 
be completed in 1971? And if so, has the 
government granted, or is it considering, such 
approval? 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr. 
Speaker, section 38, subsection 1 of The 
Power Commission Act gives the Ontario 
Hydro Electric Power Commission authority' 
to acquire land and erect any buildings it 



Thursday, November 21, 1968 

may deem necessary for its own purposes, 
and this can be done without any reference 
to the Lieutenant-Governor in council. There- 
fore, the answer to the first part of your ques- 
tion is "no". No sanction of this government 
is necessary for Hydro to proceed. 

However, the member might be interested 
to know that no final decision has yet been 
reached by Hydro to go ahead with the build- 
ing. They have owned the property since 
1963. I am told that approval has been given 
for the complete design and working draw- 
ings, and no approval beyond that stage has 
been granted, but the building is being 
planned. 

Hydro is presently paying out about $1.2 
million a year in rentals for accommodation 
for their headquarters staff and, of course, 
this is the staff they propose to accommodate 
in this building. Their plans are related to 
vvli.it is foreseen as the expansion of Hydro 
up until, I believe, about 1990. This building, 
as it is being planned, will be larger than 
their immediate needs and the surplus space 
will be rented out until it is required by 
Hydro itself. 

Members will know that our power require- 
ments from Hydro are increasing at the rate 
of about ten per cent a year, which means in 
the next ten years they have to reproduce 
everything that we have been able to create 
in the history of Hydro to date. They fore- 
see the need for this expansion and that is the 
basis of the planning of this building. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier 
would permit a supplementary question. 

Does he believe that that particular plot of 
ground in the heart of the capital city should 
be used for this purpose rather than directing 
the head office to be located outside the 
Metropolitan area? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I think, in 
the first place, I can only have a general 
opinion on the subject because I am not par- 
ticularly conversant with the administrative 
problems. I do know however that they have 
a very large head office staff. They feel that 
it should be in this location, close to govern- 
ment. I do not see any reason why this site 



40 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



would not be suitable for them. This prop- 
erty is going to be used for offices. I suppose, 
if they do not build an office there, somebody 
else will and Hydro has installations of all 
kinds, sorts, sizes and shapes scattered all over 
this province and— 

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): In other 
words, the Premier was going to— 

Hon. Mr. Rob arts: There is that great 
brain at work again. 

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to under- 
stand the hon. member's interjections, but 
as I say, Hydro certainly has not concen- 
trated its building in the city of Toronto. I 
do not know what the Toronto members 
think about this eternal running down of 
the capital city that takes place here. 

Certainly, Hydro has a great number of 
installations in many, many different parts 
of the city and, if they think, in the interests 
of the efficiency of the operation of Hydro, 
their head office should be adjacent to 
Queen's Park, the centre of government and 
to the financial institutions of our province, 
I frankly do not see any objection to it. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier 
would permit a further supplementary ques- 
tion. 

I can see the validity of his point in having 
them close to the financial institutions be- 
cause they are going to have a lot to do with 
them, but they are autonomous of govern- 
ment based on the Prime Minister's own 
comment. So, I would ask the Prime Minister, 
if in fact they decide to go ahead, would he 
use his authority, through the vice-chairman, 
to postpone this decision until the present 
fiscal nightmares recede? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I think 
that is inherent in what Hydro is doing. 
What they are doing is planning the build- 
ing. They have not let any contracts. But 
it will take some considerable time to design 
it and the only control we have as a govern- 
ment, over the operation of Hydro is, of 
course, that we have to secure— we have to 
guarantee- 
Mr. Nixon: We back every dollar they 
borrow. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: We have to guarantee 
every dollar they borrow. And while we are 
in this debate, which is far from the ques- 
tion, I can certainly assure the hon. members 
of this House that the borrowing policies, 
practices and the timing of borrowing by 
Hydro is very closely co-ordinated and 



worked out with the Treasurer and Treasury 
officials here. Because, if we are to have an 
orderly financing of the needs of this govern- 
ment and of Hydro, we need a high degree 
of co-operation. 

This is what we have been trying to get 
with the federal government but have been 
unable to do so. But within those matters 
that we control, I can assure you there is 
a very high degree of co-operation. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 
for the hon. Minister of Revenue (Mr. White). 

Is the Minister reviewing Ontario's suc- 
cession duty laws with a view to implement- 
ing the same exemptions to spouses as 
recently granted at the federal level? 

Hon J. H. White (Minister of Revenue): 
Mr. Speaker, all tax statutes are under review 
in the light of the Smith committee and the 
select committee reports. 

Mr. Nixon: Oh, he is going to be a great 
Minister; he qualifies! 

I am sure that such intensive review is 
necessary after the previous jurisdiction 
under the Treasurer has just been accom- 
plished. We have to think of something to 
keep the new Minister busy and this might 
perhaps be as useful as anything else. 

I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if the 
Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Brunelle), 
who is now in his seat could answer this 
question: Can the Minister report overall 
utilization figures for the provincial parks 
for 1968 compared to those figures for 1967? 

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and 
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. 
leader of the Opposition, may I say that we 
are in the process of completing these figures 
and hope to have them available soon. We 
will be very pleased to supply a copy to 
his office. 

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): In view 
of the disastrous effects on people and prop- 
erty in the proximity of Malton airport, if 
the presently proposed expansion takes place, 
would the Prime Minister inform the House 
if the province can do anything to insure 
reconsideration by the federal government of 
this totally unacceptable scheme? 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hura- 
ber has a similar question, which perhaps he 
will now place? 

Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Yes, Mr. Speaker. 
My question of the hon. Prime Minister is: 

As the Ontario spokesman for 1.5 million 
people who will be adversely affected by 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



41 



the extension of the Toronto International 
Airport, what is the Premier doing to have 
such an extension halted and, in the alterna- 
tive, sir, promote the construction of a new 
international airport at Camp Borden with 
connecting GO transit lines to Toronto? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, in answer 
to both these questions, I would say first it 
is my understanding that the federal govern- 
ment is not bound by our zoning by-laws. 
Their powers of expropriation override any 
provincial power, and they are not bound by 
an open by-law. Against that background 
and the fact that international airports are 
entirely within the jurisdiction of the federal 
government, anything we do must be against 
that background of facts. 

I have been asked to meet a group of 
ratepayers who will be affected and I pro- 
pose to meet them. In the meantime, the 
government is looking very closely at all the 
various facts being produced by this situa- 
tion. We are concerned with the living con- 
ditions of the people who reside in that area. 
Land values would be affected, as well as the 
comfort of living. I can assure you we intend 
to look after their interests in the best way 
that we can. 

At the moment, there are at least five de- 
partments in this government who are inter- 
ested in this whole proposition: The Depart- 
ment of Municipal Affairs; The Department 
of Highways; The Department of Health as 
far as pollution and noise, if I may put it 
that way, are concerned; The Department of 
Energy and Resources Management; and The 
Department of Transport. 

We have been approached by officials of 
The Department of Transport of the federal 
government and we are in consultation with 
them. We are in the position, now, of trying 
to sort out the ramifications of the proposals 
the federal government has made. As far as 
I am aware no final decisions have been 
made. The whole matter is being investigated 
and we are gathering up all the information 
being produced from various sources, and 
advanced by various interested groups. 

We have been approached by the federal 
government and we intend to sit down with 
them and discuss the whole matter. Then we 
will decide w r hat position we, as a govern- 
ment, will take. I make these comments 
against the background of the fact that it is 
a federal responsibility. That their jurisdiction 
in expropriation, in zoning by-laws and in 
land-use policies, overrides that of the prov- 
ince or the municipalities involved. 



Mr. Ben: Will the Prime Minister accept a 
supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes. 

Mr. Ben: Do I take it then that, aside from 
the concern expressed by five departments, 
the Prime Ministers government has made 
no statement to the federal government ex- 
pressing its objection to the proposed expan- 
sion of the Malton International Airport? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I can only 
repeat what I have said. We have made no 
positive statement that we, as a government, 
object to what the federal government is pro- 
posing. What we are doing at this stage 
is sitting down with the federal government 
to examine all the ramifications and effects of 
what they are proposing. Those proposals 
may be changed; they may be altered; we do 
not know. Certainly, I am informed that no 
final decision has been made by the federal 
gavernment. 

In other words, the whole proposition is 
presently being examined and we are taking 
part in that examination to see how it affects 
the interests of this government in the various 
departments I have mentioned. For instance, 
The Department of Highways must, of 
course, be very interested because of the 
highways we have built to provide service to 
Malton. We do not know whether they will 
be adequate, for instance, if this expansion 
takes place. 

In addition to that, there are the interests 
which I believe the two hon. members who 
asked the questions are trying to put forward, 
and there are the interests of the residents 
about the area who will be affected, and of 
course we are very concerned in their in- 
terests in this matter. That is why I am mak- 
ing arrangements to meet with them so that 
they may tell this government their exact 
points of view. Every time you pick up a 
newspaper there is another report from some- 
body dealing with this matter. I do not think 
all the information that will be available 
about the matter is necessarily before us at 
the moment. When we have all these opinions 
—and even before that— we will confer with 
the federal government and then decide what 
our position is. 

Mr. Ben: The Minister is saying there is 
no foresight on the part of the government. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia 
has the floor. 

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Mr. Speaker, 
I have a question for the hon. Premier. 



42 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Would the Premier advise whether his 
government has established a policy relative 
to uniform municipal taxation with respect 
to international bridges, as mentioned by the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough) 
to the private bills committee of this House 
during the first session? 

If the answer to the above is yes, would 
the Premier advise whether his government 
contemplates proposing legislation in this 
session with respect thereto? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not know that I 
am exactly aware of what the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs said to the private bills 
committee of the House; on the other hand, 
I can tell the member where the matter 
stands at the moment. 

As I explained to the House last year, in 
Ontario we have about every form of arrange- 
ment in international bridges that the mind 
of man has been able to devise. It is once 
again a split jurisdiction. The federal govern- 
ment is involved in international bridges be- 
cause of their international aspects. We are 
involved, of course, because the Canadian 
end of the bridge will be in some munici- 
pality or in some part of the province of 
Ontario. I have been in communication with 
the former Prime Minister of Canada, and 
the present Prime Minister of Canada, and 
we are in the process of instituting studies 
which will cover not just the one bridge the 
hon. member who asked the question happens 
to be interested in— and I know the problem 
in his riding— but we have a whole series of 
international bridges extending across the St. 
Lawrence River, the Niagara River, the De- 
troit River and the Fort Frances— is it the 
St. Mary's River? — and the river at Fort 
Frances, in any event. 

So we find it necessary to take a rather 
broad approach to this problem. These 
studies are not complete, and therefore I 
would have to answer the member's first 
question in the negative. We have not yet 
established a policy relative to uniform 
municipal taxation. On the other hand, I 
would say that our studies in this regard are 
proceeding and I hope that we will have a 
solution which will be satisfactory to all the 
various interests involved. 

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier 
would permit, recognizing that his obligation 
is a broad one— I suggest most respectfully, 
would he not agree that it is a rather lengthy 
one? In this respect, Mr. Speaker, the Min- 
ister of Municipal Affairs at the time of the 
presentation of my private bill last year, ad- 



vised that the government had this under 
contemplation at that time. I wrote to the 
Premier some three months ago— 

Mr. Speaker: Order! The member is plac- 
ing a supplementary question, not making a 
speech. If he would place his question 
please. 

Mr. Bullbrook: I thought that I properly 
premised this speech, sir, would you not 
agree? 

In essence, Mr. Speaker, am I able to 
assure the people of my riding that there 
will be some legislation instituted in this 
session relative to their particular problem? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I could 
not possibly give him such an undertaking. 
As I point out, this government does not 
have control over this situation. 

It took 30 or 40 years, at least, to build up 
this legal tangle involving international 
bridges and I do not think it can be expected 
to be solved in six months. 

It is a very complex matter indeed and it 
involves some states in the United States. 
It involves the federal government of the 
United States. It involves the government of 
Canada. It involves the government of the 
province of Ontario. It involves certain 
municipalities and it involves certain private 
companies that were given permission to 
operate international bridges at various times 
in the distant past. I have no magic wand 
that I can wave to cut through all the legal 
complexities that surround the issue. 

I think you can assure the people of your 
riding that we are very aware of their prob- 
lem and we will look after their interests as 
this matter unfolds. 

Mr. Bullbrook: I have a question, Mr. 
Speaker, for the hon. Attorney General (Mr. 
Wishart). 

Would the Attorney General advise the 
term of appointment of one Bruce Goulet as 
a member of the police commission of the 
city of North Bay? 

Two, would the Attorney General advise 
whether this man's appointment is the begin- 
ning of a policy by the department of 
appointing other than magistrates and judges 
to the police commissions? 

Three, would the Attorney General advise 
of Mr. Goulet's qualifications for such office? 

Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): 
Mr. Speaker, the question comes in three 
parts, making actually three different ques- 
tions. 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



43 



The appointment of a member of the police 
commission— board of police commissioners— is 
at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor in 
council and they may serve for one year, two 
years, three years or longer. 

That is the first part of the question. 

The second part inquires, Mr. Speaker, if 
this is the beginning of a policy by the depart- 
ment of appointing other than magistrates. I 
would like first, Mr. Speaker, to point out that 
the Minister is not called upon to answer a 
question as to government policy in my view 
and I think that is clear in the rules. How- 
ever, I would not refuse to answer it on that 
ground. 

Actually there have been a number of 
appointments of persons other than magis- 
trates to police commissions. In particular, 
I recall in my own city of Sault Ste. Marie 
four years ago, in addition to the mayor and 
the district judge, a citizen who happened to 
be an ex-mayor was appointed. He is still 
serving. That is about four years ago. That 
ix)licy— if it is a policy— has been adopted in 
a number of other municipalities. 

I think perhaps I might enlarge a little bit 
upon that. The Police Act used to call for the 
appointment of the head of a municipality, a 
district or county judge and a magistrate, so 
that there were three persons. I just do nnt 
recall the date of the amendment which 
changed the requirement that it be a magis- 
trate to "one other person," but it was four 
or five years ago at least. We have not been 
bound, therefore, to appoint magistrates, and 
have l>een exercising the latitude which that 
amendment gave to appoint other citizens. 
Generally in that regard we look for a citizen 
who has had experience perhaps in municipal 
affairs or business affairs, a citizen of char- 
acter, one who is knowledgeable and who has 
the respect of the citizenry. 

We have been following that quite gener- 
ally, but I would not say that we have aban- 
doned entirely the option to appoint a 
magistrate. In many commissions magistrates 
have served for years and have served with 
great distinction and have offered great serv- 
ice to their communities. I think generally we 
have been moving from the magistrate to the 
citizen. 

As to the third question about the qualifi- 
cations of Mr. Goulet, I have not had time to 
get that information but I would be glad to 
get it and perhaps I might present it to the 
member. I take it it is for his own informa- 
tion. I would be glad to do that. 



Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines): 
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, or 
what I believe is a point of order, sir, and it 
involves a sort of two-pronged question to you. 

1. I wonder if you could inform the House 
if there is any procedure whereby a mem- 
ber's seat could be declared vacant by the 
House due to a rather cavalier attitude re- 
specting the duties and responsibilities of that 
member in attending the proceedings of this 
House? 

2. I was wondering if you had given the 
members of any particular group of this 
House leave of absence to absent themselves 
from the House, because I draw your atten- 
tion, sir, to rule 23 of the rules of this House, 
and I quote: 

Every member is bound to attend the 
service of the House unless leave of ab- 
sence has been given by the House. 

Mr. Speaker: I would be most pleased to 
take the Minister's first point under consid- 
eration. With respect to the second point I 
am quite sure that the reason for absence of 
those to whom undoubtedly he refers is prob- 
ably substantial, and probably as good as that 
reason used by any other members who find 
it expedient to absent themselves from the 
proceedings of this House from time to time. 

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: In pressing the point, 
sir, I was wondering if the members of the 
NDP group in this House had received your 
permission to absent themselves from the 
House today? 

Mr. Speaker: It has not been the practice in 
this assembly for members to request leave of 
absence from the Speaker. That is usually 
done through the party Whip's office and I 
would anticipate that the same procedure 
was followed by the group in question today. 

The hon. member for Scarborough East. 

Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister 
of Education. 

Who are the members of the Minister of 
Education's committee which has been meet- 
ing since June, 1968, to examine existing con- 
cepts, standards, methods and facilities for 
training secondary school teachers? And when 
will the committee's report be tabled in the 
Legislature? 

Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education): 
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the 
phraseology used by the hon. member really 
is quite appropriate. I do not think the terms 
of reference for the committee were really 



44 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



quite that broad, as I understand it. This 
committee really arose out of the decision to 
discontinue the summer courses at the OCE 
and is composed of a group of individuals 
who are recommending to us ways and means 
of keeping a flow of teachers into the secon- 
dary schools at the same time as we discon- 
tinue the summer school programme. 

The chairman of the committee is Mr. T. 
D. Boone, director of education, Etobicoke; 
Mr. J. B. Callan, representative of the Ontario 
secondary school headmasters' council and 
principal of Nepean high school; D. F. Dad- 
son, the dean of the OCE, Toronto; H. B. 
Henderson, regional superintendent of The 
Department of Education; St. Catharines; 
N. J. Hill, representative of the Ontario 
teachers' federation, St. Marys; Mrs. J. Aceti, 
executive officer, Ontario secondary school 
teachers' federation; J. F. Kinlin, superin- 
tendent of curriculum, The Department of 
Education; R. D. MacDonald, representative 
of the Ontario school trustees' council, Till- 
sonburg; A. H. McKague, superintendent of 
supervision, T,he Department of Education; 
Vernon Ready, dean of McArthur College of 
Education, Queen's University, Kingston; J. 
W. Singleton, representative of the associa- 
tion of Ontario directors of education and the 
director of education for the Burlington 
board; W. S. Turner, dean of Althouse Col- 
lege at Western; G. L. Woodruff, director of 
teacher education, The Department of Edu- 
cation; and David Steinhauer, secretary and 
also assistant director of teacher education 
in the department. I will get the member a 
list if he would like. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I was wonder- 
ing if the Minister might answer the second 
part of my question. When will the com- 
mittee's report be tabled in this Legislature? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is not 
what one would really call a formal, shall we 
say, committee; it has been a group working 
on this particular problem. I really had not 
contemplated tabling it as such, but I would 
certainly consider this, or making it available 
to members of the education committee or 
to the hon. member— just whatever procedure 
would be appropriate. It is apparent that it 
is now under discussion in the department to 
see just what steps we can take and cer- 
tainly I will give the members the informa- 
tion contained in it. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
clarify one of the Minister's remarks. He 
mentioned that the wording in the question 
was a bit strong. I would let the Minister 



know that the wording is taken from his 
own report of September, 1968, on the func- 
tions of that committee. 

The second question for the Minister of 
Education, Mr. Speaker, is this. What justi- 
fication is there for the Minister of Educa- 
tion's decision that average building coits per 
pupil for elementary schools for new projects 
should be allowed to increase by 14 per cent 
between 1967 and the first half of 1968? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the actual 
costs of construction betwen the two years 
has increased in the neighbourhod of from 
two to three per cent. This is the actual 
increase in the average building cost. The 
remaining 11 per cent, and this is a guessti- 
mate, results from a number of elementary 
boards that constructed, say, a five- or six- 
room school four or five years ago, and 
have added library facilities or resource facili- 
ties, perhaps gymnatoriums, or what have 
you, to their existing facilities. The actual 
cost of construction for elementary schools 
during that period of time is between two 
and three per cent. The additional percentage 
that will reflect itself, perhaps, in the infor- 
mation the member obtained from the Min- 
ister's report, reflects the addition of such 
items as libraries, and so on, to what had 
been existing units. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey- 
Bruce. The hon. member for Grev-Bruce was 
on his feet a short time ago and he is next 
if he wishes to ask a question. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to 
the Attorney General. I know I have the 
unanimous support of the NDP on this 
today. 

What steps are being taken to require 
owners of guns to possess an identification 
card obtained from a proper authority? 

Second, what steps are being taken to 
forbid the sale of any firearms to any indi- 
vidual not possessing such a card? 

Third, will an Ontario gun code be drawn 
up? 

Fourth, will the government consider hav- 
ing a firearms amnesty day during which the 
owners of unregistered hand guns would be 
able to surrender these weapons without 
criminal charges being laid? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. 
member on April 23 and on June 7 of this 
year asked the same question of me. 

Mr. Sargent: I will bet the Minister is com- 
pletely wrong. 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



45 



Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional 
Sen ices): I will bet on the Attorney General. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: The question on June 

7 was: 

What steps does the gove-nment plan to institute 
in regard t > a gun control law, such as prohibiting 
purchase by mail and making guns harder to get. 
and would the government consider a week of 
amnesty to be able to turn in illegally held weapons? 

I answered at that time, Mr. Speaker, as 
I answer it again today, that the matter of 
control of guns— "offensive weapons," as they 
are described— is a matter for federal jurisdic- 
tion and control. There are numerous sections 
in The Criminal Code starting at section 82 
and running some 10 sections or more, under 
the headings of Offensive Weapons, Posses- 
ion of the Weapons, Carrying of the 
\\ 'capons, Carrying Concealed Weapons, the 
Registration of Weapons, and Firearms. 

This whole matter is in the code. I pointed 
out in my answer in June of this year that a 
bill had been presented in the federal House, 
on which we had offered some advice and 
comment to the Minister of Justice at Ottawa. 
The bill, which I have here, was Bill C195. 
It was given first reading in the federal House 
on December 21, 1967. It had not been con- 
eluded when the last session of the Parlia- 
ment at Ottawa prorogued, but I understand 
it is again before the House. It will be intro- 
duced again and it has wide provisions with 
respect to the control of firearms. As to the 
matter of amnesty, that is not within our 
jurisdiction either. 

This question has really been asked now 
three times, and answered the same way. 

Mr. Sargent: The Ontario Junior Chamber 
of Commerce wants to sponsor an amnesty 
day. Would the Minister suggest to me that 
I tell them that it is "no dice," that he does 
not encourage it? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would not suggest 
that the member tell them "no dice." I 
would suggest that he tell them that it is a 
matter within federal jurisdiction of this 
whole area. 

Mr. Sargent: The same thing about wire- 
tapping too? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, wiretapping too. 
The criminal law applies to the whole coun- 
try. These laws are in the field of criminal 
law; all our criminal law is contained in The 
Criminal Code which is a federal statute. 
. Anything relating to criminal offences is 
federal. 



Mr. Sargent: Another question to the 
Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. 

Will the Attorney General consider put- 
ting into force, in Ontario, a programme 
whereby persons arrested for minor offences 
be given summonses at station houses, in- 
stead of being taken immediately into court? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the pro- 
cedure with respect to arrests- 
Mr. Sargent: Of minor offences. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, I will come to 
that, just give me an opportunity. 

The procedure with respect to the issue of 
summonses, rather than arrests, is, again, all 
laid down in The Criminal Code of Canada 
and those are the procedural rules, which 
are federal. 

Now I know the hon. member is talking— 
if he will give me his attention— the hon. 
member- 
Mr. Sargent: I was— 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: The hon. member refers 
to- 

Mr. Sargent: We do not believe all- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: When you do not hear 
it, you cannot very well believe it. 

The hon. member speaks of minor offences 
and I take it he is speaking of those quasi- 
criminal or minor matters which are within 
Ontario jurisdiction. 

With respect to those, we did make pro- 
vision by amending our Summary Convic- 
tions Act by which we provide that— with 
respect to those things which lie within 
Ontario statutes, such as The Highway Traf- 
fic Act, The Liquor Act, and so on— the 
officer may, in a sense, arrest. He may arrest 
and bring the person before the police sta- 
tion or to such premises and there, the senior 
officer may release such person on his own 
recognizance. We have that with respect to 
Ontario offences, and those, I think, are what 
the hon. member means by minor offences. 

We have no authority to do this with 
respect to the federal offences in the code. 
The procedures are laid down in the code. 
I would say this, we again have made rep- 
resentation to Ottawa, through the Minister 
of Justice there, sometime back that this 
would be a procedure which might very well 
be adopted. 

Mr. Sargent: Thanks, in a supplementary 
way. 



46 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Hon. Mr. Wishart: And may I just add 
this. The Criminal Code, I think the hon. 
member knows, is also now before the fed- 
eral Parliament. I am not sure that it con- 
tains this provision but the criminal code is 
being reviewed. The new statute we expect 
will appear shortly. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister 
aware that in another jurisdiction in 147,000 
cases of summonses issued they saved $1 
million in court appearances? It would seem 
to be a good thing to try in all minor offences 
in this province. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I wish you would make 
representation to Ottawa and support us in 
this. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is not talking to 
Ottawa. 

Mr. Sargent: A question to the Attorney 
General. 

Mr. Speaker, is the Attorney General aware 
that Mr. Justice McRuer recommends that in 
every single one of the provinces, 500 jus- 
tices of the peace should be fired and a fresh 
start should be made? Does the Attorney 
General agree, and if so, what steps are 
being taken? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am quite 
aware of the recommendations made by the 
hon. Mr. McRuer in his report on inquiry 
into civil rights. I did make some previous 
comment about this. 

Mr. McRuer suggested, as the hon. member 
represents, that the justice of the peace pro- 
cedures and training, their approach, and 
so on, left a great deal to be desired. He 
said that they perhaps should all be removed 
from office and, I think he said, rehired. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. McRuer did not say that. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, reviewed, in any 
event and sorted out. I am not sure just 
what he did mean, quite frankly. Certainly 
I do not think he directed his mind immedi- 
ately to the practical consequences of such 
action. 

I will say that along with our review of his 
other recommendations, this is one that we 
must review immediately. Every justice of the 
peace in the province has been asked to 
furnish us with the material showing the ex- 
tent of his work, the service he is rendering 
and we are reviewing it from other ap- 
proaches too. This is one of those recom- 
mendations which we are reviewing. But to 
simply dismiss them all and to leave the gap 



which would then exist in our administration 
of justice is not a practical approach at all. 

We are reviewing it and will be coming to 
certain conclusions before long. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on page 1114 
of the report on civil rights, Mr. Justice Mc- 
Ruer reveals that the city of Toronto is in 
direct contravention of its general licensing 
by-law in allowing a club licence for $300— 

Mr. Speaker: Order! 

Mr. Sargent: Club licence for $300 to be 
sold for $13,500- 

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! 

The member may not place a question 
unless it be supplementary to a question 
which has been submitted to the Speaker's 
office. The member cannot as far as I can 
see, relate this to the question he just asked 
the- 

Mr. Sargent: This is another question. 

Mr. Speaker: Is it a new question? 

Mr. Sargent: Yes, better sharpen up. He 
has it there some place. 

Mr. Speaker: What number is on the 
question that the member is asking? 

Mr. Sargent: I do not have the master list 
here, sir. 

Mr. Speaker: The question that the mem- 
ber has asked has not been given Mr. 
Speaker. That question has never been sub- 
mitted as far as I can recall. 

An hon. member: Page 1114. 

Mr. Sargent: All right. A question to the 
Prime Minister. He has it, Mr. Speaker, 
but- 

Mr. Speaker: It has not been submitted to 
the office. 

Mr. Sargent: I will sit down but I want 
to ask this question of the Minister of Eco- 
nomics and Development. 

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps if it would be 
directed to the Minister of Trade and De- 
velopment (Mr. Randall) it might be more 
directly answered. 

Mr. Sargent: You change them so often 
around here, how are we supposed to know? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I still 
have one more question from the hon. mem- 
ber which was submitted yesterday, but the 
hon. member was not in his seat to read it 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



47 



when the time came. I wonder if I could 
not dispose of his question before he pro- 
ceeds to question other Ministers. 

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I also have that 
question. 

Mr. Sargent: You probably know the an- 
swer to that one. 

Mr. Speaker: I also have that question. 
I would be glad to give it to the member in 
case he has not got it so that he may ask this 
one— this is the one with respect to tenants' 
rights. 

Mr. Sargent: What steps are being taken 

—that is to the Minister of Economics and 

Development- 
Mr. Speaker: No, your office was advised 

that that was redirected to the Attorney 

General's office. 

Mr. Sargent: I am sorry. What steps are 
being taken to make new laws giving the 
tenants such rights as a board of tenants' 
affairs, a law to enable tenants to defend 
themselves in court against eviction, and un- 
fair leases? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, almost a 
year ago I think it is now, I asked the 
Ontario law reform commission in its study 
on the whole field of property law to devote 
special attention to the field of landlords and 
tenants. We again made that request after 
checking with the commission just toward 
the latter part of the session in June of this 
year. 

The work has been pushed forward. The 
studies are complete. The report is being 
prepared. I understand it is about ready for 
the printer and I am awaiting receipt of it. 
I expect it will contain recommendations on 
all these matters relating to landlord and 
tenant. 

I might mention that a question of this 
nature was asked yesterday by the hon. 
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald). 
I gave him this answer. The hon. member 
was not here at that time. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of 
the Minister of Trade and Development: 
Would the Minister advise if a loan was 
granted from the Ontario development cor- 
poration to Caswell Hotel in Sudbury; how 
does Caswell fit into the tenns of reference 
of the Ontario development corporation; and 
how much was the loan? 

Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and 
Development): Mr. Speaker, let me first say 



I am very delighted that the hon. member 
for Grey-Bruce has included me again this 
year as a member of the team to participate 
in "Eddie's happy hour". 

The answer to the first question is no, not 
to Caswell Hotel (Sudbury) Limited. A con- 
ventional loan was approved to Caswell 
Management of Canada Limited operating 
Caswell's Hotel Bernard at Sundridge. 

The second answer: Conventional loans are 
available to soundly based and well managed 
companies in a resort area for the purpose 
of providing facilities which are required 
and which do not now exist in sufficient quan- 
tity in the area. 

The additional facilities include an increase 
in conference accommodation and an im- 
provement in the ski facilities, both of which 
will benefit other resorts in the area. 

And, three: a conventional loan of $ 100,000. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a 
supplementary question? Would the Minister 
answer me these three points then? This 
man is a top Conservative, he gave money to 
the funds up north- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! 

Mr. Sargent: Are the terms of reference 
that they have not been able to get financing 
from any other source? Is that correct? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: That is right. 

Mr. Sargent: So, the Minister is suggesting 
that the millionaire firm of Caswell could not 
get loans from IDB, or anyone else. Holiday 
Inn could not get loans from IDB, or anyone 
else, but the ODC- 

Mr. Speaker: Order! Will the member 
place his supplementary question? 

Mr. Sargent: He has answered the question. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: On a point of order, 
Mr. Speaker. I have not answered the ques- 
tion, I did not get a chance. 

Mr. Sargent: Let us get an answer some- 
where. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Let me first say, Mr. 
Speaker, that when this application comes in 
it is treated as any other. It goes before 
the members of the Ontario development cor- 
poration. It goes before an outside board of 
directors, who do not care what a man's 
politics are. It goes before the Treasury 
board and is approved by council. I might 
say that there have been no partisan politics 
in this province since the Hepburn regime. 



48 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Sargent: Would the Minister answer 
another supplementary question? 

How much of this loan is completely for- 
giveable? Of the $100,000, how much will 
he pay back? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not know: I would 
have to get this information— 

Mr, Sargent: The Minister knows it is 
nothing, does he not? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: —and I will be glad to 
answer it tomorrow. 

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for 
Grey-Bruce wish to place any more questions 
of his that I hold? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I have 
another question here from the hon. member. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has adopted 
the procedure of filing with the Speaker's 
office a great number of questions and then 
asking only a few of them on certain days. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: I may not be hearing 
them all then. 

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister 
of Trade and Development. 

When does the Minister plan to announce 
the sale of houses to the tenants in the 
Green Meadows subdivision which is man- 
aged by OHG in the city of Guelph? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the answer 
to that question is: Ontario housing corpora- 
tion will today be writing to each individual 
tenant in the Green Meadows subdivision in 
the city of Guelph advising them of the terms 
and conditions under which they may elect 
to purchase the dwelling which they now 
occupy. 

There are three basic conditions which 
tenants must meet in order to qualify. These 
are as follows: 

(a) Their financial circumstances must be 
such that they meet the gross debt service 
requirements of The National Housing Act. 

(b) They must have been tenants in good 
standing for a period of not less than twelve 
months. 

(c) Their family size must be such as to 
constitute full occupancy of the dwelling. 

Mr. Worton: If I may ask a supplementary 
question, would the Minister give us a copy 
of the conditions under which the houses are 
sold? 



Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, I might add to 
that- 

Mr. Worton: Because I think it is a good 
deal and I would like as much information 
as possible. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: I might say this, that the 
tenants will be offered five different purchase 
options as follows— and I will see that you get 
a copy of this. 

First, they can pay cash if it is possible. 
Second, a five per cent down payment on 
house and land, with balance amortized over 
a period up to 35 years. Down payment on 
dwelling only, with repayment of balance on 
dwelling and total cost of land over a period 
of up to 35 years. Down payment on dwell- 
ing only, with balance on dwelling repayable 
over a period up to 35 years. Land on a 
leasehold basis, with option to purchase at 
the end of five years. 

The purchase price has been established at 
$16,000 for land and dwelling, with a $2,000 
forgiveness clause effective five years from 
the date of purchase, provided the dwelling 
is not resold during that period. 

I might add that the additional $2,000 is to 
prevent speculation on resale of the property 
for at least the first five years. If the prop- 
erty is sold after this term the $2,000 is for- 
given and during the five-year period no inter- 
est or payments on the principal are required 
on that $2,000. 

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

Will the Minister consider subsidizing the 
research of Dr. Pearl Winesberger at the 
University of Ottawa into the effect of sound 
on living cells due to the increasing concern 
regarding the biological effects of noise, par- 
ticularly in relationship of human behaviour 
and safety? 

Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport): 
Mr. Speaker, the department is not consider- 
ing subsidizing this project. We are not in- 
volved in research of this kind. 

Mr. B. Newman: If I may ask of the Min- 
ister a supplementary question: Does he not 
consider that there is a relationship between 
the effect of noise and behaviour concerning 
specific relation. 

Hon. Mr. Haskett: I am not aware of this 
specific relation. 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



49 



Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if the Minis- 
ter is not aware, it would be a good thing to 
have some research done on it. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! If the hon. member 
wishes to ask a supplementary question, he 
may do so, but he may not comment or make 
a comment on— 

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have 
another question of the Minister of Transport: 
Will the Minister amend The Highway Traffic 
Act to permit a wider use of the discretionary 
powers as a result of the question of the 
legality of the wise decision of Magistrate 
Joseph P. McMahon in giving an intermittent 
licence suspension to a man who pleaded 
guilty to an impaired driving charge? 

Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, this case 
involves an offence under The Criminal Code 
of Canada, Section 223, and not The High- 
way Traffic Act of Ontario. I am informed 
that the decision by Magistrate McMahon has 
be en appealed to a higher court. 

Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): I have a ques- 
tion for the Minister of Education. 

What are the annual publishing and distri- 
bution costs of the magazine Dimensions? 
What is the intended purpose of this publi- 
cation? Does the Minister believe that this 
purpose has been fulfilled? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, dealing with 
the latter part of the question first: The pur- 
pose of Dimensions— I have copies here, I am 
sure the hon. member reads it regularly— is an 
effort on the part of the department to involve 
many members of the profession, the teachers, 
the trustees, the home and school groups, the 
government officials, business executives and 
so on with, shall we say, some of the new 
thoughts on education. 

They do not relate to departmental policy 
or departmental announcements. They relate 
basically to new ideas and some philosophy 
as far as education is concerned. This was 
requested from some of the organizations two 
years ago. While it is difficult to say that it 
is in fact fulfilling this purpose at this early 
stage, I can only say that the requests for this 
material exceed the supply at the present 
moment. I think this is one indication that it 
is being relatively well received in the com- 
munity that it serves. 

The cost, Mr. Speaker, just to use round 
figures, is in the neighbourhood of $69,000 
per year. This means 12 issues, so that the 
average cost per issue would be approxi- 
mately $5,750. 



Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs- 
view. 

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister 
of Trade and Development. 

Has the Ontario Housing Corporation re- 
vised his standard form of lease? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: A revised form of lease 
for use in all Ontario Housing Corporation 
developments has been prepared in consul- 
tation with The Department of the Attorney 
General. This document has been prepared 
within the framework of our existing legisla- 
tion. It is now at the final draft stage and 
will shortly be put into effect. At that time I 
will be pleased to make a copy available to 
the hon. member. 

I might say also that the Law Reform 
Commission is currently reviewing The Land- 
lord and Tenant Act, as he probably knows. 
Any pertinent revisions to the Act which may 
arise as a result of this study will be incor- 
porated into future Ontario Housing Cor- 
poration leases. 

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of a sup- 
plementary, would the Minister advise when 
he anticipates the new form of lease will 
likely be? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I was first 
told it was going to print today, so I think it 
is almost imminent. I would think we would 
use it within the next 30 days or so. 

Mr. Singer: I will look forward to receiv- 
ing a copy. 

I have a question for the Attorney General. 

In view of the decision of the Ontario Law 
Enforcement Compensation Board in the case 
of Larry Botrie and in view of the Attorney 
General's statement to the first session of the 
28th Legislature in relation to the meaning 
of The Law Enforcement Compensation Act, 
does the government intend to bring in ap- 
propriate amendments to make meaningful 
the government's apparent intent when it 
first introduced this legislation? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this again 
is a question of enquiring as to government 
policy, which I have the right to refuse to 
answer. I am prepared to answer the ques- 
tion but I draw the attention of the House to 
the matter, as I wish to preserve my right. 

Second, I would like to say that this same 
question, in almost the same language, was 
asked as a supplementary yesterday by the 
hon. member for High Park. I answered at 



50 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



the time, and I am going to read part of that 
reply. I said: 

I welcome the supplementary question, and I 
think perhaps I might be permitted to say that 
when this legislation establishing the compensation 
board was introduced last year, I did indicate 
that, in our consideration of it, we considered it 
perhaps as a preliminary step in the whole matter 
of compensation to victims of crime or those assist- 
ing in law enforcement. I am, of course, aware of 
the comments of the hon. Mr. McRuer in his report 
on civil rights. I am at liberty to say that the 
whole matter of compensation to victims of crime 
is still being reviewed as a matter of policy of 
government. 

We did indicate last year that the bill we 
introduced was to compensate those injured 
or killed or damaged in assisting a police 
officer in law enforcement, and that they 
would be compensated. We indicated that, 
in our thinking, that was perhaps the first 
step and that the matter was being studied 
further. As to what the policy is, I am not 
in a position, at this moment, to announce. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitch- 
ener. 

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Prime 
Minister. 

Has any policy been decided on with re- 
spect to the problems of public beaches on 
the Lake Erie shoreline? 

Has the government given any study to the 
report made by Professor John N. Jackson, 
head of the geography department of Brock 
University on the request to the Niagara 
regional development council which con- 
cluded that the beaches are public now? 

Will the government convene a conference 
to hear the public views on this problem so 
that legislation can be enacted which will 
balance the rights of the cottagers with the 
recreational needs of the general public? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I think 
this question has been dealt with before in 
the House. 

It is a very complex legal matter involving 
the rights of the owners of these properties, 
and how far they extend. It has been neces- 
sary to search the titles to a great many 
properties in order to determine just what 
the legal rights of the owners are. The 
studies involved in getting answers to these 
questions, we hope to have concluded rela- 
tively soon. At that time we will decide, and 
will bring to the House, a policy. I would 
hope that would be during this current 
session. 

As far as Professor Jackson's report is con- 
cerned, it has been studied. It is part of the 



study material presently being examined. I 
do not think it is necessary for us to hold a 
conference to get public views in this matter. 
They have been expressed in all sorts of 
ways. They are before us now, so it is not 
the intent of the government to convene a 
conference because we do not think it is 
necessary. 

Mr. Speaker: The member for Perth. 

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, 
I have a question for the Minister of Correc- 
tional Services (Mr. Grossman). There are 
two parts: 

1. Why did the department not consult 
the Perth county council before it advertised 
for the position of general clerk at the Perth 
county jail, due to the work already done in 
this field by the county clerk and his staff? 

2. Is the Minister aware that the Perth 
county clerk's office would be saving the pro- 
vincial government $4,678 each year if it con- 
tinued to administer the clerical work of this 
jail? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, when 
the department took over the operation of 
the county jails, it did so in the knowledge 
that many improvements were necessary in 
all areas of the operations. Over the years 
there have been problems which have empha- 
sized that efficiencies in all aspects and sec- 
tions of the jails were most necessary, and 
that no phase could be treated as a part-time 
job; particularly, Mr. Speaker, when one 
considers the security needs of a jail. 

There have been instances where jail staff 
have been severely criticized because of delay 
in processing, inaccuracies in recording, and 
so on. In fact these criticisms have some- 
times been quite valid. The jail is dealing 
with people. It is our responsibility to ensure 
that these people do not suffer because of 
inefficiencies in the operation of the institu- 
tions. 

In this particular jail, and indeed many 
more jails, correctional officers were not able 
to devote their entire working day to their 
correctional duties but shared clerical duties— 
that is, keeping inmate, admitting, and dis- 
charging records, calculating fines, and so on. 
The governor, particularly, was frequently 
responsible for minor clerical duties. When 
the department analyzed the total work 
needed to be done— not just the work that 
was previously carried out by the clerk- 
treasurer and his staff, but all the clerical 
work, including that previously done by the 
governor and correctional officers— we de- 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



51 



cided that this was sufficient to warrant the 
employment of a full-time clerk. 

In the light of this background it is obvi- 
ous why we would not consult the Perth 
county council before advertising the post. It 
was our own responsibility and we accepted 
it. 

In answer to the second question, Mr. 
Speaker, we received a letter from the county 
council offering to have this work done for 
us for $50 a month, and we wrote back ex- 
plaining the full duties of the position and 
detailing 'the specifications. We said, and I 
quote from the letter: 

I feel certain that the council, when 
reading these specifications, will realize 
that we cannot presume on the generosity 
of the office of the clerk-treasurer to fulfil 
all of the requirements of this position. 

Since receiving these specifications, the Perth 
county council have not renewed their offer, 
and, in my opinion, very wisely. If they do 
wish to do so— if they wish to commit their 
staff to carry out all the duties that are re- 
quired by this position to our complete satis- 
faction, and in keeping with the degrees of 
efficiency required— I am sure that we would 
be happy to accept their offer. As a matter 
of fact it is a most generous offer, having 
regard for our requirements. 

However, the hon. members Mr. Speaker 
will recognize the importance of correctional 
staff working entirely at their own responsi- 
bilities. They will remember many occasions 
in the past when we have had problems in 
the local jails— escapes, and so on— when cor- 
rectional staff who were responsible for the 
security of the public had been distracted 
from their tasks and were performing as 
part-time cooks, part-time record clerks, part- 
time accountants, part-time telephone oper- 
ators, part-time typists, and so on. It is our 
view we can no longer permit correctional 
work to be done by people who are doing 
it as a part-time function, and particularly 
those who should be fully engaged, all day, 
in what we consider vital work. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for King- 
ston and the Islands. 

Mr. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands): 
Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would 
like to announce to the House that one of 
my constituents, Mr. Donald MacDonald, of 
Wolfe Island— who by the way is no relation, 
I understand, to the leader of the NDP— was 
awarded the world's championship prize for 
forage seed at the Royal winter fair this year. 
His entrv was for birdsfoot trefoil seed and 



was the best of all forage seeds at the fair. 
Mr. MacDonald has grown this type of seed 
for a number of years and this achievement 
has brought honour to himself and to all 
fanners in our section of eastern Ontraio. 

It is also a pleasure for me to announce 
that Mr. Harvey Knox, of Glenburnie, won 
the world's championship for barley seed at 
the Royal winter fair. Glenburnie is just four 
miles north of Kingston, in Frontenac county. 

I think these two awards are indicative of 
the high calibre of farms and farmers in our 
area of Frontenac county and I feel sure that 
you will join me in congratulating these two 
gentlemen on their success this year. 

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day. 



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE 

Clerk of the House: The 1st order, con- 
sideration of the Speech of the Honourable, 
the Lieutenant-Governor at the opening of 
the session. 

Mr. J. A. Belanger (Prescott and Russell): 
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded 
by the member for Fort William (Mr. Jessi- 
man), that a humble address be presented 
to the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald, 
Lieutenant-Governor of the province of On- 
tario. May it please your honour: 

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal 
subjects of the legislative assembly of the 
province of Ontario now assembled, beg 
leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious 
speech which Your Honour has addressed to 
us. 

Mr. Speaker, it is a personal pleasure and 
a great honour to have received the privilege 
of addressing this House on this occasion. It 
is also a privilege for me to be in this House 
at a time when our new Lieutenant-Governor 
has delivered his first Speech from the Throne. 
I am sure I speak for all members of this 
House when I say he is a welcome guest in 
our Chamber. Also at this time I would com- 
pliment Mr. Speaker on his excellent work 
during the last session. 

As well, my congratulations to this gov- 
ernment's newest Cabinet Minister, the Min- 
ister of Revenue (Mr. White). I am sure his 
youthful and energetic abilities assure an 
excellent performance in the demanding post 
of Minister of Revenue. 

Mr. Speaker, this present occasion is the 
third highlight of my political career this 
year. On March 14 I delivered my maiden 
speech in this Chamber. Earlier this month, 
I took part, tor the first time as a member, in 



52 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



the annual meeting of the Ontario Progressive 
Conservative Party. 

I count our annual meeting this year an 
historical event. Some 2,000 Progressive Con- 
servatives gathered from every corner of our 
vast province to elect new association officers 
and to honour three of the outstanding leaders 
of our party. 

Observing that event, with its throngs of 
dedicated and enthusiastic supporters, listen- 
ing to the words of our past leaders, Mr. 
Drew and Mr. Frost, and particularly to the 
words of our present leader, the Prime Min- 
ister (Mr. Robarts), I was easily able to 
understand why our party has elected the 
government of Ontario for 50 of the 68 years 
of this century. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Belanger: A quality product is always 
successful. A quality product will continue to 
be successful because it adapts itself with 
energy and imagination to the needs of its 
customers. When our customers, the Ontario 
electorate, come to the election counter they 
are shrewd buyers. They will not buy pigs in 
pokes. They are not shopping for impractical 
dreams or flashy packages. They look for and 
buy a quality political product and expect 
to be served, not mastered, by their gov- 
ernment. 

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of a product 
because I am a small businessman from a 
rural riding— the riding of Prescott and Rus- 
sell in eastern Ontario. I am a Franco-On- 
tarian. Most of the people in my riding are 
Franco-Ontarians and French-speaking. I am 
proud to represent them. I am equally proud 
to represent the Anglo-Saxons of my riding. 
As well, I consider it a particular point of 
pride to represent all of those newer Cana- 
dians from overseas who have chosen to add 
their energies and culture to the riding of 
Prescott and Russell. But, old or new citizens, 
they are shrewd customers in the political 
store and have chosen— and will continue to 
choose— the Progressive Conservative brand— 
the quality product. 

Mr. Speaker, the fact that our party has 
formed the government of this province for 
more than 50 years of this century is a 
result of Progressive Conservative policies 
that have obviously met with the approval 
of the electors. 

Why have our policies met with approval? 
Because they have been progressive policies 
—policies of reform— policies that have placed 
Ontario in the front rank of the world's 
most advanced jurisdictions. Harnessing the 



imagination, enthusiasm and individual ini- 
tiative of its people, the Progressive Con- 
servative governments of Ontario have created 
a community where there is more oppor- 
tunity and greater prosperity than in any 
other province of this country. 

Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out 
another simple but fundamental fact of our 
party's policies that keeps us in harmony 
with Ontario citizens. That is our respect 
and guardianship of individual freedom. This 
has been a cornerstone of our political philo- 
sophy. To quote a few examples: in 1950, 
the hon. Leslie Frost said: 

We maintain that the government should 
be the servant, not the master, of the 
people. We hope to assist the initiative 
of our people with a minimum of regula- 
tion and interference on the part of the 
government. 

At a later date, our present Premier, who 
is also a Canadian statesman, reinforced the 
keystone of our policies when he said: 

It is our belief that the role of govern- 
ment is to create economic and social op- 
portunities for its people so that they can 
maintain their independence from the 
state. 

Mr. Speaker, these statements of political 
philosophy from Progressive Conservative 
leaders, past and present, are keenly appre- 
ciated by the people of my riding of Prescott 
and Russell. The riding I represent is mainly 
a rural riding, though a portion of it— one 
township in fact— forms part of the new 
Ottawa-Carleton metropolitan area. Because 
the majority of the citizens I proudly repre- 
sent are farmers, I have a deep interest in 
the individual initiative and freedom that 
is so strongiy encouraged by our government. 
We all know that our farming population has 
always nourished and will continue to sustain 
the same spirit of individual enterprise. 

A century and a half ago, Ontario's first 
settlers were farmers. In the middle of the 
last century a farmer produced enough to 
feed himself and his family with a little left 
over to barter for those few items that he 
and his wife could not create by hand. Today, 
each Ontario farmer produces enough food 
and fibre for himself and 40 other people. 
If technology continues to advance at the 
same pace, each farmer will be supplying 
the needs of 150, perhaps 200, people by the 
year 2000. 

Mr. Speaker, although agriculture is On- 
tario's oldest industry, it is not by any means 
an old-fashioned industry. Today, there is a 
new look in rural Ontario. Farms are larger, 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



53 



new crops are being grown, mechanization is 
filling the gap created by the migration of 
rural youth to urban areas. New farm struc- 
tures are changing the very skyline of the 
rural community. 

Paved roads are moving back the com- 
munity boundaries. The one-room school has 
given way to central schools which offer 
educational opportunities equal to those in 
urban Ontario. Much of this progress and 
improvement is the result of the creative 
policies of our Progressive Conservative 
governments. 

Of course, Mr. Speaker, our agricultural 
community is not without its problems. In 
1966, the census of Ontario revealed that 
only 26 per cent of our farm operators 
grossed over $10,000 a year and only 7.5 per 
cent grossed over $25,000 annually. If only 
a quarter of Ontario farmers are able to gen- 
erate gross returns of $10,000, what is the 
future of the other three quarters? This is a 
problem that must be solved. 

I am confident that solutions will be found 
by this government and that those solutions 
will also protect the freedom of enterprise so 
dear to our farmers. I look forward with 
very special interest, on behalf of the farmers 
(if Prescott and Russell, to the report of the 
special committee on farm income which is 
expected in the next few weeks. 

I am proud to use the slogan, "province of 
opportunity" when I speak of Ontario be- 
cause it is a slogan that is literally true. It 
has been true in the past, it is true today, 
and I am confident it will remain true in the 
days ahead. I am confident that my govern- 
ment is accepting the challenge to ensure 
that opportunity exists for those people who 
live in rural Ontario, whether or not they 
are farmers. 

Much has been said about the "good life" 
in the country— the freedom, the indepen- 
dence, the enjoyment of fresh air and clean 
water. But space, fresh air and clean water 
are net enough to keep body and soul to- 
gether. They are not enough to finance the 
family's education or provide the necessities 
and the extras that make life worthwhile. 
Unless rural living generates an income that 
will provide the "good life," the social bene- 
fits will be few and the pleasures of rural 
living meaningless. 

Mr. Speaker, I will specify a few of the 
problems facing the farm community, not 
only in Prescott and Russell, but throughout 
the farming areas of our province. 

New disposal methods which will prevent 
air, soil and water pollution must be de- 



veloped. It may be that zoning or planning 
restrictions will have to be considered. Vast 
amounts of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and 
herbicides are being used in rural Ontario. 
We must develop fool-proof safeguards and 
control mechanisms that will prevent misuse, 
protect the user and the public, while at the 
same time permitting the farmer to benefit 
from these materials. 

In any industry that involves considerable 
capital, management must have access to 
adequate credit on a continuing basis. This 
is especially true of agriculture, where his- 
torically the business must be refinanced 
every 25 years and the returns are seasonal. 
Our policies, I am sure, will ensure sufficient 
capital is available in both short- and long- 
term forms. 

Specialized training must be provided to 
those who will manage the farms of the 
future. Present facilities are operating to 
capacity in turning out 400 diploma gradu- 
ates each year. We cannot in future afford 
poorly trained farm managers. 

Mr. Speaker, I have detailed some of the 
problems facing us in this critical area of 
agriculture. At this time also I want to make 
quite clear the fine record of service the agri- 
cultural industry has received from the Pro- 
gressive Conservative governments of this 
province. 

Our government has provided agricultural 
representatives, engineers, home economists, 
dairy fieldmen, rural development counsellors, 
and farm management specialists. Research 
facilities of every kind are available to the 
farmer-businessman. Colleges of agricultural 
technology are strategically located throughout 
the province. Marketing legislation provides 
our farm people with the machinery to con- 
duct their own marketing in an orderly 
fashion. Twenty marketing boards handling 
40 commodities now operate under authority 
of The Ontario Farm Prodults Marketing Act 
and The Milk Act of Ontario. Market devel- 
opment officers at home and abroad are con- 
stantly in search of new markets and assist 
our producers and processors to develop these 
outlets. Young farmers wishing to embark in 
full-time farming, either alone or in partner- 
ship, can arrange first mortgage loans through 
the junior farmer establishment loans board. 
Capital grants are available to assist in the 
expansion of farm business operations. 

A specific example would be the capital 
grants made by The Ontario Department of 
Agriculture and Food for farm structures and 
farm drainage. In the period April 1, 1967, 



54 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



to November 15, 1968, the counties of Pres- 
cott and Russell generated 683 applications 
and grants totalling more than $315,000 were 
paid. Under the ARDA programme for farm 
water supplies and field enlargement, Prescott 
and Russell received an additional 265 grants 
totalling nearly $47,000. 

Mr. Speaker, we can all be proud of On- 
tario's tremendous progress in agriculture. The 
productivity of our better farms is unequalled 
in any other country. But, Mr. Speaker, we 
face a constant challenge in this field. We 
must chart a continuing course of progress 
for rural Ontario— a course that will provide 
a rich, a pleasant, and a rewarding life for 
those who choose the rural life. That is the 
challenge, Mr. Speaker, and I am certain we 
intend to meet that challenge by providing 
the economic climate necessary to a healthy 
agricultural industry. 

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, agricul- 
ture is the primary industry of my riding of 
Prescott and Russell. But that industry and 
our urban centres cannot transport and com- 
municate without an up-to-date highway sys- 
tem. You can therefore imagine with what 
great delight the people of my riding greeted 
the Minister of Highways (Mr. Gomme's) an- 
nouncement of this past week. On November 
15, 1968, the Minister announced that tenders 
will be called this month for the first con- 
tract on the $70 million Highway 417, a 
magnificent new four-lane freeway between 
Ottawa and the Quebec border. 

To add to our delight the Minister dis- 
closed that the estimated construction time 
of this 63-mile freeway has been cut to half 
the original estimate. To quote the Minister: 
"We are now working on a target date of six 
years for completion." The first contract will 
call for clearing a 4.8-mile section of the 
right-of-way between the Base Line Road at 
Ramsayville and the Eight Line Road in 
Gloucester township. The tender closing date 
has been set for December 18 and the con- 
tract will be awarded shortly so that work 
can be completed in May. 

At this point I would like to congratulate 
the Minister and the government also on the 
completion of Highway 401, the Macdonald- 
Cartier freeway. 

The Minister has also stated that a further 
contract for grading of Highway 417 will be 
called in the spring and additional contracts 
will be scheduled to maintain a continuous 
sequence of construction. 

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact of modern life 
that new and improved highways bring eco- 
nomic development and fresh potential to the 



region concerned. Because my riding of 
Prescott and Russell is not among the most 
prosperous ridings in Ontario, you may be 
sure Highway 417 is regarded as proof posi- 
tive of this government's intention to do 
everything possible to improve the economic 
circumstances of every part of this province. 

Further proof of this government's con- 
cern for the less favoured areas of the prov- 
ince is evident in the admirable efforts of 
the Ontario development corporation. Estab- 
lished for the specific purpose of stimulating 
economic development, the ODC has four 
specific objectives: 

1. To provide equalization of opportunity 
for all Ontario municipalities in order to 
attract new industry. 

2. To provide for an expansion of industry 
and employment, particularly in areas of 
slow growth. 

3. To provide opportunities for gainful 
employment for our young people in the 
smaller centres of population. 

4. To provide a wider base of industrial 
assessment for our smaller municipalities. 

A recent example of this valuable assistance 
in Prescott and Russell was a loan to North 
Craft Industries Ltd., of Hawkesbury. This 
loan of $62,000 will help greatly in the im- 
mediate provision of 30 new jobs, plus ten 
more new jobs within two years. 

In addition to loans of various kinds, the 
ODC programme provides extremely helpful 
further assistance through its staff of con- 
sultants. This assistance includes financial, 
business and technical advice, and special 
help on engineering, production and other 
technical probems. On-the-spot advisory serv- 
ices by teams of consultants sent to various 
centres in the province, and management 
training workshops tailored to assist the small 
businessman. 

Mr. Speaker, as I said, my riding is less 
favoured with prosperity than many others. 

But, the people of Prescott and Russell 
are not seeking handouts. They are looking 
for the opportunities and circumstances that 
make it possible for them to help themselves. 
Because their basic circumstances are not as 
favourable as some others, they must look to 
this government for continuing programmes 
that tend to equalize their chances with the 
more favoured parts of the province. As our 
leader, the Prime Minister, has said, "We 
must always recognize the need for the state 
to do those things for individuals which can- 
not be done by the individual." 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



55 



Mr. Speaker, up to this point, I have spoken 
of my pride in the part of which I am a mem- 
ber: of agriculture, of highway development 
and economic development, and of my heart- 
felt pride in the riding of Prescott-Russell. I 
now wish to speak as a Franco-Ontarian. 

Au debut des annees 1600, au temps ou 
des postes de traite et des postes de mission- 
naire existaient le long des cours d'eau 
ontariens, et que quelques 45,000 Indiens 
etaient les seuls occupants de ce qui devait 
devenir 1'Ontario, mes ancetres, les Francais, 
fiuent les premiers a s'y etablir. lis y avaient 
efFcctivement b&ti des communautes qui 
s'etendaient aussi loin vers l'ouest quel le 
district Windsor-Detroit, et ccla pres de cin- 
quante ans avant que le Canada soit sous la 
domination britannique. 

Un plus graml noinbre de colons vinrent 
s'y installer en 1784 au temps ou plusieurs 
loyalistes de rEmpire uni, pourchasses vers le 
nord, etaient a la recherche d'un refuge apres 
la re volte amcricaine contre la Grande Bre- 
tagne. A eux, se joignirent pour le defriche- 
ment de nouvelles terres, des groupes 
d'ecossais, d'irlandais, de hollandais, de suis- 
ses et d'allemands. 

Vers 1812, quand nous etions menaces par 
la guerre anglo-americaine, la population avait 
deja atteint le chiffre de 80,000. A la Con- 
federation canadienne en 1867, elle etait de 
1.5 million. Aujourd'hui, nous autres Franco- 
ontariens comptons un total de presque 
725,000 ames . . . ou approximativement 10 
per cent de la population totale ontarienne. 
Apres le groupe anglo-saxon qui forme la 
majorite de la population, les Franco-ontariens 
constituent le groupe le plus nombreux parmi 
les nine autres origines ethniques principales 
de la province. En tant que citoyen d'origin" 
franchise, je me considere privilegie de faire 
partie de cette mosai'que ontarienne si riche 
et si variee. 

Monsieur l'Orateur, e'est avec fierte que je 
vous presente les donnees des groupes eth- 
niques principaux qui enrichissent dans une 
grande mesure, la vie culturelle de notre 
province: Anglo-Saxon 60 per cent, 4,142,000; 
Francais 10 per cent, 724,000; Allemand- 
autrichien 7 per cent, 487,000; Italien 4 per 
cent, 306,000; Hollandais 3 per cent, 216,000; 
Polonais 2 per cent, 167,000; Ukrainien 2 per 
cent, 139,000; Israelite 1 per cent, 77,000; 
Scandinave 1 per cent, 70,000; Indien Cana- 
dien 0.8 per cent, 56,000. 



Nous devons nous considerer heureux en 
Ontario, de partager ce riche heritage. 

En tant que Franco-ontarien, j'ai sincere- 
ment apprecie la declaration gouvernementale 
faite en aout 1967, selon laquelle ce gouver- 
nement a annonce sa ferme intention d'etablir 
un systeme d'ecoles secondaires de langue 
francaise finance par des fonds publics. J'ai 
constate avec interet les pas de geant accorn- 
plis dans ce domaine depuis cette declaration 
et les mesures qui ont ete adoptees pour 
mettre en oeuvre cette importante decision. 

Un Comite designe pour etudier la question 
des Ecoles Secondaires Publiques de langue 
francaise a examine les methodes visant a 
etendre l'instruction en francais au stage 
secondaire. Une recommandation qui resulto 
de cette etude propose que les cours deja 
offerts en langue francaise dans ces ecoles 
soient developpes de facon a pouvoir inclure 
un programme d'etudes complet la ou le 
nombre des eleves d'une region donnee justifie 
une telle pratique. 

Les lois permettant de realiser ces mesures 
d'importance historique apporteront certaine- 
ment une enorme amelioration dans les possi- 
bilites educatives des Franco-ontariens. Les 
Bills qui s'y rapportent prevoient les disposi- 
tions legales pour l'etabissement d'ecoles ele- 
mentaires et secondaires. Bien que le principe 
d'une instruction bilingue avait ete reconnu 
precedemment, jusqu'au jour ou ces bills 
furent presentes par le Ministere de l'Educa- 
tion (M. Davis), il n'evistait point de statu t 
specifique garantissant des ecoles franchises 
en Ontario. 

Quels sont les buts d'une instruction secon- 
dare de langue francaise? Quels sont les 
besoins formules par a communaute Franco- 
ontarienne dans ce domaine? Je repondrai a 
ces questions d'une facon aussi breve que 
possible. 

1. Le dipldme bilingue d'une ecole secon- 
daire de langue franchise devrait avoir acquis 
une connaissance de francais qui soit aussi 
complete que le permet le niveau d'aptitudes 
intellectuelles d'un etudiant moyen. Le Fran- 
cais est sa langue maternelle et devrait lui 
etre enseigne compte tenu des besoins cultu- 
rels aussi bien que pratiques. Sa connaissance 
et son aptitude de manipuler la langue fran- 
caise doit lui permettre de vivre une vie 
pleine en tant que Canadien d'origine fran- 
caise et doit aussi lui permettre de beneficier 
et de participer activement a la vie culturelle 
des Canadiens francophones et de la, commu- 
naute francophone universelle. 



56 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



2. Le diplome bilingue devrait avoir une 
bonne connaissance de l'anglais pour qu'il 
puisse: 

(a) Communiquer d'une facon adequate 
avec ses compatriotes anglophones; 

(b) faire face aux conditions competitives 
vis-a-vis de la main-d'oeuvre anglophone pos- 
sedant les memes aptitudes professionnelles; 

(c) prendre part aux activites politiques, 
civiques et sociales au sein de sa communaute. 

3. Apres avoir acquis les connaissances lin- 
guistiques fondamentales, le dipome bilingue 
devrait posseder une bonne comprehension 
des normes devaluation et des aspects cultu- 
rels de ses concitoyens anglophones. 

Bref, Monsieur l'Orateur, notre ultime objec- 
tif, qui est actuellement a la portee de notre 
main, est d'assurer a tout etudiant franco- 
phone de l'Ontario la possibilite de recevoir 
une education dans sa langue maternelle a 
partir du jardin d'enfants jusqu'a l'universite 
ct plus. 

Parlant d'education francaise, je suis par- 
ticulierement heureux de constater deja des 
signes de cooperation sinceres entre anglais 
et francais dans le domaine de l'instruction 
secondaire. Je desire citer l'exemple de la 
Commission de "l'Ottawa Collegiate Institute" 
qui a accepte d'assumer la responsabilite, a 
partir de cet automne, pour les sept ecoles 
secondaires privees de langue francaise 
d'Ottawa. II faut dire que ce fut la une de- 
cision admirable prise entierement et unique- 
ment sur l'initiative des autorites locales 
d'Ottawa. II faut ajouter que dans d'autres 
regions de l'Ontario, des groupes francophones 
et anglophones ont aussi mis sur pied des 
comites conjoints dans le but de trouver le 
meilleur moyen possible d'administrer des 
ecoles secondaires de langue francaise. 

Au cours des dix-huit derniers mois, ce 
gouvernement a fait face a plusieurs evene- 
ments et a su prendre d'importantes decisions 
qui ont pour la communaute Franco-onta- 
rienne, une grande signification. Ces evene- 
ments et ces decisions ont contribue a faire 
disparaitre les anciennes animosites qui ont 
affecte plus d'une fois les relations recipro- 
ques dans le passe. Cet acte magnifique du 
grand Homme d'Etat qu'est le Premier (M. 
Robarts), acte qui avait institue la Confe- 
rence sur la Confederation de Demain en 
novembre 1967, mit en marche le processus 
d'un progres d'envergure nationale. 

L'Ontario, de par les actes et les inten- 
tions declares de son gouvernement, ainsi 
que par les grandes qualites d'Homme d'Etat 
de son Premier est devenu le symbole et le 



champion des interets des Canadiens franco- 
phones residant dans toutes les provinces, en 
dehors du Quebec. 

Comment se fait-il done que tant de choses 
se soient accomplies dans cette province? La 
raison en est simple, mais pourtant extreme- 
ment importante, e'est parce que bon nombre 
d'ontariens anglophones veulent et aspirent a 
ce que notre province reflete plus fidelement 
les ideaux que nous a traces notre heritage 
historique. 

lis reconnaissent qu'il existe au Canada 
deux cultures linguistiques fondamentales. lis 
comprennent que la diversite est la source 
mi'me de notre force et de la richesse de 
notre vie. 

Le mois passe a Cornwall, le Premier avait 
reitere cette attitude en disant que "Le Gou- 
vernement de cette province s'est engage a 
assurer a tous nos citoyens une citoyennete 
pleine et egale quelle que soit leur origine 
linguistique ou nationale. Ce faisant, nous 
avons reconnu les aspirations legitimes de 
nos residents francophones et leur droit de 
pouvoir s'exprimer dans leur propre langue. 
Nous avons prouve de plusieurs facons et 
dans de nombreuses occasions, a tous les 
Canadiens, que le gouvernement de l'Ontario 
est pret a adopter comme il l'a d'ailleurs fait, 
des mesures constructives a cette fin." 

Quelles sont certaines de ces mesures? Je 
citerai comme premier exemple la Fonction 
Publique de l'Ontario. 

L'etablissement par le Ministere de la 
Fonction Publique et le Ministere de l'Edu- 
cation de cours de langue francaise a l'inten- 
tion des fonctionnaires dont les fonctions exi- 
gent une connaissance du francais. 

Toutes les lettres recues en francais par le 
gouvernement seront repondues dans cette 
langue. 

Tous les ministeres gouvernementaux seront 
encourages a fournir des services bilingues 
dans les bureaux regionaux situes dans des 
zones ou il existe une concentration suffisante 
de citoyens francophones. 

Le gouvernement etendra les services de 
son bureau de traduction dans le but speci- 
fique de resoudre le probleme de communi- 
cation en francais. 

Il existe encore un domaine assez serieux 
ou le gouvernement ontarien a aussi adopte 
des politiques saines concernant l'usage du 
francais et de l'anglais dans l'administration 
municipale. II preconise l'emploi des deux 
langues dans les communautes qui comptent 
un nombre suffisant de citoyens franco- 
phones; elles se situent principalement dans 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



57 



Test et le nord-est de l'Ontario, dans les 
comtes et les districts de Stormont, Glen- 
garry, Prescott et Russell, Carleton, Nipis- 
sing, Tem'skaming, Cochrane, Sudbury et 
Algoma. Cette categorie comprend aussi des 
communautes etablies au sud-ouest de l'On- 
tario telles que Penetanguishene sur la Baie 
Georgienne, Welland et dans certaines parties 
du comte d'Essex. 

Les municipalites seront appelees a adop- 
ter un certain nombre de mesures speciales 
comme l'emploi d'un personnel bilingue suffi- 
s:mt pour servir le public d'une facon efficace 
dans les deux langues, oralement et par ecrit. 
La place me manque pour vous donner les 
details des nombreux aspects de cette poli- 
tique, mais je citerai pourtant un exemple 
tynique qui est la preparation de formules 
officielles locales dans les deux langues 
comme par exemple, les avis de cote fon- 
ciere, les formules d'imp6t, les factures d'eau 
et les listes des electeurs. 

Ces projets representent dans une certaine 
mesure pour les autorites municipales, la 
reconnaissance de la situation existante dans 
un certain nombre de municipalites. Un bon 
nombre de gouvernements locaux de Test de 
l'Ontario ont conduit une grande partie de 
leurs affaires en francais, pendant plusieurs 
annees. Les municipalites d'Eastview et de 
Hawkesbury ont servi leur public dans une 
tres grande mesure dans les deux langues. 
Dans le cadre des efforts qui se poursuivent 
actuellement et qui visent a assurer des possi- 
bility £ducatives pleines et entieres aux 
Franco-ontariens, ces nouvelles mesures dans 
le domaine municipal s'accompliront de plus 
en plus aisement. 

Encore un domaine d'importance majeure 
est l'administration de la justice. II faut 
admettre pourtant que l'usage des deux 
langues dans ce domaine pose un probleme 
assez difficile. Toutefois, une etude appro- 
fondie a ete entreprise sur trois possibilites: 

1. La possibility que le gouvernement 
s'engage a supporter les depenses qu'il faudra 
encourir pour des interpretes et des services 
de traduction qui seront necessaires dans tout 
procede de plaidoirie ou de justice dans les 
tribunaux qui se trouvent sous la juridiction 
provinciale. 

2. Des documents judiciaires bilingues dans 
certains districts judiciaires comptant une 
population francophone sufBsante. 

3. L'encouragement des juges, des avocats, 
des greffiers, des sherifs, des huissiers et des 
stenographies juridiques de profiter des cours 
de langue. 



Monsieur l'Orateur, je me permets de ter- 
miner cette partie de mon discours en citant 
de nouveau le Premier dans son adresse a 
Cornwall, l'ete passe. II a fait le resume de 
notre progres avec ces quelques mots pleins 
de sagesse: 

Beaucoup a ete accompli au cours de la 
derniere annee pour les citoyens franco- 
phones de l'Ontario et du Canada. Quand 
les programmes et les politiques adoptees 
par tous les gouvernements du Canada 
auront atteint leur pleine maturite, nous 
aurons deja traverse une immense distance 
vers l'elimination des inegalites qui ont 
e.xiste pendant de si longues annees. Ces 
changements prennent un sens encore plus 
significatif quand on considere qu'ils sont 
dus a la bonne volonte d'un peuple tra- 
vaillant a l'unison, dans un esprit de co- 
operation et de comprehension. Nous nous 
sommes cherches l'un l'autre et nous avons 
reconnu nos communes aspirations. En- 
semble done, en tant que residents d'une 
grande province, nous continuerons tou- 
jours a consacrer nos efforts pour edifier 
un Canada plus fort et plus uni que jamais. 

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat in 
English some of what I said in French. I 
think it very important and speaking as a 
Franco-Ontarian, I would like everybody to 
hear what I said in French. 

Back in the early 1600's, when trading and 
mission posts were built along Ontario water- 
ways, an estimated 45,000 Indians were the 
sole occupants of what was to become 
Ontario. 

My ancestors, the French were the first 
permanent white settlers. In fact they had 
built communities as far west as the Windsor- 
Detroit district some 50 years before Canada 
came under British rule. Further settlement 
came in 1784 when large numbers of United 
Empire Loyalists trekked north for refuge 
after the American revolt against Britain. 
Joining them in breaking new land were 
groups of Scots, Irish, Dutch, Swiss and 
Germans. 

By 1812, when we were threatened by the 
British-American War, the population had 
reached 80,000. By Confederation in 1867 
it had grown to 1.5 million. Today, we 
Franco-Ontarians alone total some 725,000, 
or roughly ten per cent of the Ontario popu- 
lation. Following the majority group of 
Anglo-Saxon origin, we Franco-Ontarians are 
the largest of Ontario's nine other main ethnic 
groups. As a citizen of French origin I con- 
sider myself fortunate to be a part of the rich 
and varied ethnic mosaic of Ontario. 



58 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of pride to me 
to list the major ethnic groups that contribute 
so importantly to our province's cultural 
scene. Ontario is now composed of: Anglo- 
Saxon 60 per cent, 4,142,000; French 10 per 
cent, 724,000; German/Austrian 7 per cent, 
487,000; Italian 4 per cent, 306,000; Dutch 
3 per cent, 216,000; Polish 2 per cent, 
167,000; Ukrainian 2 per cent, 139,000; 
Jewish 1 per cent, 77,000; Scandinavian 
1 per cent, 70,000; Native Indian 0.8 per 
cent, 56,000. 

How fortunate we all are in Ontario to 
share in the richness of this heritage. 

As a Franco-Ontarian I greeted this gov- 
ernment's announcement of August, 1967, 
with sincere appreciation. I refer to the 
announcement that it is this government's 
firm intention to establish a publicly financed 
system of French-speaking secondary schools. 
Since that announcement I am happy to note 
the giant strides that have been taken to carry 
out the intention. 

A committee on French-language public- 
secondary schools has examined the methods 
of expanding secondary school instruction in 
French. A major recommendation resulting, 
suggests that courses already offered in such 
schools in French, be extended to include a 
complete programme where the number of 
students in an area makes such a move 
practical. 

The legislation to accomplish this historic- 
step forward vastly improves the Franco- 
Ontarian's educational opportunities. The bills 
set out the legal provisions for the establish- 
ment of both public and secondary schools. 
While the principle of bilingual education 
had been previously recognized, until these 
bills were presented by the Minister of Edu- 
cation, no specific statutory guarantee had 
eve* been made for French-language schools 
in Ontario. 

What will be the objectives of French- 
language secondary schools? Just what is it 
that the Franco-Ontarian community itself 
has said is needed? I will answer these ques- 
tions as briefly as I can: 

1. The bilingual graduate of a French- 
language secondary school should have gained 
a knowledge of French that is as complete as 
the level of intellectual abilities of the 
average student will allow. French is his 
mother tongue and should be studied with 
cultural as well as pragmatic aims in view. 
His knowledge and command of French must 
allow him to live fully as a Canadian of 
French descent who can benefit from, and 
actively take part in, the cultural life of the 



French-speaking Canadians and of the mem- 
bers of the French world community. 

2. The bilingual graduate should have a 
sound knowledge of English which will allow 
him to: (a) communicate effectively with his 
English-speaking compatriots; (b) meet the 
competition of English-speaking workers of 
equal occupational skill; (c) take part in the 
political, civic and social activities of his 
community. 

3. The bilingual graduate should have 
gained an understanding, after having gained 
the basic linguistic skills, of the value systems 
and cultural patterns of his English-speaking 
countrymen. 

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the ultimate 
objective, now within our grasp, is to assure 
every French-speaking student in Ontario the 
opportunity to receive his education, from 
kindergarten through university and beyond, 
in his mother tongue. 

In this field of French-language education 
it is particularly gratifying to me to see 
already examples of voluntary co-operation 
between English and French in the area of 
secondary education. I refer to the example 
of the Ottawa Collegiate Institute board in 
agreeing to assume responsibility as of this 
fall for Ottawa's seven French-language pri- 
vate secondary schools. This was an admir- 
able decision taken entirely on the initiative 
of the local Ottawa authorities. As well, in 
other parts of Ontario, groups of French and 
English have set up joint committees to find 
the most satisfactory way of operating 
French-language secondary schools. 

In the past 18 months there have been 
many events and significant decisions taken 
by Uiis government which held great im- 
portance for the Franco-Ontarian community. 
These events and decisions helped to wipe 
out old animosities which have too often 
tainted relations between us in the past. Tjhat 
magnificent act of statesmanship by the hon. 
Prime Minister, when he instituted the Con- 
federation of Tomorrow conference in Novem- 
ber, 1967, launched the process on a national 
basis. 

Ontario, through the acts and statements 
of intent of this government, and the states- 
manlike concern of the hon. Prime Minister, 
has become identified as the champion of 
French-speaking Canadians in all provinces 
outside Quebec. 

Why are we accomplishing so much in 
this province? The reason is simple but im- 
portant. Many English-speaking Ontarians are 
ready and eager to have our province more 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



59 



faithfully reflect the mainstreams of our 
heritage. 

They recognize that Canada has two basic 
linguistic cultures. They understand that 
diversity is the source of our strength and 
the richness of our life. 

In Cornwall this past summer the Prime 
Minister reiterated our attitude when he 
said: 

The government of this province has 
committed itself to the assurance of full 
and equal citizenship for all, regardless 
of national or linguistic origin. In doing 
so, we have recognized the aspirations of 
our French-speaking residents to express 
themselves in their own language. We 
have demonstrated in many ways and on 
many occasions before all Canadians, that 
the government of Ontario is prepared to 
take and is taking constructive steps to 
achieve this end. 

What are some of the steps taken? I will 
take the Ontario public service as my first 
example: 

The establishment, by The Department of 
Civil Service and The Department of Edu- 
cation, of language courses for civil servants 
whose duties require a knowledge of French. 

All letters received in French by this gov- 
ernment will be answered in that language. 

All government departments will be en- 
couraged to provide bilingual services in 
those field offices located in areas where 
there is a sufficient concentration of French- 
speaking people. 

The government will expand the facilities 
of its translation bureau, particularly to deal 
with French communications. 

In a second critical area the government 
of Ontario has instituted sound policies with 
regard to the use of French and English in 
municipal administration. This government is 
encouraging the use of both languages in 
those communities having a concentration of 
French-speaking citizens. In the main, such 
places are in eastern and northeastern On- 
tario, within the counties and districts of 
Stormont, Glengarry, Prescott, Russell, Carle- 
ton, Nipissing, Temiskaming, Cochrane, Sud- 
bury and Algoma. Also in this category are 
communities in southwestern Ontario such 
as Penetanguishene on Georgian Bay, Wel- 
land and parts of the county of Essex. 

Municipalities will be urged to adopt a 
number of specific policies such as the em- 
ployment of enough bilingual staff to deal 
effectively with the public in both languages 
in oral and written communications. I will 



not detail the many aspects of this policy, 
but a helpful example is the provision in both 
languages of local official forms and notices 
such as assessment notices, tax forms, water 
bills and voters' lists. 

To some extent these plans for the munici- 
pal field represent recognition of existing 
situations in a number of municipalities. For 
many years several local governments in 
eastern Ontario have effectively conducted 
much of their business in French. Eastview 
and Hawkesbury have provided most munici- 
pal services in both languages. With the 
efforts underway to ensure a full range of 
educational opportunities to Franco-Ontarians, 
these new policies in the municipal field will 
become easier to accomplish. 

Another major area of concern is the ad- 
ministration of justice. Admittedly, the use 
of two languages in this field is a difficult 
problem. However, thorough study of three 
possibilities are underway: 

1. The provision that the government shall 
meet the expenses incurred for interpreters 
and translation services in any pleading or 
process before courts of provincial jurisdic- 
tion. 

2. The provision of bilingual court docu- 
ments in a designated judicial district having 
a large enough French-speaking population. 

3. The encouragement of judges, lawyers, 
clerks, sheriffs, bailiffs and legal stenogra- 
phers to take advantage of language training 
facilities. 

Mr. Speaker, I will close this section of 
my speech with a further quotation from the 
hon. Prime Minister, again from his address 
in Cornwall this past summer. He summed 
up our progress with these wise words: 

A great deal has been achieved during 
the last year on behalf of the French- 
speaking people of Ontario and Canada. 
When the programme and policies of all 
governments in Canada reach maturity, we 
will have travelled a considerable distance 
toward removing inequalities which have 
existed for many years. The changes are 
all the more significant because we have 
achieved progress through people of good- 
will working together in a spirit of co- 
operation. We have sought each other out 
and recognized the aspirations of each 
other. Together, as residents of a great 
province, we are working for a stronger 
and more united Canada. 

A final point, Mr. Speaker: As a Progressive 
Conservative, I note with pride the fact that 
among the government members of this 



60 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



House, there are more French-speaking mem- 
bers by far than the combined total among 
the other two political parties represented. 
You see, Franco-Ontarians are very shrewd 
customers as well. They also know and obvi- 
ously appreciate a quality product. 

Mr. Speaker, turning from the particular 
concerns of a Franco-Ontarian to the more 
general and immediately current interest of 
the Speech from the Throne, I wish to comp- 
liment this government on the wisdom and 
economic moderation of its legislative fore- 
cast. 

I note that one Toronto newspaper, the 
Star, has referred to the forecast as an 
austerity programme. If that newspaper be- 
lieves that austerity consists of not attempting 
to buy more than one can immediately afford, 
then perhaps its description is correct. But, a 
more accurate assessment came from the 
Globe and Mail of Wednesday, November 
20, 1968, when its lead editorial commented 
on the Throne Speech with these words: 

It certainly promised full speed ahead 
with a number of costly programmes al- 
ready underway. 

The Globe and Mail also pointed out that 
while Ontario is going through a difficult 
financial period, its credit position is excel- 
lent. The editorial went on to say: 

In some respects its (credit position) a 
good deal better than that of Ottawa, which 
has not only returned to the trough too 
often, but has compromised its respecta- 
bility with the financial community by 
promising . . . and failing to produce . . . 
a balanced budget. 

Mr. Speaker, I see nothing austere in a pro- 
gramme forecast that will change and im- 
prove expropriation laws; expand the HOME 
programme; amend The Assessment Act to 
secure greater efficiency; increase control over 
spending by the province, the municipalities, 
school boards and universities; review of the 
machinery of collective bargaining; establish 
a plan to provide a basic standard of services 
to all municipalities; make further moves to 
strengthen the Ontario Human Rights Code; 
establish an educational communications au- 
thority; assist children with mental and emo- 
tional disorders; propose a Health Protection 
Act to prevent and reduce abuses of our 
environment in the various fields of pollu- 
tion; legislate to improve the production of 
food and increase the financial return to 
farmers; co-ordinate all northern transporta- 
tion policies; revise The Mining Act, and 
offer a programme to provide additional 
recreation areas and more parks. 



Mr. Speaker, if this is austerity, if this was, 
as some of the media said, a "no-news" 
Throne Speech, I question the news judg- 
ments involved. I sometimes feel that the 
media, at least in Metropolitan Toronto, are 
so close to Queen's Park and the flood of 
good news that flows from this government, 
that they have become jaded with riches and 
in their frustration are often reduced to nit- 
picking. In this respect they are similar in 
character to the Liberals and NDP. 

Speaking of the NDP, Mr. Speaker, I also 
offer my congratulations to their leader, the 
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), on 
his recent survival at Kitchener. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Belanger: We would have missed his 
lengthy criticisms, just as one can learn to 
miss a nagging wife. 

As we have experienced over the past 
quarter century, the NDP's bark is much 
more impressive than its bite- 
Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! 

We have had a very quiet and fruitful 
afternoon and I would like it to continue and 
let this member make his speech without a 
continual undertone of noise. 

Mr. Belanger: —especially when it comes to 
elections. As I suggested, we would have 
missed the bark. 

Mr. Speaker, this province is the envy of 
every state and province in North America 
when it comes to legal aid. This humane and 
socially progressive system proves this gov- 
ernment's concern for the well-being of the 
people it serves. Naturally enough our legal 
aid programme will have some teething 
troubles. One cannot expect otherwise of such 
a magnificent and far-reaching programme. 

I merely wish to add a word of caution— 
a word of caution on the dangers of abuse. 
At the same time, I am sure this government 
is aware of the danger of abuse and will 
exercise every care as it keeps a watchful 
eye on the system. 

On another topic I warmly welcomed the 
announcement by the hon. Robert Welch, 
Provincial Secretary, that there would be a 
full review of Ontario liquor laws. The Min- 
ister indicated his desire and willingness to 
seek an enlightened policy with respect to 
the control, sale and licensing of liquor. The 
present review will, I am confident, bring 
progressive new proposals and recommenda- 
tions in line with the changing requirements 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



61 



and customs of the people of Ontario. In this 
review it is my hope the matter of Saturday 
evening closing hours will receive attention. 

As many of us unfortunately know, licensed 
premises must close at 11.30 p.m. Saturday 
night. This highly annoying regulation leads 
me to slightly change the words to an old 
popular song— Saturday night is the lousiest 
night of the week. 

The present Saturday night closing should 
be extended to at least 1.00 a.m., if not 1.30 
a.m. Perhaps Saturday evening has no spe- 
cial significance to our wealthier citizens, but 
I can assure this House that it is immensely 
significant to those people of more modest 
incomes who make up the majority of our 
population. It is particularly significant in a 
riding such as Prescott and Russell, where 
much of our rural population regard Saturday 
night as a time of social communication and 
good fellowship. They do not enjoy being 
sent home early like children suffering under 
parental discipline. 

Another particularly annoying matter in 
this area is the fact that to acquire a dining 
lounge license a specific portion of an estab- 
lishment's gross income must come from the 
sale of food. As I understand it this portion 
is 25 per cent. In some cases it may bend 
to allow a slightly smaller percentage but, 
in many cases, it remains an unrealistic 
figure. 

Mr. Speaker, it is simply impossible for 
many otherwise suitable establishments to 
meet this food-percentage requirement. It 
may be reasonable in highly urban areas. In 
more rural areas of the province, such as 
mine, there is not enough trade in the matter 
of meals to ever allow otherwise suitable 
premises to secure a dining lounge license. 
I am sure the hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr. 
Welch) will give his most serious considera- 
tion to these two annoying items I have 
mentioned. In both cases the regulations are 
not in tune with the times, or the people, 
or the particular social and geographic 
situation. 

Mr. Speaker, in closing my speech I in- 
tended to sum up the many, many achieve- 
ments of the Progressive Conservative gov- 
ernments of Ontario— accomplishments that 
have brought this province to its number one 
place in Canada. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Belanger: But, rather than toot our 
own horn, I will end with a simple quotation 
from our sister province of Quebec. 



On July 17, 1966, a Montreal periodical, 
Le Petit Journal, had this to say about our 
province: 

Without Ontario, Canada would be an 
under-developed country and our standard 
of living in Quebec would be considerably 
lower. Fortunately, Ontario does exist and 
no customs office separates Ontario from 
Quebec. Furthermore, Ontario's prosperity 
is far from being harmful to us. 

Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, 
it is a great honour and privilege for me, 
on behalf of the people of Fort William 
riding, to second the motion of the hon. 
member for Prescott and Russell for the adop- 
tion of the Speech from the Throne presented 
by the Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor 
of Ontario. I believe this is the first occasion 
which this honour has been given to a mem- 
ber of the Legislature from Fort William 
riding. 

First of all, I would like to add my con- 
gratulations to the many our new Lieutenant- 
Governor has already received upon his 
appointment as Her Majesty's representative 
in Ontario. Despite the negative attitude from 
the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha), 
I think that the office of Lieutenant-Governor 
is one that is worthy of maintaining. Some 
members opposite feel that just because 
something is old, it is irrelevant, and they 
want to change things simply for the sake 
of change. 

Unkind critics of the member for Sud- 
bury have suggested to me that maybe he 
really only likes to read about himself in 
the press. 

Personally, I believe that the office of 
Lieutenant-Governor gives to us a link with 
our past traditions, which I do not think we 
have any reason to view with shame or mis- 
givings, and in fact adds a great deal of 
colour, interest and history to the opening of 
the Legislature. 

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratu- 
late the hon. member for London South (Mr. 
White) on his appointment as Minister of 
Revenue. I think all would agree that he is 
one of the more active and interesting orators 
in the House and his background and experi- 
ence in economics and business and as a 
writer qualify him for the important position 
he now holds in the affairs of this province. 

I would like, too, at this time, to say to 
you, Mr. Speaker, that we in this chamber 
have been very impressed with the way in 
which you have carried out your responsibili- 
ties. Certainly your duties require a great 



62 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



deal of patience and are not made easier by 
some of our actions. Nevertheless, your fair- 
ness in rulings, your subtle humour and your 
firmness in handling the operations of this 
House all characterize a broad ability which 
all members respect. 

While it is not always customary to say 
nice words about members of the Opposition 
parties, and in particular the leader of the 
Opposition, I would on this occasion, break 
with that custom and thank the hon. member 
for Brant (Mr. Nixon) for the kind words he 
extended to our colleague, the hon. member 
for Middlesex South (Mr. Olde). All of us, I 
am sure, are happy to see him up and around 
again, in good health, and serving his con- 
stituents so vigorously and well as he has 
done since 1963. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on 
those events which took place at a roller 
skating rink in Kitchener last weekend. 
Firstly, let me congratulate the member for 
York South (Mr. MacDonald) on his retention 
of the leadership of his group. While we in 
this party do not get overly excited about 
things that take place in minority class politi- 
cal groups— sprinkled with a handful of op- 
portunists, some of them absent this after- 
noon—most of us have a high regard for the 
member for York South and it is good to see 
him return to his same place at the opening 
of this Legislature even though he may be 
missing right now. However, in his absence, 
Mr. Speaker, I do think that it should be 
placed on the record, that 31 per cent of the 
delegates, or almost one out of every three, 
rejected him as their leader, and it is also 
significant that over 25 per cent of his own 
caucus, or one of every four socialist members 
of the Legislature, say to him, "Donald, go 
home, we do not need you." 

Why then, do his own people, his own 
friends, rise up to smite him? I suggest, Mr. 
Speaker, that one of the major reasons is that 
the hon. member for York South has created 
a belie vability gap that is reaching gigantic 
proportions. We remember in the election 
campaign of 1967 his slogan-67 in '67. Well, 
he got 20 seats— a full 47 short of his predic- 
tion. His error gap or believability gap was 
70 per cent off. He said the socialists were 
going to win in 1955, in 1959, in 1963 and in 
1967. In fact, the socialists won none. Thus, 
the believability gap is now 100 per cent. I 
will send the member for York South a copy. 

Now, he talks about winning in 1971. What 
nonsense! No wonder his friends want to push 
him out. They do not believe him and neither 



do the people of Ontario and particularly the 
people of Fort William. 

Quite frankly, with friends like the ones he 
normally has sitting beside him and behind 
him, the socialists in my view will be quite 
lucky to win seven seats in 1971. This is not 
my own view or the view of our side of the 
House, but this is what 31 per cent of the 
delegates to his convention said and 25 per 
cent of his own MPPs say. To quote the 
member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), "There 
is no will." And further, as the member for 
Riverdale said in Toronto on November 12, 
"Face up to the fact that MacDonald's lead- 
ership as it has been is not good enough for 
victory in 1971." 

Mr. Speaker, just one more comment on 
the three-ring circus of socialist politics. The 
member for Riverdale charged in St. Thomas 
on November 4 that all full-time paid repre- 
sentatives of the United Steelworkers and 
United Packinghouse Workers were told to 
get out and support and work for the member 
for York South in his bid to retain his group's 
leadership. If they did not, according to the 
member for Riverdale, they would lose their 
jobs. This is a very serious charge. Here, we 
have a group that pretends to support the 
working man, yet through fear and coercion 
their union representatives are told to work 
for MacDonald or they lose their jobs. Says 
the member for Riverdale, and I am quoting 
him now from an article- 
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre): 
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope all 
information brought to this assembly will be 
accurate information. The statement made by 
the member for Riverdale in St. Thomas was 
a statement carefully prepared, carefully 
assessed and accurately stated, not what the 
member for Fort William said, "that all paid 
members of United Packinghouse Workers 
and the United Steelworkers of America. . ." 
It simply stated members of District No. 6— 
not all members, Mr. Speaker—and members 
of the national office of United Packinghouse 
Workers, whose correct name now is Cana- 
dian Food and Allied Workers, I believe, Mr. 
Speaker. Thank you 

Mr. Jcssiman: I thank the member for those 
kind words but I am sending over, Mr. 
Speaker, the actual photostatic copy out of 
the paper, and I quote: 

"Any staff representative of those two 
unions who supports me or campaigns for 
me does so at the risk of his job." 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



63 



We in this party have argued for many years 
that the membership of organized labour, the 
rank and file, have been taken to the cleaners 
by the NDP. We have argued that money 
forced out of the rank and file by— 

(a) The political check-off system; 

(b) The so-called political action groups 
within the unions who use rank and file funds 
without their consent to distribute socialist 
propaganda; 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Jessiman: Squirm, Donald, squirm. 

(c) Union organizers whose pay cheques 
are made up out of the rank and file member- 
ship fees are forced to work in election cam- 
paigns without consent of the rank and file- 
most of whom do not and will not support 
the NDP— is against all principles of common 
decency and the right of the union members 
to be free to vote and support political parties 
of their own choosing without coercion or 
arm twisting. 

Now we find the disease of political fear 
and coercion being used by the leader of the 
NDP and his friends in a purely internal 
affair of the NDP group. In other words, 
here we have union dues which partly go to 
pay the salaries of union organizers- 
Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: It is understood that in the 
House on occasions such as this there would 
l)e a certain amount of interference with the 
speaker, but this is most unseemly and I 
would ask the members, particularly on Mr. 
Speaker's left, to give this meml^er the op- 
portunity of making his point. As we all 
know here, in due course every member will 
have an opportunity to speak in this debate 
and the rebuttals can be made. 

Mr. Jessiman: Let the record show that the 
charge being made that union representatives 
must support and work for the member for 
York South or lose their jobs was not made by 
a Progressive Conservative, or by a Liberal, 
but by the deputy leader of the New Demo- 
cratic Party, the member for Riverdale. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to the 
subject of northern Ontario. We have heard 
a great deal of talk by the Opposition in con- 
nection with government policies for this 
part of Ontario. Much of this talk is simply 
centred around slogans designed to capture 
votes. Most of the talk is negative, but all 
of this talk, all of this electioneering, is very 
separatist in its nature. 

Let me say at the outset that the people of 



northern Ontario do not want an eleventh 
province. Despite the Opposition parties' 
attempt to fan a movement in this direction 
so as to capture a few votes, northern On- 
tario is, and will remain, an integral part of 
Ontario— economically, culturally and socially. 

In a few minutes, I am going to outline 
some of the areas which the Ontario govern- 
ment has brought forward, imaginative and 
constructive proposals for the development 
of the north country. But before I do, I 
want to read into the record that the federal 
L. lxr.il member for Kenora-Rainy River on 
November 18 asked the Prime Minister of 
Canada to place on the agenda of the federal- 
provincial conference in Ottawa next month, 
the question of northern Ontario and northern 
Quebec becoming an eleventh province. Also, 
another separatist in northern Ontario— in fact 
the man who is making the most noise— is a 
character by the name of Donald McKinnon. 
He is well known to the leader of the Oppo- 
sition—he was the provincial Liberal candidate 
in 1967 for the riding of Cochrane South. I 
might mention here that he got some 3,000 
votes out of a total of 20,000 that were cast. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to the 
positive record of the Ontario government 
and its policies of the north. I intend to 
deal at some length this afternoon on this 
record and to say that we in this party have 
not neglected the north as the Opposition 
members like to believe. I will be the first 
to admit that many programmes need to be 
expanded and new programmes will have to 
be pursued and implemented. But I also 
suggest that we have accomplished, through 
good government, programmes that are both 
more realistic and more extensive than the 
election campaign groaning of Liberals and 
socialists. They offer pessimism when our 
party offers opportunity. They offer cam- 
paign oratory and promises; we offer action 
and progress. 

Now to the defence of that record. 

It is only fitting that at the start we review 
and examine the educational opportunities 
opened up to the north by the Ontario Pro- 
gressive Conservative government. 

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, northern On- 
tario was a rough, demanding country with 
drifts of snow and perishing cold in the 
winter and a summer of sultry heat and vora- 
cious flies. One had to be an intrepid hunter, 
explorer, miner or adventurer to risk the 
hazards of climate and terrain. 

Now the northland has a new image. As 
life in northern Ontario has progressed be- 
yond the elemental struggle for survival, man 



64 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



has conquered his environment and brought 
the riches and refinements of civilization to 
the new north. At the hub of the learning, 
growing process is education. 

Two new universities, Lakehead University 
in Port Arthur and Laurentian University in 
Sudbury, have very special opportunities to 
offer to the students of northern Ontario. 

Lakehead University, for example, in co- 
operation with the Fort William and Port 
Arthur school boards and symphony orches- 
tra, have set up a unique programme in 
musical education, under the direction of 
Boris Brott, the brilliant young Canadian 
who, at 24, became assistant conductor of the 
New York Philharmonic. This year, the 
Princeton string quartet, as Lakehead's musi- 
cians in residence, are giving a total of 2,400 
teaching hours to the local elementary schools 
and will play a total of 240 concerts in north- 
ern communities from Kenora to Marathon. 
In this way the children and the citizens of 
the northland are benefiting from the best in 
musical training and appreciation. 

As part of an effort to push the boundaries 
of habitable territory even further north, 
Lakehead has taken over a Department of 
Lands and Forests outpost 100 miles north 
of the Lakehead, near Lake Nipigon for 
study of the boreal forest. At the Black 
Sturgeon research centre, northern Ontario 
students will undertake environmental studies 
in forestry, biology, zoology and archaeology. 

Mr. Speaker, among Lakehead University's 
new programmes designed for the needs of 
the local community, is a chemical engineer- 
ing diploma programme oriented around and 
towards the nu\p and paper industry. Lake- 
head also offers courses in mining engineer- 
ing technology and a variety of courses in 
forestry. It has also recently initiated its first 
master's degree programmes in four disci- 
plines — English, physics, psychology and 
mathematics. The new science and technol- 
ogy building houses an IBM model 40 com- 
puter which can be used by staff and students. 

Symbolic of the high degree of imaginative 
planning that characterizes the development 
of the north and of this university is its $24 
million programme of construction on the 
shores of a man-made lake that will provide 
skating in the winter and swimming in the 
summer. 

Mr. Speaker, to finance these projects, the 
government of Ontario, through its Depart- 
ment of University Affairs, is providing dur- 
ing the 1968-1969 fiscal year a total of more 
than $13 million in capital and operating 
grants. 



Laurentian University in Sudbury, being 
bilingual, expresses in a different way the 
quality and needs of the new cultural atmos- 
phere of the Ontario north. This university 
is now offering a bilingual degree in all its 
programmes— the first in North America to do 
so— fulfilling one of its aims of encouraging 
our dual French-English culture both, inside 
and outside the classroom. It is receiving 
provincial government support during 1968- 
1969 of a total of more than $9 million." The 
Laurentian faculty of arts and science now 
has seven colleges, including Algoma in Sault 
Ste. Marie and Nipissing in North Bay. 

Besides courses in chemical, civil and 
metallurgical engineering, Laurentian offers 
one of Ontario's first undergraduate degrees 
in social work, which will prepare qualified 
social workers for community services, gov- 
ernment and industry. In another co-opera- 
tive venture with the Sudbury community, 
Laurentian's labs are being used for cardio- 
thoracic research. 

This will give some idea of the new climate 
and attitude that prevails in the north. 
Spurred on by the momentum of the victory 
over the hostile environment, man has gone 
on to higher aspirations of development and 
improvement in his universities and colleges 
and the total life of the community. 

Mr. Speaker, as a result of this new sense 
of challenge in the north, the government of 
Ontario, in co-operation with the federal 
government and with the enthusiastic support 
of Canadian industry and Ontario's northern 
universities, has envisioned a mid-Canada 
development corridor. The Lakehead cities 
are the only large population centres so, not 
unnaturally, the conference next August on 
this topic will be held in Port Arthur. Such 
a plan could realize dreams that last cen- 
tury's most visionary explorer could never 
have foreseen: dreams of a northland vigor- 
ous, expanding, challenging, to meet the 
needs of Canada's people, both in terms of 
the land and its burgeoning natural resources. 

Mr. Speaker, The Department of Educa- 
tion, in pursuing its policy of ensuring equal 
educational opportunity for all children 
throughout Ontario, has given special atten- 
tion to our rich and developing northland. 
This is well exemplified in its handling of 
the special circumstances of the north in 
the reorganization of school jurisdictions that 
is now in progress. Here, the particular prob- 
lems arise from the nature of the area— a 
mix of highly developed urban centres with 
mining and other communities that are scat- 
tered and somewhat isolated in large tracts 



NOVEMBER 21, 1968 



65 



of territory. For this reason, as you know, 
guidelines for the special concerns of the 
north in this process of reorganization were 
provided in an independent document that 
was published separately. 

In the coming year 1969. much effort will 
lie devoted in the north to this reorganization 
of boards and administration. In the terri- 
torial districts, new boards of education for 
the divisions and new separate school boards 
for enlarged zones will as ume operational 
control of the schools on January 1, 1969, 
and will appoint their own supervisory officers. 
The Department of Education will provide 
ail possible assistance in the reorganization 
and will adjust its supervisory services for 
school boards in isolated areas which will 
not be included in new divisions or zones. 
It is our aim that these changes shall bring 
a new impetus and vigour to education in 
northern Ontario, just as in the south. 

I want to refer at this point to an aspect 
of education in the north to which the gov- 
ernment attaches great importance— the col- 
leges of applied arts and technology. 

Along with the establishment of new 
colleges in other parts of the province, The 
Department of Education has now in opeia- 
tion campuses of colleges of applied arts and 
technology at the Lakehead, Kirkland Lake, 
Hailcybury, South Porcupine, Sault Ste 
Marie, Sudbury and North Bay. In these new 
colleges, approximately 2,650 full-time day 
students and 2,000 part-time and extension 
students are enrolled. And in addition to 
these I have just mentioned there is, in 
Kenera, Confederation College, operating a 
number of classes. 

Among the varied courses offered in these 
institutions, there are programmes in the 
fields of trade, technician training, technol- 
ogy, applied arts and science, and business. 
In most cases plans are well developed for 
permanent buildings and on some campuses 
construction is under way or has been com- 
pleted. 

I should like next to draw the attention 
of the Hcu e to a number of educational 
developments which have special local sig- 
nificance. One of the most important groups 
of citizens in our society today is our Indian 
people. We in the northern part of this 
great province harbour the province's largest 
percentage cf these first citizens. Many people 
have pointed out that we have an Indian 
problem. 

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you 
that this is not the case. I feel that we have 
a white problem in that so many varieties of 



missionaries, social workers, and politicians 
with preconceived ideas who work for Indians, 
do more harm than good, because they are 
working for their own satisfaction, seeking 
publicity which is always available when 
one assists minority groups. 

The government of this province has 
shown a tremendous desire and has made 
great strides in assuring that the social bene- 
fits of our society are available to these 
people, in spite of the feelings of the federal 
government and their complete lack of co- 
operation in this particular field. 

One has only to lock at the recent mem- 
bers' tour of northwestern Ontario. There 
we saw the Minister of Social and Family 
Services (Mr. Yaremko) break away from 
those enjoying the beauty and the interesting 
tours to visit and examine first hand the 
problems of these sincere people. 

This dedicated Minister cf the Crown 
accompanied by the member for Kenora (Mr. 
Bernier), spent every available moment talk- 
ing, looking, and planning ways to place 
these, our first citizens, on a level in our 
society that is taken by the rest of us for 
granted. 

Steps are being taken to provide improved 
education for Indian residents of Ontario. 
The educational centre at Moosonee is near- 
ing completion and it will lie officially opened 
next June. This centre serves the elementary 
school children in certain subjects outside the 
scope of the public and separate schools and 
it offers academic upgrading and manpower 
training to adults. The director supervises a 
total staff of 23. The board of governors 
employs people of Indian descent wherever 
possible. 

On the CNR main line to the north of 
Lake Nipigon, new schools, each of two 
rooms, have been erected during the past 
summer at Auden, where a one-room school 
has been replaced, and at Fcrland, where 
previously no school existed. In both these 
localities the federal and Onlario govern- 
ments share the financial responsibility. 

It is gratifying to note, throughout the 
north as well as the southern part of the 
province, that Indian bands are asking for 
an appointed representative on school boards 
and these requests are being granted and 
guaranteed by the boards which provide edu- 
cation for Indian pupils. 

In no-theastern Ontario several boards 
have organized French-language schools in 
temporary or leased accommodation, for 
French-pealing pupils who formerly at- 
tended private, French-language schools. 



66 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



These schools will also augment the French- 
language instruction which has been given 
for several years in such places as Chelms- 
ford and Sturgeon Falls where both English- 
speaking and French-speaking pupils have 
enjoyed the benefits of a composite school 
programme. The board's concern in 1969 
will be planning for permanent accommoda- 
tion for the French-language schools and for 
some in which both English and French will 
be used. 

Commencing in 1969, parents of elementary 
school pupils living outside the boundaries 
of school sections and zones where daily bus 
service is not available, may apply for a 
travelling or living allowance to the school 
board providing the education. 

In isolated communities in the northern 
districts, 25 teachers are working in one- or 
two-room schools under the northern corps. 
The department subsidizes their travel and 
provides a northern allowance in addition to 
a salary paid by the board. Six schools, each 
of one or two rooms, have qualified for 
this assistance for the first time in the cur- 
rent school year. 

May I turn now to another aspect of 
education in the north, which is one of the 
special concerns of the Ontario government 
there as it is elsewhere in the province— the 
services for the blind and deaf. In 1963 the 
first home-visiting teacher of pre-school deaf 
children was appointed. The initial service 
was so successful that six such home-visiting 
teachers are now at work. I should point 
out, I think, that the teachers who have 
received special training for this activity 
average almost 1,000 miles a month by car 
plus air travel. 

Two teachers concentrate their efforts in 
northern Ontario. The programme has two 



purposes: To prepare young deaf children 
for admission to school, and to assist the 
parents in the training of their own young 
deaf child at home. 

The Department of Education intends to 
expand this programme gradually so that 
home visits may be more frequent. In this 
way, young pre-school deaf children in 
northern and rural Ontario, and their parents, 
will benefit from the assistance of profes- 
sionally trained teachers of the deaf while 
remaining together as a family in their own 
homes. 

The provincial Department of Education 
also helps maintain schools for retarded chil- 
dren in 11 northern Ontario districts. Since 
April, 1966, we have provided educational 
programmes in special classes within Ontario 
Department of Health hospital facilities, for 
groups of children who include the mentally 
retarded and those who are physically, so- 
cially and emotionally disturbed. One of 
these schools is located in the Ontario Hos- 
pital at Port Arthur. 

With the co-operation of The Department 
of Health, occupational therapy, kitchen, 
library, ceramics and sewing areas are being 
made available to the school for instructional 
purposes. 

Mr. Jessiman moves the adjournment of 
the debate. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow 
we will resume this debate. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment 
of the House. 

Motion agreed to. 

The House adjourned at 6.00 o'clock p.m. 



No. 4 




ONTARIO 



^Legislature of (Ontario 




OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION 



Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature 



Friday, November 22, 1968 



Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C. 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C. 



THE QUEEN'S PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 



Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto. 



CONTENTS 



Friday, November 22, 1968 

Medical practitioners from liability in respect of voluntary emergency medical services, 

bill to relieve, Mr. Sargent, first reading 69 

Ethics of elected representatives, bill respecting, Mr. Shulman, first reading 69 

Ontario Hydro development at Pickering, question to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Nixon 69 

Sale of HOME lots in Hamilton, question to Mr. Randall, Mr. J. R. Smith 70 

Closing of Murray Avenue at QEW in Grimsby area, question to Mr. Comme, Mr. Deans 70 

Safety problems re "dune buggies," questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Breithaupt 71 

Universal mine claiming tag, question to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Knight 71 

Appointment of Crown attorney for Halton county, questions to Mr. Wishart, 

Mr. Shulman 71 

Assessment advantages by municipalities to attract industries, questions to Mr. McKeough, 

Mr. Pitman 72 

Expo '70 exhibit in Japan, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Sargent 76 

Increases in apartment rents, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Sargent 77 

Beaver Valley area, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Sargent 77 

Construction and maintenance costs of schools, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. De Monte 79 

Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Jessiman 80 

Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Nixon, agreed to 90 

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 90 



69 



LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 



The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to 
have visitors to the Legislature and today we 
welcome as guests students from the follow- 
ing schools: In the east gallery, from St. 
Philip Neri separate school, Downsview, and 
Winchester Street public school, Toronto; 
and later on today in the west gallery, Don 
Mills junior high school, Don Mills. 

Petitions. 

Presenting reports. 

Motions. 

Introduction of bills. 



RELIEF FROM LIABILITY 
OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS 

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce) moves first 
reading of bill intituled, An Act to relieve 
medical practitioners from liability in respect 
of voluntary emergency medical services. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

ETHICS OF ELECTED 
REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first 
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting 
ethics of elected representatives. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill pro- 
hibits certain conduct on the part of legis- 
lators, and requires disclosure of interests and 
activities that cannot reasonably be prohi- 
bited but whose nature and extent should be 
public knowledge. 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi- 
tion): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the 
hon. Minister of Energy and Resources Man- 
agement concerning the Ontario Hydro devel- 
opment at Pickering. I wonder if he can tell 
the House how far behind in the construction 
they are of the atomic energy site in Pick- 
ering? 



Friday, November 22, 1968 

Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy 
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, 
relative to the original in-service date estab- 
lished at the time the Pickering generation 
station was authorized, the first unit is ten 
months behind, the second unit five months 
behind, and the third and fourth units are 
predicted on time. The reasons are: first, late 
delivery of important components; second, 
effect of our strike last year. 

Mr. Speaker, it may be noted that the same 
information was given by me to the leader of 
the Opposition in this House on May 7, 1968. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely in reply to 
the gratuitous comment in addition to the 
answer you will permit me to say that much 
time has elapsed since that particular occa- 
sion; and surely, with the good weather that 
we have had in the summer and fall, we 
would have hoped for an improvement in the 
situation. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: The Minister to whom the 
hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDon- 
ald) is directing his question is not in, I 
believe, this morning and will not be in until 
Monday. 

Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue): 
Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. In the 
Metro final edition of this morning's Globe 
and Mail, on page one, there is an article 
headed, "Ontario Suggests Federal Budget 
May Prevent Succession Duty Cut". This 
heading is completely inaccurate. The lead 
reads as follows: 

Because of "the radical changes brought 
about by the Benson budget" Ontario will 
be forced to reconsider raising the exemp- 
tions on succession duties to $96,000 from 
$75,000, Provincial Revenue Minister John 
White said last night." 

This lead is completely misleading. It is mis- 
leading because the word "reconsider" is used 
instead of "review" and because one only of 
the 56 recommendations of the Smith com- 
mittee and select committee report was 
singled out. The method I chose to ensure 
that what I did sav would be accurate and 



70 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



non-controversial, was to read the question 
of the leader of the Opposition and quote 
my reply. And I would like that to be very 
clear. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamil- 
ton Mountain. 

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min- 
ister of Trade and Development. 

When are the HOME lots going to be 
offered for sale to the public in Hamilton? 

Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and 
Development): Mr. Speaker, we always have 
the answers. 

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Has 
the Minister got the houses? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Just listen carefully. Do 
not get confused. 

HOME lots in the Ralston neighbourhood 
in Hamilton will be offered within a week 
of Ontario Housing Corporation receiving 
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's 
approval of the lot values which have been 
proposed for the area. 

As hon. members know, the primary pur- 
pose of the HOME plan is to make lots avail- 
able to potential homeowners on a leasehold 
basis. However, it is necessary to establish 
a land value at the inception because every 
lessee who decides, after a period of five 
years, that he wishes to purchase a lot, may 
do so at the original established value with- 
out regard to any increases in land values in 
the area which may have taken place during 
the intervening period. 

Land values are also required for the very 
small number of homeowner applicants who 
wish to purchase lots at the inception either 
on a cash basis or over a period of up to 35 
years. 

We expect to receive Central Mortgage 
and Housing Corporation's approval within a 
week, and as the Ontario Housing Corpora- 
tion mobile sales office is already on the site, 
lots will be advertised and offered to the 
public within a matter of days from receiv- 
ing the approval. 

Mr. MacDonald: Why does the Minister 
not answer the question? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: I answered the question. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went- 
worth. 

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. 
Speaker. I have a— 



Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The hon. mem- 
ber for Wentworth has the floor. 

Mr. Deans: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a 
question for the Minister of Highways. I hope 
that he can get to the point much more 
quickly than his friend, the Minister of Trade 
and Development. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member will 
place his question. 

Mr. Deans: In the interest of public safety, 
will the Minister order the closing of Murray 
Avenue where it enters the Queen Elizabeth 
Highway at Grimsby? 

Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways): 
Mr. Speaker, before answering this question 
I want to tell the House that the hon. Pro- 
vincial Secretary (Mr. Welch) has pursued 
this matter with myself and our department 
on several occasions. 

Mr. MacDonald: That is irrelevant. 

Hon. Mr. Gomme: He just happens to be 
the member down there. 

Interjections by hon. members^ 

Mr. Speaker: Order! 

Hon. Mr. Gomme: The Ontario Municipal 
Eoard, by order No. PFM-9327/59, approved 
the closing of Murray Avenue and Kerman 
Avenue in the town of Grimsby with certain 
conditions which included the following: 

The Department of Highways construct 
the following service roads in this particular 
area: 1. On the north side of the Queen 
Elizabeth Way between Ofield Road and 
Murray Avenue; 2. On the south side of the 
Queen Elizabeth Way from the west limit of 
the township of North Grimsby to Murray 
Avenue; 3. On the south side of the Queen 
Elizabeth Way from Murray Avenue to Pat- 
ten Street; 4. A connection between Elizabeth 
and Ontario Street on a right-of-way to be 
provided by the town of Grimsby; 5. And 
subject to the construction by The Depart- 
ment of Highways of a number of slip-ons 
and slip-offs, an interchange to provide the 
necessary movements off the Queen Elizabeth 
Way to the abutting adjacent service roads. 

The department during the resurfacing of 
the Queen Elizabeth Way to the west of 
Grimsby in 1968 provided left-turn lanes at 
Kerman and Murray Avenues in the median 
strip in order to improve the safety of the 
intersection. Any left turning vehicles are 
then able to be cleared of the through lanes 
while awaiting an opportunity to make the 
left turn. 



NOVEMBER 22, 1968 



71 



At the present time, the department is pre- 
paring contract drawings for the construction 
of the necessary service roads, structures and 
interchanges in this area and the contracts 
will be called as soon as plans have been 
prepared and the necessary clearances ob- 
tained. 

Mr. Deans: I wonder if the Minister would 
accept a supplementary question? Does he 
anticipate that this would be done prior to 
next summer's heavy traffic? 

Hon. Mr. Comme: Mr. Speaker, I have 
already explained when we intend to do it. 

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Min- 
ister of Transport. 

Has the department studied the safety 
problems of those rebuilt small cars which 
are now being popularly used on sand dunes 
and rough terrain and are known as "dune 
buggies"? Has the department investigated 
the death of Paul Lightowlers of Ayr, On- 
tario, who died on August 19, 1968, from 
injuries received in a crash of a dune buggy? 
Is consideration being given for special 
licensing and inspection of these vehicles so 
that the enjoyment by the owners and drivers 
is balanced by the public interest and safety? 

Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport): 
Mr. Speaker, if these reconstructed vehicles 
referred to as "dune buggies" are operated on 
the highways they must be registered and 
must comply with all the requirements of 
The Highway Traffic Act. In the case of a 
reconstructed vehicle, before it can be regis- 
tered, a certificate of fitness is required. 

I am sorry, I do not have particulars with 
respect to the fatality mentioned by the hon. 
member at this time. I will look it up and 
if I can find the details I will inform the 
hon. member. 

The department does not have plans for 
special licensing or regulations respecting 
these vehicles at this time. 

If I have been deficient in any answer, sir, 
I would be happy to discuss the matter 
further with the hon. member because I 
would like to answer his question as fully as 
I can. 

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich- 
Riverside (Mr. Burr)? His question will have 
to be deferred until the Prime Minister (Mr. 
Robarts) is present. 

The member for Port Arthur. 



Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min- 
ister of Mines. 

Has a decision been made yet on a uni- 
versal mining claim tag for the province to 
permit prospectors to purchase tags at their 
local mine recording office for staking in any 
other part of the province, as we recom- 
mended in the estimates last session and as 
subsequently endorsed by the Northwestern 
Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce? 

Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines): 
Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure what the 
"royal we" is to which the hon. member is 
referring, but I can say in answer to the 
question that government policy will be 
announced in this House in due course. 

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the 
Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, in five parts. 

1. Is Mr. Douglas Latimer to be appointed 
Crown attorney for Halton county? 

2. Did his position as president of the 
Halton Progressive Conservative Association 
have anything to do with his appointment? 

3. What is the salary he is to be paid? 

4. What was the salary that was offered to 
special Crown prosecutor Ronald Thomas, 
former acting Crown attorney, to take the 
same position? 

5. Why was Thomas not offered the same 
salary as has been offered to Mr. Latimer? 

Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): 
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Latimer was appointed 
on November 21, 1968; his appointment is to 
become effective on December 15, 1968. 

The answer to the second part of the 
question is "no". 

The starting salary for Mr. Latimer is 
$16,775. That is the minimum starting salary 
for a Crown attorney, class 2, which has a 
maximum of $20,010. 

The salary offered to Mr. Thomas was 
$14,349. That is the first step of the starting 
salary in a Crown attorney, class 1, which 
moves to a maximum of $16,755. 

The answer to the fifth part of the ques- 
tion: Mr. TJiomas was not offered the same 
salary as Mr. Latimer because Mr. Latimer 
had seven years' more experience at the Bar 
having been called in 1957, while Mr. Thomas 
was called in 1964. The one man, therefore, 
has four years' experience, the other man had 
eleven years of experience at the Bar and 
was an assistant Crown attorney for a num- 
ber of those years. In our view these are 
factors we have to take into account. In say- 
ing that I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, 



72 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



that this is no reflection on our appreciation 
of the abilities of either man; it is simply a 
matter of experience. 

I do make clear the point that we were 
able to classify Mr. Latimer as a Crown attor- 
ney, class 2, which carries its salary as fixed, 
and the other man would have to start at 
Crown attorney 1? 

Mr. Shulman: Would the Minister accept 
a supplementary question? Can the Minister 
inform me if Mr. Thomas did not, in effect, 
have more experience as a Crown attorney 
than the man who was given the opportunity? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, I would say, cer- 
tainly not. As I pointed out, the one man 
has seven years' more experience than the 
other. 

Mr. Shulman: I asked if Mr. Thomas did 
not have more experience as a Crown attor- 
ney. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Thomas has served 
in our office, on our staff in this building, 
and only occasionally as Crown attorney. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter- 
borough. 

Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr. 
Speaker, I would like to direct a question to 
the Minister of Municipal Affairs. 

1. Is it illegal for a municipality to give 
assessment advantages or grant bonuses in 
order to attract industry? 

2. If the town of Trenton has been carry- 
ing on these activities, as indicated in the 
report of the Eric Hardy Consulting Com- 
pany Limited, would the Minister indicate 
what steps he proposes to take? 

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni- 
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the 
first part of the question, it is, of course, 
illegal for a municipality to give assessment 
advantages or grant bonuses in order to 
attract industry. Section 248(a) of The Muni- 
cipal Act forbids this practice. I unfortunately 
do not have a copy of the report of Eric 
Hardy Consulting Limited which you have 
referred to. We tried to get in touch with 
Mr. Hardy this morning to get a copy of the 
report. He is out of town. When I do have 
a copy of the report I will get in touch with 
the member. 

Mr. Pitman: May I ask a supplementary 
question? Could the Minister indicate what 
steps he would be likely to take if indeed 
the statements included in this report are 
those as reported by the press? Perhaps he 



might also indicate what steps his colleague, 
the Minister of Trade and Development, 
might take, in view of the fact that this 
municipality is receiving grants under the 
EIO programe? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the second 
part of your supplementary question should 
be directed to the Minister of Trade and 
Development. 

As far as the first part of the question is 
concerned, it is rather hypothetical. When I 
have the report and have had a chance to 
look into it then I will decide what we will 
do about it. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey- 
Bruce has some questions. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to 
the Minister of Trade and Development. 

I think that he either owes the House an 
apology or— 

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member 
will place his question. 

Mr. Sargent: Regarding a question yester- 
day Mr. Speaker, on a— 

Mr. Speaker: Well, we are now in today's 
question period. 

Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege! 

Mr. Speaker: We are in the question period 
for today. If the hon. member wishes to 
rise on a point of personal privilege he is 
entitled to do so but he is not entitled to 
do so in the guise of asking a question. 

Mr. Sargent: I will leave the question for 
a moment then. On a point of privilege, the 
situation with regard to yesterday's question: 
The Minister told the House a half truth, 
and then in a report in the Globe and Mail 
this morning, he told the press that it is their 
practice to loan ODC loans to well estab- 
lished firms if they could prove the need for 
it— and they are well established. He can 
mislead the House but he should not mis- 
lead the newspapers. Mr. Speaker, he did 
not tell the newspapers that this money is 
not available to any firm or persons who can 
borrow some place else. This is a well estab- 
lished firm, but they received a loan from 
this government, through ODC, which is 
forgiveable. 

This is what he did not tell the papers. 
I think he owes this House an apology. Why 
can Holiday Inn and Caswell borrow money 
from the government when they have other 
sources of money? 



NOVEMBER 22, 1968 



73 



An hon. member: Like cash in the bank. Mr. Speaker: Order, order! 



Mr. Sargent: Like cash, and on top of that, 
the government makes it forgiveable; at the 
end of the six-year term they get their money 
back. It does not cost them anything. 

Hon, Mr. White: The member would not 
have a little vested interest? 

Mr. Sargent: So I think the Minister owes 
the House an apology or he should tell the 
press that he did not tell them the whole 
truth. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister 
now has the opportunity if he wishes, to 
comment on it. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, as usual, 
I think the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is 
thoroughly confused. In the first place I did 
not see the Globe and Mail this morning and 
I am not at all confused. I know exactly 
what I said. If it is a forgiveness loan I 
would remind you that we have given for- 
giveness loans to companies that have several 
millions of dollars, perhaps more than Mr. 
Caswell will ever have. If Mr. Caswell has 
gone into a designated area he is entided to 
the same treatment as some of these com- 
panies that have many millions of dollars of 
capital. 

Now, any man who has a balance sheet 
can walk into the Ontario Development Cor- 
poration; he can present it and we say to 
him, "Have you tried to borrow money from 
two other sources?" If the man says "Yes, 
and I was turned down", we ask "Have you 
gone to the Industrial Development Bank?" 
If he says "Yes, and I was turned down", 
then we will take a look at it and see if 
there is some way we can lend him money. 
There is nothing wrong with this. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, this is a com- 
plete- 
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member will 
retain his seat and give the Minister the 
opportunity of making his explanation. The 
Minister gave the member the opportunity 
of making his point of privilege. 

Mr. Sargent: He is not telling the truth, 
Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Speaker: Has the Minister anything 
further to say? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, as far as 
I am concerned I explained my position so 
he can go ahead. 



Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Point of order, Mr. 
Speaker. I resent, as a member of this 
House, being insulted by the hon. Minister 
rising here and giving us a lot of balderdash 
about borrowing money when people to 
whom he lent money were making profits 
that ran into three figures, into millions; 
that is, hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order! 

An hon. member: That is a point of order? 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The hon mem- 
ber has made his point of order. He will 
return to his seat. 

Does the hon. member for Grey-Bruce wish 
to proceed with his questions? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, may I rise 
on a point of order? I listened to my hon. 
friend in the back row there say that these 
companies make hundreds of millions of 
dollars. May I remind him that the amount of 
money a company earns has nothing to do 
with whether they qualify to go into a desig- 
nated area. The more money they have the 
better. We like to see them in a designated 
area because they have got staying power. 

Mr. MacDonald: Well why does not the 
Minister encourage them to use their own 
money instead of dipping into the public 
Treasury? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Keep your mouth shut 
a minute and I will answer you too. Do not 
get excited. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of 
order, is that parliamentary language? Mr. 
Speaker, on a point of order. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister is on a 
point of order at the moment. When he has 
finished his— 

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of personal 
privilege, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Minister has 
finished his point of order, then the hon. 
member will be entitled to raise his point. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Forget it! 

I was making the point, Mr. Speaker, that 
in the federal designated-area programme, 
many companies that went into my hon. 
friend's riding in Grey-Bruce were companies 



74 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



of very substantial means and they qualified 
for that designated-area programme- 
Mr. Sargent: We are not talking about that. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Regardless of their 

wealth they qualify because they met the 

requirements of a designated area. And the 
same applies for ODC. 

Mi*. Speaker: The hon. member for York 
South. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 
your guidance. Is it parliamentary for one 
member to tell another member to shut his 
mouth? 

Mr. Speaker: It is not usually considered so. 

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, sir. 

An hon. member: Only when the govern- 
ment does it. 

Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a point of order and it is a 
serious one. It is that I think the point of 
order relates to the matter in which the ques- 
tions are put and the questions are answered, 
and the answers of the Minister of Trade and 
Development— two answers, Mr. Speaker; first 
the written prepared answer and, secondly, 
the answer given spontaneously by him— indi- 
cate to me that the procedures and rules of 
the question period should be completely re- 
viewed and overhauled and that the answers 
of the Minister should be spontaneous and 
unwritten, and those will be the answers 
which appear on the record as being true 
answers. 

Mr. Speaker: May I say to the hon. mem- 
ber that I am also of the opinion that there 
can be improvements made in the question 
period. And I can assure him that when Mr. 
Speaker's House committee meets, I hooe 
next week, we will be glad to discuss it and 
see if there are any changes we can suggest 
to the House in that regard. 

The hon. member for Port Arthur— on a 
point of order? 

Mr. Knight: On a point of privilege and in 
connection with the subject at hand, I feel 
that because of the manner in which Mr. 
Speaker's office rules on the questions which 
are submitted beforehand, I may have been 
discriminated against today. I had a question 
which I wished to put to the House here per- 
taining to the fact that the Speech from the 
Throne was not given in French as well as in 
English, and I was told that the question was 
not accepted by Mr. Speaker's office. The 



reason given to me was that questions which 
start with the phrase "in view of" would not 
be accepted and also that the preamble to my 
question was too long. 

However, I find if we check yesterday's 
roster of questions we will find that my hon. 
colleague, the member for Downsview (Mr. 
Singer), in his second question, which was 
addressed to the Attorney General, opened 
with the form "in view of", and not only that 
but he had a second "in view of" on the 
second line, and had a preamble which was 
considerably longer than mine. So I feel that 
in some way I have been cut off from a 
question which I deem to be extremely 
important. 

Mr. Speaker: I would be pleased to clarify 
the matter for the member for Port Arthur. 
The reasons which he has put to the House 
and which perhaps were conveyed to him 
by my staff were not the reasons for the 
question being sent back for revision. We 
have heard considerable this morning about 
politics in answers, and it is my view, aoting 
on behalf of all the members here, so far as 
is in my control, originally at least, that these 
are not to be political meetings. 

It is true we must have party politics in it, 
but the reason the question was sent back to 
the member was that the preamble which he 
had was obviously an attack on the govern- 
ment by way of a question. All the question 
period is for, is for asking the question. I 
requested that this "in view of" preamble be 
taken out and the question itself be left there. 
That is the ruling that was made by Mr. 
Speaker, and I think it is a fair ruling, and 
a ruling which we have used in the past, 
myself and my predecessors in office. It is 
a ruling which, unless there is some different 
direction from the House, we will continue 
to enforce. 

I also realize there is the problem of the 
answers to these questions, and as I said to 
the member for Windsor West, I do think 
there is some need for a re-examination of 
our procedures and I am quite prepared to 
initiate that. I have already had the leader 
of the third party, the member for York 
South, in touch with me with respect to these 
matters. 

I would have been delighted to have had 
the member's question this morning because 
it was a question submitted both in English 
and in French and I was glad to see it. I was 
practising my French on it. But I felt that 
it should have the preamble which was, as 
I say, politically aligned, taken out, and just 
the question left. 



NOVEMBER 22, 1968 



75 



Mr. Nixon: If I might comment on the 
point of order- 
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I thought some 
French should come into it, so I would just 
like to say merci beaucoup, M. l'Orateur. 

Mr. Nixon: I was never under the impres- 
sion that the rules governing questions pro- 
hibited an attack on the government. In 
many ways, that is the main function for 
Opposition, and while I am not familiar with 
the wording that you disapproved, surely the 
fact that it contained an attack on the gov- 
ernment is irrelevant to the question. 

Mr. Speaker: It is not irrelevant because 
the whole purpose of the question period, as 
I understand it, is to ask questions of urgent 
and public importance. That was the ques- 
tion which followed the statement, which 
was embodied as part of the question. If 
any member wishes to ask a question, it cer- 
tainly can be an attack on the government 
but it must be a question and not an allega- 
tion or a statement of fact, and our rules so 
read. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Sargent: Let us get down to some 
honest business. 

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peter- 
borough has a point. 

Mr. Sargent: I am on my point with the 
Minister; I was the motivator of this. 

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but these are all ques- 
tions which have arisen out of it, so the 
member will please yield to the member for 
Peterborough, and we will come back to him 
so he may proceed with his question. 

Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, on this point of 
order, I do not want to prolong discussion 
on this matter, but I think that one matter 
has been overlooked and that is that these 
questions are expected to be of urgent public 
importance. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: That is right. 

Mr. Pitman: They are expected to be on 
matters which are of importance at the time 
of the question. I would disagree with the 
leader of the Opposition that they are neces- 
sarily a matter of clobbering the government 
for some of its misdemeanors, although this 
may very well come out of the answer. But 
I think the main point is that it should be 
relating to events that are taking place at 
the time when the question is being asked. 



This is what bothers me very greatly; it 
seems to me that the one way a member can 
relate his question to current events is by 
beginning the question with "in view of"— 

Mr. Speaker: There is no ruling that you 
may not use "in view of". 

Mr. Pitman: I am very pleased to hear 
that, Mr. Speaker, because that was certainly 
the impression that was left in the previous 
session, that this was an inappropriate and 
unacceptable way- 
Mr. Speaker: Provided the preamble has 
to do with the question, but if the preamble 
"in view of" has to do with extraneous mat- 
ters of an allegation or a statement of fact, 
then it is not allowed by the rules. But if a 
member must use "in view of" as the basis 
for his question, there is no such ruling 
against; it, and I have allowed "in view of" 
questions just as I have allowed "why" ques- 
tions, which I think are quite proper. 

The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has now 
returned to the floor. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister 
can get up and completely evade the truth 
and mislead the House and the press, then I 
should not be here; no one should be here. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member is 
either on a point of order or— 

Mr. Sargent: This is very important. This 
Minister has continually, along with the Prime 
Minister- 
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. member 
making a point of order? If so, he will state it. 

Mr. Sargent: I am suggesting this Minister 
is misleading the House and I will show you 
why regarding this loan of the ODC. Make 
no bones about it because it is available 
from the ODC people who have no other 
source of financing, this is true. On top of 
that, it is a forgiveness loan; it is a gift 
to them from the government, the people of 
Ontario. Why would anyone go to IDC or 
to any other institution for a loan if he can 
get free money from the government? 

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member 
started out with a point of order or privilege 
that the hon. Minister was misleading the 
House. Now he is making a speech. 

Mr. Sargent: He has misled the House. He 
has not told the House or the newspapers that 
he took the word of Caswell or Holiday Inn, 
a multi-million dollar chain, Husky Oil— 



76 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas- 
urer): Mr. Speaker, I submit this is entirely 
out of order. This is a debate, it is not a 
question. 

Mr. Sargent: The Minister would suggest 
that? 

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, I would— 

Mr. Sargent: Because you boys are intelli- 
gent, this guy- 
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The hon. Treas- 
urer has the floor. 

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I submit to you, 
sir, that it requires a ruling from you because 
this is getting beyond the bounds of propriety, 
common sense or anything else, this type of 
harangue. As a matter of fact, while I am 
on my feet, may I speak about the privilege 
of every member of the House and that is, 
that these allegations of untruths, part truths, 
misleading information, must be substantiated 
in a better form than they are being sub- 
stantiated here this morning. 

Mr. Sargent: I am trying to. 

Mr. Speaker: T,he hon. member is rising on 
a point of order; the hon. member is on his 
feet on a point of order and the hon. mem- 
ber for Grey-Bruce has the floor. 

Mr. Sargent: The Minister then can justify 
his position- 
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will con- 
fine himself to his point of order. 

Mr. Sargent: All right. My point of order 
is this, that he has not told the House in 
honest terms why these loans were granted 
to Holiday Inn, Husky Oil, Caswell— multi- 
million-dollar firms— when the terms of refer- 
ence of the ODC are not to lend money- 
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member has 
now made his point. He will return to his 
seat. If the hon. Minister wishes to reply to 
it he has the opportunity. If not, the hon. 
member for Humber has the floor on a point 
of order. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, all I would 
say is that there is a great deal of confusion 
in the mind of the hon. member for Grey- 
Bruce. He is confusing a loan in which the 
ODC collects interest for the loan, in the 
same way as a client would get a loan if he 
went to any other institution. He is also con- 
fusing the money given away on a forgiveness 
basis to companies going into designated 
areas. 



Mr. Sargent: I am not talking— 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Just wait a minute. The 
value of the company's assets has nothing to 
do with the loan being made, provided they 
go into an area where we want them— into 
a designated area. I do not care if it is the 
Bank of England, if they go into a designated 
area, they can get a forgiveness loan and 
Caswell fell into that category. Because the 
hon. member says he was a Conservative 
from away back makes absolutely no differ- 
ence to us. You can bring anybody in— I do 
not care— their political faith makes no 
difference to the board of ODC or to me, 
and I do not see those loans until after they 
come to Cabinet and that is where I defend 
them, in Cabinet, if Cabinet wants to turn 
them down; so if there is any confusion it 
certainly is not on this side of the House. 

Mr. Sargent: I received- 
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! 
May I suggest in order that the valuable 
time of some 100 members of this House be 
not further taken up with this, that the hon. 
Minister arrange an appointment with the 
hon. member for Grey-Bruce and go over 
these matters. And then, if they are not 
understood, it could form the basis of a 
further question in the House. 

Mr. Sargent: Thanks. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Humber 
has a point of order. 

Mr. Ben: I will pass. 

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member for 
Grey-Bruce a question? 

Mr. Sargent: A question to the hon. Minis- 
ter of Trade and Development. What will be 
the cost of the Expo '70 exhibit in Japan? 
How many trips are planned this year and 
who will be going on these junkets from this 
department? 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will please 
follow his wording. The wording is "How 
many trips are planned this year and who will 
be making the trips from this department?" 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, in answer 
to the hon. member's question, the total cost 
of Expo '70 participation in Japan will be in 
the order of $2.6 million. 

Secondly, there will be two trips to Japan 
this fiscal year, made by J. W. Ramsay, J. C. 
Purvis, and F. Moritsugu, who are the three 
men responsible for building and running the 



NOVEMBER 22, 1968 



77 



Ontario pavilion for Expo '70— and as the hon. 
member already knows, I was there this year 
to participate in the ceremony of digging the 
hole and getting the building under construc- 
tion, so that we would finish three or four 
months ahead of time and stop paying double 
time and overtime to get the job finished. 

Mr. Sargent: People cannot get houses in 
this province and you are running across the 
country- 
Mr. Speaker: Order, the hon. member will 
proceed with his next question. 

Mr. Sargent: A question for the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs. Will the Minister advise 
what is to be done about apartment owners 
who have raised their rents to cover the cost 
of the shelter tax payment to apartment 
tenants? 

Secondly, does the government plan an 
enquiry and investigation into this widespread 
practice during the past few months in 
Ontario? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, in reply 
to the first part of the question, the member 
is aware, I am sure, that there are no rent 
controls presently in effect in the province of 
Ontario. 

The answer to the second part of the ques- 
. . « »» 

tion is no . 

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary to that ques- 
tion: Is the Minister aware that even before 
this Act was put into effect rents were appar- 
ently being raised— even before you made this 
public? 

Another question for the Minister. Will the 
Minister advise when will— 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I might say that is 
one of the most helpful statements we have 
had in a long time from the hon. member. 

Mr. Sargent: Well, I do not know. You see 
what could happen if the Chair would let us 
develop these things but he has the old 
dagger all the time in here. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You had better call 
the Seargent-at-Arms. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! 

Mr. Sargent: A question regarding the 
Beaver Valley area: When will the plans for 
Beaver Valley be completed? 

Secondly, how many such cases in Ontario 
are presently delinquent? 

Thirdly, when is the chaos in your depart- 
ment going to be rectified? 



Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional 
Services): Is that in the question? 

Mr. Sargent: That is in the question. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, my 
reply to the first part of the hon. member's 
question is that much work has been done 
toward the completion of an official plan for 
the Beaver Valley. While no deadline has 
been set, the municipalities have been, and 
are being urged to prepare a plan to guide 
future development so that substandard con- 
ditions and unduly high municipal expendi- 
tures can be avoided. 

In recognition of the urgency involved the 
government undertook to finance, at no cost 
to the municipalities involved, a planning 
appraisal of the area. This appraisal was com- 
pleted by a firm of planning consultants and 
was submitted in its final form within the 
past three weeks. Copies have been sent to 
the municipalities concerned and a meeting 
is being arranged in the near future to settle 
the details of carrying out the planning pro- 
grammes. 

In regard to the second part of the ques- 
tion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that a number 
of communities in Ontario have come to ap- 
preciate the need for effective planning pro- 
grammes to establish the development policies 
they need. However, I do not have informa- 
tion which would indicate how many have 
not yet succeeded in carrying out such pro- 
grammes to completion. I would say this, 
however, Mr. Speaker: Many of the com- 
munities in this province are working sin- 
cerely and diligently to discharge their 
responsibilities in this regard and it seems 
harsh to characterize their efforts as being 
delinquent. 

In reply to the third part of the question- 
when is the chaos in this department going to 
be rectified?— I suppose I could only say, Mr. 
Speaker, that it ill behooves a member of 
this House in my opinion to characterize the 
work of a group of hard-working civil ser- 
vants in my department as chaotic. I resent 
that, I do not choose to answer. 

Mr. Sargent: He does not choose to an- 
swer. Maybe he will not answer a supple- 
mentary question then? Is the Minister aware 
that the county council of Grey county said 
this is costing them several hundreds of thou- 
sants of dollars for your delinquency? Is the 
government prepared to give them a subsidy 
to that effect? Talk about chaos! 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I 
think I might just say that I am aware very 



78 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



much of what is felt by the county council. 
We have had innumerable meetings with offi- 
cials in Grey. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that 
I am very helpfully kept informed of the 
thinking of the people of Grey county coun- 
cil, of the members of the local municipal 
councils, by the very capable, efficient, 
understanding member for Grey South (Mr. 
Winkler). 

Mr. Nixon: Who is not here today. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps he is up 
looking after the people of Grey South. 

Mr. Sargent: He is in deep trouble, too. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member 
for Grey-Bruce wish to place any more ques- 
tions? The member for Dovercourt has a 
question of the Minister of Education. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on a 
point of order, the hon. member for Grey- 
Bruce asked three questions on Wednesday. 
He has now chosen to put two of them. May 
I ask if the third question is being with- 
drawn or how long are we going to go on 
with this little game? Is the question with- 
drawn, Mr. Speaker? 

Mr. Speaker: The question is not with- 
drawn. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: So we go on with 
this little farce day after day- 
Mr. Sargent: This man is being paid a 
handsome salary to do his job and he, along 
with the Attorney General yesterday, was 
complaining about having to answer ques- 
tions again. Who does he think he is— 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order! 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I rise 
on a point of order. I think, sir, that it 
would be very helpful for the orderly con- 
duct of this House if you gave a ruling on 
this matter of hon. members opposite get- 
ting together a list of questions so that the 
Ministers have to get their staff hurrying 
about to get answers, and then some hon. 
member deciding to put those questions when 
he pleases, which may be three weeks from 
now— three months from now— or never at all. 
I think this is abusing the whole question 
period. 

Mr. Speaker: Of course, I would point out 
to the hon. Minister and the members that 
the shoe also fits another foot and that is, 
if the hon. Minister is not present then the 



hon. member who is asking the question is 
not able to put it and sometimes, that goes 
on for a considerable time. 

So at the present time, I have no inten- 
tion of changing the procedure until this 
matter has been further discussed by my 
committee. 

An hon. member: Three cheers for the 
Speaker. 

Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education): 
Mr. Speaker, I would make the suggestion 
that both members are present, the mem- 
ber asking and the Minister who has the 
reply. The member opposite does not wish 
to put the question. Would it not be ap- 
propriate for the Minister, before the orders 
of the day, to give the answer in any event? 
The matter would be cleared up right then 
and there. And there could be no complaint 
because both people are here. 

Mr. Speaker: I think that is an excellent 
suggestion and I will be glad to have it con- 
sidered when my committee— and I hope to 
call them next week— are discussing this. 
Then we will refer it to the party leaders 
and we will hope to clear up some of this 
confusion. 

But my position, hon. members, is this: 
that there is a very great divergence of 
opinion among the 116 other members of 
this House as to what is, first of all, a mat- 
ter of urgent public importance before the 
orders of the day; secondly, as between the 
hon. members and Mr. Speaker as to how 
they should be worded; and thirdly, as 
between the hon. members of the Opposition 
and members of the Treasury benches as to 
the manner in which a question should be 
answered. 

These are matters which either have to be 
decided and strict rules followed, or we must 
carry on in perhaps not quite as riotous a 
fashion as we have. But we must carry on 
and give sufficient leeway both to hon. mem- 
bers and to Ministers to make their points. 

As I have said, we will try to discuss this 
next week with my committee, if we can find 
time to meet and there are improvements 
which can be made. There is no question 
about it. 

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a 
point of order, Mr. Speaker. The bounds 
within which you are prepared to consider 
improvements in the context of your com- 
mittee excludes the one area which members 
of this party at least feel very strongly about: 
that is, to completely chuck the question 



NOVEMBER 22, 1968 



79 



period as it is presently constituted by way 
of written submissions and written replies, 
and substitute for it the rather more useful, 
adult, and effective, question period which 
is spontaneous both from the Opposition and 
by way of ministerial reply. Then, the ques- 
tion period will not be reduced to a ludi- 
crous state day after day. We can have some 
effective exchange of opinion in the House 
and one would hope that that might be 
incorporated in your terms of reference. 

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker 
and his committee can take no action in that 
regard until the rules of the House, which 
now prescribe how questions are to be an- 
swered, are changed. As I understand it 
there has been, over a long period of time, 
a great discussion and enquiry into the rules, 
and as yet Mr. Speaker has had no return 
from the various committees who have been 
dealing with the matter. But it is a point 
which I think should be and will be and is 
being considered by that particular body. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, on a point 
of order. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce 
remarked a moment ago that the Attorney 
General yesterday complained about answer- 
ing questions. 

Mr. Sargent: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: He seems to be slightly 
confused. 

An hon. member: What else is new? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: The only thing I com- 
plained of was his failure to ask the questions 
he submitted to you, Mr. Speaker. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: The situation yester- 
day, Mr. Speaker, was that of the five ques- 
tions he submitted he asked four and I 
simply urged him to ask the other one. I 
was not complaining about answering it. 
I never have complained. One of the ques- 
tions, I did point out, had been asked twice 
before, but I was not complaining about 
answering. I was urging him to get his 
questions before me so they could be an- 
swered. 

Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min- 
ister of Education. 

What is the percentage of the provincial 
contribution of the capital cost of new con- 
struction of schools, and what is the per- 



centage of the provincial contribution of the 
maintenance costs of schools? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
to answer this, and also make one observa- 
tion with respect to the point made by the 
hon. member for Scarborough West when 
he suggested the question period should con- 
sist of questions without any forethought and 
answers without any forethought. I always 
feel very strongly that while Ministers here 
are expected to give answers off the cuff 
there is every— 

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. 
Speaker. I cannot speak for the answers. 
They may come without forethought but the 
questions would be thoughtful. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Exactly. This is just the 
point. The questions would all be arranged 
in the minds of the hon. members opposite 
and then you— 

Mr. Lewis: And, if the Minister is master 
of his department he could cope with it. 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order, order! 

Will the hon. Minister return to his seat 
when the Speaker is on his feet? 

Now perhaps the hon. Minister will confine 
himself at the moment to answering the ques- 
tion which was put to him, and thereafter if 
he has a point of order I will be glad to give 
him the floor. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite right, Mr. Speaker, 
quite right. 

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question 
asked, I quite agree with the speaker. 

Mr. Sargent: Bit confused there— 

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, just trying to save a 
longer dissertation. This is a difficult ques- 
tion to answer, I might point out, Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Particu- 
larly in the way it has been prepared. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, in that we were 
somewhat involved in the preparation, this 
would perhaps increase its complexity. I 
quite agree. 

But in the case of elementary and sec- 
ondary non-vocational projects— and you have 
to divide the non-vocational from the voca- 
tional—the average provincial contribution 
would be approximately 70 per cent of 80 
per cent of the total, or on a provincial 
average in the neighbourhood of 56 per cent. 
The secondary vocational projects which are 



80 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



available up until March 31, 1969, are being 
supported at a 75 per cent rate. 

There are some exceptions, to this, Mr. 
Speaker, in that there are certain vocational 
units being built in some sections of the 
province— basically in northern Ontario where 
they are serving neighbouring communities 
—that are not part of the initial school dis- 
trict where the contribution could be 100 
per cent of those portions of the structure; 
the balance would be at the 75 per cent rate. 
So, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to give a total 
provincial average unless you would break 
it down into these various areas. 

Dealing with the second part of the ques- 
tion, I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, just what 
is meant by "provincial contribution of the 
maintenance costs of the schools." If the 
hon. member is referring to day-to-day 
maintenance— painting and so on during the 
summer months or as part of the operation- 
then this is not calculated in any provincial 
grant as it relates to capital purposes. 

Mr. De Monte: Would the Minister accept 
a supplementary question? 

In connection with the maintenance costs 
of schools, there are certain grants given to 
the schools, and is part of these grants spent 
on maintenance? By maintenance, I mean 
capital maintenance. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if we mean 
by maintenance the day-to-day caretaking 
and so on of the schools, this is not calcu- 
lated in here. We have special grants for 
renovations of existing school structures but 
I do not think we would consider this as 
being maintenance. 

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day. 

Clerk of the House: The first order, resum- 
ing the adjourned debate on the motion for 
an address in reply to the speech of the 
Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor at the 
opening of the session. 



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE 

Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr. 
Speaker, before I go into my final 40 pages 
I would like to compliment the member for 
Scarborough Centre (Mrs. M. Renwick) for 
rising like a tigress defending her mate and 
questioning the authenticity of the remarks 
that I made in regard to a meeting. I would 
like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, and those 
present, from the Globe and Mail of Novem- 
ber 5, datelined out of St. Thomas, and the 



headline is, "Renwick Charges Unions Told 
to Help MacDonald." I read: 

All full-time representatives of two large 
Ontario unions had been warned to help 
Donald MacDonald retain the leadership 
of the Ontario New Democratic Party or 
lose their jobs, his opponent, James Ren- 
wick charged here Monday night. Mr. 
Renwick, president of the national NDP 
and deputy leader of the Ontario party, 
told an Elgin county NDP rally the orders 
were relayed to district representatives of 
the United Steelworkers by Lynn Williams 
and Stu Cook, and to international rep- 
resentatives of the United Packinghouse 
Workers by Iona Samis and Jim Bury. 

"This is a public political party, not a 
private club to be manipulated by power 
brokers," Mr. Renwick told the crowd of 
50 as Mr. MacDonald waited his turn to 
speak. The two men face a party conven- 
tion at Kitchener November 15 to 17. 
"But any staff representative of those two 
unions who supports me or campaigns for 
me does so at the risk of his job," charged 
Mr. Renwick, who announced his candi- 
dacy for the leadership on October 8. 

Replied Mr. MacDonald, "I'm glad to 
say that's a charge that usually comes from 
the other parties, that the labour unions 
manipulate our party. Mr. Renwick should 
know better. The labour unions were sup- 
posed to be against him when he ran for 
national president. But he was elected. He 
said the matter was one which should be 
discussed in private by the party, not 
washed in public like linen. 

"Mr. Renwick is indulging in a bit of 
crying because he is not getting their sup- 
port. He is using a heavy, emotion-laden 
form of arm-twisting, a lament for his own 
loss of support." 

"I will get considerable support because 
of this arm-twisting," interjected Mr. Ren- 
wick. "Donald has been on the phone ever 
since I announced I'd run, phoning the 
caucus members, phoning riding presidents, 
seeking personal loyalty rather than loyalty 
to the party." 

"I sure have been on the phone," snapped 
Mr. MacDonald. "What sort of a game do 
you think we're playing? Tiddly-winks?" 

Two questioners from the floor tried to 
get Mr. Renwick to substantiate this charge. 
He said he would not reveal his source, 
which produced a few groans from the 
audience. 

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): What 
type of game was Camp playing? 



NOVEMBER 22, 1968 



81 



Mr. Jessiman: I read this into the records, 
Mr. Speaker, and I will now proceed. Going 
back to the continuation of yesterday, and 
referring to the emotionally disturbed chil- 
dren who are now housed over at the psy- 
chiatric hospital in Port Arthur. 

Excursions are arranged for the children to 
local stores, industries, the circus, banks, and 
so on. Many of the benefits enjoyed by chil- 
dren in the regular public schools are being 
provided for the children in the school pro- 
gramme at the Ontario Hospital in Port 
Arthur. 

In discussing the activities of The Depart- 
ment of Education, I want to stress here the 
programmes of the youth and recreation 
branch, which also plays an important role in 
programmes for northern Ontario. Working 
with municipal councils, school boards, pri- 
vate agencies and single interest groups, this 
branch encourages local action to develop a 
wide variety of opportunities for recreation 
and informal education. 

We can single out five areas of service 
in which the northern Ontario youth and 
recreation branch is active: First, it plans 
consultative visits to communities by district 
representatives and programme specialists; 
second, the branch offers resource material on 
the organization and programming of recrea- 
tion and adult education activities; third, it 
provides assistance in designing, organizing 
and conducting programmes of training for 
full-time, part-time and volunteer leaders of 
recreation activities; fourth, the branch assists 
in organizing programmes of training for 
executive members of voluntary organizations; 
and, as its fifth main service, the youth and 
recreation branch in northern Ontario author- 
izes grants to municipal councils and to school 
boards in unorganized territories for munici- 
pal expenditures on recreation. In the coming 
year, programmes will be extended to isolated 
communities in northwestern Ontario for 
which transportation will be provided by 
Department of Lands and Forests aircraft. 

The Department of Education continues to 
give active leadership in training for business 
and industry and manpower retraining. More 
than 100 courses are provided to help people 
meet the challenge of change by upgrading 
their work skills. One interesting example of 
such opportunities are the courses that are 
offered on a number of Indian reserves by 
the Kenora centre. 

There has been much favourable comment 
regarding the beneficial side effects experi- 
enced on the reserves as a result of the 
Ontario manpower retraining programme. 
General health and welfare have improved, 



and, probably most important, adults now 
appreciate the value of the education acquired 
by the younger generation. 

An experimental project has been initiated 
recently for the hard-core unemployed in 
Timmins to determine the most effective 
methods for motivating and training people 
with such a background. 

Steps are now being taken to provide addi- 
tional services to adults in the more remote 
areas of the province. Ontario expects to 
commence full-time courses in English as a 
second language at Fort Albany and Kasech- 
ewan where the population is predominantly 
Cree. Ontario plans to offer part-time courses 
at approximately five other major reserves by- 
utilizing the potential of daytime teachers in 
a night school programme. These part-time 
courses will be concerned primarily with Eng- 
lish as a second language and basic training 
for academic upgrading at the levels of grades 
one to six. At Quetico and Elliot Lake, English 
as a second language is being offered on a 
total immersion basis. This approach is being 
used for a number of persons who have 
arrived recently from Czechoslovakia. 

A course for operators of heavy duty equip- 
ment is being offered at the Quetico training 
centre. The graduates of the course are find- 
ing ready employment in northwestern 
Ontario. 

If I have dwelt here on education in north- 
ern Ontario, it is because it is an area of 
special concern to me and those I represent; 
but the expansion of educational effort can 
be seen throughout the province. It is in 
keeping with the needs and aspirations of our 
people and of Canada as a whole, the needs 
and aspirations which have made education, 
in the eyes of the economic council of Canada, 
for example, the top priority of the nation. 

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that these 
accomplishments have been made by mem- 
bers of a government and a party who do not 
think action can be initiated by firing off a 
press release or making incorrect or emo- 
tional statements and then catch the next 
motor boat to go fishing. 

These, then, Mr. Speaker, are educational 
programmes of substance, pushing back both 
the frontiers of knowledge and the frontiers 
of our northern environment and bringing to 
the north country facilities and learning com- 
parable to those offered anywhere in Canada 
or Ontario. 

On the equalization of industrial oppor- 
tunity—for many years, the second greatest 
challenge facing the north is industrial devel- 
opment. To expand our population and to 



82 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



interest people in moving to the north, we 
must provide jobs. It is in this area that the 
new equalization of industrial opportunity 
programme announced by the Prime Minister 
(Mr. Roberts), in September of 1967, and I 
might add, derided by the Opposition, has 
been welcomed by the north. As of Novem- 
ber 19, this year, the total amDunt of loans 
authorized under EIO is $1,666,613. This has 
meant, at commencement, almost 400 jobs, 
sir, and in five years it will mean close to 
600 jobs. It has almost meant an increase 
in plant area of 178,000 square feet. 

EIO loans under study at the present time 
for the north amount to some $2,000,290. In 
addition to these, interest-free forgiveable 
loans, term loans have been authorized for an 
amount of $810,000. 

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): How much 
did they make available to get Norply going? 

Mr. Jessiman: During October 1967 and 
November 19 of this year, the Ontario Devel- 
opment Corporation consultants provided on- 
the-spot advisory service to 211 companies 
and individuals in the north, including Norply 
of Nipigon, I might add. 

The EIO programme has reached into 
communities all across northern Ontario- 
places such as Port Arthur, Hearst, Glenorchy, 
Red Lake, Fort William, Falconbridge and 
Kenora. 

Mr. Speaker, the question has often been 
asked: What has mining done for northwest- 
ern Ontario? 

First of all, to start off on a general basis, 
the mining industry now produces better than 
$100 million worth of mineral annually from 
operations in the northwestern Ontario region 
and the output has been growing quite con- 
sistently over the last several years! From the 
way things look at the present time, I think 
we can look forward to greater and more 
spectacular advances in the years ahead. 

With the short time allocated to me, I 
would just like to list some of the highlights 
in northwestern Ontario mining in recent 
years. 

One— the huge Griffith mine was officially 
opened at Bruce Lake in June of this year. 

This $62-milIion project is particularly im- 
portant to northern Ontario. 

Operating 365 days a year on an around- 
the-clock basis, the Griffith mine is providing 
new employment opportunities for over 350 
men and will have an annual payroll of more 
than $2 million in that locality. With ore 
reserves estimated to be sufficient for 30 to 



50 years of production, the property is also 
creating a continuously increasing need for 
local services, supplies and facilities. 

The official opening ceremony, which inci- 
dentally I had the pleasure of attending with 
the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines 
(Mr. A. F. Lawrence), also the member for 
the Kenora area (Mr. Bernier) and other offi- 
cials, represented the culmination of two full 
years of concerted effort on the part of many 
companies and individuals. Up to 850 men 
were employed during the peak of this pro- 
gramme including 150 Griffith pre-production 
personnel. The contractor established a 100- 
man engineering force, producing 1,400 draw- 
ings and specifications, and purchased $10 
million worth of equipment for the plant. The 
project also involved the construction by the 
CNR of a spur line from Red Lake Junction, 
the erection by the Ontario Hydro-Electric 
Power Commission of a new electric power 
generating station at Ear Falls and 115,000- 
volt transmission line to the property, laying 
of a natural gas pipeline from Vermilion Bay 
on the Trans Canada Highway, building of 
a $5-million ore dock at Fort William, and 
the provision by the Ontario Housing Cor- 
poration of 100 housing units at Ear Falls. 

I am delighted to say that this mine means 
new life for our great northwest and a con- 
siderable boost to Ontario's whole economy. 
I am certain that our hopes for a long and 
prosperous life for this new mining venture 
will be fulfilled. 

Incidentally, I was happy to learn that right 
from the beginning every possible step has 
been taken to see that our waters will not be 
polluted by the operations of the Griffith 
mine. It is also good to know that a com- 
plete sewage disposal plant is being installed 
at Red Lake to keep this beautiful body of 
water safe for recreation and pure for 
drinking. 

As members can well imagine, pollution has 
always been a matter of major concern to 
the mining industry, although perhaps the 
industry has not always been given credit for 
recognizing its responsibility in this respect. 
I think that I would be one of the first to 
agree that this far too prevalent attitude of 
the public is unfair and unwarranted in most 
cases. I know, and I wish that other members 
of the public-at-large realized, that many mil- 
lions of dollars have been spent by the mining 
industry in an effort to keep air and water 
as pure as is possible in an industrial environ- 
ment. 

Two— Steep Rock iron mines. Although 
Steep Rock has been through rough times 



NOVEMBER 22, 1968 



83 



finding markets for its ore, it is heartening 
to note that the company is now operating 
on two long-term contracts. One, with Algoma 
Steel for 1.1 million tons of pellets a year for 
22 years and the other contract with Detroit 
Steel Corporation for 250,000 tons of pellets 
a year for ten years. 

Three— the Caland Ore Company. This 
company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary 
of Inland Steel Company, continues to mine 
and ship ore from the open pits. The com- 
pany's pelletizing plant produces more than 
3,000 tons of pellets daily. Approximately 400 
employees are on the payroll. 

Four— the Algoma Steel Corporation. It 
goes without saying that this company con- 
sumes vast quantities of iron ore and other 
raw materials in its production of steel. With 
a huge appetite for more than three million 
tons of iron ore annually, new sources of 
supply are continually being developed. 

The Michipicoten iron range near Wawa, 
Ontario, has long been a major supplier of 
iron ore for Algoma's b'ast furnaces and it is 
here that the company recently opened 
another open pit to mine siderite ore. 

T,he Ruth and Lucy mine, with a pro- 
jected minimum production of 50,000 tons of 
ore per month, came into production after 
extensive diamond drilling by the Algoma 
ore division's exploration department during 
1967. 

Five— the new Fort William ore dock. This 
important facility was officially opened in 
September of this year. 

Finally, I would like to comment briefly 
on the Ontario government's contribution in 
this field. There is no doubt about the fact 
that the current administration has done a 
tremendous amount to help the great north- 
west move forward. 

It is not necessary to go very far afield to 
pick up evidence of this. Let us look at 
access roads, for example. The road from 
Pickle Crow mine to Lingman Lake, 265 
miles to the northwest, was started as one 
project of the federal-provincial roads to 
resources programme. Since that agreement 
has, unfortunately, expired the work will be 
continued as part of Ontario's own northern 
resource roads programme which is financed 
out of The Department of Mines budget. 
Still closer to home and under the same pro- 
gramme the road from Balmertown is being 
driven northward to connect with the Pickle 
Crow road. When the job is completed it will 
be possible to travel the circular route from 
Highway 17 through Red Lake to Pickle 
Crow and back to Highway 17 at Ignace via 



Highway 599. I mention only these roads 
although in the past few years a great many 
others have been constructed to open large 
areas in this part of the province for full 
development of their natural resources. Since 
the inception of the programme in 1951, 
there has been more than ample proof that 
the relatively very modest investment has 
paid off handsomely in the development of our 
natural resources. 

Let us now take a look at the geological 
branch of The Department of Mines. This is 
certainly the fastest growing branch of the 
department, and about half the total depart- 
mental budget is devoted to its work. That, 
I think is exactly as it should be because, 
without the information that our highly quali- 
fied geologists present to the public in the 
form of reports and maps, it is almost certain 
that active prospecting activity would become 
almost entirely the province of major com- 
panies, which alone could afford the necessary 
geological reconnaissance work required as a 
preliminary to intensive prospecting activity. 

This year The Ontario Department of Mines 
carried out 30 geological projects throughout 
Ontario and, of that number, 13 yere in the 
part of the province west of Wawa. Field 
parties were at work in the Favourable Lake 
area, in the North Shoal Lake area, in Mac- 
nicol, Tustin, Bridges and Docker townships, 
in the Sturgeon Lake area, the Rainy Lake 
area, Finlayson Lake area, Crooks town- 
ship and Red Lake, the Beardmore area and 
the Manitouwadge area. 

Operation Kapuskasing was conducted two 
years ago as a pilot project in which the 
use of helicopters made it possible to cover 
28,000 square miles in a single season. It 
was such an unqualified success that the 
same technique was used again last year in 
operation Lingman Lake in the extreme 
northwest part of the province to survey an 
additional 23,000 square miles. This year a 
similar airlift survey was mounted in opera- 
tion Pukaskwa at the eastern end of Lake 
Superior. 

During September of this year, more than 
70 members of this Legislature were privi- 
leged to participate in a tour of northwestern 
Ontario hosted by The Department of Lands 
and Forests and its Minister (Mr. Brunelle). 
The tour was headed up by our Prime 
Minister. 

The tour provided all of us and particularly 
the more recently elected members of the 
Legislature, with a first-hand opportunity to 
observe the extent of development in this part 
of the province and to acquaint themselves 



84 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



with many of the challenges facing residents 
in the northern latitudes. 

During the tour we travelled more than 
2,000 miles from the capital of this province 
to its westernmost edge and back, visiting 
many of the area's villages, towns and in- 
dustries. As the member for Fort William, I 
am very pleased to record that the hospitality 
accorded tour members was entirely expected 
and traditional to the area. 

I had a few words here to add, but unfor- 
tunately the member who was present on the 
tour is not present in the House and I will 
not direct at him in his absence my words 
on his conduct in Fort William. 

I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that it was 
also during this members' tour that the 
Prime Minister opened the Minaki air strip, 
which is the first of the "highways in the 
sky" programme. For the construction of the 
Minaki airport the provincial government 
contributed $30,000. This new programme is 
intended to assist in the construction of small 
airports throughout northern Ontario, and 
eventually, the provincial government hopes 
to have air strips constructed in the north to 
form an air corridor for tourist and commer- 
cial aircraft. It is my understanding that new 
air strips under the programme are planned 
and already under construction at Kirkland 
Lake, Nestor Falls, Sioux Narrows, Bugle 
Lake, Cochrane, Big Trout Lake, Sandy Lake 
and Wawa. 

Mr. Speaker, last July the OHC board of 
directors toured to Ear Falls where 100 rental 
housing units are being built under the Hous- 
ing for Industry Programme to assist in the 
development of a new mine in the Red Lake 
area. This was followed by a board of 
directors' meeting at the Lakehead— the first 
such meeting to be held outside Toronto— 
and its purpose was to acquaint board mem- 
bers with the special programmes of the 
northern communities. 

During the year, two programmes designed 
to acquaint northern residents with the cor- 
poration and to provide corporation officials 
with a first hand view of the needs of On- 
tario's northern communities, were organized. 
The first was a unique housing workshop on 
wheels which covered 1,400 miles with meet- 
ings in Moosonee, Cochrane, Timmins and 
Englehart, with a side trip to Kirkland Lake. 
On October 10, the workshop was held in 
Fort William which was attended by mem- 
bers of council, planning boards, community 
organizations and municipal officials from 
throughout the northwestern Ontario eco- 
nomic region. 



A programme aimed at providing more 
than $4.6 million worth of student accom- 
modation in post-secondary institutions in 
northern Ontario is underway by OSHC. At 
Lakehead University in Port Arthur 480 
single student units are under construction. 
The first three houses accommodating 144 
students, together with a social centre, will 
be ready next month, and another 96 will 
be ready early in the New Year with the 
whole project scheduled for occupancy before 
next September. 

On August 7, a contract was awarded for 
250 single units at Laurentian University 
which are scheduled to be ready in August, 
1969. 

A proposal call will be issued shortly for 
a 200-single-student bed project at the 
Northern College of Applied Arts and Tech- 
nology in Kirkland Lake. Preliminary dis- 
cussions have been held with Confederation 
College of Applied Arts and Technology in 
Fort William which may be interested in 
having OSHC build a 150-student bed 
project. 

During the past year OHC has brought on 
to the market two offerings of Home Owner- 
ship Made Easy lands in Sudbury and Teck 
township and nearly all of these have been 
marketed. The corporation has purchased 
additional land in Sudbury which is now in 
the planning stage. 

A contract has been signed for the servic- 
ing of 94 building lots in Espanola which 
will be available for prospective home owners 
next spring. In Longlac a servicing contract 
has been signed for the development sites 
for 12 town houses for low income families 
and the servicing of nine lots for prospective 
home builders. The corporation holds addi- 
tional land in this municipality which will 
be developed when approvals are received. 
As well, OHC has holdings in Timmins and 
New Liskeard, and is assembling land in 
Sturgeon Falls, which will be offered next 
year. 

OHC's housing development programme 
was active in 26 northern municipalities dur- 
ing 1968. This activity resulted in the com- 
pletion and occupancy of 176 family units 
in five communities, and the completion and 
occupancy of 100 senior citizen units in five 
communities. 

Another 72 senior citizen units are under 
construction in five communities and 197 
family housing units are under construction 
in six communities. 

A total of 226 senior citizen units in nine 
communities and 528 family units in 16 com- 



NOVEMBER 22, 1968 



85 



munities are in various stages of development 
up to the contract-signing stage. 

OHC's northern Ontario rental housing 
programme for families and senior citizens 
as at October 31, 1968, represents a con- 
struction cost of about $35,745 million. 

OHC's planning and research section is 
carrying out surveys in 15 northern munici- 
palities, some of which are being surveyed 
for the second and third time. 

Mr. Speaker, when one speaks about agri- 
culture generally most people in Ontario 
would think that we confine our remarks to 
areas in eastern Ontario and southwestern 
Ontario primarily. However, I think it 
should lie pointed out that there is very wide 
agricultural activity taking place in northern 
Ontario. 

A full scale socio-economic survey of 
northwestern Ontario, which is now under 
way, was first proposed by the Ontario 
ARDA directorate, and was approved by 
ARDA with the two levels of government 
sharing the cost equally. One important 
aspect of this is an extensive multi-purpose 
study of the entire economic base for north- 
western Ontario. This is being done by the 
rural development branch of the Ontario 
Treasury. A second study undertaken by 
The Department of Lands and Forests is 
designed to develop ways and means of im- 
proving living standards of Indian people. 
We have great hopes for this overall pro- 
gramme once the initial surveys have been 
completed and the northwestern Ontario 
regional development council is provided 
with this information. 

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Department of 
Agriculture and Food has also a number of 
assistance programmes for livestock produc- 
ers designed to improve the herds through 
transportation assistance, beef, sheep and 
swine sire programme policies, artificial in- 
semination, and so on. 

The department was primarily responsible 
for the organizations of the five northern 
Ontario feeder cattle sales in Little Current, 
Thessalon, South River, New Liskeard and 
Rainy River. These sales handle in the 
neighbourhood of 10,000 cattle each year. 

Thirteen areas in northern Ontario now 
have veterinary service as a result of pro- 
vincial subsidies to the tune of $4,000 per 
year veterinarian plus five cents per mile. 
Veterinarian services labs exist in Kapus- 
kasing, Hearst and Cochrane. 

Northern Ontario milk producers were the 
first to benefit from pooling when the On- 



tario government created the Ontario Milk 
Marketing Board in 1965. There are three 
such pools in the north. 

Crop insurance is another area of positive 
government action and has been provided 
for a number of crops in northern Ontario. 
Since 1965, adverse weather assistance has 
been provided to northern Ontario farmers 
to the extent of more than $4 million. 

We maintain the New Liskeard demon- 
stration farm and college of agricultural 
technology to train young farmers and to 
develop new varieties and new techniques 
for the north. The extension department has 
the highest ratio of professional staff to the 
number of commercial farmers in all of 
Ontario. There are 14 extension workers in 
the north, six of them bilingual. 

Each year a special fund of $250,000 is 
designated for assistance in the purchase of 
such items as fertilizer equipment, weed 
sprayers, livestock, and so on, and adminis- 
tered by the regional agricultural representa- 
tive upon the advice of local farmers' 
committees. 

In 1967-1968 $135,000 worth of capital 
grants were made to northern Ontario farm- 
ers. To date nearly $1.5 million in grants 
have been paid to northern Ontario com- 
munities under The Communities Centres 
Act. 

More than 200 young farmers have been 
established under the junior farmer loan with 
loans totalling $2.75 million in northern 
Ontario. 

Community pastures have been established 
at Thunder Bay, Timiskaming and on Mani- 
toulin Island. 

A beef ranching programme of 5,000 acres 
is now in operation in the Cochrane area. 

More than $44,000 was granted to the 
Thunder Bay co-operative livestock abattoir 
and this plant is now provided with full-time 
meat inspection. 

Hundreds of northern Ontario Indians have 
been trained in forestry or transported to 
southern Ontario for seasonal labour as a 
part of the farm labour programme of The 
Department of Agriculture and Food. 

These, Mr. Speaker, are again just part of 
one Ontario government department's activi- 
ties in the north. These are just a few poli- 
cies I mention to illustrate this government's 
awareness of a need to assist the north. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize I have spent 
some time in outlining Ontario government 
programmes for northern Ontario, but I am 
not nearly finished and I make no apology. 



86 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



If, in the last session of this Legislature, we 
were treated to four hours and ten hours of 
listening to the frivolous remarks by the 
member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) and 
the oratory of the member for Sudbury (Mr. 
Sopha), and I do not mean to embarrass the 
member for Sudbury by linking his name 
with the other— heaven forbid— I think the 
government record in this session deserves a 
good hearing. One department — that of 
Lands and Forests — deserves special men- 
tion. I would just like to go over some of 
the highlights of this department and its 
work in northern Ontario. I think, Mr. 
Speaker, that we should be proud of our 
provincial parks system that now includes 96 
parks which have an area of more than eight 
million acres. In 1967, I am told, we had an 
increase of more than four per cent of park 
visitors and it has now reached the all-time 
high of 10,192,553. 

To cope with this increasing demand of 
recreation, Ontario during the 1967-1968 
fiscal year has reserved a further 531 acres of 
land and lakes for future development. 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): 
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member 
one question. 

Mr. Jessiman: Also public demand for in- 
creased recreation areas has resulted in— 

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps he did not hear me, 
I wonder if the hon. member would permit 
a question? 

Mr. Jessiman: —of a master plan for Algon- 
quin Park and I understand similar master 
plans are being developed for other parks. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point 
of order. 

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. leader of the 
Opposition please state his point of order? 

Mr. Nixon: The member just speaking 
indicated the figures for park attendance end- 
ing in the fall of 1968. 

Mr. Jessiman: 1967. 

Mr. Nixon: Ah, that is why I asked him 
to repeat it and he would not pay any atten- 
tion to me. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I 
asked the specific information from the Min- 
ister yesterday and he said it was not com- 
piled. 

Mr. Jessiman: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the 
leader of the Liberal Party should know that 
it could not possibly be compiled yet. 



Also, public demand for increased recrea- 
tional areas has resulted in the recent an- 
nouncement of a master plan for Algonquin 
Park and I understand similar master plans 
are being developed for other parks. 

In the area of recreational planning, the 
department has initiated a number of long- 
range plans and research plans, and work in 
fact has been started on an outdoor recrea- 
tional plan for Ontario. 

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, public 
pressures for increased recreation on the 
parks branch is also evident on the fish and 
wildlife branch which must meet public de- 
mand for more hunting and fishing areas. 

I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that possibly 
if the leader of the Liberal Party went on a 
complete tour and possibly did a gate check 
of each he might have the— 

Mr. Nixon: I visited ten parks including 
one right on the member's back doorstep and 
he had never visited it. 

Mr. Jessiman: How does the member 
know? He did not follow me. He should not 
speak unless he knows. 

Mr. G. Ben (Humber): I notice the mem- 
ber does not deny the statement. 

Mr. Jessiman: Game management plays an 
important role in providing additional and 
productive hunting areas and with most of 
the land privately owned, it has become 
necessary to acquire suitable areas of land 
for this purpose. Another method adopted 
by Ontario is through a land-owner assistance 
programme to improve relations between 
hunters and land owners and to restore hunt- 
ing on private lands. The programme will 
be well underway this year and includes 
assistance to improve land for wildlife and 
increased protection by conservation officers 
where land is open for hunting. 

The government is also concerned with 
deer range improvement and studies have 
indicated that deer populations can be in- 
creased where there is adequate shelter pro- 
vided and suitable browse available. 

The ever-increasing demand made by the 
public on the fisheries resources of the prov- 
ince makes the need for sound fisheries man- 
agement even more necessary. Under this 
programme, Ontario's lakes are being inven- 
toried as a first step. More than 3,000 lakes 
have been surveyed to date with the pro- 
gramme providing direction for an accelerated 
programme of management. 



NOVEMBER 22, 1968 



87 



These are just a few of the many pro- 
erammes currently underway within The De- 
partment of Lands and Forests— a department 
so vital to the development of northern 
Ontario. I could, of course, go on and on and 
spell out in detail the northern activities of 
the fisheries research branch, the timber 
branch, which incidentally only last week 
marked the billionth tree produced by the 
department, and the forest protection branch 
which performed the singularly excellent task 
of the successful spraying of the spruce bud 
worm over some 270,000 acres in the She- 
bandowan Lake district. 

I might mention at this point, Mr. Speaker, 
that this is rather an important part of the 
function of Lands and Forests. There was a 
local area of infestation that, thank goodness, 
was controlled, in the south and west of Fort 
William. It was with special concern and 
delight that the Prime Minister of this prov- 
ince came to the Lakehead and flew over the 
area and we went out and examined it at 
ground level. Since then, I personally hive 
been back with the foresters. 

I am no biologist but certainly I used their 
knowledge and went back with them and the 
infestation has been controlled. We do not 
have to go back many years to where we had 
a tremendous outbreak of spruce bud worm 
on the northwest shore of Lake Superior and 
there were millions of acres of devastation 
caused by the worms. So this is of very spe- 
cial significance. 

Mr. Speaker, in 1956, the Ontario Progres- 
sive Conservative government set up the On- 
tario Water Resources Commission. Since its 
inception, this commission has approved proj- 
ects in Ontario totalling $1,600 million. 
Today, in order to execute its responsibilities, 
the commission has developed regional offices. 
One has already opened in Kingston to serve 
eastern Ontario. Another has been opened 
in London to serve southwestern Ontario and 
negotiations now are currently underway for 
the opening of a third regional office at Fort 
William to serve the Lakehead and northwest- 
ern Ontario. 

In the last few years, we have heard a 
steady scream of criticism from the Opposi- 
tion benches about water pollution, and in 
order to inform them as far as northern 
Ontario is concerned, I really should put on 
the record in detail the activities of this com- 
mission and its work in our part of the prov- 
ince. However, while they deserve to have 
these facts given to them, I will just briefly 
list the areas where OWRC projects are cur- 
rently under development in northern Ontario: 



Sioux Lookout, Balfour township, Bruce 
Mines, Chapleau, Beardmore, Smooth Rock 
Falls, Himsworth township, Black River, 
Matheson, Hearst, Nakina, Rayside township, 
Schreiber, Blezard township, Latchford, Long- 
lac, Geraldton, Shackleton and Machin, Emo 
township, Ignace, Ear Falls, Red Lake, Lake 
Timiskaming. 

Also, the OWRC is currently involved in 
municipal water and sewage facilities in Port 
Arthur, Fort William, Red Lake, Kenora, Ear 
Falls and Fort Frances, and negotiations are 
underway on Terrace Bay, Marathon and She- 
bandowan Lake. 

This gives hon. members some idea of the 
government's progress in the field of sewag? 
treatment and waterworks in northern Ontario. 

Mr. Speaker, as the Progressive Conserva- 
tive member for Fort William, when I speak 
of the great city of Fort William, synony- 
mously I must include the beautiful city of 
Port Arthur— my apologies, the member has 
vacated— and the immediately adjoining mu- 
nicipalities of Shuniah and Neebing. The 
united Fort William and her adjoining mu- 
nicipalities and districts have a population of 
over 110,000 people. The Canadian Lake- 
head, as it is always referred to, although not 
a legal designation, has grown in use over the 
years as a description of these two historic 
ports, situated at the western end of the 
greatest inland waterways in the world— the 
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway— and are 
directly connected to the Atlantic Ocean. A 
mid-continent seaport, Mr. Speaker, the Lake- 
head has the honour of being the highest 
seaport in the world at an elevation of over 
600 feet above sea level. 

At its historic beginning in 1678 as a trans- 
shipping point, it was known as Fort Kamin- 
stfquiwa. I might explain it, Mr. Speaker, 
Kaminstiquiwa is an Ojibway word meaning 
river of many miles. It was known as Fort 
Kaminstiquiwa and built to protect the trans- 
shipment eastward of valuable furs and the 
interchange of goods going westward out of 
eastern Canada. Since that time this great 
inland port has grown to become the third 
largest seaport in Canada with annual ship- 
ments of almost 20 million tons. The concen- 
tration of 25 grain elevators with capacity to 
store over 110 million bushels, which is one 
sixth of the total crop capacity of the prairie 
provinces of Canada, makes the Canadian 
Lakehead not only the third largest seaport 
in Canada, but the granary of the world. 

Grain is not the only commodity creating 
this robust economy in the Lakehead, Mr. 
Speaker. 



88 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Mr. Nixon: They have a lot of trouble keep- 
ing the grain moving down there. 

Mr. Jessiman: Yes, the federal government 
sure has trouble selling it, does it not? We 
did fine when we were in there. 

It is the pivot point and service centre for 
a vast untapped natural resource empire 
stretching north to Hudson Bay. The Lake- 
head is the funnel, directing materials to the 
hungry industrial consumers of the continent 
and foreign lands. Fort William, situated 
exactly halfway across the great domain, is 
closer to Chicago than it is to the Queen city 
of Toronto, and the newsprint manufactured 
from one of our local mills supplies all the 
requirements of one of the largest papers of 
Chicago. 

Mr. Speaker, again referring to the cities of 
Fort William and Port Arthur that have 
gradually grown to produce one solid busi- 
ness and social unit, it is difficult to speak or 
refer to one without the other. Side by side, 
as husband and wife, these two great cities 
are almost identical in population with close 
to 50,000 each. When the recommendations 
of the Hardy report on the study of regional 
government are implemented, we soon will be 
united, I hope, in a beautiful marriage be- 
cause of the great distances to other centres. 

From the Manitoba border, just west of 
Kenora, to Queen's Park is a distance of 1,200 
miles. Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that a 
feeling of loneliness is often mistaken for a 
feeling of neglect? In distance it is almost 
twice as far to travel to Toronto as it is to 
travel to Winnipeg from my home town. At 
this time I would compliment Air Canada on 
its recent inauguration of jet service between 
the Queen City and the Canadian Lakehead 
effective November 1. We are now just over 
one hour of air travel from the Canadian 
Lakehead to Toronto. 

The Lakehead airport, although situated in 
Fort William, services the whole area of 
Thunder Bay with several flights daily both 
east and west. Internationally we are also 
connected by many airlines to the United 
States, and like Toronto we have outgrown 
our present facilities and larger accommoda- 
tions are planned in the not-too-distant future 
to service this great area. 

In sports and recreation, Mr. Speaker, we 
take no back seat to any part of the province 
of Ontario. It is only normal to associate the 
Lakehead with hockey because of our long 
winter season and outdoor rinks. We are 
proud of our record of achievement in this 
field of recreation. With the expanded NHL, 



widi many new teams, it is almost impossible 
to name one that has not a player on it from 
our Canadian Lakehead and area. In the past 
five years, our little league teams from the 
Lakehead have won three of five Canadian 
championships— a record unsurpassed in this 
great province. In the field of sports, Mr. 
Speaker, we are located in the heart of the 
northwestern chain of mountains, which are 
actually a continuation of the Laurentian 
escarpment. Within five miles of our cities, 
we have four fine ski resort areas with vertical 
drops as great as between 800 and 900 feet, 
comparable with any skiing facilities in the 
Dominion of Canada— certainly the finest in 
the province of Ontario. The ski slopes are 
serviced with both T-bar and chair-lift equip- 
ment, and rapidly the Canadian Lakehead is 
becoming the ski capital of Ontario. We have 
been well represented on the Canadian ski 
teams that have participated in world amateur 
skiing, and in the not-too-distant future, I am 
sure, sir, that we will be producing world 
champions in the province of Ontario, and 
particularly at the Canadian Lakehead. 

As a past president of the Fort William 
Chamber of Commerce, I state in the past 
Centennial year, Mr. Speaker, it was our 
privilege in Fort William for our male choir 
to become not only the Centennial choir 
champions for the province of Ontario, but 
also to represent Ontario in the great Cen- 
tennial sing in Nova Scotia, and win the 
Canadian award for male choirs for the whole 
Dominion of Canada. Our male choir then, 
sir, represented Ontario in conducting a tour 
of Europe, and the same choir, Mr. Speaker, 
attended a function for the Premier and gave 
a resounding rendition of "Well, Hello 
Johnny". Also during our Centennial year, 
the Fort William city band won the Canadian 
championship for its class of band for the 
Dominion of Canada and brought great 
acclaim to our city. Not to be outdone, the 
Fort William men's pipe band participated in 
the Canadian championships and represented 
our province in Scotland and in Europe and 
brought great acclaim by performing for Her 
Majesty the Queen on this trip. 

Mr. Speaker, last July, the hon. Minister 
of Tourism and Information (Mr. Auld) un- 
veiled in Kenora one of the most revealing 
and action resulting tourist information 
studies. This report has received acclaim from 
tourist associations and the general public as 
a whole, as a report on which to build an 
industry that will triple the revenue in the 
areas examined. But, Mr. Speaker, conducting 
a study is one thing. What we need is imme- 
diate action to bolster our tourist business if 



NOVEMBER 22, 1968 



89 



we are to get our rightful share, and I 
would suggest to the Ministers of Tourism 
and Information, Lands and Forests, Trade 
and Development, that they combine their 
efforts on behalf of the whole nordiern part 
of the province and as a starter use one office 
in the northern states to invite tourists to 
visit us. This is a dual use of existing offices 
in the United States at this present time. We 
should stock Lake Superior with Cohoe 
salmon, so that the "Cohoe fever" would 
extend into Ontario instead of stopping at 
the south side of our Great Lakes. I have 
witnessed what has happened since Wisconsin, 
Michigan, and Minnesota have combined and 
planted the Cohoe. Before it is too late, let 
us spend a million to make ten million in 
this area. Let us recognize that tourism is our 
third largest industry and really put an effort 
on; let us extend the tourist season to 12 
months instead of two or three. If we are 
serious about giving the north a real shot in 
the arm, then let us take advantage of what 
we have most of in the north, beautiful wilder- 
ness, and let us develop it to its fullest. 

Mr. Speaker, it will not be long before we 
have regional government in the Lakehead. 
But, if we are to recognize the importance of 
adopting the concept of regional government 
in the same way that we have received and 
adopted the new boundaries in education, 
then I would suggest that we also recognize 
the necessity for allowing the responsibilities 
of area administration of all departments 
of government to be placed in the area con- 
cerned. Decisions for the north are then 
made in the north— by true northerners who 
understand the problems as they exist in the 
north. What we need is a type of satellite 
Queen's Park located in the north. Let us 
also consider transferring, if not all, then at 
least more of The Department of Lands and 
Forests to northwestern Ontario in the area 
where the crop is grown and harvested. And 
Mr. Speaker, let us also recognize the nickel 
capital of the world, Sudbury, and make it 
the area from where most of The Depart- 
ment of Mines should be operating. 

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, 
we all listened with a great deal of interest 
to die Lieutenant-Governor's speech, and 
of particular importance for those of us from 
northern Ontario was the announcement of 
a plan to co-ordinate all northern transporta- 
tion policies. My understanding is that this 
new body will provide money to dispense 
grants for building roads and landing fields, 
and will generally be able to grant up to 
$15,000 a mile to companies who want to 



build roads to such resources as mines and 
forests. 

Also, I noted with interest the promise of 
a revision in The Mining Act to overhaul our 
laws affecting safety requirements in the 
mining industry, and also a programme to 
provide additional recreation areas and more 
provincial parks, particularly, I hope, in 
northern Ontario. On the whole, the Throne 
Speech was realistic, practicable and sen- 
sible. Generally, it has received applause 
throughout Ontario. We realize that socialists 
will be unhappy because the government has 
decided not to go on and adopt any of the 
NDP's large spending programmes. 

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the gov- 
ernment's northern Ontario policies, I would 
just like to quote briefly from an editorial 
which appeared recently in the Dryden 
Observer. 

No matter where one lives in Ontario, 
the tendency is to fear that the rest of the 
province may be enjoying benefits out 
of proportion to those of one's own area. 
There is little evidence, however, to sug- 
gest that any section of the province is 
being too seriously short-changed. 

The Robarts government has shown 
itself sensitive to requests for recognition 
of area problems. Despite what political 
opponents may say, and it is their privilege 
to say what they please, Mr. Robarts 
seems determined to lead Ontario to suc- 
cessful development in every field of en- 
deavour. 

Election-time criticisms of the govern- 
ment's attitude to northern and northwest- 
ern Ontario have been found, with some 
exceptions, groundless. On a per-capita 
basis at least, these parts of the province 
are getting their share. 

Mr. Speaker, I have attempted here today 
to place on the record just some of the 
Ontario government's policies that have been 
responsible for opening up one of the last 
frontiers in North America. I think that the 
people in northern Ontario should have a 
ready reference of what the government is 
doing in such important areas as education, 
municipal reorganization, agriculture, water 
resources and so on. 

There are those critics, and we hope there 
always will be, who argue that the govern- 
ment does not do enough, fast enough. I 
count myself among them. It is from con- 
stant pressure, constructive criticism and the 
continuous strivings for new programmes 



90 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



that we in northern Ontario can ensure that Mr. Nixon moves the adjournment of the 

we receive our fair share of government debate. 

assistance and spending. But I would also Motion agreed to. 

say that there are different types or critics— 

those who are responsible and constructive, Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial 

and those who go off in all directions, promis- and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on 

ing everything, making wild and unsubstan- Monday we will continue with the Throne 

tiated charges and whose only goal is debate. 

destruction. They have promises for every- Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjourn- 

thing and policies for nothing, and that in ment of the House. 

my view is why they will continue to remain v . , 

on the Opposition benches in the Legislature Motlon a 8 re ed to. 

of Ontario. The House adjourned at 12.35 o'clock, p.m. 






No. 5 




ONTARIO 



legislature of (Ontario 




OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION 



Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature 



Monday, November 25, 1968 



Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C. 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C. 



THE QUEEN'S PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 



Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto. 



CONTENTS 

Monday, November 25, 1968 

Report of select committee re standing committees, Mr. Olde 93 

Expropriation Act, 1968-1969, bill intituled, Mr. Wishart, first reading 94 

Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. Deans, first reading 96 

Appointment of a commissioner to investigate administrative decisions and acts of offi- 
cials of the government of Ontario and its agencies and to define the commis- 
sioner's powers and duties, bill to provide for, Mr. Singer, first reading 96 

Medical practitioners, registered nurses and others from liability in respect of voluntary 

first aid and medical services, bill to relieve, Mr. Shulman, first reading 96 

Enlarged Lakehead municipality, statement by Mr. Robarts 96 

Qualifications of Mr. Bruce Goulet, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Bullbrook 97 

Lakehead mentally retarded sheltered workshop, question to Mr. Yaremko, Mr. Stokes 98 

Commemoration of birth of Hon. George Brown, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 98 

Increase in doctors' fees, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. MacDonald 99 

School bus transportation, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid and Mr. Pitman 99 

Comfort allowances for disabled persons in hospitals for chronically ill, Mr. Shulman 100 

Provincial tax on drugs, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Burr 100 

Motor vehicle exhaust pollution, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Burr 100 

Construction and maintenance costs of hospitals, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. De Monte 101 

Closing of Murray Avenue at QEW, question to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Deans 101 

Patients at Penetang Ontario Hospital, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Shulman 102 

Mr. William Lumley, question to Mr. Grossman, Mr. Shulman 102 

Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Nixon 104 

Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Nixon, agreed to 119 

On notice of motion No. 15, Mr. Snow, Mr. Haggerty, Mr. Young 119 

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 123 



93 



LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 



The House met today at 2.30 o'clock, p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to 
have visitors to the Legislature and today we 
welcome as guests students from the follow- 
ing schools: In the east gallery Elia junior 
high school, Downsview and Barton high 
school, Hamilton; in the west gallery from 
R. H. King collegiate institute, Scarborough. 

Petitions. 

Presenting reports. 

Mr. Olde of the select committee appointed 
to prepare the lists of members to compose 
the standing committees of the House, pre- 
sented the committee's report which was read 
as follows and adopted: 

Your committee recommends that the lists 
of standing committees ordered by the House 
be composed of the following members: 

Agriculture and Food: Belanger, Burr, 
Downer, Edighoffer, Evans, Farquhar, Gaunt, 
Gilbertson, Gisborn, Haggerty, Hamilton, 
Henderson, Hodgson (York North), Innes, 
Jessiman, Johnston (Carleton), Kennedy, 
MacDonald, Makarchuk, Morningstar, Mc- 
Neil, Newman (Ontario South), Olde, Pater- 
son, Mrs. Renwick (Scarborough Centre), 
Root, Rowe, Ruston, Smith (Simcoe East), 
Snow, Spence, Villeneuve, Whitney and 
Young - 34. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of seven members. 

Education and University Affairs: Bull- 
brook, Johnston (Parry Sound), Johnston 
(Carleton), Kennedy, Kerr, Knight, Lawlor, 
Lawrence (Carleton East), Lewis, Martel, 
Morrow, Newman ( Windsor - Walkerville ) , 
Newman (Ontario South), Pitman, Price, 
Mrs. Pritchard, Reid (Rainy River), Reid 
(Scarborough East), Rollins, Rowe, Smith 
(Hamilton Mountain) — 21. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of five members. 

Government Commissions: Apps, Bernier, 
Boyer, Bukator, Carton, Deans, Demers, 
Downer, Evans, Ferrier, Gaunt, Good, Hodg- 
son (York North), Jessiman, Johnston (Parry 



Monday, Novemrer 25, 1968 

Sound), Kennedy, Lewis, MacKenzie, Meen, 
Morningstar, McNeil, Olde, Price, Mrs. 
Pritchard, Renwick (Riverdale), Rollins, 
Sargent, Shulman, Smith (Hamilton Moun- 
tain), Smith (Nipissing), Snow, Sopha, Stokes, 
Trotter - 34. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of seven members. 

Health: Apps, Belanger, Ben, Brown, 
Demers, De Monte, Dunlop, Gilbertson, 
Johnston (St. Catharines), Morrow, Newman 
(Ontario South), Potter, Mrs. Pritchard, Mrs. 
Renwick (Scarborough Centre), Rowe, Rus- 
ton, Shulman, Smith (Hamilton Mountain), 
Smith (Nipissing), Trotter, Winkler — 21. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of five members. 

Highways and Transport: Belanger, Ben, 
Bernier, Burr, Carton, D.wison, D2ans, 
Farquhar, Gilbertson, Hamilton, Hodgson 
(York North), Innes, Jackson, Jessiman, 
Johnston (Carleton), Kerr, Knight, Mac- 
Kenzie, Martel, Meen, Morin, Morningstar, 
McNeil, Newman ( Windsor - Walkerville ) , 
Olde, Root, Rowe, Snow, Spence, Villeneuve, 
Whitney, Worton, Yakabuski, Young — 34. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of seven members. 

Lahour: Apps, Bernier, Boyer, Braithwaite, 
Bullbrook, Demers, De Monte, Gisborn, Hag- 
gerty, Jessiman, Johnston (St. Catharines), 
Kerr, Lawrence (Carleton East), Makarchuk, 
Morningstar, Newman (Ontario South), 
Pilkey, Smith (Simcoe East), Smith (Hamil- 
ton Mountain), Sopha, Winkler — 21. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of five members. 

Legal Bills and Municipal Affairs: 
Boyer, Bullbrook, Carton, Deacon, Demers, 
Dunlop, Good, Henderson, Johnston (St. 
Catharines), Kerr, Lawlor, Lawrence (Carle- 
ton East), Meen, Morin, Price, Renwick 
(Riverdale), Singer, Sopha, Winkler, Yaka- 
buski, Young — 21. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of five members. 

Natural Resources and Tourism: Allan, 
Apps, Bernier, Boyer, Davison, Demers, 



94 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Edighoffer, Evans, Farquhar, Gilbertson, 
Haggerty, Hodgson ( Victoria - Haliburton ) , 
Innes, Jackson, Jessiman, Johnston (Parry 
Sound), Johnston (St. Catharines), Knight, 
MacDonald, Makarchuk, Martel, Morin, New- 
man (Ontario South), Paterson, Potter, Reid 
(Rainy River), Rollins, Root, Smith (Simcoe 
East), Spence, Stokes, Villeneuve, Whitney, 
Yakabuski - 34. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of seven members. 

Private Bills: Belanger, Bernier, Brei- 
thaupt, Bukator, Bullbrook, Carton, Deacon, 
Deans, De Monte, Downer, Edighoffer, 
Evans, Ferrier, Gaunt, Gilbertson, Hamilton, 
Henderson, Hodgson (York North), Jackson, 
Johnston (Parry Sound), Johnston (St. Cath- 
arines), Kennedy, Kerr, Lawlor, Lawrence 
(Carleton East), MacDonald, Meen, Morin, 
Morningstar, McNeil, Newman (Windsor- 
Walkerville), Olde, Peacock, Pilkey, Pitman, 
Potter, Price, Mrs. Pritchard, Rollins, Root, 
Sargent, Singer, Smith (Simcoe East), Smith 
(Hamilton Mountain), Sopha, Villeneuve, 
Whitney, Winkler, Worton, Yakabuski — 50. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of seven members. 

Privileges and Elections: Allan, Belan- 
ger, Bernier, Braithwaite, Downer, Dunlop, 
Hamilton, Henderson, Johnston (Carleton), 
Lawlor, Meen, Newman ( Windsor - Walker- 
ville), Olde, Potter, Price, Renwick (River- 
dale), Rollins, Shulman, Singer, Smith (Nipis- 
sing), Worton — 21. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of five members. 

Public Accounts: Allan, Apps, Breithaupt, 
Deacon, Gaunt, Lawrence (Carleton East), 
Morrow, Peacock, Potter, Renwick (River- 
dale), Smith (Simcoe East), Snow — 12. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of five members. 

Social, Family and Correctional Serv- 
ices: Belanger, Ben, Braithwaite, Breithaupt, 
Brown, Burr, Carruthers, Demers, Dunlop, 
Hodgson ( Victoria - Haliburton ) , Jessiman, 
Kennedy, Morningstar, Morrow, Mrs. Pritch- 
ard, Mrs. Renwick (Scarborough Centre), 
Rowe, Ruston, Smith (Hamilton Mountain), 
Trotter, Villeneuve — 21. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of seven members. 

Standing Orders and Printing: Boyer, 
Bukator, Carruthers, Davison, Downer, Far- 
quhar, Hamilton, Henderson, Hodgson (Vic- 
toria-Haliburton), Johnston (Parry Sound), 
MacKenzie, Martel, Morin, Morrow, Paterson, 



Reid (Rainy River), Smith (Simcoe East), 
Snow, Whitney, Yakabuski, Young — 21. 

The quorum of the said committee to con- 
sist of five members. 

Mr. Speaker: Motions. 

Introduction of bills. 



THE EXPROPRIATION ACT, 1968-1969 

Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General) 
moves first reading of bill intituled, The Ex- 
propriation Act, 1968-1969. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the bill 
which 1 have just had the privilege of intro- 
ducing represents a result of our exhaustive 
review of the recommendations of the Hon. 
J. C. McRuer in his report on civil rights and 
the recommendations in the report of the 
Ontario Law Reform Commission relative to 
the basis for compensation on expropriation. 

While I would not ordinarily take the time 
of this House, Mr. Speaker, to go into detail 
on the first reading of a bill, I did feel that 
the exceptional nature, the fundamental 
aspects of this bill, merit a brief comment 
which may assist the members in reviewing 
the subject matter of the bill. 

The various recommendations that have 
been made have all been considered and the 
great majority of them are now represented 
in this legislation. They have been codified 
in some aspects to meet, in a practical way, 
the significant problems which are inherent 
in expropriation matters, while at the same 
time the fundamental principles inherent in 
the recommendations have, I believe, been 
maintained. If I may, I will review some of 
the principal features which are dealt with 
by the bill. 

Before any expropriation can take place 
under the new law, an interested owner can 
require that an inquiry be held in public as 
to the fairness, soundness and necessity of 
the particular expropriation. 

This would give all of those owners inter- 
ested, and the expropriation authority, an 
opportunity to review with public dialogue 
the various aspects of any proposed expropri- 
ation. 

The enquiry officer would then make his 
report upon the proposed expropriation and 
this would be submitted to an approving 
authority which would be a politically re- 
sponsible group representative of the people. 
We have attempted to ensure that in every 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



95 



case of expropriation, the ultimate approval 
would have to be given by an elected indi- 
vidual or group of individuals, since we agree 
widi the proposition that the talcing of prop- 
erty for the public interest must by its nature 
be the decision of a person elected by the 
people. 

The approving authority after considering 
the enquiry officer's report would make its 
decision as to the expropriation. It will be 
noted that the expropriating authority is a 
completely different agent from the approving 
authority. 

In short, we have provided that there can 
be a file of necessity, in every case where 
property is taken by way of expropriation, 
that this is a public hearing, and that the final 
decision following a report by the enquiry 
officer will be made by an elected person or 
persons who are responsible to the electors. 

This bill, Mr. Speaker, will also introduce 
the principle of equivalent reinstatement for 
the owners of residences, which must be ex- 
propriated for the public purpose. Under the 
bill, the land compensation tribunal will have 
the authority to award an amount of addi- 
tional compensation, over and above market 
value, where the property taken is a residence 
and where equivalent accommodation may 
not be provided by the market value of 
the expropriated property with the other 
allowances that are now going to be made 
available. 

This is a new principle which may cause 
some difficulties for expropriating authorities. 
But we feel it will provide a new and wel- 
come degree of equity in dealing with home- 
owners. The new bill codifies the basis of 
compensation for expropriation and expressly 
provides that it will be based upon the market 
value of the land, damages attributable to 
disturbance, damages for injurious affection 
and any special difficulties in relocation. 
Market value is defined as the amount that 
would be obtained by the willing seller on a 
sale to a willing buyer in the open market. 

Other sections clarify the principles in- 
herent in this new and broad approach to 
compensation. 

Hon. members will be interested in the 
fact that damages for disturbances will speci- 
fically include moving, legal and survey cost 
on relocation, together with the 5 per cent 
allowance for residence owners who must find 
new homes. Many procedural changes have 
been made to further ensure that property 
owners will be dealt with on a fair and 
reasonable basis. Expropriating authorities 
will have to pay to the owners 100 per cent 



of the market value of the property within 
three months of the expropriation or before 
taking possession, whichever is the earlier. At 
the same time, the authority will make an 
offer of the total amount it is willing to pay 
to that owner, including amounts for dis- 
turbance, injurious affection and relocation. 

When making that offer, the expropriating 
authority will be required to provide the 
owner with a copy of the authority's appraisal 
report, upon which that offer is based. In 
return, the owner will not have to disclose 
his appraisal report unless and until the mat- 
ter goes to arbitration and at that point 
there will have to be prior disclosure. 

Provision is made in this bill for payment 
to the owner of his legal and appraisal costs, 
which are reasonably incurred in those cases 
where the owner, after arbitration, recovers 
more than was offered by the expropriating 
authority. If the owner recovers less, then 
the board will have a discretion to award 
costs to either party on a less generous basis. 

The bill reflects the recommendation of 
the Hon. J. C. McRuer as to the establishment 
of a land compensation tribunal which will 
be a new board constituted to deal par- 
ticularly with these compensation matters. 
The board of negotiation which has been a 
most useful and effective remedy, will be 
retained as the first step in promoting settle- 
ment in these compensation disputes, while 
there will be an ultimate appeal to the court 
of appeal from decisions of the land com- 
pensation tribunal. There are many other 
features of this bill, Mr. Speaker, upon which 
I could comment, particularly since they are 
of such significance and interest to the people 
of this province. However, I have taken 
enough of the time of the hon. members and 
I am sure that we will all be able to pursue 
the principles and the details of this bill 
together in the near future. I commend this 
to the hon. members, for we feel that it 
represents the enactment of many principles 
upon which all members of this House are 
in complete agreement. 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): 
Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me on first 
reading, a question to the Attorney General 
on the statement and the bill that is before 
us: It appears to me from the Attorney 
General's remarks the bill that we have now 
read for the first time today embodies many 
of the corrections to many of the objections 
that have been stated from this side over 
the years. For this reason, we welcome it— 
we welcome it enthusiastically. 

I would like to ask the Minister if it is 
roughly parallel to the federal Expropriation 



96 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Procedures Act, which is before Parliament 
at the present time? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well Mr. Speaker, quite 
frankly I do not know. We have some know- 
ledge of it, but I have not seen the federal 
bill and I would rather speculate that we 
go broader and farther. 



THE MUNICIPAL ACT 

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth) moves first read- 
ing of bill intituled, An Act to amend The 
Municipal Act. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of 
this bill is to try to safeguard the interests 
of the tenants, and I hope it will receive 
the same kind of wholehearted support that 
the bill which was introduced by the hon. 
Attorney General has just received. 

The purpose of the bill is the control of 
leases and rents and to establish a rent control 
board. It is a piece of permissive legislation 
and would allow municipalities to establish, 
where necessary, rental control boards to 
ensure that the people of this province are 
no longer going to have inflicted upon them 
the many great impositions. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has stated 
the purpose of his bill and he does not need 
to go into an explanation of it at this stage. 
Second reading is the appropriate place for 
that. 

If the hon. member has anything further 
to say with respect to the bill, which he 
thinks would be within the rules and of im- 
portance to the members, he is free to do so. 

Mr. Deans: Yes, I would say that in this 
bill there is provision for a fine of $2,000 
in the event that a conviction is registered 
against any person who should see fit to 
ignore it. 

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the considera- 
tion of the bill clause by clause, or what is 
in it, is a proper statement at this particular 
stage of the bill's history; we need merely a 
statement as to its purpose and I think the 
hon. member has given that. 

COMMISSIONER TO INVESTIGATE 

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND 

ACTS OF OFFICIALS 

Mr. V. M. Singer {Downsview) moves first 
reading of a bill intituled, An Act to provide 
for the appointment of a commissioner to 



investigate administrative decisions and acts 
of officials of the government of Ontario and 
its agencies and to define the commissioner's 
powers and duties. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of 
this bill is my fifth effort to try and bring 
the government around to providing an 
ombudsman for the province of Ontario. As 
you know, sir, an ombudsman would be an 
official who would be able to protect the 
citizens of this province against arbitrary, 
unfair and unusual acts by the civil service, 
and for which the citizen now has no other 
remedy. 



RELIEF OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS, 

REGISTERED NURSES AND OTHERS 

FROM LIABILITY 

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first 
reading of bill intituled, An Act to relieve 
medical practitioners, registered nurses and 
others from liability in respect of voluntary 
first aid and medical services. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill is 
similar to one introduced earlier in this House 
but differs in that it protects not just doctors 
but all good Samaritans from legal action. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Prime Minister has 
a statement. 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr. 
Speaker, this afternoon the hon. Minister of 
Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough) is in the 
Lakehead, meeting with the municipal coun- 
cils of the cities of Fort William and Port 
Arthur and the adjoining townships of Nee- 
bing and Shuniah. The purpose of his visit 
it to announce the intention of the govern- 
ment to present legislation during this ses- 
sion of the Legislature for the amalgamation 
of the two cities and parts of the townships 
of Shuniah and Neebing into one munici- 
pality. 

It is the conclusion of the government that 
the immediate and, of perhaps greater im- 
portance, the long-term interests of the Lake- 
head community will be best served through 
the policies and administration of a single 
municipal jurisdiction. 

The decision in favour of amalgamation is 
the culmination of a series of studies and de- 
liberations which followed the completion of 
a local government review in March of this 
year. The research findings of the review, 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



97 



together with the briefs submitted by local 
municipal councils, organizations and indi- 
viduals have been given extensive analysis 
by the staff of The Department of Municipal 
Affairs and other departments and agencies 
of the government affected by the recom- 
mendations. 

During the weeks ahead, further considera- 
tion will be given to the matter of precise 
boundaries, finances, and the organization 
and structure for representation and munici- 
pal services. In this connection, the Minister 
of Municipal Affairs will look to the inter- 
municipal committee established last spring 
to maintain a continuing liaison with the 
Lakehead and district municipalities. The 
inter-municipal committee represents the 
Lakehead municipalities and the district of 
Thunder Bay, and has performed a most 
important function as liaison with the gov- 
ernment. I should like to express the appre- 
ciation of the government for the dedication 
and hard work of the members of this com- 
mittee. Their continued co-operation ensures 
that the more detailed aspects of the pro- 
posal for amalgamation will be resolved in a 
manner which will meet the needs of the 
people of the Lakehead area. 

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the local 
government review also proposed a "district 
municipality", which would be a regional 
government consisting of the proposed Lake- 
head city and the district of Thunder Bay. 
The government does not plan the immediate 
establishment of a full scale regional govern- 
ment for this district. Rather, any steps to 
implement this recommendation, would have 
implications for all of the districts which 
make up the northern part of our province. 
Accordingly, on September 12, during the 
tour of northern Ontario by members of the 
Legislature, I announced the appointment of 
an inter-departmental committee to examine 
government at the district level in northern 
Ontario. This committee will report in mid- 
1969 on the application of the recommenda- 
tions contained in the Lakehead local gov- 
ernment review, to the municipalities and 
unorganized territories within the districts of 
Ontario. 

Any action to bring about a regional gov- 
ernment for the Thunder Bay district will be 
determined, at least in part, by the findings 
of the inter-departmental committee. 

I might add that this committee will sched- 
ule meetings in several locations in northern 
Ontario so that the elected municipal offi- 
cials in the districts will be able to meet 
with the committee to discuss the proposed 



regional organization and the special interests 
of the people of the districts. 

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. member have a 
question? 

Mr. G. Ben (Humber): No, Mr. Speaker, 
this is with reference to introduction of bills. 

I have a question of you, Mr. Speaker. I 
have just received from the Clerk a copy of 
a bill by the hon. member for Wentworth 
(Mr. Deans), and I have one in exactly the 
same form, word for word. Is there any pro- 
cedure whereby I could dispense with the 
usual notice and have it put in now? 

Mr. Speaker: Not only do we usually need 
the notice, but the order has been closed and 
I would suggest that the hon. member's pur- 
pose would be equally well served by intro- 
ducing it tomorrow and they will be printed 
for consideration— may I just check with the 
Clerk? 

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The hon. 
member is following more closely, but he is 
still following. 

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk also advises me of 
something that should have been patent to 
me; that if it is word for word then it is out 
of order because we cannot have two bills 
which are word for word. 

I am afraid the hon. member was not on 
his feet quickly enough. The hon. Minister 
of Justice. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, on Novem- 
ber 21, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. 
Bullbrook) asked a question in three parts. I 
answered the first two and I promised him an 
answer to the third part which had to do with 
the qualifications of Mr. Bruce Goulet in con- 
nection with his appontment as a member of 
the board of police commissioners for the city 
of North Bay. 

I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Goulet 
is president of the United Nations Associa- 
tion of North Bay; is past president of the 
North Bay Chamber of Commerce; for many 
years was chairman of the public affairs com- 
mittee of that chamber and in this capacity 
he has worked closely with the municipal 
council and has been keenly interested in 
provincial and federal affairs. He is a mem- 
ber of the department of industry of North 
Bay, which is a committee of the council and 
is interested in the industrial development of 
the North Bay area. 

He is chairman of the Dominion Day com- 
mittee as well as chairman of the Centennial 



I 



98 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



committee for that city. He is at present a 
member of the Rotary club and chairman of 
the crippled children's committee, which as 
we all know is one of the main programmes 
of Rotary International. He is also a member 
of the Canadian Legion. 

In 1967, Mr. Goulet was selected "Man of 
the Year" for North Bay. This is an honour 
which is not always conferred annually but 
only when there is someone deserving of such 
recognition. 

Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): How many 
votes did he lose by last fall? Was he beaten 
badly? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Surely the hon. member 
is not suggesting that he should not have 
involvement in public affairs? 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the Oppo- 
sition. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 
of the hon. Minister of Social and Family 
Services. Is the Minister investigating the 
role played by the Metropolitan Toronto 
Catholic children's aid society in the case of 
Theresa Macintosh, who died October 10? 

Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and 
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, we are natur- 
ally concerned about this case. But it is still 
before a coroners' jury and, as you know, the 
inquest will resume Wednesday. It would be 
unfair to comment in any way while the jury 
is discharging its very serious responsibilities. 

Mr. Speaker, may I ask your indulgence to 
have the other two questions put to me by 
hon. members of the House? The member 
for Thunder Bay? 

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. leader of the Oppo- 
sition and the hon. member for York South 
(Mr. MacDonald) would agree; I believe the 
Minister has to leave to keep an appointment. 
The hon. member for Thunder Bay. 

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. 
Speaker, I do have a question for the Minister 
of Social and Family Services. Has the Min- 
ister received a request for a capital grant 
from the Lakehead Association for the Men- 
tally Retarded sheltered workshop? 

Is the Minister prepared to consider their 
request? 

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, I do have 
such a request and it is presently being con- 
sidered. 

Mr. Speaker: The horn member for High 
Park (Mr. Shulman) is not in his seat so his 



question will not be answered. The hon. 
leader of the Opposition. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 
for the Prime Minister. What arrangements 
will be made to celebrate the 150th anni- 
versary of the birth of the Hon. George 
Brown, that great Liberal? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, as 
the hon. members are doubtless aware, this 
centenary is on Friday of this week. 

Mr. Nixon: That would not be centenary. 
It is sesquicentennial. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: At one stage of the game 
we had hoped to have a dinner, but through 
a whole series of circumstances that became 
impossible. I might say I invited the Prime 
Minister of Canada to that dinner, but he 
could not make it. I thought he could attend 
to represent the Liberal Party of Canada. 

I will have a full rundown on some cere- 
monies that we plan to conduct here and out- 
side the buildings. If hon. members will be 
patient I will announce these to the House 
after I have had an opportunity to discuss 
them, Mr. Speaker, with the leader of the 
Opposition and the leader of the New Demo- 
cratic Party. We will probably be able to do 
that before the House sits tomorrow and then 
we will be able to lay the full programme out 
before the members. 

We intend to honour the birth date of this 
great Canadian in as auspicious a way as 
possible. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the 
Premier would agree that the time is grow- 
ing quite short and perhaps we ought to have 
undertaken some planning at an earlier date. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: We undertook a lot of 
planning at an earlier date but there have 
just been a whole series of events that con- 
flict; you know sometimes you run into these 
situations. However, Friday is the actual 
anniversary day and I will tell hon. members 
all about it when we get the final "i's" dotted 
and "t's" crossed and then we will announce 
the programme in the House. 

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. 
Speaker, I was informed some two weeks 
ago, or thereabouts, that there was going to 
be such a celebration on November 29, so I 
do not feel that I have been left out of the 
picture. 

Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): The Prime 
Minister does not seem to know about it— 
or very little about it. 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



99 



Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Maybe the 
hon. member knows more than he does. 

Mr. Mat-Donald: Maybe it is the Secretary 
of the Cabinet who is pursuing the details. 

Mr. Trotter: Maybe the civil servants tell 
him. 

Hon. Mr. Rob arts: I am quite certain the 
leader of the Opposition has heard about this 
too. 

Mr. MacDonald: I have two questions, Mr. 
Speaker. 

The first one is held over from Friday— to 
the Minister of Health. Was the government 
informed of the recent decision to increase 
doctors' fees before it was publicly an- 
nounced? What further outlay from thr pub- 
lic Treasury, through OMSIP expenditures, 
will result from this fee increase? Does the 
Minister feel that such an increase can hence- 
forth be made unilaterally without consulta- 
tion or negotiation? 

Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health): 
Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the 
OMA on October 18 of this year indicating 
that an increase in fees of approximately ten 
per cent would be implemented April, 1969. 

The answer to the second part, it is not 
possible to answer this question until we 
know the detailed changes which arc being 
proposed. 

The third part. I am still hopeful that 
arrangements can be made with the profession 
to agree on a fee schedule that machinery 
for negotiation can be established to our 
mutual satisfaction. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- 
borough West. The Minister of Labour (Mr. 
Bales) is not present at the moment. 

Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Scar- 
lx)rough East or Scarborough West? 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- 
borough East, yes! 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion for the Minister of Education. What 
safety specifications, if any, for school buses 
does the Minister of Education require be- 
fore school children can be transported in 
those buses to and from school? 

The second part of the question: What 
physical health and fitness standards, if any, 
does the Minister of Education set for bus 
drivers who transport children to and from 
school? 



Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for 
Peterborough would place his question at the 
same time. They are not related but they 
have to do with the same subject matter. 

Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Thank 
you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recent 
traffic deaths of two Peterborough students, 
would the Minister consider an investigation 
of school bus routes in each school jurisdic- 
tion to ensure that these buses are making 
use of the safest as well as the most direct 
routes? 

Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education): 
Mr. Speaker, to answer that part for the 
member for Scarborough East first: The ques- 
tion of specifications for school bus trans- 
portation fall within the jurisdiction of The 
Department of Transport. I regret I did not 
see this question until just a very few 
minutes before the House sat so I was not 
able to contact the Minister of Transport (Mr. 
Haskett) so that he might be able to give 
the hon. members this material; and of course 
this applies to the second part of the question 
as well. 

With respect to the question from the 
member for Peterborough. One of the basic 
responsibilities of the new divisional boards 
when they commence their operations within 
a very few weeks will, of course, be to review 
bus routes. The boards have always taken 
the question of school safety and safety of 
the children with respect to bus routes, as 
one of their very prime considerations and 
I fully expect that they will do this when 
the new divisional boards are created. 

I think we all regret, Mr. Speaker, the very 
unfortunate occurrence, the tragedy of last 
week. I can only say that as far as the 
boards are concerned generally, we have 
had a very excellent safety record in this 
province. I am very satisfied that they make 
a very conscious effort to see to the safety of 
the young people. Really these questions are 
their prime considerations. 

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member 
for Scarborough East would allow me to 
transfer the question to the Minister of 
Transport so that it may be answered. 

Mr. T. Reid: On your ruling, sir! 

I have just asked the Minister of Education 
if he does not feel that he should have 
been making recommendations to the other 
department of this government; that he 
should not have been sitting on his seat for 
so long in this regard; that he has a direct 



100 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



responsibility to offer some leadership in this 
area. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great 
respect to the member for Scarborough East 
there are specifications. They are there with- 
in The Department of Transport right now 
and if the hon. member would perhaps just 
have the patience, and to a degree the cour- 
tesy, to transfer the question to the appro- 
priate Minister, I am sure he would get an 
appropriate and courteous answer. 

Mr. T. Reid: And meanwhile, two more 

children- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! 
A supplementary from the other member 

who placed a question. 

Mr. Pitman: A supplementary question. I 
was wondering whether the Minister might 
consider grants to local school boards for 
carrying on investigations of this sort. It 
would appear to me that as these larger juris- 
dictions are organized, a great deal of edu- 
cation is going to be achieved by bussing 
students back and forth. 

I investigated this particular accident- 
Mr. Speaker: Order: Perhaps the hon. 
Minister might investigate just simply rail- 
road crossings— could there be a special grant 
to investigate railroad crossings as they affect 
school buses in local jurisdictions? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
purport to be knowledgeable in the whole 
question of transportation, but I would sug- 
gest that it should not, surely, require a 
special grant to investigate any hazard or 
questionable part of a school bus route; that 
the board must automatically consider this 
and make every effort to ensure that buses 
are taking the safest possible route. I do not 
see where any special grant would really 
reveal anything that they do not presently 
know. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud- 
bury. 

Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 
for the Provincial Secretary. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud- 
bury has the floor. 

Mr. Sopha: Thank you, sir. Would the 
Provincial Secretary inform the House, in a 
general way, if specific figures are not avail- 
able of the nature of the increase in revenue 
over the same period last year to the liquor 
control board of Ontario during the Quebec 



liquor strike? If possible, could the House 
have an indication of the increase in profits 
during the same period? 

Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary): 
Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this ques- 
tion as notice. 

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member for High 
Park would care to ask the question of the 
Minister of Social and Family Services, who 
advised me he was leaving the House at 
3.05, the floor is now his. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, will the Min- 
ister institute a comfort allowance for those 
disabled persons with no income who are 
confined to Ontario's hospitals for the chron- 
ically ill? 

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, our pro- 
grammes and their application to persons 
such as the chronically ill are always under 
review and they are presently. 

Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister give more 
information? 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sand- 
wich-Riverside has two questions from last 
week. Perhaps, he would place them now. 

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. 
Speaker, a question of the Prime Minister: 
Has the government given consideration to 
a November 4 letter from Windsor city 
council stating its firm opposition to a pro- 
vincial tax on drugs? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I am 
quite certain that letter has been given con- 
sideration. I do not recall whether it came 
to my desk or not, but certainly we give full 
consideration to all such recommendations 
and the hon. member can be assured that 
this opinion of the Windsor city council will 
be given every consideration. 

Mr. Burr: Thank you, sir. A question for 
the Minister of Health: Does the Minister 
share the opinion of Doctor J. Z. Sullivan of 
The Department of National Health and 
Welfare that motor vehicle exhaust pollu- 
tion is not a health problem in Canada and 
is unlikely ever to become one? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the an- 
swer is "no", I do not share the opinion 
and as evidence of that, the government of 
Ontario has already got legislation on the 
statute book and regulations in effect requir- 
ing that all motor vehicles sold in Ontario, 
in this present model year, must be equipped 
with the air pollution control equipment as 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



101 



recommended and approved by the United 
States government. 

I would advise the House and the industry 
now, through this means, sir, that in 1970 
the regulations will be even more stringent. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Dover- 
court has a question from last week. 

Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Yes, 
Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of 
Health. 

What is the percentage of the provincial 
contribution of the capital cost of new con- 
struction of hospitals? And a second question: 
what is the percentage of the provincial con- 
tribution of the maintenance cost of hospitals? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the answer 
to this question is much longer than the 
question. 

The province accepts responsibility for 
two-thirds of the approved capital construc- 
tion costs. And now, since the federal gov- 
ernment is no longer paying anything towards 
capital construction of hosiptals, the province 
must find this entire two-thirds. 

In the case of northern Ontario hospitals, 
because of their location and their responsi- 
bilities, an additional grant was paid over 
and above the usual two-thirds and this 
grant amounts to $2,000 per active treatment 
bed or bed equivalent and $1,000 for each 
chronic or convalescent bed or bed equivalent 
in municipalities of 12,000 and under and 
$500 and $250 respectively in municipalities 
over 12,000. 

In the case of teaching hospitals the total 
cost is provided and, of course, this is subject 
to whatever grants we are able to squeeze 
out of the federal health resources fund. 

In the case of hospitals that serve two 
purposes; that of teaching and community 
service as well, the two-thirds approved cost 
applies in respect of the area dedicated to 
community service; and 50 per cent grant is 
applied to that part of the hospital used for 
its teaching function. 

The other 50 per cent hopefully, was to 
come from the federal health resources fund 
but in light of the decision made recently, 
which represented a direct change in the 
rules made in 1965, we can hardly tell what 
percentage will come from the federal gov- 
ernment. We are quite convinced and quite 
certain now, of course, that it will be much 
less than 50 per cent, and therefore the pro- 
vincial share will be much higher than 50 
per cent. 



In the case of regional rehabilitation hos- 
pitals, the full approved cost is paid. 

In the case of ambulance facilities— that 
is, facilities in connection with a hospital 
to house an ambulance— the full approved 
cost is paid. 

The province's contribution to the cost of 
hospital maintenance is 32.5 per cent of the 
whole. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went- 
worth. 

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I 
might be permitted a brief comment on the 
remarks of the hon. member for Humber 
before I ask my question. 

Mr. Speaker: TJie hon. member has the 
floor for the purpose of asking a question. 
This is not the appropriate time to comment 
on speeches or remarks by other hon. mem- 
bers. 

Mr. Deans: Fine. I will ask only the sec- 
ond part of my question to the Minister of 
Highways. 

Will the Minister consider, in the interest 
of minimizing traffic fatalities, re-applying to 
the Ontario municipal board for immediate 
emergency permission to effect the closing 
of Murray Avenue to Queen Elizabeth High- 
way? 

Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways): 
Mr. Speaker, I answered the hon. member's 
question. He left out the first part this time 
and I can say again that we are proceeding 
with all possible speed on the engineering, 
the plans and specifications to live up to 
what the board has asked us to do. 

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a 
supplementary question? 

The question I asked was, "Would you 
reapply to the board in order to hasten the 
closing"— the board gave permission some ten 
years ago— 

Mr. Speaker: Order. 
Mr. Deans: It has taken that long- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member has 
placed his supplementary question. Now the 
Minister has the opportunity, if he wishes, 
to answer it. 

Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, we do not 
think that is necessary at the present time 
because we are proceeding as fast as possible. 



102 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I 
have a question of the hon. Minister of 
Transport. 

1. Would the Minister advise the House 
when the 45-mile-per-hour "construction" 
speed limit will be removed from completed 
portions of the Queen Elizabeth Way east 
of the Highway 27 interchange? 

2. Would the Minister agree that the main- 
tenance of the 45-mile-per-hour speed limit is 
inconsistent with his statement to the House 
on April 7, 1967? Hansard, p. 1183. 

3. With respect to construction speed zones 
generally, why is the same speed limit main- 
tained at all times, whether or not construc- 
tion is in progress, instead of being adjusted 
to actual conditions, particularly at week- 
ends when construction work ceases? 

Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport): 
Mr. Speaker, in that we must rely, I am 
sure the hon. member understands, on The 
Department of Highways for information in 
applying construction zone speed limits. I 
find it necessary to defer the answer until 
tomorrow. 

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member a 
supplementary question? 

Mr. Young: No, I am sorry, I had another 
question for the Attorney General, but I will 
ask that tomorrow. 

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the Attorney General is 
not here. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion of the Minister of Health: It is in three 
parts: 

1. Are staff members at the Penetang On- 
tario Hospital allowed to employ patients as 
domestics and for staff home labour? 

2. What pay are the patients given for 
this work? 

3. Is it the policy of The Department of 
Health to allow staff an extra perquisite in 
the form of cheap labour? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
understand what the hon. member means by 
the first part of his question. If he wants to 
clarify it, I shall try to get the answer. 

The second part: Patients can be placed 
in homes of staff as part of the industrial 
therapy programme. Staff asking use of such 
services are charged at a rate that is based 
on a comparison for work the individual is 
able to do with the outside labour market. 
This amount is paid to the industrial therapy 
fund out of which all patients involved in 



the programme receive incentive payments. 
The answer to the third part of the question 
is no. 

Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister allow a 
supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes. 

Mr. Shulman: Do I misunderstand the Min- 
ister? Is his answer that the money is all 
paid into one fund and then is divided 
among all the patients and that none of the 
money goes directly to the patient doing the 
work? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is paid into the in- 
dustrial therapy fund, sir, and divided among 
the patients who qualify for withdrawals 
from this fund. 

Mr. Shulman: In the form of a second 
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can 
the Minister- 
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister said that 
he would not accept a further supplementary 
question. The member might perhaps go 
on to his other question. 

Mr. Shulman: A question to the Minister 
of Correctional Services. 

When is Mr. William Lumley to be trans- 
ferred from Sarnia jail to a reformatory, as 
promised in a letter from The Department of 
Correctional Services of October 31, 1968? 

Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc- 
tional Services): Mr. Speaker, in answer to 
the hon. member's question; the decision to 
transfer this man from the Lambton county 
jail to a reformatory, was made by the classi- 
fication committee on October 31, 1968. Ar- 
rangements were made for his transfer to 
take place on the next routine trip to this 
area made by the departmental bailiffs. 

For security reasons, it is not deemed 
advisable to give publicly the exact date of 
the transfer, but if the hon. member so 
wishes, I am prepared to provide him with 
this information on a strictly confidential 
basis. In the interest, Mr. Speaker, of the 
rehabilitation of persons concerned, I would 
again appeal to the hon. member to please 
continue the practice followed by the hon. 
members of this House during the last ses- 
sion of not publicly identifying inmates by 
narre. 

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware of the 
hazardous driving conditions that prevail on 
highway 585, which runs from Nipigon to 
Pine Portage? When will the Minister in- 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



103 



struct his department to start on a pro- 
gramme of reconstruction of highway 585 
as promised during the last session? 

Hon. Mr. Comrne: Mr. Speaker, I just 
received this question as I came into the 
House and I will have to take it as notice 
and supply the answer. 

Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox): 
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege 
relating to the statements in the Toronto 
Globe and Mail last Friday, also in the Belle- 
ville Intelligencer of the same day, as stated 
by the hon. leader of the NDP, following 
their return from a visit to Picton. It is my 
opinion that certain statements were made 
which were derogatory in their nature to cer- 
tain of the people I represent, some named, 
some not named. I would like to quote first 
from the Globe and Mail statement, and then 
briefly from the Intelligencer statement. 

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. 
Speaker, for clarification: When a statement 
of privilege is made in the House, sir, must 
it not relate directly to the member as he 
is affected rather than those he represents? 
Would the member not have appropriate 
time in the Throne debate to raise this kind 
of thing? 

Mr. Speaker: My understanding of the 
hon. member's opening preamble with re- 
spect to this point of privilege was that it 
affected not only the people he represented 
but himself as their representative. So far 
as I am concerned, as long as he brings 
i himself within my interpretation of what he 
has said, I think he is in order. But he is 
not in order merely to comment upon news- 
Ipaper statements about things in his riding. 

Mr. Whitney: Mr. Speaker, in order to 
supply the background, I will quote briefly 
from what appeared in the Globe and Mail: 

New Democratic Party leader Donald 
MacDonald yesterday described Mayor 
Harvey J. McFarland of Picton as a million- 
aire contractor made wealthy from public 
funds and leading a "Tory - dominated 
establishment" against striking workers at 
Proctor-Silex Canada Ltd. 

In the early hours of yesterday's session 
of the Legislature, the 20 NDP seats were 
empty as Mr. MacDonald led 18 caucus 
members to the strike site. In a press con- 
ference after he returned, he described the 
trip as an attempt to dramatize a situation 
the NDP will fight to the end. 



The MPPs joined picketing at the plant, 
obeying a court injunction limiting pickets 
to six at a time. 

Mr. MacDonald described Mr. McFar- 
land as owner of the company's land and 
building and said he collects $58,000 a 
year in rent. 

"Mr. McFarland made his wealth from 
the public purse," Mr. MacDonald said, 
referring to highways contracts Mr. Mc- 
Farland has bid on and carried out for the 
government. "He is a source of funds for 
Tory candidates in the area. He is a well- 
known Tory and a source of slush funds. 

"Both old parties traditionally produce 
highways millionaires when they are in 
power." 

Mr. MacDonald said he did not talk to— 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is going 
far too long in his quotation. If he has a 
point of privilege, he will now bring himself 
to it and cease reading from a report which 
I am sure all members have read. 

Mr. Whitney: I question the statement 
"Tory-dominated establishment". Constituents 
of mine arc being made to appear as a co- 
erced people, which they are not. In Picton 
and Prince Edward county we have our 
political organizations and municipal councils 
regularly elected, our sendee clubs and other 
organizations dedicated to public service. 

Among all of the people in the area we 
know of no group of any kind which has 
been organized on behalf of the company. 
On the other hand, outside organizers of the 
international union of electrical workers 
aided and abetted, it would seem, by the 
NDP, have and are attempting by every 
means at their disposal to organize and influ- 
ence public opinion on behalf of the union. 

In the absence of organized opposition of 
any kind, these people by their own state- 
ments and actions have been defeating their 
own purposes. The truth is that the people 
of Prince Edward have not and will not be 
coerced by anyone and I resent any implica- 
tion to the contrary as expressed by the NDP 
leader. 

Secondly, there was a reference made to 
Dr. Dockrill, a constituent with whom I may 
not always agree. But I regret to hear a 
statement was made in the Globe and Mail 
that his bank had cut off his credit or was 
threatening to cut off his credit because of 
his alleged- 
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is now 
straying again to particular cases of people 



104 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



in his riding. If he can relate this to personal 
privilege as far as he is concerned, as their 
representative there, then he is in order. 
Otherwise, he is not. 

Mr. Whitney: Well, I feel that it is in the 
nature of a personal privilege that when a 
man's personal financial condition is told to 
the world, through a newspaper announce- 
ment by someone who briefly visited there, 
and who— the quoted party— denies in another 
place that he made exactly that statement. 
I feel it is a matter of privilege to divulge 
what he said following that statement in the 
press. 

Mr. Speaker: Now the hon. member has 
stated his reasons for rising on that point of 
privilege. I disagree with him. It is not a 
point of privilege as far as the hon. member 
is concerned— the matter he is now discussing. 

Mr. Whitney: Well, in conclusion, I would 
say that as far as the statements which were 
made regarding public funds and so on, I am 
simply going to briefly state that at times local 
Conservatives are annoyed because the gentle- 
man in question contributes to the Liberals. 
Sometimes Liberals are annoyed because he 
contributes to the Conservatives. 

He does work for the federal government. 
He has done work for many governments. 
He has done work practically all over Can- 
ada. In fact I would ask the hon. member for 
High Park if he knows that sometimes he may 
even have contributed to the CCF govern- 
ment in Saskatchewan, under T. C. Douglas, 
sometime in the past. 

Consequently, I object to such statements. 

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. member for 
Scarborough West have a point of order or 
privilege? 

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. 
Speaker, I am sorry to revert to a matter of 
such banality. I missed the Minister of 
Health's earlier reply. I wonder if he would 
indicate to the House— did he 9ay in his 
answer to the question, that the Ontario Medi- 
cal Association fee schedule was now a fait 
accompli for April 1 1969? The Legislature 
could have no effect on that decision, is that 
his answer? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, my 
answer is in Hansard. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex- 
Kent. 

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, 
I would like to draw to the attention of the 



House the efforts of a young man in my 
riding. A 16-year-old 4-H club member 
scored a major upset in the seed grain show 
at the Royal winter fair last week when he 
won the reserve ear corn championship with 
a sample of Ontario-grown corn. The Royal 
winter fair seed show officials said that never 
in the long and colourful history of the Royal 
has Ontario corn placed as high in the show 
against the powerful high-quality entrants 
from the United States. 

This was a first championship ever, of any 
sort, for Canadian corn at the Royal. The 
high-placing Ontario corn was grown and 
entered by Robert Baillargeon of Stoney 
Point in the township of Tilbury North, in 
Ontario's southwestern corn belt. The entry 
stood first in the 4-H ear corn class and then 
went on to runner-up for the world cham- 
pionship ear corn. This is the first time Bob 
Baillargeon has exhibited at the Royal. His 
brother Raymond, 18, showed at the Royal 
last year, and this year took second to his 
brother's winning entry in the 4-H club. 

Both boys are members of the Tilbury 4-H 
corn and soya bean club. They are the sons 
of George and Cecile Baillargeon who own 
and operate a cash crop farm. The Bail- 
largeon family grow corn, wheat, oats, soy 
beans, tomatoes and cucumbers. 

Mr. Speaker: I would like to say to the hon. 
members and to the hon. member who has 
just given us this account of excellence in 
young farmers that I think the House is glad 
to hear these things, but I think that they 
can be dealt with much more expeditiously 
than by reading a newspaper report on it, 
and I would ask the hon. members to co- 
operate with me in the future. I will be glad 
to allow them the opportunity of making us 
aware of and praising the achievements of 
their people but I would ask that they keep 
it to a reasonable statement of what has hap- 
pened without the family and other back- 
ground, which is totally unnecessary. 

Orders of the day. 

Clerk of the House: The first order, resum- 
ing the adjourned debate on the motion for 
an address in reply to the speech of the Hon- 
ourable the Lieutenant Governor at the open- 
ing of the session. 



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi- 
tion): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by 
once again offering my compliments to you, 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



105 



sir, and to say that I am very glad that the 
leader of the government has taken the deci- 
sion to reconvene Parliament in the autumn 
of the year so that our business, I hope, can 
be carried on in a more efficient manner and 
with the possibility that we might complete 
it before we get into the warm months next 
July. 

I would suggest to you, sir, that if the 
business of the province does require a longer 
period of time for our perusal and discussion 
—as I personally believe it does— we ought to 
look for a more efficient and even longer ses- 
sion in the autumn of the year. 

I have felt for some time, that there are 
two things wrong with the ordering of our 
business; number one, we are here too long, 
and number two, we are away from the Legis- 
lature too long. When the business is com- 
pacted into one session beginning in Febmary 
and extending until the completion of the 
business, there is a tendency for spirits to 
flag and for our connection with our own 
areas to get a bit than as we are away week 
after week and particularly with very lengthy- 
night sessions as a part of our responsibility. 

I have felt myself, Mr. Speaker, that there 
is a lack of urgency even in this particular 
fall session and that we should be under- 
taking a more careful discussion particularly, 
of the financial affairs of Ontario rather than 
the rather lackadaisical approach that has 
been evident in the first few days. My col- 
leagues, particularly those from out of town, 
would support a move to resume night 
sessions at least two nights a week very early 
in the fall session so that they might— having 
come some distance to partake of their duties 
here— be able to work at them more diligently 
and more steadily so that the business can 
\te accomplished in a shorter period of time 
and in a more orderly way. 

I know that those members who come 
a shorter distance from home would not sup- 
port any particular efforts on our part to 
have night sessions resumed. Nevertheless, if 
we are going to carry out the business effi- 
ciently and to make good use of the mem- 
bers who have come long distances in order 
to represent their areas I would suggest that 
night sessions might very well become a part 
of our order in the near future. 

Now, the speech itself, that we are dis- 
cussing this afternoon and I expect we will 
be discussing for some days, touches all the 
basis of safety as far as the administration 
is concerned. But there is one area that I 
would like to read to you, sir. It is found on 
page three where we are assured that the 



province will place and I quote, "renewed 
emphasis on efficiency and economy in every 
branch and agency of the Ontario govern- 
ment". While this, of course, is much to 
be desired I hope you would agree with 
me, sir, that it is something that we would 
expect on the day-to-day ordering of pro- 
vincial business and not entered into on rare 
occasions by the Premier (Mr. Robarts) and 
his Cabinet in order to relieve tax difficulties 
that they themselves are responsible for. 

So, if this is, in fact, to be an economy 
session, a tax session, a budget session, then 
surely, while there are other areas of busi- 
ness presented to us in the House even 
today, we should be turning our attention to 
an examination of the budget and to the 
spending programmes of the government. 

Before I get into that in too much detail, 
I want to extend my congratulations to the 
member for London South, the new Minister 
of Revenue (Mr. White). Frankly, I was con- 
vinced when the new portfolio was set up 
that it was not necessary to have a separate 
individual exercise the responsibility. The 
Treasurer has been able to balance both of 
these areas of responsibility for many years, 
since Confederation as a matter of fact, and 
it appeared to me that the new member of 
the Cabinet was very much of a super- 
numerary and his appointment smacked of 
the political pay-off for the fact that he has 
been conducting those Monday night sessions 
in London on behalf of his colleague from 
London North, and that really friendship was 
coming through and the London establish- 
ment needed something to strengthen it. 

I now feel that there is some usefulness 
in his appointment, small though that may 
be: the example he is setting to his spend- 
thrift colleagues and confreres, chief among 
them the Prime Minister himself. 

I was really gratified to read in the 
Globe and Mail last week that he is going 
to travel on GO transit as long as possible 
and then when the pressures of his duties 
require him to have an automobile and a 
driver, it will be a stripped-down standard 
Chev and that he, unlike his colleagues, is 
going to second one of his clerks from his 
office to drive him. Surely this is the kind 
of example that the other members of the 
Cabinet would be glad to receive. It is in 
these small areas— these rather picayune ap- 
proaches to savings— that I suppose the funds 
will be gathered that are going to be sig- 
nificant in this, one of the tightest financial 
situations Ontario has experienced since Con- 
federation—probably the worst one. So if 
there is some use for this new Minister, this 



106 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



may be it. But once this example has been 
set I would tell you, sir, that his usefulness 
diminishes once again to zero, and we could 
very well, on the road to economy, dispense 
with his services and pick up a little bit of 
indemnity that could be added to that fund 
that he is so concerned with. 

You know it is interesting, in reading about 
the accounts of the peregrinations of the 
Premier and his white-lipped and trembling 
colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. MacNaughton), 
who is not with us today, that when they go 
to Ottawa to confront the government of 
Canada with the tremendous needs for more 
fiscal abatement, the Premier and Treasurer 
travel in our own provincial plane with an 
executive configuration, and they are driven 
in those large black cars with the flags flying 
to meet the Minister of Finance and his col- 
leagues in Ottawa, who, I suppose, go by 
cab to the meeting. I would not dream for 
a moment of reverting to that old argument 
that was so effective in depression times— 
when my predecessor as leader of the Liberal 
Party undertook to turn back the gross ex- 
penditures of the Conservative administration 
that he had displaced, by auctioning off the 
government cars— because really I feel that 
the government members have to be moved 
about the province and I have no particular 
objection to this. They are a rather fearful 
lot, though. They covet the big black Cadil- 
lacs with the snapping flags on the fenders 
but they— 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): We 
do not buy Cadillacs. 

Mr. Nixon: That is right, there are no 
Cadillacs and I think this is significant. They 
set their sights down just a little bit and the 
Minister of Highways (Mr. Gomme) is able 
to make do with a nice black Buick Electra. 
Beside the license plate on the back there is 
the coat of arms of Ontario. It just makes 
your blood heat up a bit to see that moving 
down the road— with the double lamps in 
the back so that he can read state papers. 

I do not know whether he has followed 
the example of the Minister of Education 
(Mr. Davis), who has a hot line in the back 
seat of the automobile— I do not know who 
answers him when he pushes the button- 
but I think there are two phones there. It 
is significant, though, that the Minister of 
Revenue is setting the kind of example that 
I think would do the whole administration 
good if they were to examine it carefully 
and follow it, if they could bring themselves 
in all humility to do so. This is something, 
of course, of some concern, because we are 



looking for $300 million, we are told by the 
hon. Treasurer, and unless we make up this 
particular amount, then we are facing the 
kind of fiscal nightmare that both the Treas- 
urer and the Premier have described in such 
a lurid detail across the province. 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, and 
my colleagues along with you and the other 
members of the House, to cast your minds 
back to the election campaign last October 
in which our friends opposite were so suc- 
cessful in returning to the seats of the ad- 
ministration with 69 members. I can well 
recall the barrage of propaganda that was 
put before the people of the province during 
the spring and summer months at their own 
expense, and for a few weeks during the 
election campaign from the swollen slush 
funds of the Conservative Party itself. We 
were told in great detail about the high 
administrative quality of the Premier and 
his administration. We were told that On- 
tario was not only a place to stand and a 
place to grow, but that good government 
deserved our support, and that we, in On- 
tario, were very fortunate to have the serv- 
ices of the Premier and his colleagues, who 
were giving us the best government of any- 
where in Canada or in North America. 

It seems strange to believe that that silver- 
haired fox who travelled across the province 
in the steps of Leslie Frost, who was re- 
assuring those who were having some doubts 
about the administrative capabilities of this 
administration that all was well, when less 
than eleven months later this same man and 
his chief lieutenant, the Treasurer, had the 
temerity to state publicly that we in Ontario 
faced a "fiscal nightmare". 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Nixon: Now if I was to use a phrase 
like that, that same man would have accused 
me of broadcasting doom and gloom and you 
may well recall his urgings to me, as the 
leader of the Opposition, and my colleagues, 
to give up the predictions of difficulty that 
we were making a year ago and to go along 
with the Conservatives to a greater and more 
prosperous co-prosperity sphere or whatever 
it was that he called it. Now we find our- 
selves in the difficulties that the Premier and 
Treasurer and probably the best fiscal ad- 
visors in the civil service of any province 
in Canada cannot find means to solve. 

It is on this topic that I would like to 
spend a few moments this afternoon, be- 
cause we are approaching two important 
conferences: the constitutional conference, 
the dates for which have been set, and a 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



107 



financial conference immediately after that. 
I think it is necessary that we examine the 
difficulties the Premier has led the province 
into and that we look at some of the alter- 
natives that he must research himself if, in 
fact, the government of Canada is going to 
be taken at its word and that they are not 
to increase the abatement beyond the 28.3 
per cent which is now available to this 
province. 

I would like you to remember, sir, that 
the policies of the government of Canada 
have been unchanged for two years. I well 
remember the return of the Premier from 
the last fiscal conference when he had been 
told by the then Minister of Finance that 
the government in Ottawa was not prepared 
to recommend further abatement, unless it 
was accompanied by specific further respon- 
sibilities. 

Whether we support this or not— and I 
will get to that in a moment— it seems in- 
credible that the Premier would come back 
two years ago from a conference of this 
type, and you may remember the anger with 
which he expressed his understanding of the 
rigid position the government of Canada 
took then, and how quickly this anger was 
lost in the forthcoming election campaign 
when he had to give the continuing impres- 
sion that all was well in Ontario. 

One of the significant political facts in 
this province is that for many years the 
largest single source of income has been the 
abatement from the government of Canada— 
$650 million this year alone. It accounts for 
a large measure of the public services ex- 
tended to our citizens and taxpayers as if 
through the generosity of this administration 
alone. It is an old fashioned, but applic- 
able rule of modern democracy, that the 
administration which provides these services 
should have the responsibility for taxing for 
them as well. Yet the Minister of Revenue 
who is sitting back there in smug com- 
placancy, saying that he is going to drive a 
stripped-down Chev, gets his largest cheque 
from the government of Canada— $650 mil- 
lion this year alone. 

Mr. Speaker, we know that within the 
next two months it may very well be that 
the leader of the government will send the 
Treasurer and the new Minister down to 
Ottawa to intercede for Ontario and on be- 
half of the difficulties that we are now 
encountering in paying our bills. 

Imagine Ontario in a situation where we 
are running at what the former Treasurer 
might have called a $300 million shortfall 



which, in fact, must be made up if we are 
going to withstand even the debt limits— and 
they are large debt limits— set by the Royal 
commission on taxation, which said we must 
not allow our debts to go beyond nine per 
cent of our gross provincial product. 

I have already suggested that a part of 
these negotiations should be based on a 
valiant attempt to get a share of the two 
per cent surtax that has been imposed by the 
government of Canada in such a way that 
we now cannot share in it. My calculations 
are that this, in fact, would add $40 to $50 
million to the amount that is presently avail- 
able under present abatement agreements. 

I personally have some misgivings about 
the need for the imposition of the tax in the 
way that the Minister of Finance saw fit to 
do it three weeks ago in the budget that he 
brought down. And I am not prepared, as 
the people opposite seem to expect, to defend 
them chapter and verse in every one of these 
decisions. 

I suppose we must take for granted that 
the government of Canada, faced with a 
$700 million deficit, feels that they are hard- 
pressed to put their own house in order and 
they expect other governments across Canada 
to accept the same responsibility. 

We have been treated in recent months to 
the 25th anniversary of the Conservative 
Party in power in Ontario. We have been 
embarrassed at their attempts to get sort of a 
monkey gland transfusion three weeks ago 
down in the Royal York. With the help of 
John Bassett, they were able to turn out a 
few very attractive young people indeed, but 
still in the back rows there was Erskine 
Johnston picking a fight with the new presi- 
dent and there was the rumour that the 
London establishment was not in favour of 
Mr. Eagleson becoming the president and 
the fact that the Premier had supported 
Wallace McCutcheon for the leadership last 
year. 

It does not indicate to me that the leader 
of the government is much of a swinger. I 
do not think we are looking for a swinger, 
we are looking for somebody who is prepared 
to accept provincial responsibilities, prepared 
to accept blame along with the responsibility, 
when it is his to accept. I cannot help but 
recall the campaign a year ago when either 
the Premier was ill advised by those who must 
have known the difficulties that were ap- 
proaching in the financial situation in Ontario 
or he was so innocent that he felt that in all 
good time this would be worked out. The 
federal policy was rigid — in my view too 



108 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



rigid — but still was expressed two years ago 
and there is no indication of any change as 
far as I can see, although I have not been 
present at the negotiations undertaken by the 
Treasurer and the Premier in recent weeks. 

I hope and I trust that I will be able to 
hear some of these negotiations as they take 
place in the next two months. And I would 
say to you, sir, that I received a very kind 
letter from the Prime Minister of Ontario 
this morning saying that he would do his 
best to see that at least I and other repre- 
sentatives of the Opposition would be able to 
attend the constitutional conference. But the 
government sitting opposite here has reduced 
itself to a search for threats that can be used 
to force from the government of Canada 
further fiscal equivalents without additional 
responsibility. 

First, there is the comment that maybe we 
would tax fuel for Air Canada. You may 
remember when the tax was imposed last 
year, we on this side felt that it was too small 
and it could, in fact, become a source of rev- 
enue more than it had at that time been 
considered. 

The other threat, the one that I felt was 
quite unconscionable, was that the adminis- 
tration, the Premier of Ontario, was prepared 
to opt out of constitutional negotiations 
unless, in fact, fiscal matters were settled 
more to his liking. I do not believe that the 
constitution of our country should come up 
for that sort of negotiation. I believe that 
Ontario has taken the lead in years gone by— 
and it was just a year ago now that the Con- 
federation of Tomorrow Conference was being 
held— and surely it is a very crass and unac- 
ceptable approach to fiscal negotiations that 
either the Premier or his white-lipped and 
trembling friend, the Treasurer, who has just 
joined us, would stoop to the level of trying 
to extract from the government of Canada 
any sort of an agreement on that basis. Surely 
it is very difficult for us on this side to sup- 
port the government if they are going to take 
that sort of a stand; it is simply intolerable, 
their position has been unnecessarily rigid and 
they have been unable to accept the responsi- 
bility which is surely theirs. 

I do not want to take time on this occasion 
to list for you, sir, the areas where cost- 
cutting should really be a factor. We believe 
that the Centennial museum is one of those 
areas which has grown through the unneces- 
sarily enthusiastic approach of the Minister of 
Education and the Minister of Tourism (Mr. 
Auld). It has gestated well beyond the Cen- 
tennial year into 1969 and 1970, and swelled 



well beyond its original concept in price to 
something in excess of $30 million. 

In an effort to economize last year the 
Treasurer announced with fanfare a central- 
ized purchasing agency and this was rigor- 
ously criticized by the Financial Post a few 
weeks ago in which they went so far as to say 
the centralized purchaser was nothing but a 
straw man because he was not being sup- 
ported by either the Treasurer or the other 
departments of government. These are areas 
of concern that do not fit in with the state- 
ment made by the Treasurer— at least we 
assume it was written by the Treasurer— 
when he promised renewed emphasis on effi- 
ciency and economy in every branch and 
agency of the Ontario government. After 25 
years of Tory government, we would expect 
that to be a part of his everyday responsibility 
and nothing that he is going to take on just 
as a special occasion. 

Mr. Speaker, there are areas in which 
surely the government must take specific 
action and I would like, sir, to list for you 
those areas which we as Liberals would sup- 
port. First, there must be a full external 
assessment of provincial spending programmes 
to eliminate waste. Where practical, direct 
cost-cutting programmes can be inaugurated. 
We will support them, but the elimination of 
waste is something that we do not feel this 
government has undertaken in any practical 
and forthright way. We would say, Mr. 
Speaker, that the example of an external 
examination can be found in the records of 
your own administration. 

It was in 1956 that the former Premier, 
Leslie Frost, began to be fearful of the direc- 
tion in which the open-ended programmes 
that he and his predecessors had begun and 
which have been added to by the present 
administration were taking the province of 
Ontario. Those were buoyant times, and being 
the far-sighted gentleman that he was on 
occasion, he went down into the financial 
community of Toronto and there found a per- 
son who in his view and the view of the 
former Provincial Treasurer, the member for 
Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan), was best 
equipped to survey objectively the business of 
government and give the recommendations 
which might make it operate more efficiently. 
Downtown he found Walter Gordon who was 
then a non-political activist, who had the cre- 
dentials that would permit such a survey and 
review. 

The Gordon report still stands on the desk 
in my office and it is interesting to read 
excerpts from it where he indicates ways in 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



109 



which the efficiency of government could be 
improved. I know that book sat on die shelves 
of the government opposite for many years 
without the implementation of any significant 
part of these recommendations. But the time 
has surely come when a similar external re- 
view is required. After all, since 1962 we 
have had a Royal commission on taxation, 
and the select committee, chaired by the new 
Minister of Revenue, which reported just a 
few weeks ago. 

Both of these had, as the emphasis to their 
terms of reference, means of increasing the 
ta\ income of the province. There was no 
survey of the programmes or the efficiency of 
government and we on this side are tired of 
hearing the Ministers one by one say, "Trust 
us, we will do the best that can be done." 

I believe that the Treasurer should welcome 
this external survey and assessment, not only 
of our programmes but of the business of 
government. I believe it is in this area that 
cuts can be made, that efficiencies can be 
achieved which the entrenched government 
opposite is unwilling to undertake. After all, 
the programmes that would have to be cut 
;>re their own pet projects. The means of 
d( tog business are those which have evolved 
down through the years and they cannot re- 
member a time when they were done any 
other way. But after 25 years of Tory patron- 
age they are deeply entrenched in each com- 
munity with those people who are their 
supporters and who do not want any chinge 
in the business of government. That is why 
an external assessment must be made and why 
the only real solution will be the defeat of 
this government and its replacement by a 
Liberal one. 

Now, if the first point is a full external as- 
sessment of provincial spending programmes, 
the second one must be a reversal of the 
present rejection of an estimates committee 
of the Legislature. Such a committee is 
absolutely necessary to allow the people's 
elected representatives a more realistic op- 
portunity to examine the 1969-1970 Budget. 
It is incredible to me that we are not sup- 
ported in this project by the other Opposi- 
tion party. The leader of the NDP, seeing 
hidden difficulties, looks into the future and 
is afraid that an estimates committee might 
be tied into a package deal with a reduction 
of the rights of the members of this House. 

I can assure you, sir, that we in Opposi- 
tion will never countenance a reduction of 
the free right to debate these matters in the 
Legislature. We put forward the estimates 
committee as a sincere alternative, a pro- 



posal, which would give us an opportunity 
to question those people who advise the 
Ministers in just the way that the leader of 
the NDP described it himself, with this par- 
ticular amendment to the committee motion 
which was before the House two or three 
days ago. This is the sort of approach that 
surely the Opposition should undertake to- 
gether. There is no room for a narrow parti- 
san approach which has been characteristic 
of the NDP approach in these matters in 
the past. 

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, you will 
recall that our amendment last year under- 
took to set up a committee to examine the 
rules of the House, and the supporters of 
the NDP leader have been most vocal, and 
very able, in indicating that an examination 
of these rules was necessary, but under those 
circumstances they did not support us again. 
Believe me, sir, I do not associate myself 
with the kind of confrontation politics that 
the NDP are advocating. Those politics are 
simply grandstand politics. If you think of 
what they have done in the last few days; 
of the 20 seats empty during the question 
period of the House last Thursday, when 
they went down to walk on the picket line 
of Proctor-Silex. 

Now I would say to you sir, that this is 
a matter of some concern, because this par- 
ticular strike has been on since July 17. I 
remember it well. It happened on my birth- 
day. I sat there reading the newspaper over 
breakfast. The report came through about 
Proctor-Silex, and it was not until— what date 
—November 23-24 that the House was greeted 
by the empty seats on the NDP side, now 
if that is not grandstanding, what is? 

A more responsible approach I would say 
is the one that was taken by the official 
Opposition. We sent our representatives 
down to a union meeting. The member for 
Scarborough East (Mr. T. Reid) represented 
the Liberal Party at that meeting. He was 
in contact with labour leaders. Leaders of 
the community. He came back with a report 
that led us as Liberals to support the strik- 
ers in this particular negotiation. There is 
no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the way it was 
undertaken by the NDP, is an indication of 
the scare that was thrown into that leader, 
by the threat to his leadership, by the hon. 
member for Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick). 

When this confrontation, Mr. Speaker, 
first came to light I thought at once that it 
was a put-up job. The NDP was sitting 
around the back room saying "what are we 
going to do to make our annual meeting go". 



110 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



"We are going to have it in a roller rink 
somewhere up in Kitchener, and have a little 
excitement." 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Brant- 
ford has a point of order. 

Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): The leader 
of the Opposition is, Mr. Speaker, misleading 
the House. The representative from the 
Liberal Party was not at that meeting. 

Mr. Nixon: Now Mr. Speaker, I want to 
make it clear that the representative of the 
Liberal Party went down to the strike situa- 
tion, questioned those on the union side who 
had their information put before us, and he 
has reported that to the caucus. We have 
taken a stand on that particular matter, it 
is a caucus and a public stand, Mr. Speaker, 
in which we support the strikers in their 
fight to get a fair deal from Proctor-Silex— 

Since the deputy leader of the NDP has 
interjected, I would say that the interesting 
thing is that I thought his challenge was a 
put-up job, but somehow went around the 
bend. He had delusions of grandeur. He 
thought, maybe this is a real chance to take 
over the party, because really, his state- 
ments during the campaign were most sur- 
prising indeed. Some of them have been 
read into the record already. He accused 
that the big-wigs of organized labour had 
been told that they had to support Donald 
otherwise the party was going to fall on 
evil days. The hon. leader of the NDP re- 
plied to this by saying it was an outright lie. 
I do not know whether he was responding to 
the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk), 
or the member for Riverdale (Mr. J. Ren- 
wick), but one of those, and then- 
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): And then he 
called him "Hitler". Yes. The leader called 
his deputy "Hider". 

Mr. Nixon: I think the significant state- 
ment, Mr. Speaker, was that he called him 
"Messiah". I do not know which he intended 
to be worse. 

Mr. Speaker, I think the significance was 
up there in the intense excitement and 
drama of the roller rink in Kitchener. The 
deputy leader came to the microphone and 
said the choice was with the delegates, they 
would take one fork in the road towards a 
confrontation politics and success at the polls 
in 1971, because only he had the aura of 
victory, or they could take the other fork 
which led to the dissolution of the party, 
and its foundering on the rocks of— what 
was the word— ordinariness I think— and this 



was the choice that the NDP took. They took 
the fork that went with Donald MacDonald. 
The man who cannot win. And that is why 
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the 
NDP was frightened out of his sense of 
responsibility. He is prepared to leave those 
seats vacant, and I can say to you sir, that 
members of the Liberal Party will occupy 
not only those, but many others when we 
form the government in 1971— 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Nixon: So to get back to point num- 
ber two, Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that 
the NDP would not support the official Oppo- 
sition in our proper request, that we have 
a committee on estimates, and I would say 
that the Premier himself must surely be 
considering this alternative. 

Third: There must be an assumption of 
full provincial responsibility for the present 
federal-provincial programmes of hospitaliza- 
tion, welfare and health which would be 
balanced by a further 17 per cent tax abate- 
ment from Ottawa together with safeguards 
against increasing costs. The Premier himself 
has said he wants to control Ontario's prior- 
ities, putting these responsibilities within our 
jurisdiction would allow Ontario to control 
its expansion effectively over a wide spectrum 
of programmes. Now this too is an offer that 
was made two years ago, and if I read the 
quotes from the Treasurer's speech correctly, 
surely we must be considering this very care- 
fully. 

I feel that die Minister of Finance has gone 
out of his way to re-assure provincial juris- 
diction. Not only will there be a transference 
of the 17 per cent but there will be an ac- 
companying flexibility in the grant which 
will see to it that the province cannot be 
out of pocket over a reasonable period of 
time, probably five years, in assuming the 
full control of this programme. T,he only 
thing that occurs to me that may be a bit of 
Yankee trading on one side or the other, is 
that our medical costs are going to grow tre- 
mendously as we see fair rates of pay ex- 
tended to those people working in the medical 
field. I am not at this time talking particularly 
about the medical doctors who seem to still 
be able to unilaterally impose their decisions 
on the Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond), and 
this government. I am talking about those 
people working in Ontario Hospitals and hos- 
pital facilities across the province, whose 
salary levels, I submit, are far below what 
they will have to be within three to five years. 

It is this area, where the costs of this 
particular programme are to grow tremen- 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



111 



clously and I believe they must grow tre- 
mendously. We cannot continue to have 
trained people working for an unfair salary, 
unfair wage in this province. 

We have to realize there is a further 17 
per cent transference with accompanying 
responsibilities in these matters to the 28 per 
cent transference that we already have. Then 
we will be approaching one half of the— that 
is, we will be approaching 50 per cent in our 
share of the income tax abatement from the 
federal level. 

Fourth, there must be an effective workable 
centralized purchasing policy for the entire 
Ontario government operation with forced 
co-operation from all departments. I do not 
want to say much more about that, we de- 
bated it for three years. All I can say is 
that the Treasurer's implementation of this 
programme so far has been a sham, that the 
utilization of centralized purchasing has been 
a waste of his time in the way he has 
approached this. It simply has to be imposed 
on his colleagues in the Cabinet so that they 
will tear apart their purchasing empires and 
we can accomplish the savings that have 
been predicted by all who have studied the 
matter. 

Fifth: There must be negotiations with 
Ottawa to improve our situation particularly 
in sharing the recently announced two per 
cent social development tax. I have already 
indicated that my calculation would indicate 
that this would give an additional $40 mil- 
lion. The Treasurer might comment on that 
himself— $40 million— if it were put on as an 
ordinary part of the income tax scale and 
abated at the 28 per cent level. I think that 
the abatement is a bit bigger than 28 per 
cent since the change is in Manitoba and 
Quebec. 

Sixth: Ontario should negotiate the right 
to influence the broadening of the federal 
income tax base. The establishment of a more 
progressive system as outlined in the Carter 
report is just as much Ontario's responsibility 
as it is that of the federal government and 
this must be made abundantly clear to 
Ottawa. 

I want to say a word about that. The 
rigidities in the negotiations exist on both 
sides. The government of the province finds 
itself completely hamstrung by the growth of 
its programmes and the lack of growth, of 
comparable growth, in our income. 

But the rigidity that we take in the provin- 
cial government— in saying— that the only an- 
swer is for a larger abatement is inadmissible, 
it is inadmissible! 



On the other hand, the rigidity in Ottawa, 
which says that 28 per cent is the end of 
the line, and that the government in Ottawa 
must retain 100 per cent control of the tax 
base, is equally too rigid. 

If we are going to have access in the near 
future to at least 50 per cent of the income 
taxes collected in this province, then I believe 
this must carry with it a similar responsi- 
bility, and in fact a right, to negotiate what 
that tax base would be. We have the right 
now to impose any tax base we choose, but 
I would agree with those who say that 
Ontario cannot stand a second level of in- 
come taxation. We do not want the bureau- 
cracy that this would entail. We can work 
out, on a co-operative basis surely, the sort 
of approach which would put a common tax 
base for the collection of these income taxes 
from our province as our share in the abate- 
ment grows along the lines that I have sug- 
gested. 

Seventh: Regardless of the success attend- 
ing the base-sharing dialogue, Ontario must 
immediately accept the $160 million federal 
rebate available for Medicare. 

I do not think there is any doubt that 
those people who accuse the Minister of 
Finance in Ottawa of levying a Medicare 
premium tax are very close to the truth, 
that the two per cent surtax is designed to 
cover the expected federal responsibilities for 
the payment of half of the cost of federal 
medical insurance. 

Now this money is being taxed from 
Ontario and we have heard the objection 
stated by the government opposite for many 
years. It is not sufficient to say that it is 
the law of the land, although I would say 
that it should soon be accepted by those who 
have the responsibility in Ontario that in 
fact there will be no changes to this, and 
that before July 1 next year, it is incumbent 
on us to accept our share of this programme 
and see that Medicare becomes a reality in 
the province of Ontario. 

The statement by the Prime Minister of 
Canada some weeks ago, that five years from 
now there would be a renegotiation of the 
financing of this plan, deeply shocked and 
surprised the Treasurer who sits opposite. 
Whether or not he is unaware of the wording 
in the bill that calls for a five-year reassess- 
ment I do not know, but I am convinced, sir, 
that the very purpose of this reassessment is 
so that as these programmes, such as Medi- 
care, become an established and accepted 
fact, that it is possible for the government of 
Canada, with the abatement of the equivalent 



112 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



points of the tax system, to move out of 
shared responsibility and on to new areas 
which are needed for the unification of 
Canada and the provision of equality of 
opportunity. 

Actually what this will do, Mr. Speaker, 
is once again leave us with the priorities in 
our own hands which we can assess as we 
see fit. The big problem is one that is ex- 
pressed so frequently from the other side, 
and that is that federal initiative in fact, 
removes from the province of Ontario and 
any other provinces the right to opt out of 
these programmes. I would say we do not 
have the right to opt out of Medicare. We 
must get into it. The fiscal requirements are 
there. This is not the reason I believe we 
should, but it is a fact that faces the Treas- 
urer and there is no doubt in my mind that 
Ontario will be a part of federal Medicare 
with the $160 million that this would entail 
this year, before the end of the fiscal year. 
I sincerely hope that this is a part of our 
programme. The government, by continuing 
to reject Medicare, is neglecting possible 
income tax sources which already exist, be- 
cause it would rather forego them, appar- 
ently, than appear to lose face to the federal 
government. But it has a more urgent obli- 
gation and that is to the people of our prov- 
ince. At the same time the government 
cannot face the fact that the dream is over, 
and in our own words the nightmare has 
begun. It cannot bring itself to slice into its 
entrenched- costs. It cannot accept the idea 
of a true day of fiscal reckoning. Now I think 
back to a speech made on the Budget of 1962 
by the former member for Bruce, Ross 
Whicher, now member of Parliament, in 
which he extrapolated the spending pro- 
grammes for the then Treasurer, the member 
for Haldimand-Norfolk. There were a lot of 
catcalls on that day as well, when it was 
indicated that the Budget critic for the official 
Opposition had been exaggerating the posi- 
tion. And yet, if you were to look up the 
speech, you would find his predictions on the 
cost of education, our highways programmes, 
the programmes for economic development 
of the province, and some programmes that 
were not even thought of at that time, have 
far exceeded even Mr. Whicher's pessimistic 
predictions. We find ourselves in a fiscal 
nightmare of the government's own making. 

It is no longer acceptable that the blame 
be put on another jurisdiction. The responsi- 
bility rests here, and we in this House must 
take the steps to correct it. We cannot pos- 
sibly go through this next session without the 
far-reaching changes that the Treasurer him- 



self has said will be needed unless some 
great uncle in another jurisdiction is pre- 
pared to rebate an extra $300 million. It 
does not appear that this money is going to 
be forthcoming. The responsibility is here. 
The decision is here. We in Ontario must 
set our own House in order. 

Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago we were 
discussing the matter of the strike in Picton. 
Among the many reports received by the 
government and the members of the Legis- 
lature over the past few months, the Rand 
report might have been the most valuable. 
We believe that labour legislation in Ontario 
has been inadequate and backward. The 
Tilco Plastics strike, which was the event that 
triggered the naming of the Royal commission 
and the retention by the government of the 
ex-parte injunction in labour disputes, followed 
more recently by the incredible situation at 
Picton and the strike at the Peterborough 
Examiner, continue to point up the inade- 
quate and archaic approach that government 
policy has taken in Ontario for 25 years. 

Because of this, we look forward to Mr. 
Rand's report eagerly. No doubt some of his 
recommendations may find application, but 
the general and specific approach of Mr. 
Rand is completely unacceptable in Ontario. 
This is an age of dwindling freedoms; yet 
the report of this distinguished jurist has a 
strange ring of authoritarianism about it. 

What I want to do today is underline that 
Mr. Justice Rand's preoccupation with im- 
posing settlements upon union and manage- 
ment is as much at variance with Liberal 
philosophy as it is in practice, unworkable. 

In our view, settlements cannot be imposed 
or they will not endure. They must be nego- 
tiated by the parties concerned with as little 
outside interference as possible and then only 
in those rare conditions of last resort when 
the total public interest becomes paramount. 

The tribunal, the heart of the recommenda- 
tions of the report, is a wrong and, I would 
say, illiberal concept. It epitomizes the legal- 
istic that it is possible and desirable to impose 
settlements. To implement this recommenda- 
tion would be an undesirable delegation of 
the powers which must be retained by this 
Legislature. Furthermore, it would bring the 
law into widespread disrespect. 

Our view is that Justice Rand has under- 
rated the quality and effectiveness of the 
Ontario Labour Relations Board, whose ap- 
proach has been to try to create an atmos- 
phere in which agreement might most easily 
be reached. Its tripartite nature makes its 
decisions more palatable and generally ac- 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



113 



ceptable than those of a Rand tribunal could 
ever be. 

The Ontario Labour Relations Board should 
remain the main regulating body in the labour 
field. The board, however, can be upgraded 
with more modern procedures and a new 
approach to expressing the public interest in 
these matters. There will always be emer- 
gency situations from time to time, that re- 
quire the authority of this Legislature to 
settle in the public interest. This power must 
be guarded carefully and used only as a last 
resort when the public welfare obviously must 
be considered ahead of normal labour-man- 
agement affairs. Strikes are, of course, seri- 
ously expensive to the public and to all con- 
cerned, but that is part of the price we pay 
for living in a free society, and the alternative 
would be much worse. On page 7 of the re- 
port, Mr. Justice Rand ends his summary by 
stating: 

That is the background against which 
labour relations of today must be viewed 
and procedures adopted for their adjust- 
ment to societies of order. 

Mr. Speaker, as Liberals, we have two higher 
priorities than that of order. These are 
respectively freedom and justice. Freedom 
must come first because, without it, justice 
becomes a mockery, and while order is a 
desirable attribute of a smoothly functioning 
society, it must always be subservient to free- 
dom and justice which transcends order on 
the scale of human values. We have all too 
often seen that one can have perfect order in 
the total absence of humanity. When freedom 
exists, however, humanity is always present, 
regardless of the material conditions. 

This, then, in the most general terms, is the 
tone of our objection to the Rand report. I 
do not like to say that we opt for the status 
quo because that is not so. We believe that 
the labour relations board can be improved 
and there is never a session goes by but spe- 
cific recommendations, associated with pro- 
cedures of the labour relations board and their 
improvement, are put before the House and 
the Minister of Labour by our critic on this 
side and by those knowledgeable in these 
matters. The people opposite are always quick 
to say that I am an apologist for the govern- 
ment of Canada, and yet I believe that the 
federal Minister of Labour, Mr. Mackasey, 
has been very useful to the situation across 
Canada in his statements when he says that 
free negotiations between labour and manage- 
ment must continue to be the essence of these 
matters as we approach the end of this par- 



ticular century with the changes that are a 
part of it. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want now to move to 
another matter of provincial concern and 
bring to your attention that a few days ago 
we had read by the Clerk a petition from the 
city of Ottawa asking for permissive legisla- 
tion pertaining to rent control. Even before 
the signing of the petitions, however, indica- 
tions of crisis were clearly evident to all who 
chose to see. Rent increases triggered by the 
bumbling way in which the basic shelter 
exemption was accepted as an election gambit 
and has since been paid out, have been wide- 
spread and unreasonable. 

They have exposed avarice, particularly in 
Toronto, where very few of the 40 per cent 
of the residents who are tenants have escaped 
chilling and inflationary hikes in their accom- 
modation costs. Rent increases have caused 
people to look for cheaper accommodation 
rather than their former goal of moving out of 
the high rise apartments and finding a home 
for themselves and their families. The tradi- 
tional dream has gone by the board. It has 
passed out of reach of a majority of urban 
population because of the fantastic price in- 
creases of lots and houses alike. With vacancy 
rates at less than 2 per cent for all types of 
rental accommodation in our major cities, 
there is no longer a free market in housing. 
This is the extent of the crisis today. 

The government has no plans to solve this 
problem, that are effective. The Malvern site 
has laid idle for years and is now progressing 
at a snail's pace towards development. I can 
well remember the first announcement in 
1954, following at almost indecent intervals— 
I believe the fifth or sixth by the present Min- 
ister who is responsible for housing. The de- 
cision to assemble land in the Waterloo area 
and the manner of its announcement betrayed 
a lack of overall planning that bodes ill for 
the success of this project also. 

I want to stop at that point in my written 
comment and just say that it does seem 
strange that funds which are in such short 
supply at the present time, would have been 
funnelled into the programme at Waterloo. 
It is strange as well that these funds, paid 
75 per cent at the federal level, have been put 
into a kind of land bank, the future of which 
is very much in doubt. The purchase of the 
land was entered into without any reference 
to local planning authorities and it has all the 
earmarks of those strange decisions that are 
at times entered into by the government when 
they have to get some of their friends off the 
hook. It appears to me that this large area of 



114 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



land in the Waterloo area is going to lie idle 
for many years until, I suppose, there is some 
specific need, or need for a press release on 
the part of the Minister. It is a strange mat- 
ter, indeed, that when housing and serviced 
lots— more public housing in the big areas 
particularly is so desperately needed— the 
Minister would choose this as one of his top 
priorities in the expenditure of these public 
funds. 

The selling of HOME lots at a profit rather 
than at current cost after servicing, betrays a 
real road block to this programme which is 
that the maintenance of a profitable private 
market in real estate is considered more im- 
portant than the ready provision of homes. 
The government has neglected municipal tax 
reform and it is this more than any other 
factor that has distorted the orderly develop- 
ment of the residential communities in our 
municipalities. The Smith committee began 
its work in 1962, but it is now evident that 
1968 will pass before any action is taken on 
the report or the select committee's work on 
tax reform. 

No doubt the Minister himself, like most 
of us in the House, has talked to those 
municipal officials in urban areas and in 
rural areas who have indicated that the cost 
of education is the reason that makes most 
of them cut their regulations in such a way 
that the advancement of urban development 
has been curtailed. It is this area of tax 
reform that is pressing more than any other. 

We have also had broad hints that the 
Treasurer's lack of success in Ottawa will 
mean that he will not relieve the munici- 
palities of the cost of education even to the 
60 per cent level recommended by Smith. 
The uncontrolled costs of education, costs 
which have hitherto been treated as one lump 
sum instead of 30 or 40 different priorities, 
have been loaded on to the municipalities 
and on to the regressive property tax struc- 
ture paralyzing orderly growth and develop- 
ment and creating such ridiculous minimum 
assessment requirements for homes as the $30 
thousand minimum now applying in Scar- 
borough and the insistence on two-car garages 
even when people live directly on the GO 
line. This is what happens when the wrong 
kind of tax source is burdened with the 
costs of education. 

Finally it is clear to all that the govern- 
ment has been totally remiss in its encourage- 
ment of public housing where this is needed. 
This inadequacy of housing for those who 
need it most reflects once more the failure 
of this government to get its priorities in 



order. Ontario citizens in 1968 do not have 
access to a freely operating housing market 
subject to the checks and balances of supply 
and demand. Todaj' Ontario has a totally 
artificial market in which the government by 
its negligence and its irresponsibilities in the 
matter of priorities, has already interfered 
ineffectually. The effect of that existing inter- 
ference by the provincial government has 
been to distort the market completely. The 
supply of homes has been cut off because it 
has proved uneconomic to build in a rational 
manner. 

The demand has soared, particularly in cer- 
tain areas, because the urban magnet has 
changed the population distribution and 
created unreasonable pressures on demand. 
It is clear that, while many rural areas are 
not experiencing a serious housing problem, 
the crisis is of nightmare proportions in 
Toronto, in Ottawa which has brought for- 
ward a petition for a permissive rent control 
statute, in Hamilton and many other densely 
populated centres across the province. 

In these circumstances, we recognize that 
emergency action is now necessary to meet 
the extraordinary situation that has arisen 
through the negligence of this government; 
through its not providing services to relieve 
existing land prices; through not providing 
sufficient commuter rapid transit to take the 
pressure away from the urban car; through 
not balancing industrial and residential assess- 
ment and through causing rental inflation 
through the basic shelter exemption method. 

Our answer to the problem is to approach 
the immediate crisis on a localized basis. We 
believe the remedy lies with the munici- 
palities themselves and that this Legislature 
can effect short-term enabling legislation to 
ease the present problem. We believe that if 
all the factors distorting the market are dealt 
with as they should be, then the immediate 
urgency may have diminished within a three- 
year period. We therefore propose permissive 
and localized rent control legislation with a 
two-year life span, subject to renewal only 
if the government has failed to come up with 
the answers that will restore the market to its 
former free state. 

In these circumstances, any move by this 
government to extend a life of such legisla- 
tion, will be a clear admission of its failure 
to deal with the situation on a longer range 
basis in the interim. As Liberals, we look 
forward to the day when the government- 
initiated circumstances in which a rent control 
measure has become necessary will be coun- 
teracted. We find this proposal unpalatable 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



115 



and we have not entered into it lightly, but 
only after the most careful caucus delibera- 
tion. We see it as a stop-gap measure and 
not as a Liberal idea but to many of us it 
is the only answer to the situation that we 
now find. The step must be taken now be- 
cause there is no alternative after what the 
government has failed to do. Our aim, as 
always, is for a free market in shelter and 
the removal of all the factors that prevent 
such a market from operating for the benefit 
of all. 

We therefore propose to set specifically: 
number one, rent control legislation as a 
stop-gap to meet the crisis in certain areas. 
The measures must be permissive, the deci- 
sion to seek powers coming from the affected 
municipalities themselves. The legislation will 
feature one-year renewal of its local applica- 
tion and renewal of the measure in each 
locality will be tied to vacancy rate and rent 
index limits. 

Second, a tenant's bill of rights. This 
measure is detailed on the order paper 
already in the name of the deputy leader of 
the Liberal Party, the hon. member for 
Downsview. It would include provision for 
a standard form of lease. It would limit 
advanced rent payments to two months 
ahead. It would outlaw security deposits 
against damage completely. It would make 
illegal those clauses in contracts by which 
a tenant waives any or all of his legal rights 
and to that I might add, the right to a com- 
plete contract prior to signature. Clauses 
typed in after the signing would be invalid. 
It would enact and enforce safety regulations 
and health laws to protect tenants. The day 
of erratic and uninspected elevators and other 
devices being put into service would end. 
The day of choked refuse disposal chutes 
polluting the air with odour and disease 
would be brought to a conclusion by a force- 
ful clause in the new Act. 

It would outlaw exclusive agreements be- 
tween the landlord and suppliers of goods 
and services, as being an infringement of a 
tenant's basic right to free access. It would 
forbid a landlord to levy extra charges on 
tenants unless these have been specifically 
contracted for, to begin with, and it would 
establish a tenants' appeal board to hear com- 
plaints against the injustices that even then 
would remain in the unreal and unconscion- 
able circumstances of the distorted shelter 
market existing in our cities today. 

Number three, Liberals see a tenants' bill 
of rights as the transition from the immediate 
and emergency rent control phase to a more 
logical and effective long-term solution to 



the housing problem. The cornerstone of this 
approach must be municipal tax reform, as I 
have already said. We are still convinced 
that the municipalities must be relieved of 
their education cost burden to the extent of 
80 per cent of the local level. Only in this 
way will balance, growth and development, 
and a proper provision for needed services, 
emerge. Alongside this must come a source 
of second mortgage money from the prov- 
ince to supplement NHA first mortgages. Even 
at present high prices, many people are ready 
to become home owners and are prepared 
and able to carry the monthly payments. It 
is the initial deposit, enormous because of the 
lack of an adequate second mortgage, that 
keeps many enterprising and would-be home 
owners out of the rental market or, I should 
say, on the rental market. 

Every tenant who becomes a home owner 
takes some pressure off the overheated rental 
market and it helps bring supply and demand 
into line. We would see to it that otherwise 
good risks were not prevented from becom- 
ing home owners merely by not being able 
to accumulate the $4,000 or $5,000 now 
needed to move into a house of their own. 
This would be a programme involving invest- 
ment in the people of our province. It is a 
programme that has been needed for many 
years. 

Number five, there must be an overall plan 
for the land use and economic development 
of Ontario. Present policy loses its effective- 
ness when a tenant is placed in the priorities 
that such a plan must dictate for the selec- 
tion of urban growth points, the preserva- 
tion of our best agricultural resources and 
the expansion of recreation facilities all 
correlated by rapid transit highways and 
services. 

And lastly, in a programme to meet the 
housing difficulties on a long range basis, we 
believe that the Ontario Water Resources 
Commission is ready for far reaching reform. 
This would be necessary in order to create 
one of the effective means of implementing 
the overall provincial plan that I have been 
urging on the administration. 

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to leave the 
recommendation for an overall plan without 
one or two further remarks. We have been 
treated by the Minister of Trade and Devel- 
opment for some years to the expectation 
that the economic regions of the province 
would have such a detailed plan of their 
own areas: their prospects, economic and 
otherwise available for a general provincial 
plan. He has had this responsibility taken 



116 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



from him and it now resides in The Depart- 
ment of the Treasury. Now we are still 
awaiting at least some glimmer of the 
regional development plan that could, in fact, 
be upgraded so that it would be a plan 
for the province. 

I live in a rural area of the province and 
I know that the responsibilities that local 
governments, reeves and mayors take upon 
themselves in order to carry out the planning 
requirements placed on their shoulders by 
The Department of Municipal Affairs which 
are very heavy and politically onerous. When 
decisions are made to restrict the free whole 
rights of any land owner, that land owner 
turns sometimes rather vehemently on those 
elected officials or those elected people who 
are prepared to tamper with these rights in 
the interest of the greater good of the com- 
munity. 

This is what has been happening in Ontario 
for some years and there are still many 
areas which have not yet acceded to the 
pressure placed upon them by The Depart- 
ment of Municipal Affairs to bring about 
such a plan. In the interim, the province of 
Ontario has gone scot free in accepting its 
share of these tough political decisions. 
There has been no approach towards setting 
some delineations to the large and growing 
metropolitan areas, to stop them staining out 
over the rural areas of the province without 
any plan or modern consideration. A good 
case in point is the decision made by Ontario 
Hydro to build one of the largest thermal 
plants in the world on the shores of Lake 
Erie and right beside this enormous centre of 
power, the Steel Company of Canada has 
not optioned, but bought, 7,000 acres for a 
new industrial development. The province 
has had little or no effect on the general plan 
of the greater community around that par- 
ticular centre which must obviously in the 
next 20 years, become a new city in the 
province. 

The two counties involved, Haldimand and 
Norfolk have embarked on joint planning 
responsibilities. But this is not enough. There 
are many towns outside those counties them- 
selves which expect to share in the expansion. 
They expect to have new industrial and 
urban subdivisions but there has been no 
plan by the economic council of the area nor 
by the government of Ontario to assist them 
in this matter. 

The time has come surely, when the de- 
cisions must be made for the major growing 
areas of the province, at least on the general 
areas for growth where the new transit lines 
will be constructed and just what the mean- 



ing will be for our citizens of the next 20 
years. It is not enough for any Minister of 
the Crown to turn to what has been done in 
the past. I think this last spring we were 
treated with much fanfare to the report of 
the MTARTS study which after I believe 
four years and $2 million presented four 
alternatives of what the community around 
Toronto might be in the future. 

They were presented to the municipal offi- 
cials as four alternatives, none of them with a 
price tag, just the expectation that any one 
of them would be terribly expensive. But 
surely these particular suggestions and alter- 
natives have to be considered by the govern- 
ment of Ontario before they are considered 
by any individual municipality or growing 
economic area. 

It is the decision of this administration to 
improve the quality of life— a phrase that the 
Premier uses more and more frequently— in 
the years that remain in this century. It is 
only through the implementation of a plan of 
this type that we can, in fact, look for any 
effective means of improvement of this qual- 
ity of life that all of us are concerned with. 

Now I stated as the last point in the gen- 
eral development of solving the housing diffi- 
culty, a new approach to the responsibilities 
of the Ontario Water Resources Commission. 
I want to deal with that in some detail. 

The water resources commission has two 
major functions that are not always com- 
patible. The first, as the major water pollu- 
tion control agency, gives it great and 
growing powers to disallow development in 
communities with inadequate facilities and, 
in fact, to close industry and stop develop- 
ment. 

An example of this last is the closing of the 
Canada Glue plant in Brantford with the 
consequent laying off of 75 men; most of 
them over the age of 50, making readjust- 
ment particularly difficult. Now we support 
antipollution regulations with teeth in them, 
but in this case if the OWRC had had a sub- 
sidized loan fund, so that $250,000— that is 
all, $250,000-had been available to the com- 
pany, the necessary antipollution measures 
could have been implemented and the indus- 
try retained. 

A word of further explanation: This is a 
fairly old company, that dumps its refuse 
into the Grand River, and the refuse from 
an operation of this type is a particularly 
disagreeable source of pollution. There have 
been many complaints from the citizens 
locally and the OWRC finally— after several 
warnings — took the action — and it was a 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



117 



proper action under their present terms of 
reference — to close down the plant since the 
pollution was not abated and the company 
was not prepared to undertake this abate- 
ment. 

I think it is interesting to note that the 
company had been bought out— some years 
ago— by American interests, and the head 
office indicated that they were quite pre- 
pared to do the manufacturing operations in 
other localities and ship the finished product 
into Ontario. This of course brings forward 
many arguments about decisions made out- 
side of our own boundaries that affect us so 
greatly and on a day-to-day basis. 

But the difficult part is this, that for 
$250,000, we are told, that the antipollution 
measures could have been effected. Yet the 
Ontario Water Resources Commission does 
not have access to such a fund to accomplish 
this particular procedure in such a way that 
the company could be forced to do that 
rather than close down under these circum- 
stances. 

I believe it is the height of folly to hand 
out grants by one department of $500,000 
under the equalization of industrial oppor- 
tunity programmes to bolster employment 
with one hand, while a short-sighted ap- 
proach to OWRC negates the first effort. 

All of the people in any community bene- 
fit from antipollution regulations, so that 
justification for such loans is apparent. 

The second major responsibility of OWRC 
is to provide the water and sewage facilities 
for municipalities where the commission itself 
decides they are needed. A case in point, and 
I would like to dwell on it for a moment, is 
that of St. Thomas where the commission 
decided in 1966 that the city should accept 
water from a commission pipeline for 50 
cents per thousand gallons, even though St. 
Thomas had an adequate system delivering 
water at 10 cents per thousand gallons with 
proved resources to cope for expansion into 
the foreseeable future. 

The OWRC decision was prompted by 
their commitment to provide pipeline water 
to the new Ford plant near St. Thomas and 
their effort to spread the cost over the nearest 
population centre. Now in order to force the 
city to accept an obviously bad deal the 
water resources commission stopped approv- 
ing subdivision plans in St. Thomas in March 
1967. This freeze on development was based 
on the commission's statement that the city 
was grossly polluting nearby Kettle Creek. 

St. Thomas has been negotiating since that 
time with the commission and is approaching 



a settlement in which the freeze on develop- 
ment is like a gun to its head. This freeze 
was lifted in October 1968— about a month 
ago— by a statement by the hon. member for 
Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root), the vice- 
chairman of the commission, even though no 
significant change had taken place with the 
situation involving Kettle Creek. 

This story has significance across Ontario, 
because sooner or later all our municipalities 
must come under the patronizing direction of 
OWRC. There is no doubt that a water grid 
and joint sewage facilities for large areas of 
southern Ontario must be undertaken in the 
next 20 years. This present policy of sticking 
the users for the full cost results in impossible 
burdens, and we must look for fair solutions. 

Surely, it is grossly unfair for a govern- 
ment agency to turn on a nearby municipality 
which has properly looked after its own 
requirements and is even prepared to share 
those requirements with a reasonable sur- 
rounding territory and population. It is 
unfair that the commission should turn on 
them to increase their water cost by factors 
of three, sometimes five times, in order to 
implement the decisions taken by the com- 
mission with an entirely different motivation. 

It is interesting to note comparable pipe- 
line offers in other centres. Compared with 
St. Thomas, London— which is not too far 
away— has a pipeline, not from Lake Erie, 
but from Lake Huron with its terminus at 
Arva, near London. Before the pipeline in- 
stallation, the London water price was eight 
cents per thousand gallons. They calculated 
that if they were to build the pipeline them- 
selves they could supply their own water 
from Lake Huron for something like 15 cents 
per thousand, but were persauded by the 
Ontario government that, in fact, the govern- 
ment should build the pipeline and sell them 
the water. So as a result, the deal was that 
the price would be very similar, very similar 
to that which it would have been if London 
had provided their own pipeline. But there 
was a clause, of course, associated with 
escalating costs, and London gets its water- 
not for 15 cents per thousand but 17.6 cents 
per thousand, delivered at Arva. 

So I believe that this reflects the influence 
that the London family compact, all of it, 
can have on government deals. 

I will be interested, Mr. Speaker, to hear 
the justification of the Premier or even the 
vice-chairman of the OWRC, who is not 
here today, in comparing these deals. 

The third one, and I want to bring it to your 
attention, was discussed in the Legislature 



118 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



a few days ago. It involves the city of Sarnia, 
represented by my hon. friend and supporter. 
I understand that the water system in Sarnia 
now produces high quality water for the 
citizens of that city on a flat rate of $24 per 
year. This has been calculated, with all things 
being considered, to be about 12 cents per 
thousand gallons— in the same ambit as that 
which was provided by St. Thomas and Lon- 
don and other centres that I will talk about in 
a moment. Sarnia realized that they had to 
undertake expansion of this plant. Having a 
very effective local administration over a 
number of years they were able to contem- 
plate a $4 million expansion without going 
to the OWRC for any significant assistance 
except perhaps for some engineering advice 
and they then believed that they could pro- 
vide high quality water into the foreseeable 
future for their own citizens at $48 per year 
or about 20 to 24 cents per thousand. This 
had an expansion that was large enough to 
permit them to offer treated water to the 
surrounding municipalities within reason. It 
was at this stage that the Ontario water 
resources commission intruded and it is their 
plan to enlarge the Sarnia facilities by that 
same $4 million that Sarnia itself was pre- 
pared to undertake but not to provide water 
for citizens of Sarnia at $48 a year but at 
$72.96 per year. Now, can you blame the 
citizens of Sarnia for objecting to the role 
in which they are being placed by a com- 
mission of this government, a role which 
gives to them the responsibility for paying 
for the needed expansion of these facilities 
into a significant and large area of western 
Ontario? 

I come now to the city of Brantford where 
there has been as yet no direct confrontation 
with OWRC but simply the proposition stated 
that Brantford can have access to water from 
Lake Erie for 25 cents per thousand gallons 
even though they now distribute water at a 
base rate of 10 cents per thousand, two and 
a half times increase in price. It has been 
proposed by the water commission that this 
pipeline come up the Grand Valley and allow 
those cities, which now use the Grand River 
as their primary source of municipal water 
supply, to cut into the pipeline and get the 
water from Lake Erie rather than directly 
from the river. The difference in quality is 
not negligible but I would say insignificant. In 
any case the water that is provided by Brant- 
ford and other municipalities is of a high 
enough quality and with the projections that 
they will continue to be of effective quality 
and supply. 



The last case in point is of the town of 
Brampton, I believe they call it the Peel- 
Brampton pipeline, which reached an agree- 
ment in March of 1968 for pipeline water 
at 21.5 cents per thousand gallons after an 
original price of 31 cents per thousand for 
the first month and a half's supply each year. 
These pipeline plans can and must be one 
of the most important arms for the imple- 
mentation of a provincial plan. There is no 
doubt if the decision is taken by the govern- 
ment of Ontario that certain areas, some of 
them now towns in existence, and some of 
them now just open country, will be centres 
for new municipal growth. The pipelines 
which would provide water to those centres 
would, in fact, command the growth at that 
point and be extremely important in reduc- 
ing the cost of serviced lots in those areas. I 
believe that the pipelines cannot be totally 
charged against the users in a small area if 
we are going to be fair in the financing of 
such a provincial plan. Decisions to provide 
water and sewage facilities will designate 
growth points around present urban centres 
and reduce cost of serviced land to have real 
impact on the cost and availability of hous- 
ing. The programme must be financed on a 
broad provincial basis if it is going to work. 

With these things in mind, Mr. Speaker, I 
would like to draw to your attention six 
specific points that I believe should form a 
basis for new terms of reference for the 
water resources commission: 

1. Specific long-range plans for a water 
pipeline grid over a large area of Ontario 
must be drawn up and made public, to 
accompany a plan for our province. 

2. This overall plan, with accompanying 
sewage disposal facilities, where applicable, 
should have a tentative time schedule associ- 
ated with it. 

3. The programme must be the operative 
part of a general provincial plan so that the 
pipeline and sewage treatment locations will 
be the deciding factors in growth points 
across the province and greatly reduce costs 
for serviced land. 

4. The costs in the early part of the servic- 
ing programme are too high to charge directly 
back to the relatively small number of users. 
OWRC must have access to, and use, of the 
credit of the province like Ontario Hydro 
does to plan and install these facilities on 
their own debentures. The financing must be 
accepted partially as a direct government 
charge so that the needed facilities can be 
installed in time to allow many communities 
now caught between the Ontario municipal 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



119 



lx>ard's fears for their solvency and the 
OWRC demand for services before sub- 
division approval, to find a way out of the 
bureaucratic dilemma. 

5. OWRC must be specifically forbidden 
to use ancillary powers such as holding up 
subdivision approvals as a club to force 
agreement from municipalities to accede to 
their proposals until the new service policy 
is in operation. 

6. Subsidized loans to industries for anti- 
pollution installations must be a part of a 
fair and effective anti-pollution programme. 

Mr. Speaker, I have some comments to 
make in addition on two other areas that 
were mentioned in the Speech from the 
Throne but since it is my understanding that 
you wish now to proceed to a discussion of a 
private member's resolution, with your per- 
mission I will move the adjournment of the 
debate. 

Mr. Nixon moves the adjournment of the 
debate. 

Motion agreed to. 



NOTICE OF MOTION 

Clerk of the House: Notice of motion 
No. 15 by Mr. Snow. 

Resolution: That all government of On- 
tario buildings in the province should 
be constructed in accordance with the 
modular co-ordinated principle. 

Mr. J. W. Snow (Halton East): I move, 
seconded by the member for Hamilton 
Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith), Resolution No. 
15, standing in my name, which has just 
l>een read. 

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this resolution 
I am calling for the adoption by the govern- 
ment of Ontario, of the modular dimensional 
system for the design and construction of 
luiildings which are constructed by the vari- 
ous departments of the government of Ontario, 
or are subsidized with provincial funds. It is 
my desire today, to bring to the attention of 
the government, and of the hon. members of 
this House, the efficiencies and cost reducing 
benefits which can be derived from the adop- 
tion of this system, and the institution of the 
BEAM programme which has been developed 
by The Department of Industry in Ottawa. 

Mr. Speaker, the adoption of the modular 
co-ordinated system of building, together with 
the implementation of my previous resolution 
of March 4, earlier this year, calling for a 



standard building code within the province of 
Ontario, would provide an excellent base for 
improvements in construction efficiency, and 
productivity, in the manufacture, design and 
use of building equipment, accessories and 
materials. Moreover, a climate for the devel- 
opment of new technology in construction 
would be rendered more favourable as a 
result. 

Many of the hon. members here today may 
ask: what is modular co-ordination? Modular 
dimensional standardization or modular co- 
ordination, are synonomous terms given to 
procedures simplifying the manufacture of 
building equipment, accessories, materials, 
and the assembly of these for the construction 
of buildings. 

Such standardization and co-ordination are 
effective ways of resolving basic difficulties of 
design and application caused by unrelated 
dimensions of various building components, 
that we have today. 

The aim is the development of economical 
systems of buildings in which all materials, 
components, products and equipment fit 
rationally and compatibly together simply and 
easily with a minimum of alteration work re- 
quired on the job site. Cutting costs of build- 
ing construction is the target of this pro- 
gramme. 

The modular concept has received much 
study in many countries because of the press- 
ing need for increased productivity and effi- 
ciency in building. From the results of these 
studies, the dimension of four inches or 10 
centimetres in the countries using the metric 
system has emerged as a most satisfactory 
co-ordinating unit of measurement. The name 
given to this unit is the standard building 
module. 

The main advantages of module dimen- 
sional standardization and co-ordination are 
as follows: 

1. The need for manufacturing and stock- 
ing components in more than one standard 
range of sizes is eliminated, thus inventories 
are reduced and simplified and inventory 
costs are reduced. 

2. The mass production of building com- 
ponents is greatly facilitated resulting in 
increased economies of scale of manufacture. 

3. Architectural and engineering design is 
facilitated, mill production time for archi- 
tectural and engineering drawing is shortened 
and they are more readily understood. The 
costly procedures now related to the produc- 
tion and function of shop drawings may be 
eliminated. Resulting economies in time and 



120 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



cost can enable the design profession to deal 
with a greater volume of work, thus extending 
their influence further in the building industry. 

4. Estimating and pricing of work is easier 
and more accurate. 

5. Site layout would be simplified. 

6. Supervision of construction is more effi- 
cient. 

7. Workmen understand their assignments 
better and work is performed with greater 
ease and despatch. 

8. Waste of materials is held to a minimum. 

9. Job and site cutting of building materials 
is reduced entirely in many cases. 

10. The orderly and intelligent develop- 
ment of the industrialization of the building 
processes would be facilitated. The standard 
building module of four inches was chosen in 
Canada because of its proximity to that em- 
ployed in countries using the metric system 
of measurement of 10 centimetres being equal 
to 3.937 inches. The two dimentions are suffi- 
ciently close to permit the use of working 
drawings prepared on the four-inch module 
in the construction of buildings in countries 
under the metric system and vice versa. 

Architects favouring the introduction of the 
modular system in Canada would like to con- 
form to the 10-centimetre measurement but 
felt that immediate adoption of the four-inch 
unit was preferable to awaiting the inaugura- 
tion of the metric system here and in the 
United States. 

Mr. Speaker, I have referred briefly to the 
BEAM programme and I would like to ex- 
plain for a moment the background of this 
programme. BEAM is made up of the four 
letters B-E-A-M, meaning building equipment 
accessories and materials. As industry and 
government today is more than ever faced 
with the vital task of increasing its produc- 
tivity and efficiency and recognizing the vital 
need for increased efficiency in the industry, 
contractors, manufacturers and users of build- 
ing equipment accessories and materials and 
The Department of Industry have jointly 
initiated the BEAM programme to assist in 
achieving this goal. Since its inauguration, 
considerable progress has been made towards 
the attainment of the objectives of this pro- 
gramme. The BEAM programme in brief is 
as follows: In 1967, with the help and co- 
operation of the construction industry, The 
Department of Industry introduced this pro- 
gramme to assist in achieving greater produc- 
tivity and efficiency in the manufacture and 
use of equipment. 



Five objectives are being developed to 
bring about sufficient advances within the 
construction industry in Canada. These are 
as follows: 

1. The establishment of a comprehensive 
construction cataloguing and information 
system. 

2. The adoption of modular dimensional co- 
ordination of building components. 

3. The industrialization of the building 
process. 

4. The adoption of uniform building regu- 
lations and standards. 

5. The establishment of a design awards 
programme to improve the design and devel- 
opment of construction materials and pro- 
cesses. 

Three advisory committees were appointed, 
made up of prominent Canadians representing 
the manufacturing and building industries, 
architects and engineers and the trade unions, 
and have held meetings on information 
systems, modular co-ordination and industrial- 
ized building. These committees met on a 
regular basis and assisted the department in 
defining the objectives and implementing the 
programme. 

Six conferences were held during 1967, in 
Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, 
Edmonton and Vancouver with the objectives 
of acquainting policy makers within the indus- 
try with the technology and economic advan- 
tages of modular dimensioning. Over 1,200 
senior executives of Canada's top manu- 
facturing, contracting, architecture and 
engineering firms were invited to attend these 
one-day conferences. 

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my 
congratulations to The Department of Indus- 
try on the way that they have developed 
this programme. The objectives of the 
BEAM programme are of concern to all 
members of the industry. These, and several 
specific projects have long been advocated 
by the Canadian Construction Association 
and the Canadian Joint Committee on Con- 
struction Materials. At no time in our history 
has the effort to increase productivity and 
efficiency been of such importance as it is 
today. I sincerely hope that all concerned 
will participate in this programme and there- 
by ensure its success. 

Mr. Speaker, I know that many of our 
Ontario firms of architects and engineers 
have already adopted the modular system of 
planning buildings on their own initiative. 
This, along with the phasing in of the 
modular programme by the federal Depart- 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



121 



ment of Public Works has done a great deal 
to increase the use of standard modular 
building products as of this date. I am also 
aware, Mr. Speaker, that our Ontario Depart- 
ment of Public Works has been investigating 
the advantages of modular construction and 
has buildings under construction with the 
modular system being utilized at this time. 
My belief is that, if all work of all buildings 
constructed by the various departments of 
this government as well as all work and build- 
ings subsidized by the departments were of 
modular design, then this large volume of 
construction product added to that portion 
that is presently using modular co-ordination, 
would be a sufficiently large percentage of 
the overall construction volume in Ontario 
that all the remaining construction volume 
would be insufficient to maintain the unco- 
ordinated use of the non-modular com- 
ponents. In a very short time, the modular 
system would be adopted and used for all 
construction within our province if not within 
Canada. 

I urge the government to commence the 
drafting of legislation to be enacted no later 
than 1970 which will, without infringing 
upon the rights of manufacturers to use other 
systems of dimensioning as well, require all 
buildings constructed by municipal authori- 
ties and/or authorities with provincial finan- 
cial assistance to utilize the concept of 
modular design and modular co-ordinated 
materials. 

I feel confident, Mr. Speaker, that our 
government will give every consideration 
to my suggestions here today. I was very 
pleased with the response by the hon. 
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Mc- 
Keough) to my previous resolution regard- 
ing building codes and know that at this 
time the committees of knowledgeable gentle- 
men set up by him are making considerable 
progress in further investigating the advisa- 
bility of a standard building code for Ontario 
and ways and means in which this code may 
be implemented with the least possible incon- 
venience to the building industry and to the 
municipalities of Ontario. 

I was also very pleased to learn that, since 
the presentation of my building code resolu- 
tion in this House last March, that a similar 
resolution has been introduced by a member 
of the Legislature in the province of British 
Columbia. Earlier this month, I had corres- 
pondence with an hon. member of the 
Legislative Assembly of the province of 
Quebec, Mr. Art E. Seguin, who is the mem- 
ber for the riding of Robert Baldwin. Mr. 



Seguin is interested in bringing forward 
similar legislation in the province of Quebec. 

This, I believe, further indicated the 
interest not only in Ontario, but in all of 
Canada in updating our building codes and 
in streamlining and improving the industry 
within our country, which is by far the largest 
employer and the largest contributor of our 
gross national product. 

Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure as 
a member of this House, and one that has 
been proudly connected with the construc- 
tion industry for over 20 years, to bring this 
resolution forward for the consideration of 
our hon. members. 

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. 
Speaker, I rise to support the resolution of 
the hon. member for Halton ( Mr. Snow ) , 
who sponsored a resolution in the last session 
that the government of Ontario should adopt 
a national building code. The hon. member 
presented this House with a most interesting 
debate of great importance concerning every 
municipality, property owner and building 
contractor in Ontario. 

Perhaps one would assume that Resolution 
15 is a follow-up on the national building 
code in hope that his fellow colleagues would 
support and implement a standard building 
code in this province of Ontario that would 
apply to all municipalities and their needs. 
The present Hellyer task force on housing 
has been presented with many briefs and 
summations asking the adoption of a national 
building code. 

The resolution under discussion this after- 
noon deals with the building of all modern 
structures of our day. Modern architecture 
often approaches actual engineering in its 
mechanical completeness, in its designs, the 
means used for achieving beauty, art dimen- 
sional forms, the relationship of spaces, vol- 
umes, planes and masses. 

My colleague, the member for Ottawa 
Centre (Mr. MacKenzie), who, I would say, 
is more knowledgeable in the design and 
materials required in the building trades 
than most members of this House, had pre- 
sented a lively discussion and debate on this 
same subject to The Department of Public 
Works on the adoption of modular co ordina- 
tion in building materials for the government 
of Ontario to endorse the federal programme 
known as BEAM in the last session of Par- 
liament. 

As members of the provincial House we 
look upon this building as a masterpiece of 



122 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



architecture of the Victorian Gothic design— 
the wonderful wood carvings of this Chamber. 
But how many tradesmen are there in Ontario 
that can be masters in hand wood-carving 
today— I think very few. Time is also an 
important factor since a building is usually 
comprehended in a succession of experiences. 
We are living in a world being reshaped by 
science, industry and speed. Elements are 
employed in architecture, urgent experimen- 
tation directed toward answering the needs 
of a specific way of life— climate, methods of 
labour, available materials and economy of 
means, each of the greater styles of today, by 
discovery of a new structural method. 

In the 20th century new forms of building 
have been devised with the use of reinforced 
concrete, the development of light material 
with reinforced structures, plastics, steel and 
other metal alloys, and adhesives. One 
should not forget bricks, and cement blocks 
for the latter are used in large quantities in 
construction of our schools and homes in 
Ontario. Today modern architecture has pro- 
duced some of the most exciting structures 
in history, and the search for adequate, new 
structural and artistic formulas. Most archi- 
tects prefer a standard dimension that people 
will recognize, and one in particular is the 
unit dimension known as the four-inch modu- 
lar. Why the unit dimension of four? One 
can summarize by saying it would take the 
guess-work out of designing of buildings. It 
would take away many lost man-hours in 
revision of drawings in the steps of fabrica- 
tion of the material required. 

The market in Ontario for building prod- 
ucts consists of many components, all of vari- 
ation in size. One cannot change the design 
or dimensions of a building to suit the needs 
of every manufacturer in Ontario or Canada. 
Never before has there been a concerted 
effort by architects, engineers and contractors 
to get manufacturers to supply building 
materials with dimensions of the same mul- 
tiple, the unit four dimension. 

What is needed in Ontario is the adoption 
of modular co-ordination in building ma- 
terials. The government of Ontario does not 
have a planned building programme. They 
do not in fact know where they are going. 
Tliis government has not kept pace with the 
social change, our technology change and a 
change to uniformity design and materials. 
Different people have different standards for 
building materials, such items as bricks, 
cement blocks, pre-cast cement, molded 
plastics. This creates many difficulties in the 
planning and construction of buildings. One 



example is our schools that are being con- 
structed today. One school board can build 
a 10-room school for approximately 40 per 
cent less than the adjoining school board for 
the same size school. When one looks at 
Queen's University and their latest construc- 
tion at Queen's, one can see where it blends 
in with the old construction. Thus I think we 
have harmony, and in many cases this is 
lacking in the present government buildings. 

Mr. Speaker, commencing early in 1969 
the federal Department of Public Works is 
going to accept the principle that their build- 
ings are fabricated from modular size com- 
ponents, and I hope that this will give 
enough incentive to bring order to the 
chaotic conditions existing. Where is the 
leadership in Ontario? Surely this govern- 
ment of 25 years in office can provide direc- 
tion to initiate a programme in Ontario where 
it costs nothing, but will be in the long run a 
saving in dollars for the new Minister of 
Revenue— by the adoption of this resolution, 
"that all government of Ontario buildings in 
the province should be constructed in accord- 
ance with the modular panel principle." 

It would ensure that the projects are in 
the realm of reasonableness that would apply 
to hospitals, schools, colleges and universities 
by encouraging improvements in the manu- 
facture and assembly of materials. Many of 
the building projects fall short of the desired 
qualities. A great deal of the manufacturing 
process of building components approaches 
the custom method of fabrication and pro- 
duction as opposed to automatic or semi- 
automatic production-line basis. It is much 
easier working with standardized unit dimen- 
sions where all fabrication of steel, metal 
alloys, pre-cast cement and plastics can be 
jigged in assembly lines for fabrication in 
increasing the efficiency of manufacturing. A 
far greater need is in uniform codes and 
regulations adopted for building, for safety, 
heating and plumbing and electrical com- 
ponents. 

Mr. Speaker, I concur and endorse the 
resolution. It has merits, but I go one step 
more, and adopt the federal programme 
known as BEAM. It is being endorsed by 
the federal Department of Public Works. 
They accepted this programme of necessity 
for increased efficiency in the building in- 
dustry, efficiency in more accurate estimates. 
We in Canada are becoming more mobile, 
moving from one province to another. Archi- 
tects, engineers and tradesmen are construct- 
ing new buildings everywhere in Canada. It 
is time now for the province of Ontario, for 



NOVEMBER 25, 1968 



123 



this government to get on the BEAM pro- 
gramme, to come in loud and clear and to 
get in step with the rest of Canada, in step 
with our present and future needs. 

Mr. Speaker, I endorse the resolution. 

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, it 
hardly behooves me at this stage to say 
again what has already been said twice. We 
are in favour of progress in the building 
industry and so I do not expect to take as 
much time as the other speakers have taken. 

But it is an interesting thing that when 
people talk, as we have talked so much about 
competition in all fields— and that competition 
has brought a plethora of standards, sizes, 
types of building materials and all the rest 
of it— then, we come to the conclusion that 
it is just too costly to put up with that kind 
of competition in the whole building field. 
TJien we start to look for standards; for a 
way to cut down the costs of this kind of 
duplication. Inventory, for example, is an 
expensive business. We used to have, in this 
province, if my figures are accurate, about 
498 different sizes, types, specifications of 
blocks, building blocks. 

Just imagine the expense of maintaining 
inventory of this kind. The expense of setting 
up the manufacturing equipment for all these 
different kinds of building blocks. We began 
to get some sense and began to move toward 
co-ordination, modular co-ordination; the kind 
of co-ordination which makes just plain 
commonsense in the building industry. So 
today, we have not 498 different specifications 
for building blocks, but 12. 

This simplifies the problem in a dramatic 
way, and gives to us a new perspective in 
the whole building field. Here in the metro- 
politan area, the school board, I understand, 
has undertaken to build 31 schools and an 
office building by the early 70's under this 
kind of method where the specifications are 
laid down; where the different types of 
materials and gadgets that fit into the build- 
ing are so planned that they fit together and 
they make one coherent whole. It limits the 
amount of work that has to be done on the 
building site. The old craft method of putting 
together a home or a building there, bringing 
in all the piles of lumber, the different 
materials that have to be assembled, is done 
away with in large measure. The inter-relat- 
ing systems in this programme which Metro 
is now undertaking, the Metro school board, 
means that 75 per cent of the total building 
package is brought in and assembled in this 



way. The finishing has to be done by the 
crafts but 75 per cent of this can be done 
through modular co-ordination. 

I watched in some of the social democratic 
countries in Europe where this kind of pro- 
cess is going on. Great apartment blocks and 
great office blocks going up with the cranes 
simply fitting into place these articles, these 
parts of a building built to this kind of 
specification. 

So we understand and we support this kind 
of modular co-ordination which is now be- 
coming widespread. But we think this. Not 
only should we be using it but we should 
have the kind of legislation which makes it 
easier. Perhaps revising the national building 
code, as I suggested last year, will help in 
this whole field. Certainly, standards set by 
this government for its own building will be 
of great assistance. As soon as we begin to 
tie in the public building with the private 
sector, and all together, start to move with 
the modular co-ordination plan, then I am 
certain that the cut in building costs, the 
cut in the time factor, will be dramatic. 

I have the figures here which the author- 
ities in this field say are accurate. This kind 
of construction will result in 10 to 15 per 
cent cut in the cost. It is much better quality, 
a far, far speedier construction and more than 
that, the architects say that it lends itself to 
far more exciting concepts of building. 

So, Mr. Speaker, I simply say today that 
we support this whole concept. We support 
this idea. We support this resolution. It is 
another illustration of how the Tory mind is 
gradually coining toward the road to what 
has been called, across the floor of this 
House, socialism. More co-ordination, more 
co-operation, more socialism in the whole 
field which once used to be a jungle of 
capitalism. 

So we congratulate the member for mov- 
ing in this direction, for moving closer to the 
ideas which we have had for a long time and 
we ask this government to get with it and 
start to move in this direction. 

Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial 
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, to- 
morrow we will continue with the Throne 
Debate. 

Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment 
of the House. 

Motion agreed to. 

The House adjourned at 5.30 o'clock, p.m. 



No. 6 




ONTARIO 



^legislature of (Ontario 




OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION 



Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature 



Tuesday, November 26, 1968 



Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C. 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C 



THE QUEEN'S PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 



Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto. 







- 




CONTENTS 


Tuesday, November 26, 1968 




rates Bannon and Gardhouse, Mr. Wishart 127 



Motion to appoint Mr. Reuter as chairman of the committee of the whole House, 

Mr. Robarts, agreed to 127 

Public Utilities Act, bill to amend, Mr. Deans, first reading 128 

Coroners Act, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 128 

Provincial Courts Act, statement by Mr. Wishart 128 

Safety regulations for tunnel workers, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. MacDonald and 

Mr. De Monte 129 

Adverse weather loan, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Spence 130 

Safety regulations for school buses, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. T. Reid 130 

Throne Speech translation into French, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Knight 131 

Bellwood Orchard property in Hamilton, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Deans 131 

Home purchase plans OHC tenants, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Deans 132 

ODC loans to firms in designated areas, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Ben 132 

Thistletown OHC complex, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Ben 132 

Uniform building code, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Ben and Mr. Sargent 133 

Rapid transit systems, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Sargent 135 

Headlight failures in motor vehicles, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Sargent 135 

Mafia factions in eastern Canada, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Young 135 

Home purchase plans for OHC tenants, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Braithwaite 136 

Proctor-Silex dispute, question to Mr. Bales, Mr. Pilkey 136 

Assessment advantages to attact industries, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Pitman 137 

Staff conditions at Millbrook reformatory, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Grossman and 

Mr. Wishart, Mr. Pitman 137 

Confederation of Tomorrow booklet, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Burr 138 

Home purchase plans for OHC tenants, question to Mr. Randall, Mr. Burr 138 

Gasoline tax refund, question to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. Ruston 139 

Home purchase plans for OHC tenants, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. B. Newman 139 

Sale of health insurance, questions to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Shulman 140 

Civil service association, question to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. Gisborn 141 

Land acquisition for provincial park, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Gisborn 141 

Adverse weather insurance, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. T. P. Reid 142 

Algonquin Park, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. T. P. Reid 142 

Licence suspension by magistrates, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Bullbrook 143 

Provincial judges, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Singer 143 

Construction zone speed limits, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Young 145 

Reconstruction of highway, question to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Stokes 145 

Commemoration of birth of Hon. George Brown, statement by Mr. Robarts 145 

Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, second reading 146 

Municipal Act, bill to amend, reported 147 

Third reading 147 

Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Nixon, Mr. MacDonald 147 

Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. MacDonald, agreed to 165 

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 165 



127 



LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 



The House met at 2.30 o'clock, p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr. Speaker: Today, in our galleries we 
have visitors from several schools. In the east 
gallery from Orchard Park High School in 
Hamilton; Tabor Park Vocational School in 
Scarborough; and Sunningdale Public School, 
Oakville; and in the west gallery, Glenview 
Senior Public School, Toronto, and from 
Upper Canada College in Toronto. 

Later this afternoon, we will be joined by 
students from Port Perry High School in Port 
Perry and from Ryerson Polytechnic School 
in Toronto. 

We welcome these young people here. 

Petitions. 

Presenting reports. 

Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): 
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the report 
of the inquiry re Magistrate Frederick J. 
Bannon and Magistrate George W. Gard- 
house. 

This is pursuant to the requirement of 
section 3, subsection 4, of The Magistrates 
Act which requires the report to be tabled 
within 15 days of the opening of the Legis- 
lature. 

With the report, Mr. Speaker, I table the 
six volumes which comprise a transcript of 
evidence and correspondence relating to the 
resignation and dismissal of Magistrate Ban- 
non and the Orders-in-Council having to do 
with that same matter. 

Mr. Speaker: Motions. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts moves, seconded by Mr. 
Nixon, that Mr. A. E. Reuter, member for the 
electoral district of Waterloo South, be ap- 
pointed chairman of the committee of the 
whole House for the present session. 

Hon. J. P. Robarts ( Prime Minister ) : 
Before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, I 
would just like to take this occasion to express 
the thanks and appreciation of this side of 
the House for the way in which the hon. 
member discharged his duties last year. 

We do not always agree with his ruling, 
sir, any more than we always agree with 



Tuesday, November 26, 1968 

yours, but we always find him to be so emi- 
nently fair that we accept them, even if we 
do not agree with them. 

I felt that, last year, these duties were dis- 
charged well and efficiently, and I look for- 
ward to the same performance, if I may put 
it that way, and the same high standard of 
excellence in the months that lie ahead. 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi- 
tion): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be 
asked to second the motion which has been 
put and to say that we, too, have confidence 
in the fair judgment of the hon. member in 
carrying out his duties for another year. 

Sometimes I feel he is the hardest work- 
ing person, not only in government or in 
Opposition, but in the whole of the Legis- 
lature since he has to spend so many hours 
directing our deliberations on the estimates. 
It is not possible for him to let his attention 
wander on brief occasions, as it is possible, 
perhaps, on both sides of the House, because 
he never knows when precisely he is going 
to be called upon to settle some small flare- 
up. 

He does work extremely hard in this par- 
ticular job and I can say from this side that 
we appreciate it very greatly. And I hope 
that he can give me the assurances that he 
will not use the gratitude and compliments 
that have been expressed on this side of the 
House so frequently in his election pamphlets 
next time. 

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. 
Speaker, I can only echo the comments of 
both the Prime Minister and the leader of the 
Opposition. Indeed, I want to congratulate 
the Prime Minister because I think this is, 
in my experience, an unprecedented event. 
We have had traditions in the past that, no 
matter how good or— dare I add— how bad 
persons have been in this position, they have 
had one term of office only and there was no 
opportunity to carry on good work. 

In this instance, I think it is highly com- 
mendable that the government is giving the 
hon. member for Waterloo South an oppor- 
tunity to carry on in this capacity. I was 
confident, when he was appointed last year, 
that he would be about as fair a person as 



128 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



ever sat in that chair— and events prove that 
to be the case. As with the Prime Minister, 
I will say that on occasion I did not agree 
with his ruling but, again, with the Prime 
Minister, I always thought that he was mak- 
ing them honestly and they were eminently 
fair. Perhaps, in retrospect, I was even per- 
suaded he was right. 

Mr. Speaker: If I may, I will join the 
leaders of the parties and say that I, too, am 
exceedingly pleased at this motion of the 
House and I know it will add to the efficiency 
and good work of the members. 

Motion agreed to. 

Introduction of bills. 

THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT 

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth) moves first read- 
ing of bill intituled, An Act to amend The 
Public Utilities Act. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of 
this bill is to prohibit the collection of secur- 
ity deposits for the supplying of public 
utilities. 

THE CORONERS ACT 

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first 
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend 
The Coroners Act. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill em- 
bodies the recommendation made by Chief 
Justice McRuer that affected persons be 
allowed to examine witnesses at an inquest 
either in person or through counsel. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General. 

Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr. 
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I 
should like to make a brief statement with 
respect to The Provincial Courts Act and the 
proclamation thereof. 

I wish to advise the hon. members that the 
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has, by bis 
proclamation, named Monday, December 2, 
1968, as the day upon which The Provincial 
Courts Act, 1968, shall come into force in 
our province. The existing members of the 
magisterial and juvenile and family court 
benches have now been appointed as judges 
of the provincial court, providing a full time 
complement of 130 judges. 



I should also mention, Mr. Speaker, that 
12 men have been appointed as part time 
judges with appointments expiring on April 
30, 1969, in order that we may have an 
orderly transition to a complete and full time 
bench over a period of time. The county 
court judges who have provided valuable 
service in the juvenile and family courts have 
now retired. 

As hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, the 
Act provides for a provincial court made up 
of a criminal division and a family division, 
with courts of record sitting for each division 
in every county and district. The provincial 
court of the county or district will sit in such 
parts of the area as may be necessary to 
meet the needs of the people, and initially 
in the same location as previously served by 
the courts now replaced. 

All of the steps have been taken for the 
orderly establishment of the new court, Mr. 
Speaker, and we look forward to the improve- 
ments and developments that we are sure 
will be realized under the new system. The 
Judicial Council with the new procedural pro- 
vision in the court, will, I am sure, enable 
us to deal more effectively with the responsi- 
bility that is placed upon ourselves and the 
judges of the provincial courts. 

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member a ques- 
tion of the Minister? The hon. leader of the 
Opposition always has the first question. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my question is 
directed to the Minister of Health, who is not 
in his seat today, so I will forego that 
privilege. 

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

Mr. MacDonald: I have a number of ques- 
tions; the first one is a carryover from yester- 
day to the Minister of Labour. 

In view of the lack of enforcement of 
safety regulations for tunnel workers, as 
acknowledged by the Deputy Minister of 
Labour and the chief officer of the construc- 
tion safety branch on last Sunday night's 
"W-5" programme on the CTV network, what 
steps has the Minister taken to assure that 
henceforth regulations will be enforced? 

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr. 
Speaker, the member for Dovercourt (Mr. 
De Monte) had a question somewhat similar 
in context. He is not able to be here today 
and he asked me if I would pose the question 
for him. I do not know whether the Minister 
of Labour wants to answer them both at 
once or— 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



129 



Mr. Speaker: I think it might be well if 
the hon. member would place the question of 
the member for Dovercourt now. 

Mr. Singer: The question is this, Mr. 
Speaker: 

(1) Has the Minister looked into the new 
system of medical examinations now required 
by the State of California for men working 
under pressure in tunnels? 

(2) What medical requirements are now 
sot down by his department for men working 
under pressure? 

(3) In view of the fact that most or part 
of the Yonge Street subway extension will be 
constructed by the tunnel method under pres- 
sure, is the Minister considering a review of 
the medical requirements for men working 
under pressure? 

(4) Does his department inspect the proj- 
ects where men are working under pressure? 

(5) Is there a medical inspector w1k> does 
a medical inspection on the job site? 

(6) How many inspectors are there? 

Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr. 
Speaker, I will deal with the questions separ- 
ately, if I may. 

In reply to the question from the hon. 
member for York South, I hue been assured 
by my officials that no such acknowledgment 
was made and it is not correct to say that 
there is a lack of enforcement of safety regu- 
lations for tunnel workers. Certain claims 
were made on the programme by members of 
Local 183 of the Labourers' Union and these 
are now being vigorously investigated. 

With reference to the question placed by 
the hon. member for Downsview as initially 
submitted by the hon. member for Dover- 
court, I will deal with the answers to the 
questions as raised: 

In answer to the first part: I am aware of 
the California system and the officials of my 
department, together with our medical con- 
sultants, are looking into it. 

The second part: I would refer the mem- 
ber to the sections 106 to 114 inclusive of 
regulations 100/63 made under The Depart- 
ment of Labour Act. In addition, supple- 
mentary information and advice are supplied 
by medical consultants in the health depart- 
ment to project physicians. 

The third part is that a review is cur- 
rently under way in reference to this matter. 

The fourth part, the answer is yes. 

The fifth: The regulations require a phy- 
sician to be appointed to carry out all neces- 



sary medical functions on every compressed 
air project. The project physicians are re- 
sponsible for all the medical aspects of each 
project and under, in effect, medical inspec- 
tors. 

The last part: The number of compressed 
air projects have averaged about nine in a 
year and there are four inspectors of caissons 
who regularly inspect them. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if 
I might ask the Minister a supplementary 
question? Without getting into an argument 
with him as to whether or not there were 
violations admitted on Sunday night, it was 
conceded that there was not an extensive 
health examination at the beginning. There 
was never any examination midway through 
the day's work. There was never a full ex- 
amination at the end. 

Is it the obligation of the union to bring 
to the attention of the government such 
failure to live up to the regulations, or does 
the department assume responsibility for en- 
forcing its own regulations? 

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I have not 
seen the transcript from that programme nor 
did I see the programme itself, but I have 
ordered a transcript. The department takes 
an active part in this and there are certain 
matters that have come to light since yester- 
day in reference to claims that were made 
and I would prefer to wait until I have had 
a full investigation made. 

Mr. MacDonald: My question, Mr. Speaker, 
is to the Minister of Trade and Develop- 
ment in four parts: 

1. When was a forgiveness loan extended 
to Matthews Conveyer Company in Port 
Hope? 

2. For what amount was the loan? 

3. Is the Minister aware that since receiv- 
ing the loan the company has laid off 50 
workers and further lay-offs are currently 
under way? 

4. Do the conditions of the forgiveness 
loan permit cut backs in the work force? 

Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and 
Development): Mr. Speaker, I received that 
question a few minutes ago. I am getting 
information and I will pass it on to the hon. 
member tomorrow perhaps. 

Mr. Speaker: There are from last week 
two questions of the Minister of Agriculture 
and Food, one by the hon. member for 
Huron-Bruce. Does he wish to place that 
question? 



130 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, 
I have had the information given to me 
privately. I will withdraw the question. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent. 

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, my 
question to the Minister of Agriculture and 
Food: 

Is the Minister prepared to extend the 
adverse weather loan one more year to those 
farmers who are finding it impossible to 
meet the loan payments because of low agri- 
culture prices and adverse weather conditions? 

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul- 
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I find some 
difficulty in accepting this request. The ad- 
verse weather loan was provided, as you will 
recall, two years ago and again last year. 
The government of Ontario provided the 
interest payment in its entirety for the first 
year^ and 50 per cent of the interest payment 
for the second year. The farmers were 
required on the second year to make a per- 
centage payment— I believe it was ten per 
cent of their obligation, if my memory serves 
me correctly— and 50 per cent of the total 
interest on the loan for that year. 

I sympathize with farmers who have had 
crop losses this year, but I frankly do not 
believe they were very extensive. There were 
individual cases but it certainly was not on 
the widespread basis that had pertained in 
other years. We have taken the position that 
the loans are guaranteed by the government 
to the banks. We expect the banks to use 
all normal means of collection that they 
usually pursue in such matters. I would feel 
that we had better let things stand as they 
are, because crop insurance is being provided 
and I have grave doubts about extending 
adverse weather loans assistance when crop 
insurance is available on most crops now. 

Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the 
Minister would permit a supplementary ques- 
tion? 

Is the Minister aware that some farmers 
have approached the banks for an extension 
of this money and that they refuse to do 
anything for them, or refuse to write to you, 
Mr. Minister, for an extension to carry them 
over till next year? 



Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, I was not aware of 



it. 



Mr. Speaker: Yesterday there was a ques- 
tion by the hon. member for Scarborough 
East (Mr. T. Reid) of the Minister of Edu- 
cation. It was transferred to the Minister of 



Transport. The member for Scarborough 
East, being absent today, has requested that 
the answer be given so that it may be on 
record and available to the public. I wonder 
if the Minister of Transport has that; it is 
question No. 92 with respect to school buses? 

Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport): 
Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. 
member for Scarborough East yesterday of 
the Minister of Education and referred now 
to me comes in two parts dealing respectively 
with the vehicle and the driver. 

First as to the equipment required on 
school buses. The Highway Traffic Act re- 
quires departmental approval for all safety 
glass, head lamps and reflectors used on all 
motor vehicles. In addition, on school buses, 
the special signalling lamps that are required 
for stopping when picking up or discharging 
pupils must be approved. 

There are other requirements for school 
buses in particular. These vehicles must be 
equipped with such items as rear emergency 
door; push-out windows; tire chains or snow 
tires on each driving wheel that is not of a 
dual type, whenever highway conditions re- 
quire their use; interior view mirrors and 
exterior rear view mirrors; insulated floors; 
windshield wipers and defrosters; interior 
lighting; fire extinguishers and emergency 
tools. 

I will now deal with how these require- 
ments are enforced. Regulations made under 
The Highway Traffic Act require that school 
buses having a seating capacity of ten or 
more, and may not be operated unless a 
certificate of mechanical fitness is filed with 
the department, on or before August 31 and 
December 31 of each year. Certificates 
required under this regulation are thus re- 
quired immediately prior to the beginning of 
the school year, and again at a point in the 
year when the vehicles will be subject to the 
most severe winter driving conditions. The 
inspection must be carried out by a certified 
class A motor mechanic. 

Our control file of these certificates is so 
devised that the department is aware imme- 
diately of any dereliction on the part of the 
operator. An inspector then investigates to 
determine why a certificate has not been 
filed, and in the course of the investigation, 
he inspects the vehicle, orders an in-depth 
inspection by a mechanic, and recommends 
the laying of charges if the circumstances 
warrant it. In addition to the inspection I 
have mentioned, every school bus is seen by 
our inspectors at least twice annually— once 
normally during September or October and 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



131 



again in February or March. The second part 
of the question relates to the school bus 
driver. An application to pass a driver's 
licence requires the applicant to file at the 
time of his first application, a satisfactory 
medical certificate, and to pass comprehen- 
sive tests of vision, sign recognition, knowl- 
edge of the rules of the road, bus equipment, 
safety and passenger control as well as driv- 
ing ability. The road test must be taken in 
a school bus. The vision standards for school 
bus drivers are more vigorous than those for 
other drivers and are uniform across Canada. 
They now require a rating of 20-30—90 per 
cent— in the better eye, and 20-50—76 per 
cent— in the weaker eye. Field vision must 
be 120 degrees in each eye, and colour recog- 
nition is tested to ensure the ability to dis- 
tinguish between red and green. 

School bus drivers, 65 years of age and 
over, are required to pass a certificate of 
physical fitness, signed by a medical prac- 
titioner, and to pass the complete test I have 
mentioned each year. Those under 65 years 
of age are required to file a certificate of 
physical fitness, and to pass tests of vision 
and knowledge of the rules of the road every 
three years. If the medical certificate indi- 
cates any chronic ailment in the given list, 
the opinion of my medical advisers is ob- 
tained as to the competence of the person 
to operate a school bus. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York 
Centre was on his feet a moment ago to 
ask a question on behalf of the hon. mem- 
ber for Port Arthur (Mr. Knight). 

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have 
a question for the Prime Minister from the 
hon. member for Port Arthur. 

Pourquoi l'adresse au commencement de la 
deuxieme session, mardi, n'a pas ete en 
francais aussi bien que en anglais. Et pour- 
quoi, la traduction ne tient pas sur nos 
bureaux ici aujourd'hui? 

Why was the Throne Speech opening 
the second session on Tuesday not read 
in the French language, and why is a copy of 
the French translation not on the desks of the 
members in this House today? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I 
should say that the speech was not com- 
pleted in time to have it translated quite as 
rapidly as we would have liked. In any event, 
the translation was completed on Wednesday, 
and the French copies were distributed to 
some members of this assembly— I do not 
know whether they were distributed to all 
members. They were distributed to all French 



newspapers and periodicals on our complete 
French mailing list. There are copies avail- 
able for any of the members who would like 
to have them. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went- 
worth. 

Mr. Deans: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have two 
questions for the hon. Minister of Trade and 
Development. 

Would the Minister inform the House of 
the year that the Bellwood Orchard property 
was purchased by the Ontario Housing Cor- 
poration, and how much money has been 
expended by the government in purchase and 
development of this land? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, in answer 
to the hon. member, the Bellwood Orchard 
property in Hamilton was acquired under 
the provision of the land acquisition holding 
agreement dated February 1, 1954, between 
the federal and provincial governments. 

Secondly, the Ontario Housing Corpora- 
tion is continually in the market for land, 
and uses its best endeavours to obtain the 
most favourable prices. At the moment, we 
have options on land in many areas of the 
province and we do not believe, as I have 
stated previously, that it would be in the 
public interest to disclose prices at which 
this land had been purchased. 

Thirdly, the development cost to date of 
the Bellwood Orchard property amounts to 
$1,043,481. This is being developed in phases 
of: the first 97.5 acres in two plans of sub- 
division; another 241.5 acres now under 
planned development, and the remaining 504 
acres to be developed as quickly as services 
can be provided. 

In this regard, the Ontario Housing Cor- 
poration has already indicated its willingness 
to advance funds required towards service 
costs if they are needed. 

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of 
clarification, does that figure include the pur- 
chase price? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: No, that is just serv- 
ices; the member asked for development 
costs. 

Mr. Deans: Well? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: We are not disclosing 
the purchase prices. 

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend 
that they be separated. I was quite happy 
to get them both lumped together. 

A second question for the— 



132 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Mr. MacDonald: Secret conduct of public 
business! 

Hon. Mr. Randall: What does the member 
want us to do; go out and advertise that the 
government is coming into buy land, hit them 
with the brass band? 

Mr. Speaker: Order. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Would everybody raise- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member 
will place his second question. 

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, a second ques- 
tion. Will the Minister explain the sale price 
of $16,000 per unit for the homes which are 
being offered for sale in the Guelph Green 
Meadows subdivision? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the homes 
in the Guelph Green Meadows subdivision 
were appraised by OHC in relation to the 
current prices being paid for comparable 
houses in the same general area. However, 
as the hon. member well knows, the market 
price for a house is determined, among other 
tilings, by the financing arrangements which 
are available. 

For example, a small down payment with 
favourable interest rates of a long term mort- 
gage on the balance commands a higher 
price than all cash. 

The actual cost to the tenants in Guelph 
is $14,000 as this is the figure on which prin- 
cipal and interest payments are calculated. 
The additional $2,000 or a portion of it 
will not become payable unless the tenant 
or purchaser subsequently disposes of the 
property within a five-year period from the 
date of purchase. At the end of five years, 
the additional $2,000 is forgiven. 

This is a built in discipline which is felt 
to be preferable to a "buy back" provision 
to eliminate speculation which, after all, is 
not the purpose of the tenant purchase plan. 

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, would the Min- 
ister accept a supplementary question? Is it 
the intent of the Ontario Housing Corpora- 
tion to follow this practice into other com- 
munities and, in particular, into Hamilton? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, there are 
other questions here. Perhaps, when I get 
through, I will have the answer for you. The 
answer is that we are going to look at every 
project in all communities and see how best 
we can work out an arrangement. 

Mr. Speaker: Tyhe hon. member for Hum- 
ber. 



Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, I have 
a question also of the hon. Minister of 
Trade and Development. What are the names 
of the two lending institutions which refused 
to grant loans to each of the following com- 
panies, in order that they might qualify for 
a loan when locating in areas of the prov- 
ince designated as slow growth areas by the 
Ontario Development Corporation? The com- 
panies are: Union Carbide, Kraft Foods, 
Allied Chemical, Campbell Soups and Moore 
Corporation. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, it is a 
good question. I am glad I have got the 
answers. The companies mentioned did not 
apply for a conventional loan. The com- 
panies mentioned got a forgiveness loan 
which, if they stay in the area for six years, 
will be written off completely. 

Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a sup- 
plementary question— and that is do any of 
these companies that I named go into a 
new area to erect a plant, as distinguished 
from either extending an existing plant or 
buying new equipment? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: The answer is "yes". 
Some went in to build a new plant in a new 
area. 

You asked me initially: Did these com- 
panies go to other financial institutions and 
were turned down? The answer is "no"; they 
did not have to go to other financial institu- 
tions. They got a forgiveness loan. 

Mr. Ben: My supplementary question was 
this: Which of these companies actually con- 
structed a new building in a new location, 
as distinguished from merely putting on an 
addition to an existing plant or just bringing 
in new equipment? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I would 
say— Union Carbide, Kraft Foods, Allied 
Chemical, Moore Corporation and Campbell 
Soups. 

Mr. Ben: I cannot answer the Minister 
but I have another question. 

Mr. Speaker: T^he hon. member is on his 
feet at this moment to ask questions, not to 
answer them. 

Mr. Ben: That is right. I still have a— 

Hon. Mr. Randall: If the hon. member is 
going to answer them, I will sit down. 

Mr. Ben: I have another question of the 
same Minister. How many evictions have 
there been from the Ontario Housing com- 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



133 



plex at Thistletown during the past two 
years? 

I have another question. Do you want me 
to read it now? 

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think the hon. mem- 
ber should place his question. 

Mr. Ben: What was the cost of mainten- 
ance at Thistletown during 1967? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the 
Thistletown complex was built in two sep- 
arate stages. The first, comprising 309 units, 
was taken over progressively from September 
30, 1966 to August 3, 1967. The second 
phase of 245 units was taken under manage- 
ment again progressively, between November 
13, 1967 and March 21, 1968, and during the 
past two years the leases of 29 tenants have 
been terminated by OHC for cause. Of these, 
28 families located voluntarily and in only 
one case was it necessary for the corporation 
to obtain vacant possession through the 
courts. 

The answer to the second question is that 
the maintenance cost at Thistletown during 
1967 amounted to $34,962 inclusive of labour 
and material, broken down as follows: 

Building exteriors $23,156, building in- 
teriors $772, internal painting $8,090, me- 
chanical and electrical systems $1,882, 
appliances $248, grounds $249, fire and wind 
damage $825, sundry $254; for a total of 
$35,476 less recoveries from tenants $514 to 
a net of $34,962. 

Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I have a question- 
Mr. Speaker: I believe the other Ministers 
are all absent if the hon. member has a— Oh, 
the Minister of Municipal Affairs lias returned. 

Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, my question to the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs, notice of which 
has been given, is: 

When will the province— and here Mr. 
Speaker we should have added, other than in 
due course or in the fullness of time or even- 
tually—when will the province compel all 
municipalities to adopt a national building 
code? 

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munic- 
ipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. 
member's question, I would first like to refer 
to a survey carried out by the associate com- 
mittee on the national building code. It was 
made in the year 1966 and pertains to the 
use of the national building code by munici- 
palities in Canada. 



In this province, it is reported that 87.5 
per cent of the population live in municipali- 
ties that have adopted the national building 
code, or have used it as a base for building 
by-laws. As I have done on two previous 
occasions in this House, I again state my 
support for the principle of uniform building 
standards throughout the province of Ontario. 

Much correspondence has been addressed 
to me on this subject and I have spoken with 
people representing the various interests of 
the professions— the building construction in- 
dustry, local municipalities and building 
material manufacturers. 

There are many different points of view 
among supporters of uniform building stand- 
ards about how, by whom and to what extent 
uniformity can be realized. It was because of 
their fundamental differences that it was de- 
cided to appoint a committee, as I reported 
to this House at the last session. On Sep- 
teml>er 12, the appointment of committee 
members was announced, chaired by Mr. 
Carnithers, the brother of the hon. member 
for Durham. 

Meetings are underway currently and the 
committee will shortly be inviting written 
submissions so that it may determine possible 
courses of action and the means whereby they 
may be carried out. 

It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the manda- 
tory adoption of uniform building standards 
cannot be considered before the committee 
report is received, and they hope to report 
to me by July 1, next. 

Mr. Ben: Will the hon. Minister entertain a 
supplementary question? 

May I ask the hon. Minister, what per- 
centage of the population of this province is 
encompassed by the 87 per cent of munici- 
palities mentioned by the hon. Minister? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, it is 87.5 per 
cent of the population. 

Mr. Ben. Another supplementary question. 
Is the Minister aware that one-third of the 
population of this province, roughly one-third, 
is in the municipality of Metropolitan To- 
ronto and it has not adopted the national 
building code? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I do not like to dis- 
agree with the hon. member but I think he 
will find that four of the boroughs have 
adopted a common code; the city of Toronto 
is about to adopt that same code and the 
remaining borough, which I think is York, is 
also. The six municipalities in Metropolitan 



134 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Toronto either have or will, within the next 
few weeks, have one code, as you have cor- 
rectly pointed out, covering roughly one-third 
of the population of the province. 

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Would 
the Minister answer a supplementary ques- 
tion? 

Mr. Speaker: Only from the member who 
asked the question. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum- 
ber has finished his question; if the hon. 
member wishes now to ask his questions, he 
may start off with that one. 

Mr. Sargent: I was wondering if he could 
answer, it is supplementary, Mr. Speaker, 
but- 

Mr. Speaker: Start off by asking the hon. 
Minister the question. 

Mr. Sargent: Will the Minister advise 
what steps have been taken to bring about 
the modernization of construction regulations 
under a new building code to save millions 
of dollars in construction costs? Will he ad- 
vise if a new code, being introduced in New 
York and which will cut building costs by 
10 per cent, would have the same effect here? 
When was the present code— we do now have 
one, I find— dated? If a new code is under 
way who is drafting it, how much will the 
draft cost? Will the techniques be designed 
to bring construction savings, including 
stronger suspension structures, reduced fire- 
resistant ratings, reduced elevator equipment 
requirements; and more realistically will they 
include safety provisions for structural ma- 
terials? And, finally, will there be revisions 
of the administrative procedures for the ex- 
pediting of issuance of building permits, 
speedy inspection and faster approval of new 
materials? 

My supplementary question— do I take it, 
Mr. Speaker, that this new committee, 
through their report, will give the Minister 
a provincial building code? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Does the member 
want me to answer the question which he 
asked six days ago or are we after- 
Mr. Sargent: This is the first time I have 
asked it. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This question, of 
course, Mr. Speaker, which I drew to your 
attention on Friday, was placed before me on 
Wednesday last and I have been carrying it 



back and forth since. I am glad it has been 
finally asked, and I thank the hon. member 
for being- 
Mr. Sargent: Well, the Minister should 
have the answer now. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In answering the 
questions : 

1. To my knowledge there has not been an 
estimate prepared anywhere about the effect 
of uniform building standards on building 
costs. The only saving we have heard about 
related to houses and the amount estimated 
for houses is $500. The full benefit for all 
types of buildings cannot be measured at this 
time. The potential for new building tech- 
niques, new building materials, increased 
productivity and reduced inventories, is in- 
herent in any system of uniform standards. 
All of these have an effect on building costs. 

Presumably, as to the second part of the 
question the member is referring to the 
national building code of Canada. If he is 
not, then I cannot answer the question with- 
out clarification. The national building code 
of Canada is under constant examination. 
Amendments are endorsed by the associate 
committee on the code. Amending revision 
slips are forwarded to all those with a copy 
of the code and every five years there is a 
revision made of the code. The 1970 con- 
solidation is in preparation now. 

The third part of the question: If this 
question refers to the national building code, 
the answer to question 2 applies. As to cost, 
copies of the code are available at a nominal 
cost of $5. The short form is free, except in 
bulk, when a nominal charge is made. 

If the question does not refer to the na- 
tional building code then I would need some 
further clarification. 

The fourth part: A very desirable feature 
of the national building code is that it is a 
performance type code, that is to say, instead 
of specifying exactly how buildings are to 
be constructed, minimum standards of struc- 
tural and fire safety performances are set 
down. Any material, combination of ma- 
terials, building techniques, and so on, capa- 
ble of meeting required performance ratings 
is permissible. 

Finally, to all three parts of the fifth ques- 
tion, the answer is that these are desirable 
goals and we are exerting much effort to 
achieve them. These efforts were so well 
enunciated, I would remind members of the 
House, as well as the goals were so well 
enunciated by the member for Halton East in 
this House. 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



135 



Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey- 
Bruce has, with Mr. Speaker, three questions 
which are unasked and almost a week old. 
I ask that he either ask them today or with- 
draw them. 

Mr. Sargent: You will be happy to hear, 
Mr. Speaker, I do not have my questions 
with me. I do not think I should have to 
withdraw them. 

Mr. Speaker: I would be delighted to 
hand the questions to the hon. member 
and he may then ask them. 

Mr. Sargent: Will the Prime Minister ad- 
vise why all rapid transit systems installed in 
all areas of America were voted upon by 
the people who provide the tax money, and, 
where has he the authority to spend millions 
of dollars from the Ontario Treasury to 
service one area of the people without the 
vote of the people? Now there is a good one 
for you. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have no 
idea whether what the hon. member says is 
factually correct or not, therefore I cannot 
express an opinion on it. I would point out 
to him that this government spends many, 
many hundreds of millions of dollars in this 
province, in providing all forms of trans- 
portation for people in various ports of the 
province. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister has 
stated he will not accept a supplementary 
question, so the hon. member will please 
proceed to his next question. 

Mr. Sargent: Another question to the Prime 
Minister: Will the government agree to an 
immediate audit, outside audit, to determine 
the exact financial position of the financial 
affairs of the Ontario government because 
of the financial nightmare facing the prov- 
ince? He said "no" before. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Why ask me again? 

Mr. Sargent: By the Speaker's order. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member had an 
alternative, he could have withdrawn the 
question. 

Mr. Sargent: We take all the advantage 
we can get here. 

I have a question of the Minister of Trans- 
port: What steps have been taken to require 
passenger cars and multi-purpose passenger 
vehicles to be equipped to combat the 
hazard of the one-eyed vehicle? 



Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, in the 
equipment portion, that would be part 5 of 
The Highway Traffic Act, section 33 spells 
out the offence of operating a motor vehicle 
without two headlights showing white light 
to the front at any time when lights are 
required. There are two approaches being 
developed to take care of this headlamp 
failure problem. One approach is by way of 
wiring in the parking light system with the 
headlight system so that in the event of one 
of the headlights burning out, the parking 
lights will indicate the width and location of 
the vehicle. 

Another approach is being taken by the 
manufacturers of headlamps in providing a 
secondary filament with a low light output 
so that when the regular primary high or low 
beam filament burns out, the headlamp will 
continue to glow and in that way identify to 
an oncoming vehicle the width and the loca- 
tion of the vehicle. 

Mr. Speaker: the hon. member for York- 
view has a question of the Attorney General 
of yesterday's date, which he may wish to 
place today. 

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, my 
question to the Attorney General is this: 
According to a story in yesterday's Globe 
and Mail, a peace treaty has been arranged 
between two Mafia factions whereby what 
are called "lucrative interests in Eastern 
Canada" were transferred from the Bonnano 
faction to that of another leader. 

Is the Minister satisfied that the term 
"Eastern Canada" used here does not include 
the province of Ontario? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the article 
to which the hon. member refers is a purely 
speculative article with the headline "New 
York". There is nothing I have in the way 
of information to indicate that there is any 
reference to Ontario. The information which 
the police commission have, through their 
intelligence, leads them to believe that the 
reference is to the Montreal area, but I 
would point out again that the only reference 
in what I think is a very speculative article 
says: "according to one federal official"— 
and that "federal" refers to a federal official 
in the United States— "the Bonanno faction 
will lose lucrative interests in Eastern Canada 
under the peace treaty". 

We have no reason to believe it refers to 
Ontario. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobi- 
coke. 



138 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister 
of Trade and Development which is quite 
similar to the question put earlier by the 
member for Wentworth. 

What plans does the Minister have to ex- 
tend, to Metro Toronto residents in Ontario 
housing, the same home ownership oppor- 
tunities that have been given to residents of 
Guelph? 

The second part of the question, Mr. 
Speaker: In the interests of fairness to On- 
tario Housing Corporation apartment dwell- 
ers, is the Minister considering a similar plan 
whereby they might eventually achieve home 
ownership for themselves? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the tenant 
purchase plan which has just been introduced 
in Guelph as a pilot project applies only in 
the Green Meadows subdivision of that city. 
This subdivision was developed under the 
old federal-provincial partnership arrange- 
ment whereby the federal government holds 
title to the property and has a direct 75 per 
cent financial interest. 

In accordance with existing legislation at 
present the tenant purchase plan can only be 
introduced in developments financed under 
that arrangement. To extend its provisions 
to housing developed directly by OHC, 
wherein 90 per cent of the capital costs are 
loaned by the federal government, will re- 
quire an amendment of The National Housing 
Act. 

I have had discussions on this point with 
the federal Minister responsible for housing 
and his predecessors, and I have been given 
to understand that the federal government 
does intend to introduce the necessary 
amendment. Until such time as the federal 
legislation is changed, however, the hon. 
member will understand that the tenant- 
purchase aspect of the HOME programme 
can only be applied to federal-provincial 
projects. 

In Metropolitan Toronto, to which the hon. 
member's question is specifically addressed, 
there are only five such developments. It is 
our intention to analyze very carefully the 
Guelph pilot project and this analysis will 
assist in determining the other areas where 
this scheme can be introduced in consulta- 
tion with Central Mortgage and Housing 
Corporation. CMHA approval is necessarily 
required because of their 75 per cent finan- 
cial involvement. 

Where apartment units are concerned— 
which, of course, involves the use by tenants 
of certain common facilities— this would 



necessitate a condominium arrangement, 
rather than the techniques which have been 
applied to the single detached homes in 
Guelph, and this government has already 
indicated that it will be actively pursuing 
the condominium concept. 

Mr. Braithwaite: Would the Minister per- 
mit a supplementary question? Under the 
existing situation does the Minister see any 
obstacles to the residents in the Thistletown 
project being able to purchase their own 
homes? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Not particularly, as 
soon as the amendment to The National 
Housing Act goes through. I think then we 
can enter into negotiations. 

Mr. Braithwaite: Thank you. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitch- 
ener. 

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister 
of Energy and Resources Management, no- 
tice of which has been given. Can the Min- 
ister advise the House as to the cost to the 
government of Ontario through the Ontario 
Water Resources Commission, of the mailing 
on August 22, 1968, of a news release regard- 
ing the Root family reunion, the covering 
letter for which was on the letterhead of the 
commission over the signature of the vice- 
chairman of the commission? 

Secondly, can the Minister advise further 
how this release has advanced the work of 
the commission? 

Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy 
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, 
as the member for Wellington-DufFerin (Mr. 
Root) is out of the city today I am sorry that 
I am unable to answer the questions. How- 
ever, I will see that he gets a copy of the 
questions. I am sure he would like to 
answer them himself in this House. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oshawa. 

Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, 
a question for the hon. Minister of Labour. 
Is The Department of Labour involved in 
any manner in an attempt to resolve the 
Proctor-Silex dispute in Picton? 

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I always 
welcome questions from the hon. members 
and as the hon. member has been in touch 
with my officials on a number of occasions 
in reference to this matter, I am sure he is 
aware that we have been involved in this 
dispute for some time. 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



137 



For example, yesterday my chief concilia- 
tion officer was in touch with the union 
leadership and today he expects to be talk- 
ing to the company representatives so that 
we can assess again how we may best help 
the parties to resolve this matter. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter- 
borough. 

Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr. 
Speaker, I would like to address a question 
to the Minister of Trade and Development. 
In view of the statements of Eric Hardy Con- 
sulting Limited that the town of Trenton has 
teen giving assessment advantages or grant- 
ing bonuses in order to attract industries, has 
the Minister reviewed this municipality's 
designation under the Equalization of Indus- 
trial Opportunity programme? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the Hardy 
report has not been available to either my 
department or that of the Minister of Munici- 
pal Affairs. I think this was brought up one 
day last work. Mr. Hardy was commissioned 
by the town of Trenton to complete this re- 
port Cor them but to date has not seen fit tj 
make a copy available so that the grants to 
which he refers to attract industries can be 
reviewed. 

I might mention that irrespective of the 
Hardy report, the directors of Ontario Devel- 
opment Corporation are reviewing the desig- 
nation of Trenton under the Equalization of 
Industrial Opportunity programme, and as in 
the case of other towns or other cities that 
we believe may have secured sufficient indus- 
try to solve their needs for the present, the 
Ontario Development Corporation will be 
making recommendations accordingly. 

Mr. Pitman: Might I ask a supplementary 
question? In view of the Minister's recent 
trip to Trenton and his announcement that 
$1.5 million of public money is being placed 
in this municipality, if this has been done as 
a result of illegal practices on the part of the 
municipality rather than because of the 
Equalization of Industrial Opportunity pro- 
gramme, would the Minister not regard it as 
incumbent to immediately remove the desig- 
nation until this thing has been resolved? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: I would have to look at 
the Hardy report before I answer the ques- 
tions. 

Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, may I address a 
question to the Prime Minister? Has the gov- 
ernment of Ontario received a request from 
the civil service association based on a 



resolution passed unanimously at a recent 
convention that a commission made up of 
representatives of the civil service association 
and the government, exclusive of any repre- 
sentative of The Department of Correctional 
Services, investigate staff conditions at Mill- 
brook Reformatory? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: The answer is "no", Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr. Pitman: Would the Prime Minister 
accept a supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not know what 
supplementary you could ask to an answer 
like that. 

Mr. Pitman: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might 
try. If such a request was forwarded to the 
Prime Minister would he be sympathetic to 
such a request? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, it is surely 
hypothetical. I would have to see what the 
request is and see what, in fact, they were 
asking before I could say whether I would be 
sympathetic or unsympathetic. I mean I am 
dealing in something of which I have no 
knowledge and which has not even been 
formulated in the minds of the asker, so how 
could I say how I would feel about it? 

Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of 
order, it could not have been more clearly in 
the mind of the asker. Apparently it is the 
government which is having difficulty in this 
matter. 

I would ask a question of the Minister of 
Correctional Services. 

1. Did a serious attack take place on a 
guard, a Mr. Carmen Bell, at Millbrook Re- 
formatory on the evening of November 18? 

2. Was there any provocation for the 
attack? 

3. By whom was a charge of assault laid 
and why were those most concerned with the 
attack not informed of the case before the 
courts were— I think that was in Cobourg on 
November 20? 

Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional 
Services): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. 
member's question, first of all I would like to 
say I welcome very much the interest of the 
members opposite in the problems which a 
correctional officer- 
Some hon. members: Answer the question. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a matter of fact, 
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, without being 
given permission by you— 



138 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



An hon. member: Answer the question. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: —without being given 
permission by you, made some comment in 
answer to the Prime Minister's answer to his 
question— 

An hon. member: Answer the question. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: —about the situation 
at Millbrook. I will answer- 
Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. Minister is 
using that leeway which the Chair has always 
given to members and which the hon. mem- 
ber for Peterborough certainly used. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have been trying, 
sir, tor five years to recruit their concern for 
the correctional officers, and for five years I 
have been attempting to defend the correc- 
tional officers against the charges of brutality 
against inmates. I am very pleased the hon. 
member has asked this question and all I can 
tell him is that as soon as the superintendent 
learned of the sentence of 30 days— I think it 
was, and I am speaking from memory— lie 
took it up with our head office, asking that 
an appeal be instituted against this short 
sentence. Our head office has taken it up 
with The Attorney General's Department, and 
in view of the fact that an appeal is now 
being considered I can hardly make any 
further comment on it, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, a part of the 
answer of the Minister of Correctional Serv- 
ices will, I think, perhaps answer my question 
to the Attorney General which was: 

1. Did an inmate of Millbrook Reformatory 
appear before Magistrate Baxter in Cobourg 
on November 20? 

2. On what charge was the prisoner brought 
before the courts? 

3. Why were prosecution witnesses not 
called and what was the sentence given to 
that individual? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, in view 
of the fact that we have been requested by 
The Department of Correctional Services to 
appeal the sentence imposed on this convic- 
tion, I am precluded to some extent from 
answering. But I am not going to curtail my 
answer insofar as it is possible to answer the 
question. 

The prisoner was brought before the magis- 
trate. The charge was assaulting a police 
officer. No witnesses were called. He pleaded 
guilty. The sentence was 30 days consecutive 
to the sentence he was already serving. 



I am proceeding to review the matter. In 
any event we are proceeding to consider the 
question as to appeal. Also, I may say that 
I am not satisfied with the way it was dis- 
posed of. I understand that an assistant 
Crown attorney was in charge of the case 
and was not aware and was not informed 
of the facts when the plea of guilty was 
entered and the case was proceeded with. 

So I would simply answer the hon. mem- 
ber: I am reviewing it. We are considering 
the matter of appeal. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sand- 
wich-Riverside. 

Mr. F. A. Burr ( Sandwich-Riverside ) : Mr. 
Speaker, a question for the Prime Minister. 

What was the cost of producing and print- 
ing the "Confederation of Tomorrow" book- 
let? How many copies were published in 
English? How many many copies were pub- 
lished in French? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, $70,574.99; 
50,000 English copies and 27,000 French 
copies. 

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary 
question. Is the Prime Minister aware that 
about 70,000 copies are sitting in the hall on 
the fourth floor? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, Mr. Speaker, I am 
not aware of that and I very much doubt 
that it is so. 

Mr. Burr: Would the Prime Minister check 
on it please? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Indeed, I will. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a fur- 
ther question of the Minister of Trade and 
Development which he would place please. 

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the 
Minister of Trade and Development. Can the 
Minister advise the House when homes in 
the Fontainebleu housing development in 
Windsor will be offered for sale to the pres- 
ent tenants? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the ques- 
tion concerning the Fontainebleu develop- 
ment in Windsor is on a similar subject to 
that raised by the hon. member for Etobicoke. 

These particular homes were developed 
directly by OHC and, therefore, as I have 
already indicated, the tenant purchase plan 
cannot apply until the federal legislation is 
changed. 

These particular families are aware of this 
fact as I had the pleasure of meeting with a 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



139 



delegation from Fontainebleu some time ago 
and this was followed up by the general 
meeting in Windsor between the tenants and 
senior officials of OHC. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex- 
Kent. 

Mr. R. F. Ruston ( Essex - Kent ) : Mr. 
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Pro- 
vincial Treasurer. Will the Minister consider 
a revision of the gas tax refund regulation to 
allow farmers doing custom work for their 
neighbours the same rebate as if it were done 
on their own farm? 

Hon. C. S. MacNaughton ( Provinical Treas- 
urer): Yes, Mr. Speaker, the answer is that 
without commitment the matter will be con- 
sidered. 

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion of the hon. Minister of Correctional 
Services. Is it the policy of the department to 
provide compensation for property damage 
caused by individuals who are wards of the 
province in training schools? 

Will there be compensation for tractor 
damage, the destroying of antiques and other 
valuables at the Harper residence north of 
Cobourg as a result of the escape of nine 
residents of Brookside School on August 28? 

Has any disciplinary action been taken 
with regard to the conduct of the Brookside 
supervisor who said to one of the nine Brook- 
side boys who was apprehended with a 
bleeding hand, "Let the little bugger bleed 
to death", as reported in the Cobourg Sen- 
tincl-Star of September 4? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Speaker, 
I could answer a portion of this from memory 
but I would rather not trust my memory on 
some of the details. Of course, I cannot 
answer a portion of it because it refers to a 
news report which I have not seen. 

I am sure too, Mr. Speaker, that on think- 
ing it over the hon. member would feel that 
the third part of his question, which reads: 
"Has any disciplinary action been taken with 
respect to the conduct of the Brookside super- 
visor who said to one of the nine boys"— 
that in all fairness it should read, "who, it is 
'alleged', said to one of the boys", because 
the hon. member is referring to a press report 
and this has not been established as a fact 
yet. 

I will take the question as notice and get 
as much information as I can for the hon. 
member. 



Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind- 
sor- Walkerville. 

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): 
Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon. 
Minister of Trade and Development. Have 
any formal proposals been submitted by OHC 
to CMHC for the sale of the homes in the 
Bridgeview subdivision in Windsor? If not, 
when will these formal proposals be sub- 
mitted? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, no fonnal 
proposals have been submitted by the Ontario 
Housing Corporation to Central Mortgage 
and Housing Corporation, regarding the pur- 
chase by tenants of homes in the Bridge- 
view subdivision in Windsor, but officials of 
the corporations have had a number of dis- 
cussions concerning this particular develop- 
ment. 

As the hon. member knows, this develop- 
ment is on a fixed rental rather than a rent- 
to-income basis and, as such, is different 
to the Guelph Green Meadows subdivision. 

I have already indicated that the Guelph 
project will be studied very carefully and 
the results of this study will, undoubtedly, 
influence further extension of the tenant pur- 
chase plan into other municipalities in 
Ontario. 

The hon. member can be assured that, in 
consultation with Central Mortgage and 
Housing Corporation, the tenant purchase 
plan will be implemented wherever it is con- 
sidered to be practical in relation to the cir- 
cumstances which apply to any given 
municipality. 

Perhaps I can enlarge on that and say 
that, as you recognize, there are different cir- 
cumstances in all municipalities, the reference 
of shortage of public housing, so forth and 
so on. We want to make sure when we make 
a deal that we make it in the interest of the 
tenants and the municipality. 

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
supplementary question of the Minister. Does 
this Bridgeview project qualify under the 
tenant purchase plan, as is without any 
amendments to the federal Act? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, in a way it would. 
The only thing is, as I said, that they are 
on a fixed rental. A number of those people 
have been living there at a very low rent 
for many years and their income has gone up 
—but they have not been put on a rent-to- 
geared-income basis. This brings in some 
complications because they should be able 



140 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



to now go out and buy in another develop- 
ment, such as in the HOME programme. 

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I may, 
for a point of clarification. It then qualifies 
under the tenant purchase plan without any 
amendments to the federal Act? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: I would say so at the 
moment. Yes. 

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask 
of the Minister a second supplementary and 
that is, is the Minister aware of the neces- 
sity for major repairs in some of these homes 
as a result of the indecision on the sale of 
the homes? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, I am aware of that 
but I think you are also aware that some of 
those people living there are earning $8,000, 
$10,000, $12,000, $13,000 a year. If they 
have let the places run down while they 
have a subsidized rent, I think also they have 
a responsibility to fix the places up. 

However, I might say that under the 
agreement we have in Green Meadows, we 
state that we will go in and make an estimate 
of what repairs are required to put the 
houses in good order without having to re- 
build them, and I think we would do the 
same thing in Windsor if we sold the prop- 
erty. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High 
Park. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion of the Minister of Financial and Com- 
mercial Affairs. Does the Minister intend to 
order that a hearing be held to determine if 
the Allstate Company should be allowed to 
continue to sell health insurance in this prov- 
ince, as requested by me during the Minister's 
estimates? 

Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan- 
cial and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, 
my intention, as is now the case, is to have 
the superintendent of insurance continue his 
surveillance of this entire area. 

As I have already informed the hon. mem- 
ber in the past, the superintendent of in- 
surance has been directed to review in detail 
this type of policy, and to establish whether 
such policies are in fact in the public interest. 

Mr. Shulman: Would the Minister accept 
a supplementary question? Inasmuch as it 
was some months ago that the Minister gave 
such instructions to the superintendent of 
insurance, has the superintendent of insurance 
as yet found the time to make this review, 
and if so, what has he decided? 



Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The superintendent 
has not been idle since the House adjourned 
towards the end of July. As a matter of fact, 
early in September, this matter was raised 
and discussed with the superintendents of 
insurance at their annual meeting here in 
Toronto, and has been the subject of investi- 
gations and study by the superintendent, not 
only in this jurisdiction but in other jurisdic- 
tions in Canada as well. 

Mr. Shulman: Well what is the decision? 

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I wonder, Mr. 
Speaker, if I may raise a point of order to 
obtain some information from you. Is it fair 
to ask you, sir, as to whether these questions 
are asked in numerical order? 

The reason I say that is because I have 
two questions before me, the first which has 
been answered, numbered 101, and the sec- 
ond numbered 116. Does that simply mean 
that as far as this Minister is concerned, or 
any other Minister that may similarly be 
involved, there is a waiting period of 15 
questions between the first question he is 
asked to reply to and the second question? 
I say there are certain normal comforts in- 
volved in situations of this kind that confront 
all of us from time to time; it is just a 
matter of knowing where we stand, sir, if I 
may. 

Mr. Speaker: I would be delighted to 
answer that. The hon. Minister, of course, 
and all members of the Treasury bench, are 
expected to be in their places in this House 
when the House is sitting. The number on 
the question shows the order in which the 
question was received in the Speaker's office 
and entered. It has nothing to do with the 
order in which they were called here. 

I would find it very difficult indeed to 
arrange to have the questions of any Minis- 
ter asked by all the members at the same 
time. It would be bedlam. 

At the moment, we have proceeded fairly 
reasonably by confining it to all questions 
by one member at the same time. In fact, it 
has greatly improved on the original set up 
earlier in the last session when we did not 
do that. 

I have no objection whatsoever, and the 
hon. Minister of Social and Family Services 
arranged it as such yesterday; if I know 
that a Minister has to leave or a member has 
to leave, and would be most pleased to 
juggle the questions in my hands and the 
order of the members who pop up, to give 
precedence— 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



141 



Mr. Nixon: Or he can always raise his 
hand. 

Mr. Speaker: —so far as I am concerned— 
within reason. First of all the leader of the 
Opposition places all his questions first and 
then the leader of the New Democratic 
Party, and if there are questions left from 
another day, they are asked. 

Then, within reason, and particularly when 
the beginning of the Throne Debate is not 
on and the Prime Minister is usually here, I 
endeavour to have the Prime Minister's ques- 
tions asked. After that, it is as the members 
catch the Speaker's eye, whose gaze wanders 
almost automatically from one of the Opposi- 
tion parties to the other so that they may 
have a fair split of the time for questions. 

I trust that answers the hon. Treasurer's 
inquiry and the next member to have the 
floor of the House— 

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, if 
1 may, just pursue it again: Say that I am 
quite confident that most Ministers want to 
be in their seats to pursue the questions and 
the question period. I do suggest, though— 

Mr. Sargent: He is out of order, Mr. 
Speaker. 

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, I do not 

think I am out of order in addressing Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister is speak- 
ing on a point of order. 

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I just simply want 
to suggest to you, sir, and to the members 
of the House, that there are certain Ministers 
involved in other work on behalf of the gov- 
ernment of the people of the province. I 
have reference to Treasury board, which re- 
quires a small quorum before the work of 
Treasury board could be proceeded with. I 
just simply want, if I may, sir, in pursuance 
of this matter to suggest to you that I am 
delighted to hear you say that there may be 
certain priority given to the answers to ques- 
tions. I will be pleased to take this up with 
your honour personally, if I may. 

Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out to 
the hon. Minister that the most important 
part of the legislative assembly of Ontario 
is this House sitting here and not the Treasury 
board. I, however, do realize that the hon. 
Minister has a good point, because we all 
realize that these other matters have to be 
dealt with. I will do my best, Mr. Treasurer, 
to endeavour to arrange for those Ministers 
who must be elsewhere, and those members 



who must be elsewhere, to have their ques- 
tions asked, but you will understand with 
some 38 questions today and some ten left 
from yesterday, the question period must be 
long and there either must be a limit on the 
number of questions, a limit on the time, or 
else we have to accept the problems which 
we have here. 

Has the hon. member for High Park com- 
pleted his supplementary questions? 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Treas- 
urer rose on a point of order as I was putting 
my supplementary question and the Minister 
did not have an opportunity to reply. The 
question was: What was the decision, Mr. 
Minister? 

Hon. Mr. Rowntrce: A decision has not 
l>een made. The point I am advancing to the 
hon. member for High Park is that on an 
examination of this question of health in- 
surance I think that the question involved 
in this specific matter really involves a con- 
sideration of the large variety of so-called 
health insurance policies and whether or 
not they indeed are in the public interest. 

Mr. Shulman: When can we expect a deci- 
sion, Mr. Minister? 

Hon. Mr. Rowntrec: At the earliest possible 
time. 

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for 
Hamilton East would now place Ins question? 
Perhaps the first one might be to the Treas- 
urer. 

Mr. R. Cisborn (Hamilton East): Yes, Mr. 
Speaker, a question of the Treasurer. How 
many Ontario government employees are con- 
sidered eligible to be members of the Civil 
Service Association of Ontario, and how many 
are at present paying dues to the CSAO? 

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, the 
answer to part one of the hon. member's 
question is 47,168; and to part two, slightly 
in excess of 36,000. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a fur- 
ther question of the Minister of Lands and 
Forests? 

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Might 
we suspend proceedings while the Treasurer 
leaves? 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamil- 
ton East has another question? 

Mr. Gisborn: For the Minister of Lands 
and Forests: 



142 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



What progress is being made to acquire 
lands to establish the Fifty Point Park in 
Saltfleet township? 

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and 
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member 
for Hamilton East, negotiations are still pro- 
ceeding with reference to this property. 

Mr. Gisborn: May I ask a supplementary 
question, Mr. Speaker? 

Has it been six or seven years since the 
government first promised action on this park, 
and is it correct that the price per acre has 
risen from $1,500 to $7,000 at the present 
time? 

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As I mentioned, Mr. 
Speaker, this matter is still active. We are 
still proceeding with negotiations and the 
matter is coming up at the next meeting of 
the Parks Integration Board. It is quite true 
that the price has risen considerably from the 
original price. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy 
River. 

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, 
I have a question for the Minister of Agri- 
culture and Food. 

Will the Minister provide any assistance, 
perhaps in the form of an extension of the 
adverse weather assistance programme, to the 
farmers of the Rainy River district due to the 
extraordinarily heavy rainfall in that area 
this year? 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have 
every sympathy for the farmers of the Rainy 
River district. During the second week of 
September, on the members' tour of northern 
Ontario, I availed myself of the opportunity 
to visit many of the farmers in that area and 
I found that most of their crops were still in 
the field. As a matter of fact those few good 
days that pertained during our visit to north- 
ern Ontario allowed them to get some of the 
crops harvested. 

There has been considerable loss in some 
areas, particularly in the flat or low lying 
areas or the undrained areas. Others have 
been fairly well harvested. We have been in 
constant touch with our agricultural repre- 
sentative in that area since that time and he 
tells me that about 50 per cent of the crop 
seems to have been harvested in those poorer 
areas and most of the crop harvested in the 
well-drained areas. 

Because crop insurance was available last 
year up there and some farmers did take 



crop insurance, I find it very difficult to justify 
making assistance available, or recommending 
to the government that adverse weather assist- 
ance be made available, to the farmers who 
did not buy crop insurance when it was avail- 
able to them. 

Mr. T. P. Reid: May I ask the Minister a 
supplementary question? 

Is the Minister aware that this has been an 
extraordinarily heavy rainfall this year and 
even those areas that are usually well drained 
have not been cleared of the water? Is the 
Minister aware that the crop insurance plan, 
being a new concept to the Rainy River dis- 
trict farmers, was not well publicized and 
well understood and therefore most of the 
farmers did not take advantage of the crop 
insurance this year? 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I cannot 
answer as to whether or not the crop insur- 
ance programme was understood, but it was 
well advertised. It was advertised in all of 
the local papers; it was advertised on radio; 
ever>' promotional aspect that could be enter- 
tained was entertained in promoting crop 
insurance in that area. If farmers decide in 
their own best interests not to buy crop in- 
surance, it is not the government's prerogative 
to force it on them, and I feel that under the 
circumstances it is difficult to expand and 
provide a crop insurance programme for 
farmers if they do not buy it themselves. 

Mr. Nixon: It sounds as if that insurance 
programme is more use to the government 
than it is to the farmers. 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is not more use to me 
and I take exception to that because there 
are farmers- 
Mr. Nixon: That is the second time you 
have leaned on that weak reed. 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: In one part of that area 
up there there was one farmer who was get- 
ting $1,000 in payment. Do you say that we 
should go out and pay the other farmers- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. Minister will 
take his seat. The hon. member for Rainy 
River has a further question of the Minister 
of Lands and Forests. 

Mr. T. P. Reid: I must say I disagree with 
the Minister of Agriculture on that last state- 
ment. 

I have a question for the Minister of Lands 
and Forests. Will the Minister extend the 
dates for hearings on the future of Algonquin 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



143 



Park due to the delay in sending reports of 
the multi-purpose study of the area? 

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in reply 
to the hon. member for Rainy River, in view 
of the importance of Algonquin Park and the 
interest of the public in it, we want to allow 
the fullest possible time, and we will receive 
submissions up until the end of this year, 
December 31. 

Mr. T. P. Reid: Would the Minister accept 
a supplementary question? People have writ- 
ten to the department asking for this multi- 
purpose study and have not yet received it. 
Is the Minister aware of this going on in 
his office, that these people have not been 
able to receive their copies of this study? 

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, is the 
member referring to this probational master 
plan? 

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We have copies avail- 
able and if people will write to us and en- 
close $1 we will be pleased to submit one. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia. 

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Thank you, 
sir. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the 
Minister of Transport. 

Would the Minister advise whether, in 
reply to the question of the member for 
Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) on 
Thursday, November 21, relative to amend- 
ment of The Highway Traffic Act to permit 
discretionary powers in magistrates to grant 
intermittent licence suspension, the Minister 
was advising this House that he had no legal 
power to propose such legislation relative to 
charges instituted pursuant to The Criminal 
Code of Canada? 

Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, the answer 
is "no," and I did not so state. I intimated 
to the hon. member at that time that I under- 
stood the conviction was under the Criminal 
Code and that the action taken by the magis- 
trate was under appeal. For my part, I pre- 
fer to await the outcome of that appeal 
before contemplating any action. 

Mr. Bullbrook: Would the Minister enter- 
tain a supplementary question? 

Do I correctly assume then, notwith- 
standing the words that the Minister gave 
the other day and the obvious inference from 
those words, that he is now waiting an 
appeal? Has the appeal been instituted? 



Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, I inti- 
mated I understood it had been taken. 

Mr. Bullbrook: Can the Minister assure us 
it has been instituted? His answer is that he 
is waiting for an appeal that has not yet been 
instituted. 

Hon. Mr. Haskett: I stand corrected if I 
said it has been taken; I said I understood 
it had been, and I think if it has not been, 
it will be. 

Mr. Bullbrook: The Minister can now 
assure that it is going to be appealed? 

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion for the Attorney General, which perhaps 
has been partly answered by his announce- 
ment at the commencement of this period. 

"When The Provincial Judges Act is pro- 
claimed on December 8," my question said, 
but it appears it is going to be proclaimed 
on December 2: 

(a) How many magistrates, deputy magis- 
trates and juvenile court judges will become 
provincial judges? 

(b) How many will not become provincial 
judges? 

(c) What are the names of those who will 
not be appointed? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I think a 
good many of these items were answered in 
the statement. The Act is The Provincial 
Courts Act, if I may draw attention to the 
title, and has been proclaimed as of Decem- 
ber 2; this was done some days ago. The 
statement I made today was just to draw 
attention of the public, and members of the 
House too, to the proclamation of the Act 
and some of the consequences of its being 
brought into effect. 

To answer specifically, The Provincial 
Courts Act, 1968, as I have said, comes into 
effect on December 2. One hundred and 
thirty of the present bench will become full- 
time members of the court, and 12 present 
part-time magistrates and juvenile and family 
court judges will become part-time judges of 
the provincial court for a period which will 
end on April 30 of next year. 

I would like to expand a little bit on that. 
We are doing this arrangement with the part- 
time judges simply as a transitional device to 
get over the period until we can get fully 
equipped with judges who will serve full- 
time both on the criminal side and the family 
side of the court. We have a number of excel- 
lent magistrates— not too many— who have 
served on a part-time basis over a period of 



144 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



years, and I have been doing my best to 
persuade those who are left to go full-time, 
or go back full-time to law practice. Rut after 
this transitional period, I think we can work 
it out by April 30 next year, we hope we will 
have full-time judges completely. 

Questions (b) and (c): Eight county court 
judges, who have been judges in the juvenile 
and family courts, will not be appointed to 
the provincial court. They are judges now, 
of course. These judges are Judges Fuller, 
Anderson, Leach, Cavers, Smith, Richardson, 
Darby and Rrickenden. 

Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary, do 
I understand from the Minister's answer that 
all of the present magistrates, deputy magis- 
trates and juvenile court judges except the 
ones he has named are being reappointed? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, the part-time ones 
only on that basis up to April 30, when we 
will either ask them in that period to leave 
the bench,' if they and we do not agree, or 
where we can work it out we will keep them 
full-time. This is a transitional feature. 

Mr. Singer: Does this apply, again by way 
of a supplementary, to those deputy magis- 
trates who are serving in the county of York 
and perhaps in other places as well? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, I think that is 
correct. 

Mr. Singer: They are now going to be 
provincial judges? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes. 

Mr. Singer: Again by way of supplement- 
ary, have these appointments been referred 
to the Judicial Council? Have they been con- 
sulted in the making of these appointments? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, we have not; it 
was not our intention that they should be. 
We have refrained so far as possible from 
making any recent appointments consistent 
with keeping the administration of justice 
up to the mark. But any appointments from 
December 2 on will be referred to the 
Judicial Council. 

Surely the hon. member is not suggesting 
that the magistrates who have served on the 
bench— I think we discussed this in our 
debate on the Act— .should now be relieved 
of the magistrate's positon by reference to 
the Judicial Council. 

Mr. Singer: No, I was not suggesting that, 
but I was suggesting that the Minister had 
an ideal opportunity to do some house- 
cleaning which apparently he has missed. 



Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is just what the 
member is suggesting then, that magistrates 
who have served on the bench for some 
time, by reference to the Judicial Council, 
could be dispensed with. I thought we de- 
bated this. In any event, if we were to 
debate it now, I would not accept it. 

Mr. Singer: This is probably not the right 
time for debate, Mr. Speaker. I would like 
to pursue it, and I will, at a later time. 

I have a second question: I have some diffi- 
culty with this one, Mr. Speaker, because you 
edited it and you took out part 1, and with- 
out part 1, part 2 by itself does not make 
too much sense. 

Mr. Speaker: I would think that it makes 
sense. Part 1 was quite improper in my view. 

Mr. Singer: We will try it in any event, 
as the member for Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick) 
suggests. 

Does the Attorney General approve of the 
procedure in the case against Garry H. Perly, 
now being heard by Magistrate Tupper S. 
Bigelow, which in accordance with the magis- 
trate's order is being conducted in this 
manner? And the manner was referred to in 
part 1 which has been deleted, but hopefully 
the Attorney General knows the manner that 
I was referring to. 

Part 2: Does the Attorney General intend 
to take any action to prevent such occur- 
rences in the future? If so, what action will 
be taken? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I would 
like to answer it this way: I would prefer 
not to discuss very fully at this moment a 
case which is still before the court. Of course, 
I am fully aware of what is going on. The 
magistrate has found in this particular case— 
which apparently is going to take a very 
long time with a very difficult person before 
him— that to hear it, to devote all the energies 
of the court and time of the court to it, 
would delay a great many very important 
cases which are before him. He has taken 
the procedure of hearing it- 
Mr. Singer: Half an hour a week. 
Hon. Mr. Wishart: —in portions. 

Mr. Ben: How about the 45 to 50 days 
that the Smith Brothers took? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Just a moment. The 
member will have my full answer in a 
moment. 

As I say, I would rather not go into de- 
tail in discussing the case now. I think when 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



145 



that case is concluded, if it goes very long 
before it is concluded, it will be reviewed 
by the chief magistrate there, and if neces- 
sary by my office. The magistrate, in the 
conduct of his court, has a certain discretion 
with which I do not lightly interfere. 

Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary, 
while I can appreciate that, surely the Attor- 
ney General will agree that this kind of pro- 
cedure is punishing an accused in advance. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Without getting into an 
argument, I am not sure that the punishment 
is perhaps all being imposed on one side of 
this case. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for 
Nipissing, who has been very patient. 

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): I have a ques- 
tion for the Minister of Highways: 

1. What progress has been made on the 
4.2-mile Gravenhurst bypass project under 
project numbers 245-60-2; 246-60-1 and 2; 
and 247-60-1 and 2? 

2. What contracts have been made under 
this project? 

3. Will this construction be completed 
during this fiscal year as announced last 
spring? 

Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways): 
Mr. Speaker, had I known it would be 4 
o'clock when I got up to answer this ques- 
tion I could have had the answer, but I will 
have to take it as notice now. 

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, there is a ques- 
tion of the hon. Minister of Transport if he 
has an answer for me. 

Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, construc- 
tion zone speed limits are applied to meet 
the needs of The Department of Highways, 
and the signing approved by order in coun- 
cil in each case is done by The Department 
of Highways in accordance with The High- 
way Traffic Act, section 59, subsection 11 (a) 
and 11 (b). 

With respect to the second part of the 
member's question, the answer is "no." 

Part 3: The specific construction zone 
speed limits and the duration of enforce- 
ment in each case is likewise the responsi- 
bility of The Department of Highways, and 
I understand that my colleague the Minister 
of Highways is prepared to provide the 
further specific information requested. 

Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, construc- 
tion work on the Queen Elizabeth Way in 



the vicinity of the new interchanges at Kip- 
ling Avenue and Islington Avenue will be 
completed in approximately one month's 
time, and the 45-mile-per-hour speed limit 
signs will be removed on this section. How- 
ever, in the immediate vicinity of the QEW- 
Highway 27 interchange, where work is still 
in progress, the construction speed limit 
signs will remain in force. Our practice is 
not inconsistent with the statement made by 
my colleague to the House on April 7. The 
hon. member asks: 

Why is the same speed limit maintained 
at all times whether or not construction is 
in progress instead of being adjusted to 
actual conditions, particularly at weekends 
when construction work ceases? 

Because of the ever-changing location of the 
construction areas, it is most difficult to main- 
tain at all times construction speed zone signs 
consistent with road conditions on all con- 
struction contracts. A concerted effort is 
being made to ensure that construction speed 
zoning is realistic, and when conditions war- 
rant, to have the speed zone signs removed 
at nights and on weekends. 

Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to ques- 
tion 89 asked by the member for Thunder 
Bay yesterday. It is: 

In my letter of July 17, 1968, I informed 
the hon. member that we would go ahead 
with the pre-engineering for the prospective 
reconstruction of the road, which had been 
programmed. I explained that I was unable 
to be specific, but that we would arrange 
schedules of construction consistent with 
comparative priorities and available funds. 
During 1964 to 1967 inclusive, 16 accidents 
occurred on the road, giving an accident 
rate of 1.0 per million vehicle miles of travel 
over that period. This corresponds with an 
average of 2.6 for all King's Highways in 
the province; 3.6 for all secondary highways, 
and 5.8 for all of Ontario's roads and streets. 
Evidently Highway 585 was just about as 
safe a road as could be driven on during 
1964 to 1967. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before 
the orders of the day yesterday we were dis- 
cussing the celebration of the 150th anni- 
versary of the birth of George Brown, which 
will be on Friday next. In the intervening 
hours I have had an opportunity to meet 
with the leader of the Opposition and the 
leader of the New Democratic Party, and we 
have come to an agreement, and perhaps I 
can tell the House how we would like to 
observe this, the 150th anniversary of the 



146 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



birth of this very famous Canadian Parlia- 
mentarian. 

In the Toronto Necropolis and Cemetery at 
200 Winchester Street, Toronto, where George 
Brown is buried, there will be a short 
memorial service and wreath laying ceremony 
at 9 o'clock on Friday, November 29. In 
attendance there will be myself, the leader 
of the Opposition and the leader of the New 
Democratic Party, some officials and students 
from the George Brown College of Applied 
Arts and Technology. Any members of this 
House and the public who would like to join 
us will be very welcome on that occasion. 

At 10 o'clock this House will meet and 
there will be addresses in recognition of Mr. 
Brown by myself, by the leader of the Oppo- 
sition, by the leader of the New Democratic 
Party, and by any other members of the 
House who would like to observe this occa- 
sion. 

Following that, and with the approval of 
the House, it is planned that we will then 
adjourn and go to the platform erected at the 
front steps of the building and close by there 
is a statue of George Brown. We would hope 
to be out there by 11 o'clock on Friday morn- 
ing. There will be the regimental bands of 
the Lome Scots, a good Scottish regiment; 
a guard of honour to be inspected will be 
commanded by Captain I. Kirkwood; the 
regimental band will be conducted by Cap- 
tain E. Corlett. The pipes and drums will 
also be in attendance. The civil service choir 
will lead the singing and perform numbers. 
The Ontario Provincial Police will provide a 
detail under the command of Inspector Don- 
ald Atam. They will escort a group from the 
platform to the monument of George Brown 
where a wreath will be placed on behalf of 
the legislative assembly. Representatives of 
the student body of George Brown College of 
Applied Arts and Technology will deposit a 
wreath. Rev. Dr. Ross K. Cameron, a former 
moderator of the Presbyterian Church in 
Canada will be the officiating clergyman. 
There will be some 1,500 to 2,500 students 
from the George Brown College and pupils 
from schools in the immediate vicinity, and 
such other members of the public who may 
wish to come. We hope that the people will 
attend this ceremony. Certainly they are all 
more than welcome as we will gather to do 
honour to a very famous Canadian statesman. 

Mr. W. M. Mclntyre, Secretary of the 
Cabinet, has been co-ordinating this entire 
programme, assisted by various persons work- 
ing under his direction, including Mr. John 
Cozens, the leader of the civil service choir. 



Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day. 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Sir, 
may I beg the indulgence of the House. I 
would like to call the third order, which is 
second reading of Bill 2, an Act to amend 
The Municipal Act. This bill is a technical 
one involving the municipal elections which 
will be held early next month. If it can be 
given second reading this afternoon in com- 
mittee of the whole, and third reading, then 
I would hope that it will receive Royal Assent 
this week in order that we may make the 
necessary arrangements with the municipali- 
ties. 



THE MUNICIPAL ACT 

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Mu- 
nicipal Affairs) moves second reading of 
Bill 2, An Act to amend The Municipal Act. 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi- 
tion ) : With the assurance of the Premier of 
the rather specific requirements of this par- 
ticular statute, I feel that any comments that 
we might want to make on changes in the 
election procedures at the municipal level 
might be made on another occasion, and we 
have no objection to it being put without 
notice. 

Motion agreed to; second reading of the 
bill. 

Clerk of the House: The third order; 
House in committee of the whole, Mr. A. E. 
Reuter in the chair. 

Mr. Chairman: Hon. members, before I 
assume the chair, may I just take a few 
moments to express my thanks to all hon. 
members for their support in returning me 
to this position. I want to say a special word 
of thanks to the hon. Prime Minister, to the 
hon. leader of the Opposition and to the hon. 
member for York South, leader of the New 
Democratic Party, for their very kind words. 

During those words, I thought of some of 
the occasions during the first session on which 
I was called upon to make some rulings. I 
must say that on those occasions, after num- 
erous of them, I am very, very surprised to 
find myself in this position again because I 
do realize full well that there was some dis- 
satisfaction on both sides of the House with 
some of those rulings. 

However, it seems to me that Parliament, 
being as old as it is, going back to the year 
1295, that a great deal has evolved over 
those years. It seems to me that the purpose 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



X47 



of Parliament is for reasonable people, men 
and women, to gather together to resolve 
their problems in a responsible and dignified 
manner. 

The committee of the whole House was 
founded, I think, approximately in the year 
1607, and I found it very interesting to note 
the reason why the committee of the whole 
House procedure was adopted. 

It seems that in the early days of Parlia- 
ment, Mr. Speaker was regarded as a direct 
representative of the monarchy and to some 
extent, this restrained the members of the 
Commons from free discussion. Therefore, 
the committee of the whole was developed in 
order that there could be a member of the 
Commons appointed to chair the committee. 

Now, with that thought in mind, it lias 
always been my belief that there should be 
freer discussion in committee and that while 
we do have rules that have been built up and 
taken from Westminster, it seems to me that 
particularly in Ontario, those rides have not 
been revised for a long while but it seems, in 
committee, that we can afford to judge the 
circumstances as they arise. 

If it is necessary to bend those rules just a 
little to suit those circumstances I think this 
would tend to a much more dignified and 
orderly procedure while we are in committee. 

In any event, I am very grateful to be here 
again, to work with my good friends, Mr. 
Lewis, Mr. Common and Mr. Young and I 
am sure I will find it pleasurable again to 
work with Mr. Speaker, as his deputy. 

Again, I want to express my sincere grati- 
tude for your support in returning me to this 
chair. 



THE MUNICIPAL ACT 

House in committee on Bill 2, An Act to 
amend The Municipal Act. 

Section 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to. 

Preamble agreed to. 

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munic- 
ipal Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to 
say that section 1 of the bill really has noth- 
ing to do with section 2. 

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): We have car- 
ried it. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You have carried it. 
You should understand what you are doing. 
I am not sure that I do. I think you have to 
have- 



Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi- 
tion): That is not our problem. 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not your prob- 
lem; you are not interested, I will not tell 
you. It is just technical. 

Bill 2 reported. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee 
of the whole House rise and report one bill 
without amendment. 

Motion agreed to. 

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the 
chair. 

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee 
of the whole House begs to report one bill 
without amendment and asks for leave to sit 
again. 

Report agreed to. 



THIRD READING 

The following bill was given third reading 
upon motion: 

Bill 2, An Act to amend The Municipal Act. 

Clerk of the House: The first order, resum- 
ing the adjourned debate on the motion for 
an address in reply to the speech of the hon. 
the Lieutenant-Governor at the opening of 
the session. 



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi- 
tion): Mr. Speaker, I was surprised at the 
energetic objection taken by the Minister of 
Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) a few 
moments ago during the question period 
when I interjected a comment in his answer. 
He was being questioned about the possibility 
of government assistance to those farmers in 
two areas of the province that have suffered 
unnatural weather hindrance and damage 
during the recent crop season. 

His reason for not going ahead with the 
recommendation to the Cabinet for such 
assistance in both cases was that die farmers 
had crop insurance available, and, therefore, 
he did not see fit to recommend the assistance 
that had been forthcoming in years gone by 
under these similar circumstances. 

I interjected that I felt the crop insurance 
programme was, therefore, more useful to the 
government than to the farmers because 



148 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



surely the Minister himself knows that in 
most areas of the province less than 5 per 
cent of the farmers concerned have, for 
reasons that surely they find good and suffi- 
cient, availed themselves of the coverage 
that is available under the provincial-federal 
joint crop insurance programme. 

It could be that it is too expensive; that it 
lias not been properly put for their considera- 
tion and, in fact, that they are prepared to 
take the risks as long as they feel that the 
representatives of the Legislature, in matters 
and circumstances of great catastrophe, are 
prepared to take the steps that have been 
taken in years gone by, to provide the reason- 
able assistance that has been forthcoming. 

I remember very well, when the bill that 
implemented crop insurance was discussed, 
saying that I expected the Minister would use 
this as a crutch for getting out of the 
responsibilities that had been governmental 
for so many years. We now find that this is 
precisely the purpose of The Crop Insurance 
Act as it is administered in the province of 
Ontario. 

It appears to be one the serious short- 
comings in the attitude taken by the Minis- 
ter and his chief, the Premier, who is good 
enough to indicate his views on the whole 
matter— that he feels the farmers are properly 
served. 

Now surely it is most worthy when we 
see that this crop insurance programme is 
quite heavily subsidized at the federal level; 
that the government of Ontario has not seen 
fit to match that subsidy; that it still is an 
expensive proposition for the farmers; and 
that they have not seen fit to avail themselves 
of the limited protection that is forthcoming. 

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity last 
night to be present at the opening of a new 
school in a town in my constituency. It was 
a very uplifting experience with a good 
number of young people taking part. 

I had an opportunity to talk to those 
present, not only the young people but some 
others, and to be much impressed with a 
broader, let us say reaction, to provincial, 
national and world affairs than perhaps I 
have been subjected to in former circum- 
stances. 

I cannot help but think that it has been the 
coverage of the news media on certain events 
in recent months that has brought forward 
this sort of reaction, particularly from young 
people. 

You may recall, sir, a news clip that was 
carried on almost every television station 
that is available to us in this part of Ontario, 



showing the summary execution of a North 
Vietnamese soldier— a young man who was 
simply put to death by his captor pointing 
a pistol at the top of his head and blowing 
it off. This was earned on news programmes 
repeatedly and had a tremendous impact, I 
think, on public opinion as to the events that 
had been taking place there— perhaps with- 
out the same involvement of public conscience 
up until that time. 

I do not want to spend time on that other 
than as an example of one of these conscience 
stirring events which got to the masses, as 
citizens of Ontario, in this way. 

Probably the second event that had as big 
or even bigger impact was the pictures car- 
ried of the starving children in Biafra, which 
do not have to be described, I am sure, for 
every member to conjure up the image in his 
own mind. 

Once again, the conscience of us all, as 
citizens of the province, was deeply stirred 
and there was a very personal feeling that, as 
individuals, something had to be done to 
counteract this terrible and inhumane situa- 
tion. In my view, not enough has been done, 
but we, in the province of Ontario, through 
the government, are contributing, I under- 
stand, $70,000 towards the relief of the 
situation, and citizens have had an oppor- 
tunity to take part themselves. 

This should be dealt with at greater length, 
there is no doubt about it. It appears that 
part of the stirring of the conscience of the 
individuals is followed by the settling out 
of the conscience in rather short order when 
what may have been a very immediate con- 
cern to the individual is replaced by some- 
thing else a few days later— and the heat is 
off those with responsibility to take action. 

I think this is something we must be aware 
of, and we must see that our reactions are 
humane and based on our conscience, but 
are responsible and continuing, so that we 
simply have a greater part to play in the 
affairs as they come in. The last item of 
this nature, one that was brought to me 
as the local representative last night by two 
or three young people, were pictures carried 
in the press and on television of the unfor- 
tunate little girl who died on October 10, 
allegedly as a result of a fall, but which is 
suspected as being the result of perhaps some 
other circumstances. 

I am sure you can all recall the picture 
of the smiling young face with the bruise. 
Once again, our conscience was stirred; it 
was difficult to know what should be done, 
but the fact remains. These things and the 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



149 



background associated with them, are a part 
of life, not in the world at large as a global 
village, as Marshall McLuhan described it, 
but in our own backyard, and the realization 
that inhumanity among our own neighbours, 
among ourselves, is a real part of even the 
enlightened modern life. 

The last thing I want is to attribute respon- 
sibility for any of these cases to individuals 
here, but really in following up and examin- 
ing the events of last week and the role of 
The Department of Social and Family Serv- 
ices, in the care of young children, I had 
reached some conclusions that I now wish to 
place before you. 

I want to speak briefly about The Depart- 
ment of Social and Family Services in con- 
nection with child welfare, and stress the 
need to improve the services in this area. We 
have seen how, in the last year, the depart- 
ment refused for most of the year to agree 
to the budget of the children's aid societies 
and how by its action forced these societies 
into a desperate position. With the excep- 
tion of I believe two of the province's 
societies, the province and the children's aid 
societies disagreed on the operating budget 
and in these cases, the societies had to cut 
down on what they needed. 

Let us see what these cuts mean to On- 
tario's children. First, let me say that the 
research on this subject was done with great 
hardship, because the Minister's office or the 
people under his direction, have warned 
societies that they are not to discuss pro- 
grammes financed by the government with- 
out clearing such discussions with the 
department. This is an unheard of abuse by 
the department and it is sheer hyprocrisy 
for the members opposite, to deliberately 
spike any investigation of the use of gov- 
ernment money. 

My hon. friends across the aisle may not 
believe it, but they do not own this province, 
and the money they spend is given them in 
trust for the people of this province. There- 
fore, I submit they have an obligation to 
ensure that programmes under their care are 
closely scrutinized, in fact, they should wel- 
come such scrutiny. I warn them that they 
are playing a serious game. 

The taxpayers of Ontario will not allow 
nervous Ministers to use the Legislature in 
this manner and we will not tolerate such 
high-handedness. Furthermore, they will have 
to face up to the fact that this is not a 
police state. There are in Ontario men and 
women who will speak when and as they 



see fit, in the public interest, no matter what 
threats are made by the department. 

The children's aid societies, in the past 
three years, have come to a new understand- 
ing of the nature of the children in their 
care. They realize that these are not children 
who have lost their home and parents and 
come out magically unscathed. They are 
children who have suffered, sometimes over 
long periods of time, from inadequate physi- 
cal and emotional nourishment. When many 
of them come to the attention of the chil- 
dren's aid societies they are badly damaged, 
frequently emotionally disturbed. Therefore, 
the old concept that a run-of-the-mill foster 
home would give them what they need is 
becoming out of date. 

It is now understood that foster homes 
must be picked with more care than was 
formerly the case and that most of all, they 
must be supported, not with more money to 
the parents necessarily, but with more and 
better services that cost real money. 

Good foster parents are not content with 
having an unskilled aid drop in on them once 
every three months, to find out how things 
are. They expect that they will be treated 
as part of the treatment team, that there 
will be a treatment team to give the child 
all kinds of care from straightening teeth to 
psychotherapy. In addition to the children 
who can use carefully chosen and supervised 
foster care, there are other arrangements 
being made, various types of group homes 
for example. 

Finally, there are children who need insti- 
tutional care, and in this regard it is inter- 
esting to note that the Health Minister's 
grandiose plan, presented here nearly two 
years ago with such flourish, is probably 
most noted for its silent demise. The socie- 
ties can term only Brown Camps for the 
facilities, on a private basis, that must be 
part of provincial services. 

Another responsibility which the province 
give the children's aid societies, is for the 
care of unwed mothers and their children. 
The province handsomely pays the cost of 
the care of the child, but makes almost no 
provision for the emotional care of the 
mother, and this at a time when the ili- 
gitimacy rates, particularly among young 
mothers, are on the increase, nor does it 
make provision for her after-care whether or 
not she keeps the child. The department 
sloughs off its responsibility to the mother 
to a network of church homes, and in every 
important respect, leaves the young mother, 



150 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



often a needy, sometimes disturbed, child 
herself, to a catch as catch can system. 

Thirdly, children's aid societies are respon- 
sible for protection of children who are being 
malnourished either physically or mentally by 
their parents. Every person sitting here to- 
day has read with agony, the experience of 
battered children, yet much of this suffering 
can be alleviated by societies with adequate 
staff and facilities to offer families who, for 
whatever reason, do not properly care for 
their children. 

As the session progresses, I can assure the 
Minister, that we here will be expanding on 
what I have said. In spite of whatever at- 
tempts he may make to stifle investigations 
on the department in its working, we will be 
watching both closely. Let me just say this 
for now, the province is starving societies 
who are trying to do a good job. There is no 
agency in this province that is getting from 
the provincial government, the money it 
needs to do the job it should be doing. 

Furthermore, it is under constant harass- 
ment by the Minister and his department, 
first, with the threat of further cuts in money, 
and secondly with the threat of a provincial 
take-over, the possibility which can only lead 
to worse service if one is to judge by the 
department records to date. 

The Minister is not present, but I would 
like to put a few questions on the record for 
his perusal. First, are the budgets of chil- 
dren's aid societies to be cut in the coming 
year, so that the department can pass on the 
fiscal nightmare and make it the nightmare 
of others? Secondly, what does the Minister 
plan to do so that agencies will learn at the 
beginning of the year and not near the end, 
exactly what money will be available? 
Thirdly, particularly in view of the fact that 
eight people have left the child welfare 
branch in the last year, is the Minister con- 
sidering taking over voluntary children's aid 
societies? 

John Doe, a great educator, once said that 
what the best and wisest parents want for 
their own child, the community must want 
for all its children. If the treatment of chil- 
dren's aid societies by the present government 
were to be taken as a guide, we would have 
to conclude that we do not want much for 
our youngsters. 

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my 
remarks by making some comments on the 
upcoming constitutional conference. I re- 
ferred to it earlier in my remarks by chastis- 
ing the Premier and his advisers for appearing 
to threaten the government of Canada with 



opting out of these discussions— it is a fact- 
opting out of these discussions, unless there 
were some more reasonable accommodation 
to the government's other requirements. There 
is no doubt that this is the attitude taken by 
the government, at least interpreted in news 
reports that were available to me and to the 
citizens of this province. 

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this matter 
is far too important to be treated as an ancil- 
lary project in our effort to gain a larger 
share of federal abatement. There are some 
matters of great concern that will be, I am 
sure, discussed in a responsible way at the 
conference that is to be held in the middle of 
December. 

At the top of the agenda, must surely be 
the proposal to entrench a bill of rights in the 
constitution of our nation, and pass ancillary 
companion legislation in the provincial Legis- 
lature. This is something that I felt was not 
treated seriously by the Ontario administra- 
tion when it was proposed by the then Min- 
ister of Justice. I hope that we will take 
another look at the situation, and be prepared 
to support the proposals from whatever 
source they may come. 

I personally believe that we must take very 
definite steps to at least set in motion, pro- 
cedures which will eventually repatriate the 
constitution of our nation. There are those 
who are quick to say, that The British North 
America Act is in fact not a constitution. It 
makes an interesting argument. We must 
accept the fact, that legislation from West- 
minster is what actually assigns the responsi- 
bilities to us as members of this House, and 
those people who are elected to the 
Parliament of Canada, and the Legislatures 
of the other provinces. 

It seems incomprehensible that we are pre- 
pared to permit this state of affairs to go on 
without at least attempting to bring about a 
change. I well remember the debate and dis- 
cussion in this House on -the Fulton-Favreau 
formula for the amendment of the constitu- 
tion whether or not it was kept in its position 
as a statute of the government of the United 
Kingdom. 

There is an interesting sidelight to the book 
that was published recently by Peter New- 
man, "The Distemper of Our Times," in 
which he indicated that even as the govern- 
ment of Ontario was leading the discussion 
which was supported eventually in a vote 
from all sides of the House, to approve the 
Fulton-Favreau formula as it might apply to 
Ontario, there was an emissary from the 
leader of the Conservative Party in Canada, 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



151 



Mr. Diefenbaker— I stand corrected on that 
matter, it was, let us say, supported by a 
majority of the members of the House and 
there was an emissary coming from the leader 
of the Conservative Party in Canada, attempt- 
ing to stop the government of Ontario from 
proceeding in this way. 

A minute had been provided Mr. Diefen- 
b.iker indicating that, in fact, there was little 
difFerence in the position taken by Mr. Fav- 
reau and Mr. Fulton and that lie would be 
quite in order in supporting the approach at 
a federal level. But we must assume that for 
political purposes he saw reason to differ 
with the formula, as, I suppose, there were 
other reasons for others in the Legislature 
here for differing from the formula at that 
time. 

Whatever were the results, what had been 
the results of some careful research and were 
put before the Legislatures of a number of 
provinces bore no fruit, and we are no nearer 
now to the solution of this knotty problem 
than we were in 1963 and 1964. 

Now I would say that this is something 
that we must come to grips with. There tends 
to be a reduction in pressure for the amend- 
ment of our constitution, perhaps as a result 
of the Centennial fading into history, but I 
think that Ontario should take the lead in 
providing the alternative that should be con- 
sidered by the other provinces in repatriating 
our constitution and providing for a reason- 
able and fair means of amending it. 

I think when you look back at fairly recent 
history, the former Prime Minister Louis St. 
Laurent took a very practical approach to 
dividing the sections of The British North 
America Act into groups which would have 
different means of being amended. There 
were those which had only direct and super- 
ficial application that would be amended by 
simple majority motion of the Parliament of 
Canada, and there were odier, more deeply 
entrenched in the right of all our people and 
the provinces themselves, which could only 
be amended by complete agreement among 
all the provinces. 

I feel that some sort of workmanlike ap- 
proach of this type would be the answer if, 
in fact, we are going to maintain our support 
for The British North America Act as our 
constitution. There are alternatives, of 
course. I, for one, believe that we should 
attempt to have an amendment to the Act 
passed which would remove it from its pres- 
ent lodging in the Parliament at Westminster 
and bring it back to Canada but this has 
proved to be an insurmountable difficulty. 



The British North America Act, as our con- 
stitution, should be abandoned where it now 
lies, and be replaced by something that is 
more in keeping with our national aspirations 
and needs. There is no doubt that the amend- 
ment to the constitution should be accompan- 
ied by a fairer distribution of revenues and 
that it should contain, as well, clear distribu- 
tion of responsibilities. There is no doubt 
that continuing expansion of the shared cost 
programme is going to lead us into greater 
difficulties as far as federal and provincial 
budgeting is concerned, because we know 
that the Treasurer is presently sitting over in 
the Frost Building chairing a meeting of the 
Treasury Board. 

Let us presume that someone from the Min- 
istry of Social and Family Services is before 
the Treasury Board and he could very readily 
say that those men might approve the ex- 
penditures he is putting forward since 80 
per cent of the cost is being met from another 
jurisdiction. At the same time, I suppose the 
Treasury Board in Ottawa has the argument 
put to them, when certain projects are forth- 
coming, that a large part of the cost is met 
by another jurisdiction and in fact they can 
proceed with their approval without having 
to bear the cost at 100 cents in a dollar. 

The Premier is frequently heard to say 
that there is only one taxpayer, and he is the 
person whose welfare really does concern us 
all, and I believe that the restriction in the 
shared cost programme is going to be in the 
best interests of the taxpayers concerned, as 
well as setting out clearly the lines of re- 
sponsibility which must accompany modern 
programmes if they are carefully budgeted. 

The last point that I would like to raise in 
this matter is that as a member of this House 
interested in these particular matters, I am 
getting increasingly resentful that the ad- 
visory committee on constitutional matters 
restricts its advice to the Ministry alone. I 
think that the example set by the Legislature 
in Quebec should be followed here, and that 
we, in this House, should constitute a stand- 
ing committee on constitutional affairs and 
call before it those people— and very able 
people they are indeed— who presently restrict 
their advice to the members of the adminis- 
tration, or the Premier and those who accom- 
pany him as our provincial delegation to 
constitutional conferences. 

I think that the more widespread involve- 
ment we have in this matter, the better, and 
that a standing committee of the Legislature 
would be an ideal vehicle to interest the citi- 
zens of our province, as well as the members 



152 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



of this House in what has got to be a matter 
of great concern and high priority to all of 
us as members. 

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity 
during my reply to the motion, quite a few 
days ago, for an address to the hon. the 
Lieutenant Governor, to cover some matters 
of great concern in this province. I have felt 
that the primary importance is our need to 
come to grip with budgetary difficulties that 
we are experiencing in great measure in this 
province. 

I have mentioned some other matters as 
well, and all of these have brought me to the 
conclusion that the administration which is 
presently conducting our affairs does not, in 
fact, command the confidence either of this 
House or of the people of the province. 

A great deal has happened in the 12 
months since the election in October 1967, 
and we have revealed the unfortunate state of 
affairs that has been put before you in the 
last few days. And with this in mind, Mr. 
Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Singer, 
the following amendment to the reply to the 
Speech from the Throne: 

That this House regrets that the govern- 
ment 

1. Has failed to conduct the province's 
financial affairs responsibly and neglected 
to cause an independent and all-embracing 
study of its programmes and administrative 
procedures to be made. 

2. Has failed to protect tenants' rights 
and to insure adequate housing for the 
people of Ontario at a fair price, including 
a system of permissive rent control. 

3. Has neglected the proper develop- 
ment of the northern part of the province 
of Ontario, and by the lack of a sound 
policy toward the north and its natural 
resources, the government has thereby 
failed to promote the economic well-being 
and prosperity of all the people of Ontario. 

4. Has failed to provide educational op- 
portunity, facilities, and financing to insure 
that all Ontario students have an equal 
access to our educational institutions, and 
has failed to develop an effective policy to 
meet the unrest on our university campuses. 

5. Has failed to provide suitable pro- 
grammes which would allow our agricul- 
tural community to realize their fair share 
of the benefits available to other segments 
of our economy. 

6. Has, by its inaction, allowed the pol- 
lution of air, water, and land to worsen. 



7. Has failed to insure equal access to 
proper medical care for all our people. 

8. Has failed to plan for the proper eco- 
nomic development of our province. 

9. Has failed to bring about meaningful 
reform to our ancient and inefficient system 
of municipal government and, therefore, 
diat your government does not enjoy the 
confidence of this House. 

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. 
Speaker, on first hearing of that rather com- 
prehensive amendment, I am sure that there 
are some things that have been missed and 
after a night's contemplation, I am sure 1 
will discover them. It is in the category of 
what is sometimes referred to as the "kitchen 
sink" amendment— everything is in it. 

Now, in beginning a Tjhrone Speech, Mr. 
Speaker, it is traditional to pay tribute to 
you and to express appreciation for your con- 
tribution to the business of this Legislature. 
I do so with a particular feeling of sympathy 
for you this year. 

I think we have reached a crossroads in 
the history of this Legislature in terms of 
the evolution and clarification of the rules 
of the House. It has become very obvious in 
recent days, and perhaps never more obvious 
than today, that, as we seek to restrict and 
impose balanced rules on the government side 
of the House— rules which I have suggested 
to you privately and publicly and, therefore, 
I am not saying anything new, have already 
been imposed to a considerable degree on 
the Opposition— that you are going to face 
some considerable objections from a govern- 
ment which has traditionally, from my early 
days in the House, regarded the Speaker as 
a puppet of their side of the House. 

Indeed, I recall very distinctly an occasion 
when something little short of shock appeared 
on the face of the then Prime Minister when 
the Speaker suggested that he was breaching 
the rules of the House— he did not have the 
floor and he should sit down. He was literally 
shocked. No Speaker had ever told him that 
he should have to live up to the rules of the 
House. 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): 
Who was that? 

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, I will leave you to 
guess. As a matter of fact, we had something 
approaching the same kind of reaction today 
from the Provincial Treasurer. He is reaching 
boiling point in terms of having to live up 
to the rules of this House, so I repeat, Mr. 
Speaker— 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



153 



Hon. J. P. llobarts (Prime Minister): He 
was teasing you and you did not realize it. 

Mr. MacDonald: If the Prime Minister 
thinks that he was teasing us, the Prime Min- 
ister has more trouble on his hands than he 
realizes, because the hon. gentleman was not 
teasing anybody; he was about ready to take 
on anybody, including the Speaker. It started 
last Thursday or Friday when he was indig- 
nant at the thought that some restriction 
should be imposed on the abuse by the 
Treasury benches in reply to questions. 

I do not want to pursue this any more, 
Mr. Speaker. You have indicated that you 
are going to set up a committee to examine 
the rules. I think— and this is where my 
expression of sympathy comes— you have on 
this side of the House a feeling that the 
situation is nearly intolerable; you have on 
the other side of the House considerable feel- 
ing that if there is any change for an equal 
application of the rules of the House, it be- 
comes intolerable for them. So all I can say 
is that your role will have to be something 
of a Solomon and I wish you well. 

Unfortunately, our newest Cabinet Minis- 
ter is not with us this afternoon and this is 
really going to take a little of the fun out 
of the game. Between each session there is 
the usual game of musical chairs and the 
Prime Minister has not failed us again this 
time— he has brought a new man into the 
Cabinet. He is a man who brings to his new 
responsibilities undoubted abilities, plus ex- 
perience as chairman of the taxation commit- 
tee, which is going to stand not only him but 
this Legislature in good stead. 

But Mr. Speaker, from experience on this 
side of the House, we have learned that the 
hon. Minister vacillates unpredictably from 
being a serious public servant, dealing objec- 
tively and rationally with public issues, to a 
self-appointed hatchet man for the Tory 
party, resorting to barracking tactics that 
would make the members of the Chicago 
gang to his right look like a group of pikers. 

In short, the new Minister is a veritable 
Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde. For his own 
sake— and he will read this even if he does 
not hear it— I hope that he will forsake this 
hatchet role, for too often his tactics in that 
capacity have been unworthy of the talent 
of the man. 

However, before I leave this I want to 
recall one incident of recent vintage that I 
think is rather pertinent in light of his new 
responsibilities. In unveiling the report of 
the select committee on taxation, he was 
detailing with great enthusiasm the proposal 



of the extension of the sales tax to include 
food and then compensation, a very elaborate 
compensation, by way of a tax rebate— which 
he argued was going to be in the form of a 
negative income tax that would open the 
door to a guaranteed annual income. It was 
all very fanciful, but it had magnificent 
propaganda overtones and the hon. gentle- 
man declared triumphantly: "If I were a 
member of the Opposition, I would be scared 
to death/' 

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to report to 
him that there was nobody on our side of the 
House, at least in this group, who was 
scared to death, but what is even more inter- 
esting is that subsequent events have revealed 
just who was scared to death. I will tell you 
who it was— the members of the Tory party. 

The prospect of having to defend the 
extension of the sales tax to food, along with 
this very elaborate, and likely unworkable 
under this government, rebate system, was 
such that it produced little short of political 
panic among the Tory back benchers. So 
much so that the Prime Minister on the eve 
of this session rescued all his— 

Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and 
Development): He did not want to ruin all 
your speeches for some weeks. 

Mr. MacDonald: That is an interesting 
interjection— "he did not want to ruin all our 
speeches". I do not know what his objection 
was in taking this issue out of debate because 
he certainly got all the Tories off the hook 
and they came in here with a degree of 
relaxation, with the exception, of cour.se, of 
the Provincial Treasurer, who was "white- 
lipped and quivering". 

My final word to the absent Minister is 
diat I hope that his partisan enthusiasms are 
not going to carry him away in the fashion 
that they sometimes do. I hope that in his 
new position he can exercise some of that 
discipline of which I know he is capable. 
Has the Prime Minister got something to 
add? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
want to interrupt. It is just that it appears 
to me he has reached you in the last couple 
of years. 

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, he has reached a lot 
of people. As a matter of fact, his career is 
rather an interesting one. I can remember 
the time when he thought he was going to 
exercise the role of self appointed hatchet 
man by tackling the former leader of the 
Opposition following a famous speech on 



154 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



crime. Having tackled him, he then pro- 
voked the spectacle of the leader going out 
and reading the whole speech in the hall so 
that all the Tory back benchers were embar- 
rassed by the spectacle of what had been 
produced. 

Mr. Nixon: There has not been a fall 
session since. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: We are still here, 
where is the leader? 

Mr. MacDonald: Fine. Now let me pro- 
ceed to the seconder of the motion, who again 
is not here. This element of truancy in the 
House which has become the preoccupation 
of the government side when some people 
from the New Democratic Party are not 
here, is rather interesting— but the absence 
of government members of the House is 
something that, presumably, can be over- 
looked. 

The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. 
Jessiman) spent a great deal of time trying 
to make political hay out of the recent New 
Democratic Party leadership convention and, 
indeed, the leader of the Opposition appar- 
ently, at some stages in his speech, had so 
little else to offer that he too, got in on the 
game. 

Mr. Nixon: Irresistible. 

Mr. MacDonald: It obviously was irresist- 
ible. The vacuum had to be filled with some- 
thing. Both of these gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, 
are obviously exasperated, even infuriated, by 
the indisputable fact that the New Demo- 
cratic Party is united and stronger than it 
ever was before. 

Mr. Nixon: That is for local consumption. 

Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Just 
a dreamer. 

Mr. MacDonald: All this huffing and puff- 
ing is not going to alter that fact. What we 
had, Mr. Speaker- 
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): You are 
getting to him. 

Mr. MacDonald: What we had, Mr. 
Speaker, to quote the Prime Minister— at this 
point obviously I am getting to them— what 
we had, Mr. Speaker, in the last session of 
the Legislature, was a New Democratic 
Party that was strong enough in the 1967 
election to win 290,000 more votes. While 
the Tory party was going down 30,000 and 
dropping seven per cent of the total. While 
the Liberal Party was staying the same, but 



dropping four per cent of the total, we were 
picking up that 10 or 11 per cent increase. 
That was the New Democratic Party, Mr. 
Speaker, of the last session. I know, Mr. 
Speaker, that people on that side of the 
House- 
Mr. Nixon: What did you say about filling 
a vacuum? 

Mr. MacDonald: I will tell you, Mr. 
Speaker, as well as the hon. member for 
Oxford. I told it to a whole convention in- 
cluding the hon. member for Riverdale and 
we saw the result— they believed it. So just 
listen because you should believe it too, if 
you want to live with the facts. 

You see, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen 
on the other side of the House would like to 
argue that what happened with the New 
Democratic Party in the last election was 
not much of an achievement; that indeed, it 
was something of a failure. Well, Mr. 
Speaker, just let me say to anybody who 
wants advanced that argument- 
Mr. Nixon: And who will listen. 

Mr. MacDonald: —that a projection of 
what happened in the last election, the gains 
and the losses, no more and no less, shows 
that in the next election the New Demo- 
cratic Party will emerge as the largest single 
party in the province- 
Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. MacDonald: The Tories dropped in 
popular vote from 49 per cent to 42 per 
cent; a similar drop once again will bring 
them down to 35 per cent. This is an inter- 
esting little numbers game and rather a 
significant one. The Liberals came down 
from 35 to 31; a similar drop will bring 
them down to 27 per cent. The New Demo- 
cratic Party came up from 16 to 27 and will 
do it again, to put it at 38 per cent— the 
largest single party in terms of popular vote. 
At that level the seats will fall. 

However, Mr. Speaker, what I have been 
talking about is the New Democratic Party 
you saw in the last session. What you are 
going to see, Mr. Speaker, in this session, in 
case it has missed your attention, is a New 
Democratic Party which has certainly ex- 
amined its weaknesses and strengths. 

Interjection by an hon. member. 

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, I know that the 
Tories do not think that they have any weak- 
nesses. 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



155 



Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. member is 
right. 

Mr. MacDonald: Everybody knows the 
Liberals have weaknesses, but you do not 
think you have. We have examined our 
weaknesses and our strengths and our mem- 
bers know exactly what must be done to win 
the next election. What is more important is 
that they have gone home to start doing the 
job right now. This party, Mr. Speaker, has 
a basic strength and unity such that it can 
cope with the tensions of a leadership cam- 
paign. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Who wrote that, 
Donald? 

Mr. MacDonald: I always write my own 
speeches. I wish I could say the same for 
you. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: I will get you to write 
mine the next time. 

Mr. MacDonald: Right. We will certainly 
improve it. 

Our differences were one of emphasis. They 
have been reviewed by our authoritative 
body, namely the convention. We have now 
returned to that great area that we hold in 
common. The leader is back, Mr. Speaker, 
with a strong renewal of mandate; the deputy 
leader is back with the unanimous support of 
the caucus, and I give you fair warning that 
this government's trusteeship is going to be 
subjected to the most detailed and revealing 
analysis that has ever taken place in this 
Legislature. 

An hon. member: Old home week. 

Mr. MacDonald: Well, welcome back. The 
bridge game is over, is it? 

Mr. R. M. Johnston: Carry on— 

Mr. MacDonald: I would just say, Mr. 
Speaker, through you to the hon. members 
on the other side, that if this inflicts upon 
them too much pain and suffering, they have 
my permission to leave. 

An hon. member: Quit the foolishness, 
carry on. 

Another hon. member: That is the truth. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to 
suggest seriously to the other side of the 
House that perhaps it is time they began to 
look at their own problems and not dwell on 
the problems that they think exist with the 
New Democratic Party, because this govern- 



ment is crumbling of its own dead weight 
and old age. Every year it gets more and 
more out of touch with the people and more 
insensitive to their needs. 

Do not accept my word for it, because I 
know you will consider my words to be 
tinged with partisanship, but I have been 
interested, in the last two or three months, in 
reading the papers to hear of leading people 
in the Conservative Party publicly moaning 
and groaning about the plight of the party 
and what they have got to do if they are 
going to avoid catastrophe in the next 
election. 

I remember picking up the Globe and Mail 
over my cup of coffee one morning and read- 
ing some unnamed top official of the party— 
and I can quite understand why he should 
be unnamed when he made this sort of a 
comment— saying that in the next election, 
with John Robarts as leader of the party, the 
best they could expect was to come back with 
a minority government. I reflected on that, 
and my only reaction was, it was a little 
optimistic. 

Interjection by an hon. member. 

Mr. MacDonald: Can I do better? 

Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William): Sure he 
can. 

Mr. MacDonald: I will turn to an ack- 
nowledged voice of Toryism. The Hamilton 
Spectator, which has been a regular and 
faithful exponent of Toryism and supporter 
of this party down through the years. A few 
weeks ago— as a matter of fact, on October 
18— W. F. Gold, an editorial writer for that 
paper, had an article under his byline. He 
came out and identified his authorship with 
his byline. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Is the member sure he 
is not NDP? 

Mr. MacDonald: I have often been im- 
pressed with his intelligence, and was more 
impressed when I read this. Therefore, what 
you say, I think, is not an impossibility. 
However, that is a decision he will have to 
make. However, let me quote Mr. Gold: 

Ontario's powerful Conservative machine 
is showing signs of running down. If the 
decline is not halted in the next 18 months 
it could reach fatal proportions by election 
time 1971. 

People have been making such dire pre- 
dictions, of course, ever since a rambunc- 
tious Col. George Drew re-established Tory 



156 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



rule at Queen's Park by a whisker in 1943. 
But the government is getting older now 
and more vulnerable. 

Ironically, as is the case with most aging 
administrations, die fault lies not so much 
in its conduct of the art of government as 
such, but in the gradually hardening atti- 
tudes, its general frame of mind, and its 
slowing, calcifying responses to the people. 

These latter characteristics were amply 
and repellingly demonstrated in this region 
just a few months ago as the government 
employed every political tactic in the book 
—short of telling the truth and really com- 
ing to grips with the issue— to circumvent, 
squash, mislead and generally head off an 
aroused public opinion over the question of 
the route of the Dundas bypass highway 
through the beautiful valley wilderness. 

This is the calcified approach that manifested 

itself once again, Mr. Speaker. 

Voters from other areas all over the 
province have similar stories to tell. They 
have run into arrogance and rigidity 
whether the point at issue was roads, grants 
or whatever. 

A feeling of general uneasiness is creep- 
ing into the party structure as well. Re- 
peated rumours are going the rounds that 
John Robarts plans to step down within a 
year. Certainly any man deserves to, after 
seven years in so rough a job. Yet from 
the pragmatic political standpoint, his de- 
parture may be necessary. 

Ontarians may have applauded his states- 
manship which led to the Confederation for 
Tomorrow conference but they are getting 
a little weary of lectures on public finance 
which he has begun to deliver in recent 
months. These speeches have in effect 
scolded the public for profligacy in its de- 
mands, thus missing the point that it was 
the Conservative government of the day 
which implemented these spending plans, 
often without any demand at all. Witness 
the homeowners' tax exemption which is 
costing $150 million this year. . . . 

And finally, 25 years is a long time. 
Normal political prudence would have dic- 
tated a very modest and almost silent cele- 
bration of that anniversary a few months 
ago. Instead, the assembled faithful pulled 
out the stops and made an enormous 
amount of noise, thus succeeding in re- 
minding everyone just exactly how old this 
somewhat tired government actually is. 

Its handling of patronage is becoming 
steadily more clumsy and capricious, and 



anachronisms like the dictatorial powers of 
the liquor board producing increasing re- 
sentment, and the signs of a change are too 
little, too late. 

More important is the lack of a coherent 
policy towards the large cities. Here the 
problem is basic comprehension, plain and 
simple. 

And if I may interject, it simply does not 

exist in the government ranks. 

The men in the power structure simply 
do not understand the functioning and 
problems of urban areas and this will cost 
them dearly. 

I put it on the record, Mr. Speaker; not my 

views of a paper which normally is quite 

friendly to this government. 

However, just one more bit so that the 
record will be complete. If I may go back 
to that Tory pocket borough of yesteryear, 
namely Victoria-Haliburton, I was most inter- 
ested to read a clipping that came over my 
desk from Lindsay. It is dated October 31, 
not very long ago, and says: 

Disenchantment with the Tory party in 
Ontario was clearly evident in remarks 
made by several speakers at the annual 
meeting Wednesday of the Victoria-Hali- 
burton riding P.C. Association. 

Ironically, most of the condemnation was 
voiced by three ex-wardens of Victoria 
county. These long-time staunch Tories 
took the government to task for dictatorial 
policies as well as high education and wel- 
fare costs. 

"In the past we had government serving 
the people, now governments have us serv- 
ing them," declared John Alton of Lorne- 
ville. "Men of the stature of John Diefen- 
baker and Leslie Frost made one feel proud 
to be a Tory. It was during their time as 
leaders that this country enjoyed its great- 
est progress," he maintained. Issuing a 
warning that "the people are ready for 
revolt"— 

Imagine! Victoria-Haliburton and the people 

are ready for revolt! 

—Reeve Wilbert Worsley of Fenelon town- 
ship declared, "The government is getting 
away from the people." 

And just to prove the point and cap the 
whole thing, the sitting member from the 
area is quoted thus: 

The long and arduous sessions of the 
Ontario Legislature were cited in a speech 
here Wednesday as one of the reasons why 
government is getting away from the 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



157 



people. "We ju9t don't have time to get 
together with the people any more," de- 
clared MPP Glen Hodgson, when address- 
ing the annual meeting of the Victoria- 
Haliburton riding P.C. Association. "Gov- 
ernment is getting to be business rather 
than serving die people." 

We are here for five months of the year, only 
five months of the year, and I tell this gov- 
ernment wc will be here longer before we 
are here shorter, make no mistake about it. 
Yet it is impossible for the Tories to have 
contact with the people. Let me tell you— 
we have no trouble in getting contact with 
the people, whether it is in Picton or you 
name it. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The hon. 
member can look inscrutable but he is not 
fooling us. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the Cab- 
inet members have all had their opportunity 
to have their say perhaps I can get back 
into the picture here. 

I would like to take briefly some examples, 
by way of documentation, of the insensitivity 
of this government, its failure to meet the 
needs of the people. I am not going to go 
into detail on them; my colleagues will have 
opportunity later in the Throne Debate and 
in the estimates to get into the detail. But 
let me start with that area with which this 
government is so preoccupied because it has 
traditionally been its area of strength— rural 
Ontario, the farmers. I was very interested 
that after the most careful examination of 
the new expropriation bill, which has just 
been brought before us, I found nothing in 
the expropriation bill to deal with the par- 
ticular problems that have been faced by 
agriculture in expropriation. 

Farmers are not just homeowners, and 
farmers are not just business men. And I 
suggest if you go back and look at the kind 
of thing that farmers have faced in terms of 
expropriation from The Department of High- 
ways, particularly in such events, for example, 
as the Pittock dam in the Woodstock area, 
there are peculiar problems with regard to 
expropriation. After such careful examina- 
tion of this issue, the government brings in 
a bill which reflects nothing of these par- 
ticular problems at all. We will have an 
opportunity a little later, Mr. Speaker, to 
look into this. 



If I may move on to a second point— this 
fall we have witnessed the spectacle of the 
United States authorities challenging exorbi- 
tant price increases in automobiles, and as a 
result of the pressure, we finally have a 
rollback in car prices. We in the New Demo- 
cratic Party have been trying to get the 
government in Ottawa to stop the kind of 
huffing and puffing that Mr. Sharp was en- 
gaged in for a time, but he would not follow 
through with any action; or to get this gov- 
ernment, through a prices review board, to 
look into the exorbitant price increases in 
the automobile industry, because most of it 
is right in this province. 

During the course of the past few months 
there has come out of Washington some fas- 
cinating evidence. For years nobody has ever 
been able to get from the automobile indus- 
try the cost of making cars, but that incor- 
rigible digger, Ralph Nader, has gotten the 
information and it is being submitted to a 
congressional committee under Senator Gay- 
lord Nelson's chairmanship in Washington, 
and now they are examining it. They have 
discovered that while the price increases are 
relatively acceptable as between the manu- 
facturer and his sales to the dealer, what 
happens on parts and other things is really 
scandalous. 

A four-door Galaxie 500, for example, costs 
the dealer 16.8 per cent more than it costs 
the builder to make, but optional equipment, 
usually amounting to a third of the selling 
price, was marked up anywhere between 
57.8 per cent and 293 per cent over cost, 
according to Nelson's figures. 

Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines): 
To the dealer? The markup is to the dealer? 

Mr. MacDonald: The dealer, who is the 
retailer. The markup to the dealer, right. I 
am sorry, I missed the significance of the 
Minister's interjection. The markup to the 
dealer for the car is 16 per cent, but on 
these parts, it is up to as high as 293 per 
cent, and this, of course, is where the great 
profits are made. 

What is this government going to do? 
What is the federal government going to do 
about this kind of a situation in Canada? Do 
we have to count on a certain situation in 
Washington being such as to force the presi- 
dent of the United States to move, so that 
we in Canada can get relief from this ex- 
orbitant gouging of the consumers? If the 
government at Ottawa signed a Canada-U.S. 
auto pact and is not willing to make certain 



158 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



that the consumers benefit as they are en- 
titled to benefit under that pact— after the 
management has benefitted from a $50 mil- 
lion handout, in effect, out of the public 
treasury— is this government willing to move 
in this kind of proposition? 

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): It is the 
federal government. 

Mr. MacDonald: It is not just the federal 
government. The federal government has 
some responsibility but this government can 
establish a prices review board and get at 
the facts and provide the facts to the public. 
This is what this government is unwilling to 
do. 

Let me read one other comment here in 
this news story. 

Despite requests by the Justice Depart- 
ment, the federal safety officials, the Auto- 
mobile Union and other organizations, 
General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have 
refused to voluntarily reveal the cost of 
building an auto. 

In other words we have to operate in the 
dark. We can do as we please with the 
inevitable, irresistible, increase each year in 
Canada, unjustified under the Canada-U.S. 
Auto Pact. I take the word of a former pro- 
vincial Finance Minister of this country, Mr. 
Sharp, when he was in that position. Here 
is one area where the government has simply 
walked away from its responsibilities. 

I move on to another area. All throughout 
the fall this government has sought to per- 
suade the federal government to go back 
on its Medicare commitment— even though it 
has taken us 50 years to get the Liberals to 
accept the Medicare commitment in this 
country. Always we are told it is going to 
cost too much. When is this government 
going to face the facts? The fact that this 
government is now subsidizing all of the high 
risks in the province of Ontario. Figures that 
became available from a survey last spring 
indicate that the total Ontario cost for Medi- 
care today, what is being paid by the gov- 
ernment and what is being paid by individuals, 
is $465 million. The total cost if we went 
into the federal Medicare Plan would be $450 
million. In other words, it would be less. 

I was interested just two or three weeks 
ago— October 23 to be exact^to find that 
somebody asked a question in the federal 
House with regard to the average per capita 
cost of physicians' services in this country. 
We have listened for the last two or three 
years to spokesmen of this government, 



saying that the total cost, most of which is 
made up in physicians' services, is in the 
range, in the province of Ontario, of some 
$48. We get into constant wrangling as to 
what are the accurate figures. 

Well, here is the latest little figure for you 
to take a look at. The average per capita 
cost of physicians' services in Canada in 1966, 
the latest year for which data was available, 
was $33.45, or $2.99 a month. On the basis 
of preliminary observations, it is estimated 
that the corresponding figure for January, 
1968, was $3.26 per month, or $39.12 for 
the year. 

Now, if you examine the breakdown for 
the provinces, for Ontario it is $35.55. If 
you project an increase to the beginning of 
1968, it will take you into the range of $40 
to $42. How does one square this with the 
$48 or the $50 figures which are going up 
each time this government uses them? I have 
given the most recent official figures. 

I suggest that this government is indulging 
in high figures for the purpose of scaring the 
public out of Medicare. It is an utterly shame- 
ful proposition that a Tory government should 
pretend to be in favour of Medicare and 
should be assisting the Liberals to get out of 
a commitment that it took them 50 years to 
have the guts to implement in statutes. And 
then to cap the climax, a week or so ago, 
we have still another increase in Medicare 
costs in the province of Ontario, with a uni- 
lateral, unnegotiated, increase in doctors' 
fees. I asked the Minister of Health yesterday 
whether he knew about it. He replied that he 
got a letter saying that it was going to be 
done. We have listened in this country to 
the federal and the provincial governments 
moan and groan about exorbitant increases 
that are inflationary and are wrecking our 
whole economy. There are great lectures 
delivered to the workers and to others, but 
the doctors do as they please and the Min- 
ister gets a letter telling him that it is done 
and nothing more happens. When I asked 
the Minister whether he feels it is a tolerable 
proposition to have to be handed unilaterally 
announced increases in fees from the profes- 
sion which is the highest paid profession in 
the province of Ontario, he says "we hope to 
work out some sort of an agreement with 
them". It is about time that this government 
had the courage to act on behalf of the 
people of the province of Ontario. It is 
simply because they have not got the cour- 
age to act on behalf of the people of the 
province of Ontario, and bow and scrape in 
front of every vested interest who dictates 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



159 



from behind the scenes, that you are crumb- 
ling in the eyes of the people of this province. 

Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre): 
Where is the Health Minister? 

Mr. MacDonald: Where is the Health Min- 
ister?— that is another good point. Let us 
take a look at the housing Minister because 
if there is any Minister who is bringing ques- 
tions and disrepute upon this government 
more than the hon. Minister of Trade and 
Development, I cannot figure whom it might 
be. The Minister is barnstorming, not only 
across the whole of the province of Ontario, 
but across the world. He is in Tokyo today, 
he is in Bonn tomorrow; when it is the job 
of somebody— and if not this Minister then 
let him get out of it and get somebody else 
to do it— to tackle the housing problem in 
the province. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. MacDonald: Is there anyone who has 
any doubt that this is to him? 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. MacDonald: I will tell you— in the 
last election we got within 800 votes in Dan 
Mills, so just go home and tend to your 
knitting because it cannot be attended to 
in Bonn or Tokyo. Mr. Speaker, I am not 
interested in the Minister's production of 
figures which are usually on the basis of a 
project in which has has given us two or 
three earlier sets of figures. The earlier sets 
of figures meant nothing and it is likely that 
the latest one will not mean anything. We 
have simply got to build houses in greater 
numbers in this province of Ontario. Until 
we do something about a vacancy rate, which 
in the metropolitan areas is cne, or less than 
one per cent, and until you have got over 
that problem, there is no point in this 
Minisur, who can sell refrigerators to 
Eskimos, or any other preposterous proposi- 
tion cf that nature, trying to kid the public 
that the housing situation has been solved— 
it has not. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: How many were built in 
Saskatchewan in 21 years? 

Mr. MacDonald: I am not interested in how 
many were built in Saskatchewan. I am inter- 
ested in how many you have not built in the 
province of Ontario, that is the important 
tiling. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. 



Mr. MacDonald: Does the Minister want 
the floor for a moment? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: No, go ahead. 

Mr. MacDonald: Let us take a look at 
another point in this Minister's department. 
We have only got to examine with great care 
the kind of abuse of the public treasury 
which this Minister is engaging in, in his 
so-called "forgiveness grants"— "forgiveness 
loans"— We desperately need a balance in 
economic development in the province of On- 
tario. There was a day when this government 
operated on the proposition that if some com- 
pany that happens to be a marginal company, 
but in the assessment of the appropriate offi- 
cers of this government, may well have had a 
contribution to make— if they cannot get their 
money from the traditional sources for capital, 
then let them come to the government and 
the government will assist them. 

That was a questionable proposition, be- 
cause it meant that the government under- 
wrote the worst risks, but at least the 
gjvernment was trying to build in those areas 
where we do not have economic development. 

Today we have a fatuous proposition. The 
richer the company is and the more resources 
it has, the more certain, this Minister told us 
just two days ago, it is that they can get a 
loan, a "forgiveness loan." 

Let us face a fundamental fact here, Mr. 
Speaker. If a company is going to build in 
any area it is going to build because there is 
a prospect for long-term profits. Otherwise, 
it is not going to go into it. And therefore, 
what it amounts to, in the instance of some 
of these well-established companies that have 
large reserves, is a straight hand-out of the 
public treasury that is not needed at all. If 
a company has got reserves of tens, or hund- 
reds of millions of dollars, this Minister is 
just handing out up to $500,000 which goes 
into private pockets; they do not need it any 
more than E. P. Taylor needs the $20,000 a 
year to train his horses. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. MacDonald: Well they have got most 
of the new factories. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. MacDonald: Talk to the Crane em- 
ployees in Port Hope, or talk to the company 
whose position I drew to the Minister's atten- 
tion earlier today where they got, I think, a 
grant in July for something over $200,000— 
I seek confirmation of the exact amount. They 



160 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



have laid off 60 people since they got the 
grant; they are in the process of further out- 
lays. What kind of a proposition is this? This 
is abuse of the public Treasury. 

This government is so penny pinching, it is 
examining with the greatest of care, grants to 
students. It examines with the greatest of 
care the overpayment of $75 or so in a wel- 
fare cheque, and it hounds that little man 
until he has paid it back. It has examined 
savings so carefully that out in the Whitby 
hospital, patients who are working in the hos- 
pital and were paid five to ten cents an hour, 
have now had their pay reduced to two cents 
an hour. It examines all these things so care- 
fully. Yet with reckless abandon it will hand 
$500,000 to a company to establish in some 
part of the province, when that company has 
reserves th^t are such that they have no need 
of the $500,000 at all. 

In short, Mr. Speaker, here is not only an 
indication of where the government is not 
fulfilling the objectives of a programme, it is 
abusing the public Treasury for its friends 
in the business world— American friends at 
that. 

Well we will take a further look at that at 
some later time. 

Interjections by lion, members. 

Mr. MacDonald: I will proceed to another 
point Mr. Speaker. For years, this govern- 
ment has refused to deal with sources of fric- 
tion in labour-management relations. Ten 
years ago, I happened to be a member of a 
select committee of this Legislature which 
made reports with regard to the streamlining 
and modernizing of The Labour Relations 
Act. I have said it many times before, but 
apparently it has to be said again— one of the 
unanimous recommendations was, for example, 
the getting rid of ex parte injunctions — a 
unanimity that was shared by eight Tory 
members, six of whom were in the Cabinet 
then, have been since, or are in the Cabinet 
now. 

What have they done about it? Nothing. 
Because people behind the scenes in the 
business and management world wanted to 
keep ex parte injunctions. A gross violation 
of British justice, and this government was 
willing to do it. Then last year, or two years 
ago when we had the Oshawa and the Tilco 
situation, and the injunction issue flared up 
and caused a great public furor, what did 
this government do? Did it dust off that 
ten -year- old unanimous recommendation 
about ex parte injunctions? No. 



It set up another Royal commission, and 
now we have backed into a set of proposals 
from an old gentleman whose mind is a legal 
mind, and who has produced a legal strait- 
jacket which is going to compound our diffi- 
culties and produce industrial strife instead 
of industrial peace in the province of Ontario 
if this government ever proceeds to imple- 
menting it. 

Twenty-five years ago, even the Tories 
recognized that labour-management relation- 
ships were basically a problem of human 
relationships— not legal questions. Therefore, 
they took the whole question of labour- 
management relationships out of the regular 
courts and put them in a special court widi 
labour and management and impartial chair- 
men sitting on that court. 

Now we will have a proposal which is the 
result of this government refusing to deal 
with the issue in light of recommendations 
from ten years ago. We now have a proposal 
from Mr. Justice Rand for a legal strait- 
jacket, which is going to get us into incom- 
parable difficulties. 

We saw some of these difficulties when 
we went down to Picton the other day. There 
we have a case of a management refusing to 
bargain in good faith throughout a whole 
year. This union was certified December 27 
last year. They even refused to grant the 
minimum wages which this government has 
finally implemented at disgracefully low 
levels. Even those low levels this company 
refuses to implement in a contract. 

Once again, because of the laws of this 
province, they have been able to invoke the 
whole weight of the court on their side 
through an injunction, and they are now in 
the process of breaking the union through the 
gradual replacement of its working force, and 
this government sits on the sidelines and does 
nothing about it. 

The government prattles about the impor- 
tance of unions while perpetuating laws 
which make it possible for recalcitrant man- 
agement to break legitimate collective bar- 
gaining units in areas where they are 
imposing sub-marginal wages. 

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of thing that 
the people in this province are not going to 
tolerate any longer. They are going to fight 
on the issue, and quite frankly when they 
fight, we in the New Democratic Party are 
going to be with them. 

I could go into the farm, into the welfare 
field, into the health field, into any field at 
all, and find the same kind of growing in- 
sensitivity to the needs of the people on the 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



161 



part of a government which is frustrated 
because of its commitments to vested interests, 
and cannot move to meet the needs of the 
people. 

That is the reason why the image of this 
government has deteriorated more and more 
in the last two or three months, and their 
friends are pointing it out clearly. We do 
not have to point it out. 

Mr. Speaker, if you wanted any further 
proof of the bankruptcy of this government, 
you have it in the Throne Speech— of all the 
vacuous documents! The Prime Minister said 
that they finalized the writing of the Throne 
Speech so late they did not have the time 
to get it translated into French in time for 
the opening day. For the life of me, I cannot 
figure out what this government was doing 
that they had to delay. Because there was 
nothing in the speech. 

It was contemptuously empty of sub- 
stance. So the result is that we in this Legis- 
lature, for the next two or three weeks have 
got to operate within a vacuum in a Throne 
Debate, guessing at what this government is 
going to do. 

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and I pass 
this on to the government rather seriously 
since it presumes it is the body most intent 
in protecting some of our old and historically 
honoured procedures, that a few more vacu- 
ous speeches like that, and a lot more people 
are going to be persuaded that it is time we 
got rid of some of the meaningless folderol 
of the opening day of the Legislature. 

It has been put on the record in this House, 
what people like Bill Rathbun— he has now 
been taken to the bosom of the government, 
so they must think he is a pretty good fellow 
—had to say about the empty procedures of 
this Legislature on its opening day, and to 
cap the climax, we have this kind of a 
Throne Speech. 

Mr. M. Gaunt ( Huron-Bruce ) : No wild 
river this year. 

Mr. MacDonald: No, not even the relief 
of wild rivers. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a 
few tilings that I want to say that might have 
been dealt with in the Throne Speech and I 
can assure you, whether they are in the 
Throne Speech or not, they are going to be 
dealt with in the course of this session. So 
I will proceed to them. We just hope that, 
with the expropriation bill, and some other 
things that are perhaps going to meet the 
needs of the people, the government will 
inject some substance into their vacuous pro- 
gramme so that we can spend our time a 



little bit more usefully between now and 
Christmas. 

The first topic that I want to touch upon, 
Mr. Speaker, has to do with the Indian situ- 
ation or the problems with relation to 
Indians in the province of Ontario. 

During the Throne Debate a year ago, I 
detailed at some length, the shameful con- 
ditions under which Canada's Indian popula- 
tion live and work. I placed on record 
proposals for a fundamentally new approach 
to Indian affairs which had just been ad- 
vanced by the Indian-Eskimo association 
with the apparent support and approval of 
the Ontario Union of Indians. 

These proposals involved an almost com- 
plete decentralization of the present responsi- 
bilities of the Indian Affairs branch in Ottawa 
to the provinces— indeed, all of the responsi- 
bilities, except those pertaining to treaties 
and lands. 

It was argued that if the social and eco- 
nomic welfare of our Indian population were 
to be more fully met, it could be done if 
programmes were worked out by the pro- 
vincial government, particularly since most 
of the resources— land, timber minerals, game, 
water, fish and hydro power— the keys to the 
welfare of Indians, lie within provincial 
jurisdiction. 

Unfortunately, during the past year, tra- 
gically little has been done to achieve this 
objective. At the moment, I do not want to 
go into the details of the programme. There 
will be other opportunities during this ses- 
sion and many of my colleagues will use 
them. 

My interest, at this time, is to consider the 
broad outlines of overall policy and the diffi- 
culties which lie in the way of achieving those 
changes concerning which there is a grow- 
ing consensus of support. 

Let me make this point first. Canada's 
treatment of its native Indian population has 
been such a shameful record that we have 
escaped the consequences of our action for 
longer than we deserve. The Indians have 
had the patience of the gods in face of grave 
injustices. As a people, they have been 
docile. But all that is rapidly coming to an 
end. Observers cannot have missed some 
rather significant changes in recent months. 

The normal orderly pattern of meetings 
has been disrupted by a vigorous protest of 
Indian leaders. They have demanded, and 
sometimes with too little grace, have been 
accorded a place on agendas designed to 
consider their plight. 



162 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Cabinet Ministers, both federal and pro- 
vincial, have been sharply confronted both in 
meetings and hotel lobbies. At long last, 
Indian leaders are no longer docile. There 
is a ferment and unrest which carries the 
clear warning that either governments grapple 
more effectively with Indian problems, par- 
ticularly by granting Indians greater oppor- 
tunities to shape their own destiny, or Can- 
ada is going to experience the same kind of 
violent protest which has emerged in many 
other countries with minority groups. 

Speaking in Burlington early in October, 
Omer Peters, who is both president of the 
Ontario Union of Indians and president of 
the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada 
bluntly warned that organized militant Can- 
adian Indians are teaching riot instigation 
techniques all across the country. Red power 
groups are emerging. There is grave danger 
that solutions will soon be made all the more 
difficult because of their activity. Time is 
running out. Already we face the prospect of 
having to pay a heavy price for years, dec- 
ades, even centuries of neglect and procras- 
tination, and at our peril can we delay any 
longer? 

As one news report put it: "Get off my 
back, white man," was the message coming 
through the politics and intrigue of the con- 
ference of the Indian-Eskimo Association held 
in Toronto here this fall. 

At the federal level, Mr. Speaker, there 
has been an unprecedented re-examination of 
government policy. Chretien, Andras and 
Co. have conducted seminars with native 
people all across the country. This whole 
process has been shadowed by a growing 
feeling among Indians and Eskimos that once 
again Ottawa is going paternalistically to 
decide what should be done with our native 
peoples, committing once again the fatal 
error. Whatever is done must be done for 
the most part, by decision of the Indians 
themselves. 

But it is too early to prejudge what will 
come of this fundamental review. Native 
peoples are hopeful and their hopes still out- 
weigh their apprehensions. Their mood is 
perhaps summed up in the comment of one 
Indian leader, "If this is another snow job, 
it will be the last one." 

Let me, however, turn to the Ontario gov- 
ernment situation because it is our immediate 
concern. Here the apprehensions are not 
relieved by any significant measure of hope. 

Perhaps I can best set the context of my 
criticisms of this government's failure and 
intolerable procrastination by quoting for 



hon. members, the remarks of the president 
of the Ontario Indian-Eskimo Association at 
its recent annual meeting. The gentleman in 
question is the Reverend John A. MacKenzie, 
an active Progressive Conservative, who un- 
successfully sought the federal nomination of 
his party in a central Toronto riding last 
spring. 

This is what Mr. MacKenzie had to say: 

While there are signs that the federal 
government is beginning to re-evaluate its 
policies with the involvement of Indians 
and recognize that policies must be imple- 
mented on the terms of the Indians and 
not the white man, we are increasingly dis- 
turbed by the failure of the government of 
Ontario to fulfill its role. 

The Indian Development Branch of The 
Department of Social and Family Services 
has been in operation for over two years. 
The stated position of the Ontario govern- 
ment is to recognize Indians as one of 
many ethnic groups, but to treat them 
the same as all other groups. Furthermore, 
Prime Minister Robarts recently stated that 
his government intends to integrate Indians 
into Ontario society. 

The position of Ontario fails to recog- 
nize that almost all other ethnic groups in 
Canada come from a western culture while 
Indians have a qualitatively different, and 
perhaps unique, cultural heritage. The 
first step for progress in Ontario is the 
unequivocal recognition of these differ- 
ences which include the recognition of a 
special status for Indians because of their 
treaty rights. 

The Indian-Eskimo Association has re- 
peatedly made known to the government 
our position (and that of the Union of On- 
tario Indians) that community development 
should be removed from direct government 
control, and that a Crown corporation be 
set up which would be administered in 
ways which are consistent with the value 
systems of Indians in Ontario. 

The government has informed us that 
they were listening but that they want to 
implement and test the programme which 
they have had under way for two years. 
We feel that we must now raise some 
questions about the existing programmes in 
Ontario. 

Despite repeated criticisms by Indian 
people, some community development offi- 
cers continue to operate out of the offices 
which administer welfare programmes. 
This means that the local community de- 
velopment officer is identified in the minds 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



163 



of the people as having a particular task 
which is related to welfare. This places 
him in a position whereby he cannot relate 
freely to all aspects of community life. 

An Indian advisory board has been 
established by the Ontario Department of 
Social and Family Services. The terms of 
reference of the board are somewhat con- 
fusing to many Indian people in that the 
distinction between an advisory board and 
a decision making body has not been 
clearly interpreted to the native peoples. 

There has been concern expressed that 
recommendations of the advisory board 
have not been adequately acted upon by 
the department. There is further con- 
fusion on the use of the advisory boards. 
Policies affecting them should be discov- 
ered and developed in ways which include 
the community in the decision-making. 
The government of Ontario has made it 
clear to the people in the Kensington area 
in downtown Toronto that no urban re- 
newal would take place without their 
direct participation in the decision-making 
process. This same principle must be rec- 
ognized in working with Indian communi- 
ties in Ontario. The people who live in 
the community must play the dominant 
role in making the decisions which affect 
their lives. 

That is the end of my quote from Mr. Mac- 
Kenzie for the moment, Mr. Speaker. But 
from these criticisms of general attitudes of 
the government, Mr. MacKenzie then pro- 
ceeded to specifics. He pointed out that the 
establishment of the Indian Development 
Branch and the subsequent appointment of 
community development officers has provided 
the Indians with new means of expressing 
their needs and developing initiatives to 
meet them. But consistently the government 
has said "NO", with a capital N-O to re- 
quests for financial assistance to fulfill the 
initiatives once the Indians have taken them. 

Consider the record. The Indians sought 
grants to support folk-school projects which 
are obviously vitally important in their effort 
to strengthen their cultural heritage and 
thereby rebuild their self-esteem as a people. 
The government refused. 

The Indian Hall of Fame at the CNE is 
an obvious symbol of our desire to restore 
the Indian to his rightful place in our his- 
tory. Grants were sought for this purpose. 
The government refused. 

A grant was sought for the Canadian Indian 
Workshop at Waterloo. The government 
refused. 



If the current review of The Indian Act by 
the federal government is to reflect the views 
of the Indians themselves, as it must, it was 
important that representations by Ontario 
Indians be made as effective as possible. The 
Union of Ontario Indians sought a one-time 
grant for a field work project to assist in this 
critically important endeavour. The govern- 
ment refused. 

There is a growing concern about the plight 
of these Indians who have left the reserves 
and flocked to the cities. An action research 
project designed to assist migrant Indian 
people receiving the joint support of the 
Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Coun- 
cil, the Indian Affairs Branch, the Toronto 
Indian Centre and the Ontario Division of 
the Indian-Eskimo Association. In spite of 
this collective effort by, and on behalf of the 
Indians, the government refused financial 
assistance. 

Having encouraged Indian initiative, Mr. 
Speaker, this government consistently frus- 
trates its fulfillment. The resulting situation, 
I suggest to you, is almost more dangerous 
than if the government had done nothing to 
begin with. Mr. MacKenzie concluded in his 
annual report to the Ontario IEA: 

The time has come for the Ontario gov- 
ernment to reconsider its policies with re- 
gard to the Indians before it is too late. 
The first step, by necessity, must be open- 
ing up channels of communication be- 
tween Indian communities and government 
branches and departments. It must be 
recognized that the Indians are adamant 
about their involvement in the decision- 
making process. 

That is the end of Mr. Mackenzie's comment. 

Mr. Speaker, that critique by an organiza- 
tion which works closely with Indians, is 
both fundamental and far-reaching. I can 
do no better than present the representations 
of the Indian-Eskimo Association at the 
length to which I have done, because they 
are authoritative. And without hesitation, I 
say that they have the solid backing of the 
Ontario New Democratic Party. 

Before the government sloughs all this off 
with that unctuous bravado for which the 
chairman of the Cabinet committee on Indian 
affairs— the hon. Minister of Social and Family 
Affairs (Mr. Yaremko)— is so renowned, let me 
remind you that essentially the same criticisms 
have been expressed in this Legislature by 
government members. 



164 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



For example, speaking in the Throne 
Debate last session, the hon. member for 
Kenora stated: 

The consensus in northwestern Ontario 
is that too often policies and programmes 
are based on ideas originating in the ad- 
ministrative centres of Ottawa and Toronto, 
and lack the residents' insight into the 
problem. The difficulties encountered and 
the failure rate of such policies and pro- 
grammes attest to the validity of these 
views. 

Later, the hon. member for Kenora referred 
to the agreements by which the responsi- 
bilities for Indian affairs now resting with 
the federal government might be transferred 
to the provincial government. And he pointed 
out, and I quote: 

Under the existing agreement, very little 
authority has been transferred from the 
federal to the provincial government. The 
transition is difficult, but one may question 
whether there is enough effort being made 
at the provincial level to speed up the 
process. 

In seconding the motion in reply to the 
Speech from the Throne last week, the hon. 
member for Fort William declared that there 
are too many organizations and individuals 
with "do-gooding" inclinations getting in- 
volved in Indian problems, and then he 
gratuitously insulted them all by asserting 
that they were simply seeking publicity for 
themselves. 

Let me assert, Mr. Speaker, that the prize 
"do-gooder" in the picture at the moment is 
the Minister of Social and Family Services 
who chairs the ineffectual Cabinet committee 
on these matters. In fact, I know of no more 
professional "do-gooder" than he. He posi- 
tively drips it. 

However, the Minister's actions merely 
symbolize a government policy which is 
basically misconceived, so let us take a look 
at the government's policy itself. Tjie Prime 
Minister tends to blunt criticism of the prov- 
ince's inaction by the facile assertion that 
Ontario is willing to assume responsibility 
for meeting the Indian needs, that the road- 
block to progress is in Ottawa, that we cannot 
get agreements with them. 

In the Throne Speech last year, the Prime 
Minister stated that perhaps it would be 
necessary to point out where the difficulties 
have arisen, why we have been blocked in 
doing what we set out to do and what we 
want to do. May I say to the Prime Minister 
that there is nothing blocking this govern- 
ment except its well-developed capacity to 



dream up excuses why it cannot and should 
not act. 

There is a mythology regarding Indian 
affairs which must be destroyed. It has been 
widely believed, precisely because govern- 
mental authorities have propagated the belief, 
that Indian affairs are primarily a federal 
matter. Constitutional and legal experts have 
dismissed this contention as a mis-reading of 
the BNA Act. The BNA Act states that the 
federal government shall be responsible for 
Indian lands and treaties; it says nothing 
about services to the Indians, whether they 
be education, welfare or economic develop- 
ment. Under the constitution, Ontario has 
concurrent responsibilities and, indeed, it has 
an obligation to serve Indian peoples as 
citizens of this province as much as anybody 
else. There are no road blocks, other than 
the government's lack of will to get on with 
the job. 

Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is the ever- 
present problem of money. The Ontario 
government argues that it will assume these 
responsibilities if Ottawa will provide the 
equivalent revenues to do the job. Here, 
once again, we have a desperately urgent 
problem which is the victim of constitutional 
wrangling over the responsibility for action. 

Again I assert to the government: You 
have concurrent responsibility, so get moving! 
After all that this country has done to the 
Indians, there is nothing more demeaning 
and dangerous than further delay because of 
the cost involved. 

With regard to the expenditures, may I 
remind the hon. members that the Haw- 
thome-Tremblay study on Indian affairs 
points out, and it is to be found on page 
164, that the per capita expenditure on 
Canadians in general by government is $740. 
The per capita expenditure on Indians is less 
than half the national average. It is $300. 

So let us not talk as though spending more 
money on Indians is going to put them into 
a favoured class. They are the recipients of 
less than half of the expenditure of govern- 
ment compared with the national average. 
Let us cut out this shameful procrastination. 

Furthermore, let us face a basic fact with 
regard to the so-called Cabinet committee on 
Indian affairs. It is not a Cabinet committee. 
It is a committee on which a half dozen 
Cabinet Ministers sit, which has become an 
integral part of The Department of Social 
and Family Services, with its responsible 
officers answerable to the Minister and dep- 
uty of that department. It has been locked 
into that department so that it cannot fulfill 



NOVEMBER 26, 1968 



165 



the co-ordinating role which is its purpose. 
The very fact, so vigorously deplored by the 
Indian-Eskimo Association, that community 
development officers have to work out of 
the welfare offices across the province, is but 
one of the unfortunate results that flow from 
this. 

This government steadfastly refuses to 
acknowledge the basic necessities in structur- 
ing a Cabinet committee if it is to be effec- 
tive. Professor Krueger pointed them out some 
years ago in his study of chaotic situations 
with regard to regional development in this 
province. 

To be effective, he pointed out, a Cabinet 
committee must be under the direction of a 
full-time person who has deputy Minister 
status and who is answerable directly to the 
Prime Minister. Otherwise, its work staggers 
along under the direction of a Minister who 
is already overloaded with his departmental 
work, and who has not the power to effect 
co-ordination, day in and day out, of the 
responsibilities which fall under a number of 
other Ministers. 

The only man who can achieve that kind 
of effective co-ordination is a full-time per- 
son acting in the name and with the power 
of the Prime Minister of the province. I say 
this with regard to the Cabinet committee or 
any other committee that this government 
establishes. You simply cannot have effective 
Cabinet committees on the basis that the 
government has been operating them in the 
past. 

To sum up, therefore, there are a number 
of guidelines to policy and action in coping 
with Indian affairs. 

F;irst, set up an effective Cabinet commit- 
tee, under the direction of a competent per- 
son with deputy Minister status answerable 
directly to the Prime Minister. 

Second, treat the Indians as citizens of this 
province, and not as wards of the paternal- 
istic Great White Father in Ottawa. Let the 
province exercise the responsibilities which 
it has to serve Indians as well as all other 
citizens, and let there be no further delays 
while the endless negotiations with Ottawa 
drag on. 

Finally, and most important of all, let us 
proceed to the setting up of regional Crown 
corporations, with full Indian involvement 
in their direction, to work out and implement 
programmes of all kinds— educational, retrain- 
ing, welfare, economic, development. In my 



view, northwestern Ontario is ready for the 
establishment of such a regional development 
council right now. Indeed there are units 
in operation within that part of the province 
which the hon. member for Kenora put on 
the record last year, and which logically fit 
into the direction of an overall regional de- 
velopment council. The piecemeal expendi- 
tures of all departments should be pooled 
through this one body, which will operate in 
the name of the whole government, with the 
Indians directly involved at the regional and 
local level in the decision-making process for 
programmes which are designed to help them. 

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a repetition 
of my first remarks. Time is running out. 
Either we act quickly to remove the national 
shame which has characterized our treatment 
of the Indians in the past, or the difficulties 
in solving Indian problems will become be- 
devilled by red power, with all its irration- 
ality and violence, born of years of frustra- 
tion and neglect. So the challenge to this 
government is to move now and not wait for 
two more years to find out how their present 
programmes are going to work out, when the 
judgment of many people who are authori- 
tative in the field is that they simply are not 
working out. 

Perhaps you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, 
to move the adjournment of the House. I was 
about to move into another section— 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: On the debate? 

Mr. MacDonald: Of the debate, rather. My 
apologies. 

Mr. Nixon: The hon. member is three years 
ahead. 

Mr. MacDonald: It is the will to win. I 
cannot contain it. 

Mr. MacDonald moves the adjournment of 
the debate. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr. 
Speaker, tomorrow we will resume this 
debate. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment 
of the House. 

Motion agreed to. 

The House adjourned at 6.00 o'clock p.m. 



No. 7 




ONTARIO 



^Legislature of Ontario 




OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION 



Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature 



Wednesday, November 27, 1968 



Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C. 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C. 



THE QUEEN'S PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 



|£iigpMB 5 



Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto. 



CONTENTS 



Wednesday, November 27, 1968 

Universities commission, bill to establish, Mr. T. Reid, first reading 169 

Highway Traffic Act, bill to amend, Mr. Ben, first reading 169 

Ontario human rights code, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Ben, first reading 169 

Election Act, bill to amend, Mr. Young, first reading 170 

Ontario Water Resources Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading .... 170 

Introducing Mr. Paul Burgi, MP, of the federal Parliament of Switzerland, Mr. Speaker 170 

Organized crime in Ontario, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon and Mr. Young 171 

OMSIP for Indians in Ontario, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Nixon 172 

EIO loan to Matthews Conveyor Co. in Port Hope, questions to Mr. Randall, 

Mr. MacDonald 173 

Air pollution at Canada Electric Castings Ltd., questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. MacDonald 173 

Capital gains tax for land speculation, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Deans 174 

Sunnybrook Hospital, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Shulman 174 

Laboratory examination of diabetics' blood, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Shulman ... 174 

Thistletown OHC complex, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 174 

OMA fee schedule, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Lewis 175 

State of children's teeth in Nipigon, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Stokes 175 

Junior farmer loans, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Gaunt 176 

Meat inspection in northern Ontario, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Shulman 176 

Crop insurance in Rainy River district, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. T. P. Reid 176 

Truck traffic behaviour on QEW, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Deans 178 

Motor vehicle racing on highways, question to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Shulman 178 

Tourist reception centre in Windsor, questions to Mr. Auld, Mr. B. Newman 178 

Maximum rentals for OHC housing projects, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. B. Newman 179 
Government policy re regional government and urban development, questions to 

Mr. Randall, Mr. Pitman 179 

Rents geared to income, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Ben 180 

Taxi licences in Metro, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 181 

Wire tapping devices, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 181 

Mrs. Dorothy Gertrude Davis, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 182 

Intermittent closing of Lake Shore Road, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Shulman 182 

Transportation facilities in Metro, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. T. Reid 183 

Highway construction, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. R. S. Smith . ..:.... 183 

Fallow deer on Peche Island, question to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Burr 184 

Workmen's compensation coverage for MPPs, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. Martel 184 

Cost of publicizing the tax rebate programme, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Innes 184 

CNE-Lakeshore auto race track, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Shulman 184 

Fecunis Mines, question to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Martel 185 

News release of family reunion, questions to Mr. Root, Mr. Breithaupt 186 

Liquor control board, question to Mr. Welch, Mr. Sopha 186 

Gifts to Nigeria-Biafra, statement by Mr. Robarts 186 

Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. MacDonald 187 

Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 203 

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 203 



LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 



169 



Wednesday, November 27, 1968 



The House met at 2.30 o'clock p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to 
have visitors to the Legislature and today we 
welcome as guests students from the follow- 
ing schools: in the east gallery, from East- 
dale Vocational School, Toronto, and Emery 
Junior High School, Weston: and in the west 
gallery, from Highland Heights Public School, 
Agincourt, and St. Gregory's Separate School, 
Islington. Later this afternoon there will l>e 
students from St. Michael's Separate School, 
Dunnville, in the west gallery. 

Petitions. 

Presenting reports. 

Motions. 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves 
that on Friday, November 29 only the House 
will meet at 10 a.m. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: In explanation of the 
motion, this is in connection with the honour- 
ing of the 150th anniversary of the birth of 
George Brown. I might say also that the 
usual business of the House will be sus- 
pended—that includes questions, motions, in- 
troduction of bills, and so on. As I explained 
yesterday, we will deal only with this par- 
ticular function, and then move outside to 
proceed with the programme; but the normal 
business of the House will be suspended on 
Friday. 

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills. 



UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION 

Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East) moves first 
reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish 
the universities commission. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of 
the bill is to establish an independent uni- 
versities commission containing representation 
from the government, universities, and the 
community, to allocate the grants of public 



money and to act in an inter-university ad- 
visor}' capacity. 

The basic purpose, Mr. Speaker, is to 
assure the citizens and the taxpayers in this 
province that the large amount of money 
now being spent in our universities is being 
wisely and efficiently spent. The purpose 
of this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, is to fix 
the responsibility for the allocation of these 
funds in an independent commission, that is 
to say, a commission that is not a government 
department. I believe that this would be an 
efficient way of allocating the funds and of 
securing greater university co-operation. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum- 
be r has the floor. 

THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT 

Mr. G. Ben (Humber) moves first reading 
of bill intituled, An Act to amend The High- 
way Traffic Act. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, this bill requires 
that all new automobiles have a log book in 
which are recorded all the repairs to the 
car and after each repair a certificate that 
the motor vehicle is roadworthy. It will also 
record the mileages at which repairs are made 
and automobiles are sold. 

THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS 
CODE, 1961-1962 

Mr. Ben moves first reading of bill in- 
tituled, An Act to amend The Ontario Human 
Rights Code, 1961-1962. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this 
bill is to amend the provision, or wipe out 
the provision, which enables educational in- 
stitutions and other institutions receiving 
government funds to practice discrimination 
in their hiring, such as for instance, the 
University of Toronto. 

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I 
had thought that I had caught your eye and 
that that white glove was pointing right in 
mv direction. 



170 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum- 
tar had been on his feet at the same time as 
the previous member of the Opposition. 



THE ELECTION ACT 

Mr. Young moves first reading of bill 
intituled, An Act to amend The Election Act. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of 
this bill is to reduce the age of persons who 
may vote at provincial elections, from 21 
years to 18 years. 



THE ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES 
COMMISSION ACT 

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first 
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend 
The Ontario Water Resources Commission 
Act. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose 
of this bill is to prevent eutrophication of 
water courses. 

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, 
I would like to acknowledge and bring to 
the attention of the members present, the 
presence here of a member of the federal 
Parliament of Switzerland, Mr. Paul Burgi, 
MP, who is in the Speaker's gallery. He is 
accompanied by Consul General for Switzer- 
land in Toronto, Mr. George Falquier, by 
Dr. Peter Welti of the General Auditing Co. 
in Switzerland, and Mr. Paul Stutz, also of 
Zurich, Switzerland. 

I am sure that your recognition of this 
visiting parliamentarian will be appreciated 
by him. I hope that he will not only be 
interested but learn something from the pro- 
ceedings of this House of Parliament. 

Before we proceed to the questions which 
normally come at this time of the day, I 
would like to advise the members that to- 
day, we will try a new system of questions. 
The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. 
Nixon) will, as usual, ask his questions first 
—such questions that he has; followed by 
the leader of the New Democratic Party, the 
hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac- 
Donald). Then we will have questions from 
the members directed to Ministers and de- 
livered to the Ministers in the order in which 
they stand on the table of precedence in the 
Executive Council. We will see whether this 



works any better toward allowing the Min- 
isters to get off to work. We will see how 
it works and if it does not work as well as 
the other, we will go back. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! 

May I say that this is a decision taken 
only by Mr. Speaker. I have not consulted 
the leaders of any of the parties and I do 
not intend to. If it works well and it should, 
that is fine. It will only work well if. the 
hon. members will give it a fair trial. 

Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and 
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, on a point of 
privilege. Yesterday I was absent from the 
House, in my office, and was unable to be 
present during the course of the remarks of 
the leader of the Opposition, which I have 
since read as set out in the speech he has 
given out and as reported in the press. 

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Opposition 
distributed his speech, which I assume he 
read in this House, and I shall only refer to 
one portion thereof. In reference to the work 
of the children's aid societies, he said the 
following: 

First let me say that the research on 
this subject was done with great hardship 
because the Minister's office or people 
under his direction have warned societies 
that they are not to discuss programmes 
financed by the government without clear- 
ing such discussions with the department. 

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a 
point of order, might the Minister indicate 
whether this is a point of order or a point 
of privilege that he is rising on? 

Mr. Speaker: The hon Minister- 
Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. Minister is 
quite within his rights if he proposes to in- 
dicate that the excerpt which he is now read- 
ing from, I presume, Hansard, or the speech, 
is not a correct statement so far as he is 
concerned. 

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The leader of the Op- 
position proceeded to state, as a statement of 
fact, "This is an unheard of abuse by the 
department" and so on in very colourful, 
uncomplimentary language. 

That speech was reported. I am glad to 
see that some of the hon. members- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. Minister will 
proceed with his point of order. 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



171 



Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This matter was re- 
ferred to in the Toronto Telegram of today, 
as follows: 

Mr. Nixon said research has been diffi- 
cult because the Minister (John Yaremko) 
or people under him had given orders to 
the societies not to talk. 

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the 
leader of the Opposition is completely— 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I deny it categorically. 
The leader of the Opposition is off base com- 
pletely. I was surprised to see that a man- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! If the hon. Minister 
wishes to point out that in his opinion, and 
from the facts available to him, the hon. 
leader of the Opposition was in error in his 
statements he is entitled to do so, but he is 
not entitled to attack the hon. leader of the 
Opposition at this point. 

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, I rest my 
case: I categorically deny— 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi- 
tion): Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, or 
point of privilege as it has been stated, may I 
suggest to the Minister that he undertake 
some inquiry as to why the officials of various 
children's aid societies and other branches 
that come under his jurisdiction have indi- 
cated to me and to my researchers that they 
must clear any conversations with the Oppo- 
sition with the Minister's office. 

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, I point 
out to you— 

Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr. 
Speaker, on a point of order, may I represent 
to you that you are permitting a debate to 
commence in this House which is out of 
order? 

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. mem- 
ber for Windsor West. He is quite correct in 
what he has stated, and I would ask the hon. 
leader of the Opposition now to place his 
question. 

An hon. member: The last word may be 
out of order, but get the last word. 

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): There is 
no reason why we cannot learn a few things 
from hon. members opposite. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 
for the Attorney General, if we can get 
through the interruptions from the other side: 



What steps will be taken to investigate the 
statement made by the United States Federal 
Bureau of Investigation that Stefano Magad- 
dino of Niagara Falls, New York, is "an over- 
lord of crime" in southern Ontario? 

Does the Attorney General intend to send 
a representative to the United States to con- 
sult with the FBI so that all facts are avail- 
able to officials in Ontario? 

Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr. 
Speaker, we have a continuous exchange of 
information with the FBI and many other 
police agencies, we— 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York- 
view has a similar question or questions. 
Would the hon. Attorney General allow the 
other question to be placed? Perhaps he can 
deal with the whole matter at once. 

Mr. Young: My question is whether in view 
of the comments of officials of the FBI as re- 
ported in today's Toronto Star that Mafia 
activities are expanding into Ontario, does the 
Attorney General wish to revise his comments 
given in reply to my question yesterday? 

In the light of the FBI statements, what 
actions does the Minister contemplate? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the police 
commission, through the Ontario Provincial 
Police and police agencies generally in On- 
tario have complete exchange of information 
with the FBI and many other police agencies. 
They are aware and have been aware of the 
activities of the Magaddino people in Ontario. 
There have been convictions and prosecutions 
of these people, and we are kept fully aware. 
The FBI knows and our people know of the 
efforts of the criminal elements in the United 
States to come into southern Ontario and 
other parts of Ontario. This is why this in- 
formation flows freely between the police 
forces. 

There is no answer to the second part of 
the question, and I am not taking any 
further steps to investigate, because we have 
a very capable and very efficient intelligence 
agency, and there is a complete exchange of 
information. I will not say that we know 
everything that criminals do at the moment 
they do it, but there is the most complete 
exchange of information. 

As to the question from the hon. member 
for Yorkview, I have no reason to change the 
nature of the content of the answer I gave 
yesterday, in answer to this question. This 
was a question as to whether the reference 
in some speculative article— in the New York 



172 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Times apparently— that there have been ex- 
changes between criminal elements in the 
United States which, apparently, in the view 
of someone in the federal government of the 
United States, related to the eastern part of 
Canada. 

I said we have no reason to believe that 
has reference to Ontario. We still have rea- 
son to think that that was a reference to 
Montreal, and it was not related to the 
Magaddinos. It was the Bonanos up there. 
My answer stands exactly as I gave it yester- 
day. 

Mr. Nixon: If the Attorney General will 
permit me a couple of questions. 

He is aware that at noon today the police 
chief of Toronto, Mr. Mackey, was reported 
as having said that one of the principal links 
between the betting community in Toronto 
and the Mafia was through the organization 
that was discussed in my question— that was 
controlled, apparently by Mr. Magaddino. 
What of that? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, I am aware, Mr. 
Speaker, that they are involved to a certain 
degree, in certain areas of gaming. But they 
are not overlords of crime in this province. 

Those activities of which we are aware, 
where they give grounds for prosecution— 
these things are followed up. 

Mr. Nixon: Well, I might just- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! If the hon. member 
wishes to place a question, or a supple- 
mentary question, he is entitled to, but he 
is not entitled to get up and make a speech. 
It is right that the rules should be observed 
on both sides of this House. The hon. leader 
of the Opposition has a further question from 
yesterday of the Minister of Health. 

Interjection by an hon. member. 

Mr. Nixon: He is trying to get into your 
good graces. 

Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Health I 
would like to— 

Mr. Speaker: Order! The Speaker is quite 
aware of the feelings on both sides of the 
House but he does certainly take objection to 
observations such as the hon. leader has 
made. I would hope that there would not 
be any repetition of it. 

Mr. Nixon: I apologize for that, Mr. 
Speaker, and withdraw it. 

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the 
Minister of Health. Will the Minister explain 



the position of the government in providing 
subsidized OMSIP for Indians on and off 
reservations in Ontario? 

Hon. M. B. Dymond ( Minister of Health ) : 
Mr. Speaker, OMSIP is available to all resi- 
dents of Ontario. It is available to people 
of Indian extraction or Indian blood living 
off the reservations exactly the same as to 
any resident. 

For Indians on the reservation the federal 
government has traditionally claimed this as 
their responsibility and we look to the federal 
government to provide the financing, so that 
Indians living on reservations can have the 
same privilege in this respect as any citizen 
of Ontario. 

Because of the present dialogue between 
the two levels of government we, in Ontario, 
have made it clear to all Indians that OMSIP 
is readily available to them. We have served 
notice on the federal government that they 
will be held responsible for the financing of 
this. 

To that end the Minister of National 
Health and Welfare, I understand — and I 
emphasize this "I understand" — was to set 
up a task force to look into this entire matter 
and find a resolution of the problem for all 
time. 

Mr. Nixon: Might I ask a supplementary 
question, Mr. Speaker, with the Minister's 
permission? 

It is true, then, to say that no Indians on 
reserve at the present time are covered with 
the OMSIP programme? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, I do not believe it 
would be true to say that, Mr. Speaker, be- 
cause I believe some Indians have applied 
for OMSIP on their own, as they have been 
applying for other medical services insurance. 
I do not think it is widely spread, but on 
certain reservations the Indians do have it. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on November 
25 in this House, as recorded in Hansard, 
pages 109 and 110; with regard to the Proctor- 
Silex strike in Picton, I would like to point 
out the following matter of personal privilege. 

My leader stated as follows, 

We sent our representatives to a union meeting 
[at Proctor-Silex in Picton]. The member for Scar- 
borough East represented the Liberal Party at that 
meeting. He was in contact with labour leaders, 
leaders in the community. He came back with a re- 
port that led us, as Liberals, to support the strikers 
in this particular negotiation. 

On a point of personal privilege, Mr. 
Speaker, on page 110 the member for Brant- 
for (Mr. Makarchuk) stated, 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



173 



The leader of the Opposition is, Mr. Speaker, mis- 
leading the House. The representative from the Lib- 
eral Party was not at that meeting. 

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote directly 
from the Belleville Intelligencer of October 3, 
1968, to show that I certainly was there. 

The Liberal critic for economics and 

development visited Picton yesterday— 

That was October 2. I would like to point 
out that the NDP did not get there until 
November 23. 

—at the request of Robert Nixon, leader 
of the Opposition. He was accompanied 
by Nixon's executive assistant, John Morrit, 
and after the meeting with union officials 
and discussing the current situation, the 
Liberal visitors were extremely critical of 
the company's stand. 

They discussed the situation with George 
Hutchens, Canadian IUE president, Jim 
Donofrio, union representative. Dm Neil- 
son, president of the local United Fanners' 
Union, and Dr. Lionel Dockrill, Picton 
town councillor. 

Mr. Speaker, I was there and I was there a 
good six weeks before the NDP got there. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order! 

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. 
Speaker, I will not enter the debate, but we 
were there many, many times in advance of— 

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is 
on his feet to ask a question. 

Mr. MacDonald: I have three questions, 
Mr. Speaker, from yesterday. T,he Ministers 
are present, two of them I can ask; the third 
I shall retain, Mr. Speaker. 

The first one is to the Minister of Trade 
and Development. When was a "forgiveness 
loan" extended to Matthews Conveyor Co. 
in Port Hope? For what amount was the 
loan? Is the Minister aware that since receiv- 
ing the loan the company has laid off 50 
workers and further layoffs are currently 
under way? Do the conditions of the "for- 
giveness loan" permit cutbacks in the work 
force? 

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni- 
cipal Affairs): The hon. member asked it 
yesterday. 

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, but I did not get an 

answer. 

Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and 
Development): Mr. Speaker, the equalization 



of industrial opportunity loan extended to 
Matthews Conveyor Co. in Port Hope was 
approved by Order-in-Council on March 7, 
1968, and the amount of the loan is $193,033. 

The company informs ODC that the cur- 
rent layoffs at the plant are of a temporary 
nature. It is confidently expected that over the 
term of the EIO loans, substantial increases 
in employment will occur. If it became 
evident over a period of time that the com- 
pany in receipt of a forgiveable loan is not 
achieving the purposes for which the loan 
was given, then the ODC has the right to 
require the payment of any portion of the 
loan which has not been forgiven. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a supple- 
mentary question. Do the conditions normally 
implicit in such a loan involve no lay-offs? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: No, I do not know how 
it can. How can any manufacturer say that 
five years from now he will not have a turn- 
down of business and have to lay people off? 

I do not have a crystal ball. I do not think 
even you could do that. 

Interjection by an hon. member. 

Mr. MacDonald: It will be interesting to 
review the implementation of this in the 
future. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! The hon. mem- 
ber will proceed with his questions. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a question 
of the Minister of Health. 

Has the Minister received a report from 
Doctor B. T. Hale, MOH for the Gueiph- 
Wellington-Dufferin health unit, regarding 
the extreme pollution caused by the Canada 
Electric Castings Ltd., a subsidiary of Dayton 
Steel? What action does the company intend 
to take for the elimination of this pollution? 
What time limits have been granted the com- 
pany for this remedial action? 

In the event of this, or any other plant 
being closed down because of intolerable 
pollution, is the government developing any 
plan for short term assistance while alterna- 
tive job opportunities are secured? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the 
answer to the first part of the question is 
no. Doctor Hale did, I believe, call my office 
a few days ago, advising us of a rather tragic 
accident that took place in the plant and 
which was said to be related in some way to 
air pollution. 

However, we were in the process then of 
surveying this plant because of concern over 



174 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



its condition. On November 1, the company 
was surveyed, the report was provided setting 
out the air pollution control required. On 
November 22 of this year, the company was 
served with a ministerial order requiring 
compliance. 

The requirements are in two parts. The 
long-term programme gives the company 
eight months to complete all work, to bring 
the effluence from their operations under 
satisfactory control. The short-term work to 
be done during the eight-month period re- 
quires that within three weeks— that is three 
weeks from November 22 of this year— all 
accumulated soot around the plant be re- 
moved, and within seven weeks they must 
have repaired and have operating properly 
existing pollution control equipment. 

The answer to the fourth part of the ques- 
tion, Mr. Speaker, is I know of no policy at 
the present time under The Air Pollution 
Control Act. I have no such authority. This 
is a matter that will be submitted to govern- 
ment for consideration. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went- 
worth has a question of the Prime Minister. 

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, 
Mr. Speaker. Will the government undertake 
to establish a fair capital gains tax for land 
speculation, and implement this without 
delay? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the Treas- 
urer (Mr. MacNaughton) is presently examin- 
ing very closely all areas of taxation. This 
is one of them, and when these examinations 
are complete the government will make its 
decisions as to what it is going to do. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High 
Park has a question of the Prime Minister. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, in light of the 
reports in Saturday's Toronto Star that the 
$100 million improvement of Sunny brook 
Hospital into a teaching hospital is a waste 
of money, does the Prime Minister intend to 
intervene to stop this project? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, this report 
was, at best, a statement of opinion by whom- 
ever wrote it, and I am informed that really 
it is a kind of planner's forward programme 
covering a period of a great many years. 
It has not been approved by the Ontario 
Hospital Services Commission which has the 
power and must, of course, approve every 
expenditure made by any hospital and will 
only do so after the closest examination. I 
do not think therefore, hon. members need be 
unduly worried by the import of that report. 



Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High 
Park has a question of the Minister of Health. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister 
aware that The Department of Health's new 
policy of charging for laboratory examina- 
tions of diabetics' blood is causing financial 
hardship to many elderly pensioners? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Speaker, I am 
not aware of that and if it does exist, it 
should not exist. OMSIP, as I have just said 
within the past few minutes, is readily avail- 
able to every resident of the province of 
Ontario regardless of age, state of health or 
financial status. If those who are in need 
cannot afford to pay for it, all they have to 
do is apply and provision has been made by 
this government to see to it that they are not 
denied medical services because of their in- 
ability to pay for it. 

I might add that lab services are a benefit 
provided under OMSIP and are, therefore, 
quite within the reach of any resident of the 
province of Ontario. 

Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a 
supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes. 

Mr. Shulman: Is the Minister aware that 
many such pensioners are covered by PSI, 
and PSI has decided that they will not pay 
for this charge? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would still repeat, 
Mr. Speaker, that OMSIP is readily available 
to those people. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum- 
ber has a question for the Minister of Health. 

Mr. Ben: Yes, I have a number of ques- 
tions. 

Mr. Speaker: Just the two for the Minister 
of Health, at the moment. 

Mr. Ben: How many cases of hepatitis 
were reported at the Ontario housing com- 
plex at Thistletown between November, 1967, 
and February, 1968? 

What steps has the department taken to 
prevent the children at that development 
from playing in the garbage and sewers? 

When was the area last inspected by offi- 
cials of the Minister's department? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, our pro- 
vincial communicable disease statistics are 
maintained on a municipal level only. On 
this basis, from November 1, 1967 to Febru- 
ary 29, 1968, 79 cases of hepatitis were 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



175 



reported from the borough of Etobicoke. The 
office of the medical officer of health of 
Etobicoke has advised that the Ontario hous- 
ing complex area in general, was the local 
address of approximately 53 reported cases 
of hepatitis from November 1, 1967, to Feb- 
ruary 29, 1968. 

Reference to the second part of the ques- 
tion: I would point out that the enforcement 
of The Public Health Act is the responsibility 
of the local authority. We act in a consulta- 
tive capacity when requested to do so and 
if we have cause to believe that the local 
authority is not doing its job. 

In this case we do not believe the latter 
to be true and we have not been invited in 
a consultative capacity. 

Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister 
accept a supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes. 

Mr. Ben: Is not the fact that 53 out of 
79 cases of hepatitis originate from one area 
in a municipality sufficient to cause the Min- 
ister's department to wonder what action, if 
any, the municipality is taking to prevent 
these epidemics? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, we are 
content that the local department of health 
took the necessary steps to control this out- 
break. It was not an epidemic. 

Mr. Ben: I will withdraw the word epi- 
demic. I will use the word outbreak. 

The next question, Mr. Speaker, I won- 
dered if perhaps it should be addressed to 
the Minister of Social and Family Services 
(Mr. Yaremko), but I will put it to the Min- 
ister of Health. 

What is the cost per annum of maintaining 
a child under the children's aid society? 

How many children from the Ontario hous- 
ing complex at Thistletown have become 
wards of the children's aid society during the 
past two years? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the hon. 
member's premise was correct, this should 
have been directed to the hon. Minister of 
Social and Family Services. 

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker's office will re- 
direct this and have it answered, if possible, 
tomorrow. 

The hon. member for Scarborough West 
has a question of the Minister of Health. 

Mr. Lewis: To the Minister, through you 
Mr. Speaker, will the announced 10 per cent 



increase in the Ontario Medical Association 
fee schedule set for April 1, 1969, be subject 
to approval or negotiation by the Minister of 
Health or this Legislature? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, in keeping 
with all government business, it will be sub- 
ject to negotiation by the Minister of Health 
and the results of the negotiations will be 
referred to the government for decision. 

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

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. 
Speaker, a question for the Minister of Health. 
Is the Minister aware of the statement made 
by Doctor C. E. Toll, Department of Health 
dentist, as reported in the Port Arthur News- 
Chronicle of November 22, 1968, that the 
state of children's teeth in Nipigon is deplor- 
able? 

If so, what steps will the Minister take to 
ensure proper dental care for the children in 
those communities? 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I believe 
that the dentist referred to did state that the 
teeth of the Nipigon children were severely 
neglected. He denies using some extravagant 
language as apparently appeared in the press. 

However, the railway dental car was in 
Nipigon from August 7 to November 18 of 
this year. During that time, 1,030 dental 
appointments were provided and all of the 
children reporting received the dental care 
that was necessary. 

I would suggest that the state of the kids' 
teeth now is pretty good. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs- 
view has a question of the Minister of Social 
and Family Services. 

Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my question 
is this. In view of the fact that evidence at 
the coroner's inquest into the death of three- 
year-old Theresa Mcintosh disclosed that this 
child was probably mistreated before her 
death, and that none of this information was 
conveyed either to the children's aid society, 
the police nor his department, what action 
does the Minister intend to take in view of 
the provisions of section 41 of The Child 
Welfare Act? 

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, as I indi- 
cated on Monday, we are naturally concerned 
about this case. But as I said then, it is still 
before a coroner's jury and, as you know, the 
inquest resumed today. I believe it would be 



178 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



unfair of me to comment in any way while 
the jury is discharging its very serious respon- 
sibilities. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron- 
Bruce has a question of the Minister of Agri- 
culture and Food. 

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Thank you, 
Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister assure the 
House that the interest rate on junior farmer 
loans will remain at 5 per cent? 

How many junior farmer loans are presently 
in arrears? 

Has there been any noticeable difference in 
the number of applications coming before the 
board since the federal government an- 
nounced the new interest rate for farm credit 
loans? 

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul- 
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, in reply, the 
answer to the first question is that this is a 
policy decision of the government and I am 
in no position to say yes or no. It is a sta- 
tutory matter at the moment. 

As to the number of junior farmer loans 
presently in arrears, there are 131 junior 
farmer loans in arrears, in a total amount of 
$125,000. I think this is a remarkably fine 
record for the junior fanners of Ontario, 
when one considers that there are 5,375 loans 
out with a total value of $89,742 million. As 
a matter of fact, the loans in arrears represent 
2.4 per cent of all mortgages and .07 per 
cent of all principal, so arrears are practically 
negligible. 

Mr. Gaunt: May I ask the Minister a sup- 
plementary question? 

Is the Minister planning to consider the 
present interest rate with the idea of having 
it remain the same? Has the Minister given 
the matter any thought? 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, of course, with 
the announcement that the federal govern- 
ment has raised their interest rate to 7% 
per cent on farm credit corporation loans, 
this is a matter of concern to all govern- 
ments with the high cost of money today. 

Mr. Shulman: Another question of the Min- 
ister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Speaker. 

Is the November, 1968 issue of Canadian 
Consumer, page 106, correct in its statement 
that provincial meat inspection by The De- 
partment of Agriculture and Food does not 
take place in northern Ontario and portions 
of eastern Ontario? And if the answer is 
"yes", why not? 



Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have not 
seen the quotation to which the hon. mem- 
ber refers, but I assume he is quite correct 
in what he has said in his question. 

Now, there are four counties of eastern 
Ontario in which there is not complete meat 
inspection. There are eight red-meat plants 
left to cover in eastern Ontario, and these 
will be done— if they are not done now, they 
will be done in the next few days or weeks, 
because the inspectors have been trained or 
are in the process of being trained, the plants 
have been brought up to standard, inspection 
will be introduced right away. 

In northern Ontario there are 15 red-meat 
plants, 13 of which are not under inspection 
as yet. Now, it is our plan that as soon as 
inspectors can be obtained and trained, then 
they will be covered with inspection. How- 
ever, the plants themselves come under The 
Department of Health supervision and as far 
as the plant standards are concerned, they do 
meet those qualifications. 

Since April 1, 1965, we have covered the 
province of Ontario, at least the 38 counties 
of Ontario, with meat inspection. We have 
employed and trained over 200 meat inspec- 
tors. When we introduced the meat inspec- 
tion programme, there were no inspectors, 
you just could not go out and hire them, we 
had to engage them and train them. It takes 
at least six months to train inspectors and 
you can only take so many at a time, be- 
cause the academic training is only part of it. 
They have to go out to the various federally- 
inspected plants and receive practical train- 
ing under the supervision of qualified federal 
inspectors. Meat inspection has come about 
in Ontario in a very orderly way and I think 
in a way that has not disrupted the meat 
processing facilities or slaughtering facilities 
in the province and yet has provided and 
assured the people of Ontario a wholesome 
quality product. 

Mr. Shulman: Would the Minister permit 
a supplementary question? Does he have a 
target date for completing the balance of 
the areas that have not been covered? 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have, we hope that 
we will be able to accomplish this within the 
next few mondis. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy 
River. 

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, 
I have a question for the Minister of Agri- 
culture and Food. 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



177 



1. How many crop insurance salesmen are 
there in Rainy River district? 

2. Who are they? 

3. Do they have occupations other than 
that of crop insurance salesmen? 

4. How long have they been selling crop 
insurance? 

5. When did the advertising begin? When 
did it end? How many items of advertising 
were there? 

6. What was the cut-off date for purchas- 
ing crop insurance in Rainy River district? 

7. How many farmers in Rainy River dis- 
trict took advantage of crop insurance? 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, there is 
one crop insurance agent in the Rainy River 
district. It is Mr. M. G. McComb insurance 
agency, located in Emo. He does have other 
occupations, he is a general insurance agent. 
He has been selling crop insurance or offer- 
ing it for sale since May 18 of 1967, and I 
understand he has been a general insurance 
agent for many years. 

With regard to advertising, the crop in- 
surance commission places advertisements 
seasonally in the various papers and publi- 
cations throughout the province. I cannot 
give the hon. member the exact number of 
times where it has been advertised in his 
area. If he took from what I said yesterday 
that it has been, I am not sure, whether it 
was in that paper or what date, I do not 
know. But, I do know that it has been 
widely advertised, we have placed advertis- 
ing in the paper Farm and Country which 
I understand, goes into every farm home in 
Ontario, that is, advertising on an annual 
basis, and this is a monthly publication. The 
commission has prepared a pamphlet setting 
forth the information and I have a copy of 
that pamphlet here. We have circulated this 
quite widely through the bankers' association. 
We have sent it out to the local banks, to 
our agricultural representatives and to any- 
one who wishes to use this, including private 
members who may be interested in their con- 
stituents obtaining crop insurance. 

The commission also has an agreement 
with all local agents to pay 50 per cent of 
the cost of advertising on a local basis for 
crop insurance programmes. The information 
branch of the Ontario Department of Agri- 
culture and Food has circulated press releases 
in 1967 and again in 1968, having to do 
with the crop insurance programme. These 
are provided to all weekly newspapers in 
Ontario, to all daily newspapers, to all farm 
journals, and to all radio and television 



stations. With the expansion of the pro- 
gramme, with every expansion of the pro- 
gramme, even from its inception, I have 
made those announcements in the House and 
they have been covered by our own press 
gallery, certainly Hansard and by the mem- 
bers of the House. 

The cut-off date for purchasing crop in- 
surance in the Rainy River district was— 
there are two dates given— the deadline for 
application was May 15, 1968, and the 
deadline for seeding of the crop was June 15, 
1968. There were four contracts written in 
1968, in two of these cases the farmers did 
not seed their acreage on which they had 
proposed to plant crops. In the remaining 
two, both of them filed claims. One of them 
was successful in getting his crop off and 
so he cancelled his claim, while the other 
man lost his crop and it is expected that 
he will obtain about $1,000 in insurance 
payments. 

Mr. T. P. Reid: Will the Minister accept 

a supplementary? 

In view of the fact that there was only 

one insurance salesman who I am sure the 

Minister is aware of is also the municipal 

clerk of Emo municipality- 
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member 

would just ask a supplementary question. 

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does he not feel that this 
programme was not sufficiently advertised 
and energetically promoted in the area and 
that the farmers of the Rainy River district 
will therefore suffer? Does he not feel that 
some assistance should be provided for them 
this year? 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is always 
very difficult to determine just how much 
advertising is enough. 

Mr. T. P. Reid: Is one salesman enough? 

Mr. Speaker: Order! 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It may well be the case. 
I would suggest, though, that with the inter- 
est that has been taken or evinced in crop 
insurance in many areas throughout the 
province that it would be very difficult to 
get anybody to accept it on a full-time basis. 
Now, I am quite sure that the man— and I 
do not know him at all, I did not know he 
was the municipal clerk— but, I am sure that 
if he is the municipal clerk he is well known 
to the farming community of the area and, 
as such, that he would be well known, he 
being a general insurance agent, and the 
amount of crop insurance advertising and the 



178 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



publicity it was given, that he would be the 
logical source. 

Now, our local agricultural representative 
has promoted the programmes throughout 
the area. I know this to be a fact and I 
would like to suggest that if my hon. friend 
had displayed as much interest in promoting 
the crop insurance programme in his own 
local area as he has in asking these questions, 
it would likely be much more effective and 
widespread in its acceptance by local farmers. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! 

The hon. member for Wentworth has a 
question of the Minister of Transport. 

Mr. Deans: Yes, a question of the Min- 
ister of Transport. Will the Minister under- 
take an immediate investigation of the beha- 
viour of truck traffic on the Queen Elizabeth 
Highway between Hamilton and Toronto? 

Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport): 
Mr. Speaker, while I am not sure that I 
understand just what the hon. member means 
by "truck traffic behaviour"— 

Mr. Deans: I am asking if you will investi- 
gate whether or not the truck traffic on the 
Queen Elizabeth Highway is behaving in a 
manner suited for that kind of highway and 
whether it should not be investigated and 
whether action should be taken against them, 
to make them behave in the proper way. 

Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, I was not 
quite sure what the hon. member meant by 
truck traffic behaviour in this case but it 
appeared to me likely, and I think from his 
amplification of the statement that I am right 
in my assumption, that what he refers to is a 
matter of enforcement and would, for that 
reason, be a matter under the jurisdiction of 
the police. I think if he will pinpoint the 
problem and direct his question to the Attor- 
ney General it might be more appropriate. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High 
Park. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion of the Minister of Transport. Do munici- 
palities require the permission of the Minister 
and /or the Legislature to temporarily change 
the speed limit on public roads for the pur- 
pose of car racing? 

Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, racing on 
the highways is prohibited. Section 91 of The 
Highway Traffic Act sets out that "no person 
shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in 
a race". 



Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a 
supplementary question? Does that interpre- 
tation of the law mean that the city of To- 
ronto will not be able to have car racing on 
Lakeshore Boulevard? 

Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, it is a 
good supplementary question but I am not 
prepared to answer it. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the 
Minister would give it his consideration. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind- 
sor- Walkerville has a question of the Minis- 
ter of Tourism and Information. 

Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor-Walkerville ) : 
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min- 
ister of Trade and Development. Can the 
Minister inform the House if his department 
has arrived at a decision in regard to maxi- 
mum rentals for Ontario Housing Corpora- 
tion public housing projects? 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member was not 
paying attention. He has a question of the 
hon. Minister of Tourism and Information. 
The hon. Minister of Trade and Develop- 
ment comes later. This is a question from 
the other day. 

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, I have a question 
for the Minister of Tourism and Information. 
When will the new Ontario government tour- 
ist reception centre on Huron Line in Wind- 
sor be open on a year-round basis, instead of 
the present part-time basis, because of the 
increased year-round traffic from the United 
States into Ontario over the Ambassador 
Bridge? 

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism 
and Information): Mr. Speaker, I cannot 
give the hon. member a definitive answer at 
the moment. We are studying the changing 
traffic pattern between the tunnel and the 
bridge, both the daily traffic and the more- 
than-24-hour, or the tourist traffic. When we 
have completed that, we are going to con- 
sider our situation at Windsor. 

I remind the hon. member that because of 
budget considerations it may be we will find 
that we should have our operation at the 
bridge rather than at the tunnel. It might 
be that we could keep both operations open 
the year round; it might be that we would 
simply change the year-round operation from 
the tunnel to the bridge. 

Mr. B. Newman: May I ask of the Minister 
a supplementary question? Would he con- 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



179 



sider the rental of the premises either at the 
tunnel or the bridge for a community centre 
to the city, if it is not going to be used by 
the department? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am afraid the hon. 
member will have to ask the hon. Minister 
of Public Works (Mr. Connell). 

Mr. Speaker: We have now reached the 
hon. Minister of Trade and Development, if 
the hon. member would now place his ques- 
tion. 

Mr. B. Newman: Can the Minister inform 
the House if his department has arrived at a 
decision in regard to maximum rentals for 
Ontario Housing Corporation public housing 
projects? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I am g*ad 
to see they save the good things for the last. 

The hon. member is aware that as of 
May 1 of this year, rental rates in geared-to- 
income developments under the jurisdiction 
of Ontario Housing Corporation were pegged 
in accordance with the income of the tenant 
at that date. 

Discussions are being held on a continuing 
basis with senior officials of Central Mortgage 
and Housing Corporation with a view to 
establishing a new rent scale formula which 
will recognize, among other things, current 
economic conditions. In view of the com- 
plexities involved, no final decision has yet 
been reached. The rent freeze was intro- 
duced to ensure that no undue hardship 
would be incurred by any tenant while this 
study is proceeding. 

Studies of market rentals for various types 
and sizes of accommodation in 12 selected 
Ontario municipalities have already been 
completed as part of this ongoing analysis. 

Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the Minister a 
supplementary question? When can we ex- 
pect a decision, Mr. Minister? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: I cannot tell the hon. 
member that. When the surveys are com- 
pleted and we finish our discussions with 
Central Mortgage and Housing. 

Mr. B. Newman: If I may ask another sup- 
plementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not 
true, then, that the problem has been up for 
discussion for well over two years now? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: No. The hon. member 
will recall we made a change of rent scale in 
May, 1967. As far back as last May we froze 
all rents at that time so there would not be 
any change or any hardship. 



Mr. B. Newman: Thank you. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter- 
borough. 

Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr. 
Speaker, I would like to address my question 
to the Minister of Trade and Development. 

In his speech on November 20 in Trenton, 
the Minister stated that the Ontario Develop- 
ment Corporation hopes to extend the "golden 
horseshoe" eastward making it a "golden cor- 
ridor." Was the Minister announcing govern- 
ment policy in the fields of regional govern- 
ment and urban development? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad 
to see the hon. member for Peterborough is 
reading my speeches. 

Mr. Pitman: All of them; I always read 
them. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Being a practical opti- 
mist, I want to assure him that as we look 
at the "golden horseshoe" and see the fac- 
tories we have in there (and we know that we 
have wall-to-wall factories between here and 
Windsor), I have always told my associates 
and friends that I see no reason— with two 
railroads, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Mac- 
donald-Cartier Freeway— why we could not 
have wall-to-wall factories between here and 
Cornwall. While it may not be government 
policy, I think the fact that my colleagues 
and the Prime Minister okayed the EIO pro- 
gramme, which is now making itself felt in 
eastern Ontario, we can well call it, without 
government policy, the "golden corridor." 

Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a 
supplementary question? That was not a 
facetious question, I can assure you. What I 
would like to know is whether the loans to be 
given under the EIO programme are- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! 

The hon. member's question about loans is 
not supplementary to his original question. If 
he wishes to ask a supplementary on his orig- 
inal question, he is entitled to. 

Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, with your indul- 
gence, I do suggest that the EIO programme, 
as it is related to the creation of the "golden 
corridor" is relevant— what I am trying to 
establish, with your permission, is whether the 
loans that are given are actually approved by 
The Department of Trade and Development. 

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but the hon. member did 
not try to establish anything about loans in 



180 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



his original question and therefore he cannot 
do it now by way of supplementary. 

Mr. Pitman: The Minister in his answer 
suggested that these loans were paving the 
way to the "golden corridor." 

Mr. Speaker: That is quite proper and if 
the hon. member wishes to question him 
about that on another occasion it is perfectly 
in order. 

Mr. Pitman: I might just simply ask the 
Minister whether the creation of the "golden 
corridor" by the ODC is an integral part of 
the policy as established by the Cabinet com- 
mittee on regional development? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I think 
that the EIO is the only programme estab- 
lishing what we hope to call the "golden cor- 
ridor." I think all departments of the 
government are making a contribution to 
making it possible to have wall-to-wall fac- 
tories between here and Cornwall. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went- 
worth. 

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, a question for the 
Minister of Trade and Development. I no- 
ticed, as I read it, that one part was left off. 
I hope he will not mind me adding it. 

How much land is presently owned by or 
under the control of the Ontario Housing 
Corporation? How much of this is unserviced 
land? Where is the land located— that is the 
part that was obviously missed out— and how 
much has been spent by this government on 
the acquisition of this land? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I will take 
the questions as notice and get the informa- 
tion for the hon. member. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for 
Humber. 

Mr. Ben: I have a question for the Minister 
of Trade and Development, Mr. Speaker. 

Is it true that rents are pegged to income 
for every Ontario Housing Corporation tenant, 
and that the number of children per house- 
hold is irrelevant in the calculation of On- 
tario Housing Corporation rents? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, rental rates 
for all units under the jurisdiction of Ontario 
Housing Corporation which are leased on a 
geared-to-income basis are related to a slid- 
ing scale which was approved jointly by both 
the federal and provincial governments and 
has national application. 



The factor which determines the applicable 
rental rate is the gross family income less 
certain exemptions. These exemptions include 
family allowance payments, the earnings of 
children who are in regular attendance at 
recognized educational institutions, the wife's 
earnings up to $250 a year and the monthly 
earnings of working children in excess of $75 
a month. 

The hon. member will thus appreciate that, 
unlike the private rental sector, it is not the 
size of the accommodation that dictates the 
rental rate. It is also important to recognize 
that in the majority of cases the Ontario 
Housing Corporation rental rate includes the 
provision of heat, hot water, water, appliances 
and very often hydro. 

Families with large numbers of children 
are naturally allocated more spacious prem- 
ises and, because of the size of the family, 
use more services for which no additional 
charges are made. In these respects, coupled 
with the income exemptions, certainly recog- 
nition is afforded the number of children in 
the household. 

As I have already indicated previously, the 
rent scale is being reviewed, as it has been 
in the past, on a continuing basis. In fact, a 
new scale was introduced in 1962 and was 
subsequently revised as recently as May, 
1967. Concurrently with the present review, 
rents were pegged in relation to the tenants' 
incomes at May 1 of this year; therefore since 
that date any increase in family income has 
not affected the tenant's rental rate. 

Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister 
accept a supplementary question? 

Do I take it from his answer that a family 
with seven children, none of them earning 
an income, as indicated by you would be 
paying exactly the same rental on an income 
of, let us say for sake of argument, $5,000, as 
a family with two children? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not think I quite 
understand the question. What we— 

Mr. Ben: I believe the Minister indicated 
the certain variables on employment, how 
many children are working, the income of 
the children, and so on. 

Let us take the situation of a family with 
an income of $5,000 with seven children not 
working, earning no income. They would be 
paying exactly the same rent on an income 
of $5,000 as a family with only two children 
not working. Is that not so? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: There would be differ- 
ent accommodations. In most cases we try 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



181 



to accommodate the families and I would 
think that in any case where there are 
different size accommodations, different in- 
comes, the rental scale would be adjusted 
accordingly. 

Mr. Ben: But if they were the same accom- 
modation, which is quite feasible, they would 
be paying the same rent? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: I would doubt that they 
would have the same accommodation with 
seven- 
Mr. Ben: But if they were— 
Hon. Mr. Randall: Perhaps so. 

Mr. Ben: If they did have the same accom- 
modation? 

Hon. Mr. Randall: Perhaps so. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey- 
Bruce has questions of the Attorney-General. 

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Thank you, 
Mr. Speaker. 

To the hon. the Attorney General: On 
page 1114 of the report on civil rights, Jus- 
tice McRucr reveals that the city of Toronto 
is in direct contravention of its general licens- 
ing bylaw in allowing a cab license worth 
$300 to be sold for $14,500. He states that 
the public is paying through the nose for 
this being allowed to continue. 

What steps is the Attorney General going 
to take in this regard? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, that is a 
very free translation of what the Hon. Mr. 
McRuer said. I could not find that expression 
in his remarks. But, Mr. Speaker- 
Mr. Sargent: Is that not right? I am sorry. 
Look, that is right— 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: "Paying through the 
nose?" 

Mr. Sargent: That is what he said. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I could not find that. 

An hon. member: The Minister is in the 
wrong volume. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I guess so. 

Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing all the 
recommendations of Mr. McRuer, including 
this one I may say. We have looked at it. 
However, I do not contemplate immediate 
action, because the matter is presently under 
our present law— within the jurisdiction and 
control under the Metropolitan Toronto 



licensing commission. At the moment that 
is where it is and we are reviewing the 
recommendation to see what action, if any, 
might be taken. 

That is all the answer I can give. 

Mr. Sargent: A question to the Minister of 
Financial and Commercial Affairs (Mr. Rown- 
tree). 

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is 
now directing questions to the Attorney 
General. 

Mr. Sargent: Yes, but if he is not here 
we will hold this. 

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that will be done. 

Mr. Sargent: A question to the Attorney 
General. 

On November 15, Chief Mackey was 
quoted in the Toronto Daily Star as admit- 
ting that his police had seized five wire 
tapping bugs. When questioned on what 
authority he had to make these seizures, he 
said he had no authority. 

Will the Attorney General advise: 

1. Why police are allowed to have these 
special powers? 

2. What is the Attorney General going to 
do about it? 

3. Will Chief Mackey be called upon by 
the Attorney General for a full explanation 
of how he can make seizures illegally? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I would 
like to refer the hon. member for Grey- 
Bruce to the question and the answer to the 
question asked by the hon. member for 
Downsview on November 20 respecting the 
very same subject and in very similar terms. 
My answer at that time is in Hansard of 
November 20. 

An hon. member: They do not talk to one 
another. 

Mr. Sargent: The hon. members talk to 
themselves all the time. 

An hon. member: Could not talk to a bet- 
ter fellow. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, in the 
event that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce 
has not read Hansard I will repeat what I 
said then. 

I am advised that these devices were given 
to police by employees of the Bell Telephone 
Company of Canada, who removed them 
from their lines since they contravened— the 



182 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



attachment of them contravened— the pro- 
visions of The Bell Telephone Act of Canada. 

The three following questions are really 
not relevant. 

The police did not seize them in the sense 
of seizure. The Bell Telephone Act of Can- 
ada makes it wrongful— an offence— to inter- 
cept a message. Telephone employees found 
these devices attached to their lines, they 
took them off— which quite rightly they 
should do— and they turned them over to 
the police. 

As I pointed out to the hon. member for 
Downsview who questioned me on November 
20, nobody has come forward to say "these 
are our devices." I do not think they are 
likely to come forward, because they are 
illegal under The Bell Telephone Act. The 
police have the devices in their possession 
and there is nothing much more we can do. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High 
Park. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion of the Attorney General. 

1. Why was the death of Kenneth Hames 
on October 29 in the Scarborough General 
Hospital not reported until five days after- 
ward? 

2. Is it true that Mr. Haines was refused 
admission to another hospital shortly before 
his death? 

3. Why is the coroner's office not holding 
an inquest into this unusual death? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I shall 
have to take this question as notice but I 
can promise an answer, I am sure, tomorrow. 
The question was only received in my office 
about the one o'clock hour and it required 
some inquiry to get the proper answers. 

Mr. Shulman: I have another question of 
the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. 

Is an inquest to be held into the death of 
Mrs. Dorothy Gertrude Davis, age 31, of 
Oshawa, who disappeared July 20, 1968, and 
whose body was recovered near Bradford on 
August 19, 1968? 

Question two. If so, what date has been 
set? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this mat- 
ter is under investigation by the criminal 
investigation branch of the Ontario Provincial 
Police. Just as soon as that investigation is 
completed it will be reported to the coroner, 
who will decide then as to the need for an 
inquest. 



Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a 
supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes. 

Mr. Shulman: Has not this investigation 
been going on for a very long time and, if 
you agree, when do you expect the results 
of the investigation? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, 
I cannot be too specific in replying. All I 
can say is that the investigation is being 
carried on by the CIB of the Ontario Pro- 
vincial Police. I would expect it will be 
concluded shortly, but I am not as informed 
of the details of these things as the hon. 
member seems to expect that I might be. 

I cannot, I think, in a specific case, be 
informed of all details. I can only answer 
as I did. 

Investigation of this is carried on by the 
criminal investigation branch. Just as soon 
as that is over, the ordinary routine will be 
followed of reporting the whole matter to 
the coroner, who will make the decision as 
to the necessity of an inquest. 

Mr. Shulman: In the form of a second 
supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the delay 
in the investigation have anything to do with 
the body being found on the property of 
Mrs. Viola MacMillan? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I should not think so, 
Mr. Speaker, but, again, this will come out, 
I presume, in the report of the criminal 
investigation branch. 

Mr. Shulman: Thank you. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High 
Park may place his question to the Minister 
of Highways, who is next on the list. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, can the city 
of Toronto close the Lake Shore Road to 
normal vehicular traffic for brief periods on 
a regular basis without the permission of the 
Minister? 

Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways): 
Mr. Speaker, the Lake Shore Road is under 
the jurisdiction of the municipality of Metro 
Toronto and therefore, the city of Toronto 
does not have jurisdiction. 

Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a 
supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Gomme: Yes. 

Mr. Shulman: Can Metro close this road 
without the Minister's permission? 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



183 



Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, Metro 
Toronto can close the Lake Shore Boulevard, 
under conditions referred to in the question, 
without the approval of the Minister. 

Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Why did 
not the Minister say that long ago? 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- 
borough East. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have three 
questions of the Minister of Education (Mr. 
Davis), one of which is fairly urgent. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is now 
asking his question of the Minister of High- 
ways. The Minister of Education is not in 
his seat and the questions will have to be 
held over. 

Mr. T. Reid: A question of the Minister 
of Highways. 

When, if at all, did the Minister reply to 
the request of the Metropolitan Toronto 
transportation commission to meet with the 
commission, or its chairman, to discuss an 
immediate and a long-run strategy of plan- 
ning of Metro and provincial transportation 
facilities, especially in the Metropolitan 
region? 

When, if at all, is the Minister meeting 
with the commission or its chairman to dis- 
cuss these problems and to insure that tax- 
payers' dollars are not being wasted by use- 
less duplication? 

Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, that is 
not exactly as I have the question. 

I cannot give the date of the reply but I 
can tell you that I met with the chairman 
and the commission on April 30, not on this 
specific problem which the member discussed 
here. 

To the second part, what I have is, "When 
is the Minister meeting with the commission 
or its chairman to discuss these problems?" 
I have had no request that I know of for a 
further meeting. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if I could ask 
the Minister a supplementary question: In 
the report in the Globe and Mail of Novem- 
ber 26, 1968, there is an article entitled 
"Lack of data from province angers Metro". 
I was wondering if the Minister had seen this 
article upon which my questions were based? 

Hon. Mr. Gomme: No, Mr. Speaker, I 
have not seen that. 



I have the reply, Mr. Speaker, to a ques- 
tion asked by the member for Nipissing (Mr. 
R. S. Smith) yesterday, which I would like 
to answer. The work project numbers quoted 
in the question under item 1 was advertised 
today, November 27, and tenders will be 
opened on January 8, 1969. 

Mr. Ben: On a point of order. Mr. 
Speaker, I think you made a point not too 
long ago that the government should not be 
incensed if the members put questions to 
them, but do not ask them all at once. Now, 
Mr. Speaker, the members who ask questions 
have to abide by the exigencies, and if the 
Minister is not in his chair the question is 
not asked. 

Under the same reasoning, should not the 
Minister wait to answer a question until the 
member who asked it or who submitted it 
is in his seat to ask a supplementary? 

Mr. Speaker: This question has arisen 
earlier in the first session of this House, and 
at that time it was my opinion that the mem- 
bers felt that the questions which they asked 
were of such urgent public importance that 
the answer should be made available at the 
earliest possible moment. 

Indeed, only yesterday the hon. member 
for Scarborough East (Mr. T. Reid), who 
was going to be absent, to make sure of the 
point dropped me a note and asked me if 
I would have the answer made public by 
the Minister in his absence. 

Therefore, as far as I was concerned, I 
felt that that might well be the situation in 
this case. But I have no objection as far as 
the Chair is concerned to the questions being 
withheld until the member is present in the 
same manner as the questions to be asked 
of a Minister are held until he is present. 
So if it is the wish of the official Opposition 
that this answer be retained until the hon. 
member for Nipissing is here, then certainly 
I am sure the Minister will do so and I will 
so rule. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I think we might 
have the answer. 

Hon. Mr. Gomme: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

The work project numbers quoted in the 
question under item 1 was advertised today, 
November 27, and tenders will be opened on 
January 8, 1969. This contract will include 
the 4.2 miles covered by the work project 
numbers. 

And to the second part: It is covered in the 
first answer. 



i 



184 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



And to the third part: The highway con- 
struction programme for the year 1968-69 
listed this work as being placed under con- 
tract in this fiscal year and no reference was 
made in the programme book which stated 
that this large contract would be completed 
in the fiscal year. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sand- 
wich-Riverside has a question of the hon. 
Minister of Lands and Forests. 

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): A 
question of the Minister of Lands and Forests: 
What action is the lands and forests district 
office in Aylmer taking to ensure that the 
fallow deer on Peche Island in the Detroit 
River at Windsor are neither abandoned nor 
allowed to escape into a hostile environment? 

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and 
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. 
member for Sandwich-Riverside, fallow deer 
are not native to Ontario nor do they survive 
in a wild state. 

Just to make sure that we all understand, 
fallow deer are native to the Mediterranean 
area, they are quite small animals, are pri- 
vate property and are excluded from the 
provisions of The Game and Fish Act by- 
section 2(a) and a definition in section 15 of 
the Act. The abandonment or ill treatment 
of such animals would be an offence under 
Xhe Criminal Code. We have no knowledge 
of their presence on Peche Island and the 
owners were under no obligation to report 
them to us. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud- 
bury East has a question of the Minister of 
Labour. 

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Is there 
any reason why members of the Legislature 
cannot be covered by workmen's compensa- 
tion during the performance of their duties 
as MPPs so that their families will be in 
receipt of survivor benefits in case of per- 
manent disablement or fatal accident? 

Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr. 
Speaker, the answer to that is yes. To provide 
this coverage would require changes in the 
legislation. 

Mr. Martel: A supplementary question. If 
that is all that is necessaiy, would the Min- 
ister be so kind as to introduce this legis- 
lation? 

Hon. Mr. Bales: Well, Mr. Speaker, while 
members work hard no doubt, nevertheless 
I do not think we fall within the group of 



workmen that the Legislature meant to assist 
by this Act. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oxford 
has a question of the Minister of Municipal 
Affairs. 

Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, 
to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Can the 
Minister give an indication to the House of 
the approximate cost of publicizing the tax 
rebate programme to the province in terms 
of dollars and cents? 

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni- 
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the member will 
appreciate the expenditures are by no means 
complete. The total expenditures for admini- 
stration, information and publicity, advertis- 
ing, to October 31, 1968, amounted to 
$208,700. Perhaps if I gave the latest esti- 
mated figures to the end of March, the end 
of the fiscal year, it might be helpful to the 
members. Administration, about $172,000; 
advertising, $123,000; distribution of the leaf- 
lets and so on, about another $150,000; for 
a total of $450,000, which is less than half 
of what we originally estimated. 

Mr. Innes: Would the Minister accept a 
supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. 

Mr. Innes: Could the Minister give any 
indication of the costs of administrating the 
tax rebate in each municipality? The ad- 
ministration costs? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High 
Park. 

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs: Does the city 
of Toronto require the permission of the 
Minister and/or the Legislature to go ahead 
with the proposed CNE-Lakeshore auto race 
track? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I 
would say to the member that— he is asking 
questions in various parts of the House about 
this— perhaps it would be best to give a 
little bit of a summary of what has gone on. 
There are three Acts involved administered 
by three different departments, The Munici- 
pal Act, The Highway Improvement Act, 
and The Highway Act itself, administered by 
three different departments, all of whom 
have solicitors of their own- 
Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): I know 
it is insignificant, but it is Transport. 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



185 



Hon. Mr. McKeough: All right. These 
Acts all bear one way or another, or do not 
bear one way or another. There have been 
a number of opinions collected from depart- 
mental people, and within the last few days 
they have all been dumped into the hands of 
the Attorney General. The Attorney General, 
in due course I am sure, will advise the 
various departments so that we will be in a 
position to answer adequately the member's 
question. 

Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister answer 
my question when he hears from the Attorney 
General? 

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will be delighted. 
There are other people asking, too, and I 
will be delighted to answer them. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud- 
bury East has a question for the Minister of 
Mines. 

Mr. Martel: Will the Minister of Mines 
instruct the Fecunis Mines immediately to 
have soundproof curtains installed in their 
machine shop to enable men to work there 
without having to seek medical attention 
before they all succumb to industrial deaf- 
ness? 

Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines): 
Mr. Speaker, this matter was first brought 
to my attention, I think, last Thursday by 
the hon. member for Nickel Belt and he 
turned over some communications and some 
material to me. We have transmitted this 
to our field staff in Sudbury— our safety 
engineer, our mining engineer— and they are 
investigating the alleged occurrences now. I 
point out to the hon. member that Fecunis 
Mines, of course, is geographically located 
within the riding of Nickel Belt. If the hon. 
member wishes I can communicate with— 

Mr. Martel: On a point of order. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member has 
a point of order. 

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have in my 
hand a letter from the union in question- 
Air. Speaker: The hon. member will state 
his point of order. 

Mr. Martel: I am coming to my point of 
order. The— 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will state 
his point of order. 

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Mines was 
making reference to the fact that this ques- 
tion which I raised comes from a riding 



other than my own. The point I am making 
is that the headquarters of this company is 
in my riding and the union in question wrote 
me. If the Speaker would let me, I would 
quote the letter in which they asked me to 
raise this matter. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! There is no question 
in Mr. Speaker's mind that any member is 
entitled to raise any question with respect 
not only to the people in his own area that 
he represents, but any other area of public 
interest in Ontario. 

The hon. Minister is likewise within his 
rights, as far as the chair is concerned, to 
refer to those others who had raised the 
same points with him when answering the 
question, and that is what he has done. The 
hon. Minister will complete his statement. 

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am 
not debating that point, nor arguing that 
point; I agree with the hon. member. If he 
had not been quite so rude he would have 
heard me say that because it is in the hon. 
member's riding I intend transmitting the 
results of this report to him. At the same 
time, I would be very glad to transmit the 
result of this report to him, if he wants it 
that way, but if he is going to play it in some 
other way, then perhaps I had better ask 
the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. 
Demers) first because he asked me the ques- 
tion first. 

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the leaders of the 
government and official Opposition and the 
third party might sometime before noon, if 
possible, tomorrow, advise me whether deal- 
ing with the questions in the manner we 
have done today or in the manner we have 
previously done by members, is more satis- 
factory to them because I wish to proceed 
in the manner which is best for the House 
and for each member of the House on both 
sides. 

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, on a 
point of order I think it is, while I am in 
an argumentative mood, may I add my 
vigorous objection, being one of the lowest 
men on the totem pole on this side, to that 
procedure. 

I am being very serious, sir, when I think 
the rights of the private members are being 
transgressed by your ruling. I think it is up 
to the private members of this House to ask 
what they want, of whom they want, when 
they want, sir. 

Mr. Speaker: The question of procedure 
here is one which originally caused a great 



186 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



deal of difficulty and a great deal of unneces- 
sary noise and improper debate. It has been 
running very well today and it also went 
well yesterday. The chair has made no ruling; 
the chair is merely requesting to know which 
way is preferable so far as the House is 
concerned. 

The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin 
has a point of order or a point of personal 
privilege or an answer to a question, I am 
not sure which. 

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. 
Speaker, yesterday when I was out of the 
House on water resources business, a ques- 
tion was directed to the Minister of Energy 
and Resources Management (Mr. Simonett) 
regarding a letter that I signed. He said that 
he would ask me to reply to the question. 
The question asked by the hon. member for 
Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) was: 

Can the Minister advise the House as to 
the cost to the government of Ontario, 
through the Ontario Water Resources Com- 
mission, of the mailing on August 22nd, 1968, 
of a news release regarding the Root family 
reunion, the covering letter for which was on 
the letterhead of the commission over the 
signature of the vice-chairman of the com- 
mission? 

The question is in two parts. The second 
part is— can the Minister advise further how 
this release has advanced the work of the 
commission? 

The answer to the first part. The cost of 
mailing the release— stamps, letterheads and 
envelopes— was $1.30. 

The answer to the second part is, I think 
everyone interested in the work of the water 
resources commission would like to know 
something of the background of the people 
who serve the commission. Every member 
of the Legislature and every arm of govern- 
ment is interested in public relations. It 
would be very difficult to estimate in dollars 
and cents the public relations impact of the 
news release that referred to seven genera- 
tions of a family that has pioneered in many 
areas of development in Ontario. 

I might add that the news item was car- 
ried in its entirety in about ten papers and 
many thousands of people had the benefit of 
the news item. What the benefit to the water 
resources commission would be, I am not 
prepared to say. 

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a supplementary question 
which I might put with respect to the infor- 



mation given as to cost. I am wondering 
how many of these releases were sent out to 
the media. 

Mr. Root: These released went to approxi- 
mately 20 news outlets. I have 20 news out- 
lets that I release news to and I am not sure 
even whether the whole 20 were covered. 
I am not sure whether the radio and tele- 
vision stations were covered— it would prob- 
ably be 15, maybe 20. 

Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary): 
Mr. Speaker, may I say that one of the 
papers to which the hon. member for Well- 
ington-Dufferin has referred was the Beams- 
ville Express in the riding of Lincoln because 
that is where the Root family started, in the 
county of Lincoln, and we are very, very 
proud of this fact. 

Mr. Speaker, I have an answer for the hon. 
member for Sudbury with respect to the 
revenues of the liquor control board for a 
certain period of this year. 

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we might ascertain 
if that question should be answered in the 
absence of the member. 

Mr. Nixon: I think we would be glad if 
he did so. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister will then 
give the answer. 

Hon. Mr. Welch: During the period June 
26, 1968, to October 31, 1968, the total rev- 
enue of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario 
amounted to approximately $152,665,003. The 
total revenue for the same period in 1967 
amounted to approximately $110,685,000. 
These figures, with respect to the 1968 
period, of course, reflect the price change of 
January, 1968, together with the normal in- 
crease of sales of about 5 per cent, together 
with other events referred to by the hon. 
member in his question. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Before the orders of 
the day may I make one very brief comment 
in regard to questions. I think it used to be 
the custom here to ask the question whether 
or not the Minister was in his seat; then he 
answered it as soon as he got into his seat, 
whether the man who asked the question was 
in his seat or not. 

I always thought that was a fairly reason- 
able sort of a way of getting questions dealt 
with expeditiously because then they were 
not held in abeyance until it was possible to 
match a private member and a Minister. We 
might think of reverting to that particular 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



187 



routine. Personally I find the question period 
very stimulating and very interesting, and 
sometimes very entertaining, so I would do 
nothing to limit it in any way. 

I would like to take this opportunity to 
bring the hon. members up to date on the 
gift Ontario has made to help alleviate the 
suffering resulting from the war between the 
Nigerians and Biafrans. As I announced on 
October 4, the government, and I think all 
members of this Legislature, are deeply moved 
by the privations and misery created by this 
conflict. This was referred to by the leader 
of the Opposition yesterday in his remarks. 

Accordingly, as a government, we arranged 
to send a gift of food and hospital supplies to 
Nigeria as a humanitarian gesture in the name 
of the people of Ontario. These foodstuffs, 
which will be distributed by the Red Cross, 
consisted of 50,000 pounds of powdered skim 
milk; 10,000 pounds of honey; 10,000 pounds 
of tinned cheese, and 2,000 bushels of dried 
corn. All these goods were drawn from 
stocks available here in the province. 

The entire gift and its shipment to Nigeria 
was arranged in close consultation with Cana- 
dian Red Cross Society and with the federal 
government. I would like to say a word of 
thank you on behalf of Ontario both to the 
federal government and to the Canadian Red 
Cross for the co-operation we received in 
making sure that our gift became operative, 
so to speak. 

You might be interested to know that Air 
Transport Command provided a plane which 
flow the hospital supplies to Halifax, in order 
that they could be put aboard a ship there. 
The total direct cost to the government, for 
the goods and their shinment, will be in the 
neighbourhood of $20,000; the actual value 
of the goods, of course, is considerably higher 
than that. I am informed that all these sup- 
plies have arrived in Lagos, and Fernando Po. 

I wo-uM like to read a telegram that has 
been received from the Canadian High Com- 
missioner in Lagos, dated November 14. 

Emergency relief supplies Silver Crest 
cargo. Cargo for Lagos was transferred offi- 
cially today to representatives of the Inter- 
national Committee of the Red Cross, and 
the federal Ministry of Health. Please ad- 
vise the Government of Ontario both repre- 
sentatives expressed warm appreciation for 
contributions from Ontario, and from the 
Government of Canada. 

Small though this effort might be in the total 
sum of misery caused by this war, I thought 



you might be interested to know that it is on 
the spot and doing what good it can. 

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day. 

Clerk of the House: The first order, resum- 
ing the adjourned debate on the amendment 
to the motion for an address and reply to the 
speech of the hon. Lieutenant-Governor at 
the opening of the session. 



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE 

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. 
Speaker, economic development is a matter of 
vital concern in the province of Ontario today. 
Only with adequate economic development 
are we going to have job opportunities to 
meet our growing population; are we going 
to have adequate wealth to be able to meet 
the growing services which our people are 
requesting. 

I do not propose at the moment to deal 
with the broader issues of economic develop- 
ment, but rather to focus on what I would 
describe as a rather fundamental aspect, 
namely research and development. 

Two-thirds of the scientific knowledge in 
the world today has been discovered within 
the past 20 years. Fully 90 per cent of the 
research scientists since the beginning of time 
are living today. Now, Mr. Speaker, these 
two dramatic facts serve to underline that for 
the first time in history, humanity has entered 
an era of permanent scientific and industrial 
revolutions. 

Increasingly, therefore, research and devel- 
opment are the key to economic development. 
But Canada lags far behind other industrial 
nations. Taken as a whole, the federal indus- 
try minister stated a year or so ago, 

Canadian manufacturing industry in 1963 
displayed a research intensity of approxi- 
mately 1 per cent, which was equivalent to 
research and development expenditures of 
about one-half cent per dollar of sales. 

By comparison, British industry spends 
three times, Sweden four times and the 
United States over six times relative to in- 
dustrial output. 

It would appear that a research intensity 
for manufacturing industry of 3 per cent— 
that is almost three times the current figure 
—is required to bring Canada more equally 
in line with comparable industrialized 
countries. 

Now that was the view of Mr. Drury who 
was at that time the Minister of Industry. 



188 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, one single act 
of the federal government, cancellation of the 
Arrow project, cut research and development 
expenditures by industry by more than one 
half; from 1959 to 1960, the year in which 
that action was taken, industry's share of our 
national R and D expenditure dropped from 
29 per cent to 13 per cent. 

Despite much more generous tax exemp- 
tions and grants through the Industrial Re- 
search and Development Incentives Act— 
(IRDIA)— industry's share of R and D ex- 
penditures has never recovered from that 
single blow; the latest figures indicate it 
amounts to some 24 per cent national expen- 
ditures. 

I recall the disastrous consequences of that 
black Friday when the Arrow project was 
cancelled, not only because the impact was 
greatest in Ontario (where the majority of the 
300 companies in the industrial complex 
which sustained it were situated) but because 
the disaster has been repeated ten years later. 
One after another, imaginative scientific proj- 
ects have been discarded. 

In 1966, McGill's high altitude research 
programme, familiarly known as HARP, was 
lost when American funds were cut off. A 
few months ago the federal government 
scrapped the $22 million Queen Elizabeth 
Observatory, out in British Columbia. A few 
weeks ago, the $155 million intense neutron 
generator— or ING as the project is popularly 
known— fell victim to Ottawa's austerity pro- 
gramme. As a result, Canada's scientific com- 
munity looks to the future with a mixture of 
disillusionment and foreboding. 

There may be sound reasons, Mr. Speaker, 
for the cancellation of a programme such as 
ING, but as Dr. W. G. Schneider, president 
of the National Research Council, has said: 
"If so, the public has a right to know. I 
feel," said Dr. Schneider, "that when deci- 
sions of this kind are made a rationale should 
be given. If they are handled in this way it 
tends to destroy morale. Everyone will al- 
ways wonder what's going to— whose is going 
to get the chop next." 

In fact, Canada has no overall scientific 
policy. We are staggering around in the dark 
in this issue. Although the science council 
was set up two years ago, the hon. C. M. 
Drury who is not only president of the 
Treasury Board, but chairman of the Privy 
Council committee on Scientific and Indus- 
trial Research, stated recently that the gov- 
ernment has not yet received the science 
council's recommendations for priorities. 



There is an increasingly urgent need for 
the formulation of a scientific policy for 
Canada. Until the federal government ends 
the confusion and uncertainty, it is admit- 
tedly difficult for Ontario or any other 
province to decide intelligently what its sup- 
plementary programme should be. 

However, the Ontario government cannot 
afford to delay in clarifying the guidelines of 
its own R and D programme simply because 
the federal government has failed dismally to 
provide a national context. What is more, the 
Ontario government need not delay because 
there is a growing consensus, first, as to the 
basic misdirection of past scientific policy, 
and second, where the future emphasis should 
be. 

Let me examine briefly each of these in 
turn, because out of such an analysis emerges 
the guidelines for a more effective R and D 
programme, both federal and provincial. 

Canada spends proportionately more on 
basic and applied research, much less on 
development. The following comparative 
figures reveal the dramatic imbalance in our 
programme: 18 per cent of our research and 
development funds went to basic research; 42 
per cent went to applied research; and only 
40 per cent to development. 

By comparison, the United States spent 
only 10 per cent on basic research; 22 per 
cent on applied research and the lion's share 
of 68 per cent on development. Britain's 
figures were nearly identical: 10 per cent on 
basic research; 24 per cent on applied re- 
search, and 62 per cent on development. In 
short, Canada is spending more money to 
generate new technology than to employ it. 
There is good reason to believe that as a 
relatively small country, we cannot afford 
that kind of a programme. It is misconceived 
in terms of meeting the urgent needs of 
our economic development. 

Admittedly, Mr. Speaker, Canada has an 
obligation to add to the world's store of 
knowledge and new technology, but within 
the limitations of our expenditures, we have 
more than met our obligations in this connec- 
tion. The need is for more applied research, 
even more for development which provides 
economic developments. 

Viewed in this context, the proposed expen- 
diture of some $155 million in the ING pro- 
gramme may well have been misconceived 
from the very outset. Certainly there was 
sharp controversy in the scientific world, with 
many people arguing that this was too great 
an investment in a project that, at best, 
would have had long term economic benefits. 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



189 



For example, writing in the October issue 
of The Science Forum, Dr. R. F. Howlett, 
who was until last August head of the Na- 
tional Research Council's division of applied 
physics, puts the case this way: 

Too often the argument in favour of 
a costly project with heavy continuing com- 
mitments is good science and excites the 
imagination. Too rarely is there a case 
to support its direct relevance to Canada's 
future needs, and a realistic appraisal of 
the probable value to the country as com- 
pared with the same money spent on some 
other projects. 

In short, Mr. Speaker, Canada's research pro- 
gramme should be less of a hobby of the 
scientist, and more of the hand-maiden of 
economic developments. 

Dr. Howlett suggests that the broad lines 
of scientific policy should be worked out in 
collaboration with Economic Council of Can- 
ada. Now this persuasive line of argument, 
bolstered by the statistics indicating the 
severe imbalance in our research and devel- 
opment expenditures, points clearly to the 
need for a much heavier emphasis on devel- 
opment. This is not a plea for forsaking pure 
research, but for a more judicious choice of 
projects, from which the spin-off to the 
economy would be greater and more im- 
mediate. 

Dr. O. M. Solandt, chairman of the Science 
Council of Canada, has suggested pro- 
grammes to be undertaken in the fields of 
space research, transportation, water re- 
sources, computer application and technology 
and northern resources, and one which I 
must confess, captures my imagination, 
namely human ecology, especially as it refers 
to life in urban environment. 

These are the general lines along which a 
national scientific policy should be formu- 
lated. In my view, the Ontario government 
should exert every conceivable pressure for 
such a formulation and clear statement. 

Meanwhile, to the considerable extent that 
we are free to shape our own research and 
the development programme, we should seek 
to achieve, not only its expansion through 
private as well as public funds but with that 
balance of expenditure, which will do more 
than any other single thing to assure the 
necessary economic development, to provide 
new jobs and let those below the poverty line 
share in our rising standards of living. 

Lest anyone think that I exaggerate the 
importance of a research and development 
programme, let me remind the hon. mem- 
bers that leading economists have shown that 



technological change has been a major factor 
in the great increase in output per unit of 
labour and capital that has taken place in 
most industrialized countries in this century. 
It is now convincingly documented that only 
about 20 per cent of the gain in labour pro- 
ductivity has come from the more intensive 
use of capital. About 80 per cent has come 
from the use of new technologies and the 
greater competence of workers and managers. 

In a growing proportion of our industry 
today, survival in the rat race of the modern 
markets stems directly from the innovation 
which research and development programmes 
assure. Not only do such programmes speed 
up the pace of scientific discovery, but they 
shorten the gap between the laboratory and 
the production line. This is the fundamental 
mark of a modern economy. The U.S. chemi- 
cal industry, for example, now considers it 
normal that half its business is based on 
products that did not exist only ten years 
ago. 

Now let me narrow the focus of my con- 
siderations more strictly, Mr. Speaker, to the 
province of Ontario. From the point of view 
of economic development, the important 
thing is not only that the total amount of 
research and development be adequate, but 
also that it be spent for the right purposes. 

Professor P. M. S. Blackett, president of 
the Royal Society of Great Britain, argued 
two years ago that only the U.S.A. can re- 
main nearly self-sufficient in technology— 
that certainly Britain cannot. It follows, 
therefore, that for countries like Britain to 
achieve rapid economic growth, it is impor- 
tant to use qualified scientists and engineers 
to apply existing scientific and technical 
knowledge and know-how to produce more 
competitive products, rather than to create 
new knowledge. 

If that be true of Britain, it is certainly true 
of the province of Ontario. In fact, a recent 
report of the Science Council of Canada em- 
phasized this very point. A major failing of 
Canadian science in the past, it stated, has 
been that it performed too much basic re- 
search remote from the training of new 
scientists and too much applied research far 
from the point of innovation. The report 
added that there has been a tendency to fail 
to carry through work from research and 
development to production and use. 

With this emphasis in mind, there are 
three aspects of our R and D programme on 
which I would like to comment briefly. They 
are key to the formulation of guidelines for 
expanding Ontario's programme— something 



190 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



to which I intend to return later in this 
session. 

The first is a new development— the estab- 
lishment of industrial research institutes in 
three of Ontario's universities— Waterloo, 
Windsor and McMaster— through grants by 
the federal Department of Industry. These 
research institutes are designed to use the 
best local resources of a given area and bring 
to them the scientific backing which is most 
likely to contribute to its economy. Such a 
close relationship of the university with 
industry will inevitably result in the desired 
emphasis on applied research and develop- 
ment. 

There are dangers, Mr. Speaker, involved 
in such research institutes, either through 
injury to the basic work of the university or 
through an unfair competition with the On- 
tario Research Foundation for the limited 
R and D dollars. These dangers, once again, 
I would like to explore during consideration 
of the estimates later this year. But, on 
balance, it is my view that these research 
institutes are new and important develop- 
ments—so much so that if they prove suc- 
cessful, there is a regional need, an urgent 
regional need, for their extension to the 
Lakehead, to the Laurentian University area 
in the Sudbury basin and to some centre in 
eastern Ontario. Either through extending 
the federal programme or, if the federal 
government will not— through supplementing 
it by a provincial programme. 

Secondly, so important is the basic role 
of research and development, and so hesi- 
tant has the Canadian industry been in 
initiating its own research, that there is a 
legitimate role for the expansion of govern- 
ment programmes. The tendency in Canada 
has been to concentrate an undue amount of 
research in government laboratories, thereby 
discouraging industry from starting or ex- 
panding its own research facilities. For 
example, in the United States, government 
laboratories use only 15 per cent of their 
national research and development funds; 
in the United Kingdom 26 per cent; in 
Canada the figure is 36 per cent. This tends 
to reduce the likelihood of economic returns, 
because the research is not closely enough 
related to possible economic production and 
returns. 

How can the provincial government play 
a role in shifting the emphasis to applied 
research and development? There may be 
many answers and many views on this, but 
my own impression is that this might best 
be achieved through an expansion of the work 



of the Ontario Research Foundation. It is a 
highly respected organization, in close touch 
with industry. At the moment the province 
matches, dollar for dollar, the revenue which 
ORF receives from the industry through its 
contract research. It would seem to me 
advisable to expand any R and D programme 
through the established machinery of the 
ORF, with an even greater emphasis on en- 
couraging the development of private indus- 
trial research facilities within the industry. 

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I find it exciting to 
contemplate the possibilities of developing in 
Ontario the kind of close working relation- 
ship between universities and industry which 
has resulted in such a phenomenal economic 
growth in New England, or in Texas, or in 
California. It seems to me that we have all 
the ingredients for this kind of development 
here in the province of Ontario— in the Sheri- 
dan Park complex with the Ontario Research 
Foundation intimately tied in with it; in the 
close relationship which such research facili- 
ties should be able to establish with so many 
of our established universities which are 
geographically near at hand; and on the 
research institutes, which have now been 
established in three Ontario universities. 

The very fact that these facilities are not 
all concentrated in one place could result in 
a desirable decentralization of industrial 
development, thereby assisting in a more 
effective regional development, an objective 
that we all pay lip service to, but which gets 
fulfilled only to a painfully small degree. 
Certainly this combination of management 
know-how, university brains, and research 
finance by private and public funds, is the 
key to dynamic, economic development, so 
much so, that Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber, 
in his recent book, the "American Challenge", 
warns that it is resulting in a virtual take- 
over of the European Common Market by 
U.S.A. interests. 

It surely represents the key to the kind of 
economic development which Ontario must 
have to provide the job opportunities for its 
growing population and the expanded wealth 
to meet our growing needs in this province. 

Maintenant, M. l'Orateur, pendant le mois 
d'octobre, j'ai passe deux semaines a suivre 
un cours d'immersion totale dans le frangais. 
Je veux faire rapport a l'Assemblee que 
c'etait une experience des plus satisfaisantes. 
Je suis convaincu que pour celui qui est 
interese, et qui a quelques facilites pour 
les langues, le bilinguisme est un but now 
seulement realisable mais franchement exci- 
tant. 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



191 



An cas ou il y en aura ceux qui pensent 
que le cours n'est qu'une rigolade, permettez- 
moi de vous desabuser. Nous etions debout 
avant sept heures chaque matin pour dejeuner 
a sept heures quinze. Les cours debutaient 
a huit heures et continuaient jusqu'a onze 
heures trente. Les cours reprenaient a deux 
heures et se poursuivaient jusqu'a cinq 
heures. Le soir, encore trois heures de cours 
— de sept heures trente jusqu'a dix heures 
trente. 

Pendant les repas et les periodes de recre- 
ation, nous causions en francais. Enfin, dans 
les quelques instants qui nous restaient avant 
le coucher on nous obligeait de lire quelques 
chapitres du "Compte de Monte Cristo", et 
d'en faire un r6sume ccrit en frangais. 

En somme, M. l'Orateur, c'etait une baig- 
nade sans merci dans le francais. Comme 
disait un de nos instituteurs avec beaucoup 
d'a propos, c'etait un lavage de cerveau en 
regie. 

Toutefois, gardons-nous d'exagerer: pen- 
dant les classes ici a Queen's Park, nous avons 
complete huit a dix lecons. A la fin de la 
baignade nous en avions complete quinze. 

Le cours complet comprend trente-deux 
lecons. Done pour ceux d'entre nous qui ont 
pratique l'immersion totale, nous sommes tout 
juste qu'a mi-chemin. Ne demandez pas de 
nous d'etre parfaits bilingues— pas si tot! 

Mon experience personnelle mise a part, 
je suis devenu encore plus interesse dans tout 
le probleme de l'enseignement des langues. 
Aujourd'hui, en Ontario, il y a des milliers 
de nouveaux Canadiens qui prennent des 
cours d'anglais pour maitriser la langue du 
monde du travail. Je me suis demande 
jusqu'a quel point nous nous servons de ces 
nouvelles methodes, et si l'approche generale 
etait toujours l'etude plutot morne et vieux 
jeu de la grammaire— la methode qui s'est 
montree si peu efficace pour developper la 
maitrise d'une langue. 

Apres enquete, je me rends compte que 
l'Ontario, fort heureusement, s'est acquis en 
1963 un comite des langues modernes qui 
est a la fois actif et clairvoyant. Ce comite 
opere sous les auspices de l'lnstitut Ontarien 
des Programmes d'etudes. 

Depuis 1966, ce travail est continue par 
l'entremise du centre des langues modernes 
qui fait parti de l'linstitut Ontarien pour les 
Etudes en Education. Celui-ci est le seul 
institut au Canada anglais qui a comme tache 
l'etude des langues. II est a esperer qu'a par- 
tir de ses efforts, le Canada pourra realiser 
da vantage son heritage linquistique. 

De plus, on m'informe que les cours d'an- 



glais offerts par la section de la citoyennete 
aux nouveaux Canadiens se servent de ces 
nouvelles methodes. Done, nous pouvons 
esperer que les methodes actuelles auront 
comme resultat un bilinguisme plus pousse 
que fut le cas pendant l'epoque du "high 
school French" auquel la plupart d'entre nous 
fut expose. 

Ceci m'amene directement au sujet de 
prime importance: celui des efforts de l'On- 
tario a devenir une province bilingue et ainsi 
soulager les tensions qui menacent de faire 
sauter la Confederation. 

Ce gouvernement a fait sien le but trace 
dans le rapport de la Commission Royale sur 
le Bilinguisme et le Biculturalisme. II y a 
bientot un an, le premier ministre annoncait 
la creation de quatre groupes de travail: un 
pour faire enquete sur l'a propos de mettre 
en vigueur les recommandations concernant 
l'administration de la justice; un deuxieme sur 
l'Assemblee et les statuts provinciaux; un troi- 
sieme sur l'administration municipale; et un 
quatrieme sur la fonction publique provin- 
cial. 

On m'informe que ces groupes de travail 
ont tous acheve leurs taches et que leurs rap- 
ports se trouvent maintenant aux mains du 
gouvernement. Je demande au premier mi- 
nistre quand il a l'intention de remettre ces 
rapports a cette Chambre, et ce que le gou- 
vernement envisage a faire a la lumiere de 
leurs recommandations. 

Evidemment, ces etudes sont d'une impor- 
tance fondamentale quant a toute action a 
entreprendre en vue de la formation de dis- 
tricts bilingues tels qu'envisages par le rap- 
port Laurendeau-Dunton pour toute region 
ou la population d'expression francaise com- 
porte 10 pour cent ou davantage du total. 
Deja, le gouvernement federal a presente son 
projet de Loi concernant le Statut des Lan- 
gues OfBcielles du Canada. Cette loi forme le 
cadre dans lequel pourrons agir les provinces. 

Je formule l'espoir que le gouvernement 
procedera pendant cette session a la realisa- 
tion de cette recommandation — clef de la 
commission Laurendeau-Dunton. Pour que le 
Canada devienne pays bilingue, l'Ontario doit 
prendre la tete. 

Je ne peux faire mieux que de citer brieve- 
ment Monsieur Vincent Prince du Devoir. 
Voici l'extrait d'un editorial du 8 decembre, 
1967 intitule "Les districts bilingues, pierre 
angulaire et pierre de touche du rapport 
Laurendeau". Je cite: 

Nous croyons que les commissaires ont 
raison de parler de "pierre angulaire". Ce 



192 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



sont des districts, en effet, qui viendront 
donner un sens pratique et concret a toutes 
les autres recommandations. C'est par eux 
que, territorialement, les deux groupes lin- 
guistiques atteindront vraiment a un cer- 
tain statut d'egalite meme en dehors du 
Quebec. 

Les francophones qui vivront dans ces 
districts officiellement consideres comme 
bilingues continueront, certes, a subir une 
grande partie des inconvenients inherents a 
leur etat de minoritaires, mais, au plan de 
leurs relations avec l'autorite telle qu'elle 
s'incarne dans leur petit coin de la patrie, 
ils n'auraient plus cette penible impression 
de se trouver completement en pays etran- 
ger. 

II y aura desormais, en d'autres termes, 
d'importants ilots a travers le pays ou le 
caractere bilingue du Canada pourra se re- 
fleter. II sera possible de sortir du "ghetto" 
quebecois sans tomber necessairement en 
territoire unilingue anglais. 

Mais nous dirions que la creation de ces 
districts ne sera pas que la pierre angulaire 
de la reforme d'ensemble suggeree par la 
commission royale d'enquete. II en sera 
aussi la pierre de touche. Le refus ou 
l'acceptation d'un semblable projet par les 
autorites federates ou provinciales permet- 
tra, en effet, de nous fixer une fois pour 
toutes sur la bonne ou la mauvaise volonte 
du Canada anglais, s'il y a de la bonne vo- 
lonte, bien des espoirs restent permis; par 
contre, si la mauvaise volonte devient mani- 
festo, il y aurait plus lieu de trop miser sur 
l'avenir de la confederation. 

Le peuple ontarien est en tres grande majo- 
rity engage a outrance a la preservation et a 
la consolidation de la confederation. 

Je suis d'avis que Monsieur Vincent Prince 
n'exagere point l'importance des districts bi- 
lingues pour atteindre ce but. 

Pour cette raison je presse le gouvernement 
a proceder a leur realisation avec toute hate 
possible. Le gouvernement est assure d'a- 
vance de l'appui non equivoque du Nouveau 
Parti Democratique. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, returning to the lan- 
guage in which we will be more efficient, 
may I say that I want now to turn to what is 
undoubtedly the major question before this 
session of the Legislature— that of taxes, tax 
reforms, and the related question of new 
fiscal agreements with the federal govern- 
ment for sharing of the tax dollar. 

Before I begin, may I say that I was most 
interested in the comments by the leader of 



the Opposition in this connection. In the first 
of his comments, for what appears to me to 
be the first time there was a frank assertion 
that there was need for some renegotiation of 
the tax base with the federal government, as 
well as some protests with regard to the fed- 
eral government's unilateral decision not to 
share die new social development tax. 

In essence, the Liberal Party's position is 
that Ottawa is too rigid! But there is no in- 
dication really as to how Ottawa's rigidity 
should be eased, that basic rigidity that has 
been going on for two years. 

The interjection of the leader of the Oppo- 
sition indicates that he is only referring to 
what happened in the last month or two, in- 
stead of the two years of adamant stand with 
regard to the federal government. 

But he has also said, Mr. Speaker, that 
Ontario is too rigid, that we might as well 
accept from Ottawa what Ottawa is offering. 
After all, they made this assertion two years 
ago and they have not changed, so, in effect, 
why continue to argue with Ottawa. 

Now, that is all very fine, but then he 
comes back and says, without any specific 
delineation of the programme, that this gov- 
ernment obviously has to cut back in many 
ways. That is the main preoccupation of the 
Liberal government, a preoccupation that 
should not be ignored. But I suggest it is not 
the whole issue. If there is going to be a cut- 
back, we must know where the cutback is 
going to be in terms of services. I venture a 
prediction— and perhaps this is where a poli- 
tician should not stick his neck out— but after 
listening to this government last year talk 
about all the savings that must be made in 
cutting to the bone, we finally got a budget 
in this province which was for $486 million 
larger— the largest single increase of any year 
in Ontario's history. 

I venture the prediction that in spite of all 
the gloom and doom, in spite of all the talk, 
that we are going to cut back, that we are 
cutting to the bone, when the budget comes 
clown, it is going to be significantly larger 
than it was last year. 

But the most important thing is that there 
is no suggestion— certainly no suggestion, 
other than by implication— no suggestion in 
detail from the Liberal party as to the basic 
need that has got to be tackled, namely, the 
reform of our tax structure. 

What the Liberal Party is asking this gov- 
ernment to do is to seek some alteration in 
the division in the present inequitable tax 
structure— the present inequitable tax dollar. 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



193 



No real consideration of tackling the Carter 
commission in its recommendations— no real 
consideration back in the province of Ontario 
of tax reform. 

Mr. Speaker, in my view that makes a 
mockery of the kind of society we are 
attempting to build in this nation, either at 
the national or provincial level— what is re- 
ferred to as a just society. 

Taxes are certainly the most topical issue 
today. Little wonder when you look at recent 
developments. Rising property taxes have hit 
almost everyone. Earlier this year we all felt 
the provincial hikes in the gasoline and the 
tobacco taxes, motor vehicle licenses, hospital 
md medicare premiums, and fishing and hunt- 
ing licenses. Ottawa's new social development 
tax has now been added to the personal in- 
come surcharge which went into effect last 
January 1, and to the federal liquor, beer and 
tobacco taxes brought in a month earlier. 

Never in our history has there been such a 
rapid-fire attack on our personal pockets. 
Naturally, it has aroused deep concern, par- 
ticularly when it is coincident with a rise in 
living costs at double the rate of the previous 
decade. Loud noises from government spokes- 
men at both Queen's Park and Ottawa warn 
us that we have not seen anything yet, so the 
issue becomes of even greater importance 
than the current scene seems to suggest. 

A situation such as this prompts one to ask 
whether the Liberals in Ottawa, or the Con- 
servatives here at Queen's Park, know what 
they are doing in the tax field. Have they a 
tax philosophy? Oliver Wendell Holmes once 
said: "With taxes I buy civilization." We all 
know that nothing in this world is free, and 
the public programmes must be paid for 
through taxes. 

We also recognize that an increasing num- 
ber of our wants can bs met only through 
community action. You cannot buy a yard of 
clean air at the department store, or a mile 
of super highway as an extra with your car. 
But if we are going to finance more things 
collectively through taxes, we must be abso- 
lutely sure that they are imposed in the fair- 
est possible way. 

Several years ago, John Kenneth Galbraith 
warned us that we face a superabundance of 
private goods, but a famine in public goods. 
The truth of his statement is self-evident 
today. Our stores are jammed with every 
kind of electrical gadgets and toys for Christ- 
mas shoppers, but we have not enough serv- 
iced land to keep the price of lots at reason- 
able levels for prospective home owners. 



We have not sufficient space in our com- 
munity colleges for the 2,300 applicants who 
were turned away this year. We have not 
enough government funds, through rehabili- 
tation and counselling, which might end the 
poverty syndrome, that condemns generation 
;ifter generation to a life of welfare and 
deprivation. 

Galbraith pointed out that with this kind 
of distortion, in our allocating our resources, 
none of us enjoys the good life to the full. 

The enjoyment of having a car is seriously 
reduced on highways that are congested and 
dangerous. The satisfaction of owning a sum- 
mer cottage is a much less if there is no 
unpolluted lake to swim in. But this brings 
us face to face, Mr. Speaker, with the 
dilemma of our day. 

When you offer people a choice between 
doing without public goods— which are essen- 
tial to their well-being— or an increasing tax 
to finance them, many prefer to do without 
the public goods because they simply cannot 
afford them. And they are dead right in that 
conclusion! 

The couple between 66 and 70 years of 
age, for example, living on an old age pen- 
sion, even with a supplement, have only 
$2,570 income. They just cannot afford $47.40 
that they now must pay in income tax, nor 
can they afford the 5 per cent provincial sales 
tax and the hidden federal sales tax, which 
they pay on almost all of the goods they 
purchase, except food. 

The person on fixed income cannot absorb 
the increase in his property taxes every year. 
Nor can the 190,000 workers on minimum 
wages afford any more taxes, because even 
the new minimum wage income levels rep- 
resent only $2,704 a year, if they are lucky 
enough to work 40 hours a week. Such 
minimum wage levels simply establish and 
condone a pocket of poverty which stretches 
all across the province of Ontario. 

Even less can these groups, and many 
others, afford an increase in the sales tax, 
or an extension of the sales tax to food, car 
repairs or hair cuts. A tax system which 
imposes heavier burdens on people such as 
these is grossly inequitable. They are carry- 
ing more than their fair share of the burden 
right now. But there are groups which can 
afford to pay more to ensure that they them- 
selves, or society as a whole, are not starved 
of public goods. 

The person who makes a capital gain on 
the stock market has more money in his 
pocket than his neighbour. The land specu- 
lator who reaps a windfall gain from the 



194 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



growth of a community has an unearned 
profit financed out of the taxes paid by 
everybody. The person, or company, able to 
take advantage of the present income tax 
loopholes is holding privileged dollars which 
are taxed more lightly than those in the 
pockets of the ordinary wage earners. 

We must, and we can, afford more public 
goods if we are going to meet the problems 
of urbanization and break the stalemate 
which is leading to the civil unrest every- 
where. But we can afford them only if we 
finance them by fair share taxes based on 
the ability to pay. This will require a re- 
structuring of our entire tax system at all 
three levels of government, but the present 
shrill dialogue between the Tories here and 
the Liberals in Ottawa and our municipal 
representatives has degenerated into an aim- 
less squabbling which offers no hope of satis- 
fying the needs of the people they claim to 
represent. 

In short, Mr. Speaker, I think what we 
have got to do first is take a look at what 
are the features of an equitable tax struc- 
ture. I want to deal with that now in terms 
of the distinctive features of a New Demo- 
cratic tax system. 

1. The first principle would be basic 
equity, with every citizen being called upon 
to assume his fair share— no more, no less— 
of the total burden. People in like circum- 
stances would be treated equally. 

2. No type of income should go untaxed. 

3. It should effect a significant redistribu- 
tion of income and wealth with our objec- 
tive being equality of condition rather than 
merely of opportunity. 

4. It should, of course, be based on ability 
to pay, with rate schedules even more pro- 
gressive. 

5. The tax system should be regarded as 
a major instrument in planning economic 
growth and assuring full employment. 

6. It must reflect increasing emphasis on 
channelling corporate surpluses, which are 
the major pool of investment capital, in 
greater measure toward major public projects. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to this House 
that you can get a picture of the New Demo- 
cratic tax system if you study the 20 dissents 
that were made by the New Democratic 
members who sat on the select committee 
which studied the Smith committee recom- 
mendations. 

In essence they demanded "a reshaping of 
the Ontario tax structure to make it a truly 
dynamic and progressive tax system". 



Such a tax system will rely primarily on 
those sources which are most equitable and 
whose yield is most elastic— sources like the 
income tax and transfers of wealth between 
generations, all of which produce increases 
in revenue at a faster rate than the provin- 
cial products grow. This occurs because such 
taxes are generally levied with progressive 
rate schedules. 

But even these taxes will be equitable, 
and will yield their true potential, only if 
all income and wealth is included in the tax 
base. As the Carter commission pointed out, 
our present taxes in these fields are like a 
sieve through which many dollars escape, or 
are taxed too lightly. Such things as capital 
gains, stock options, resources industry profits 
and insurance investment income make up 
the $5 billion which is not carrying its proper 
share of the collective costs of our society. 

Broadening the tax base and closing these 
loopholes to catch exempt income dollars 
will produce a substantial increase in revenue 
for both the federal and provincial govern- 
ments, without any increase in the present 
tax rates, or any additional burden on the 
ordinary wage earner or pensioner. 

I ask this question: have we ever heard 
the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) of this 
province, or the Provincial Treasurer (Mr. 
MacNaughton), advocating such a reform? 
Have the Liberals mentioned this source of 
revenue? Their joint silence on this topic is 
deafening. Ottawa's virtual rejection of the 
Carter report, and Mr. Trudeau's spurning 
of a capital gains tax during the election 
campaign, indicates little prospect for a 
broadened tax base. Instead, the federal 
Liberals put their new taxes on these least 
able to pay. 

Most economists reject complete reliance 
on income tax alone for all revenue needs 
and they recommend instead a carefully 
balanced mix of taxes on income, wealth and 
consumption. This ensures that no form of 
activity escapes tax; that visitors and non- 
resident companies pay a share, and that 
rates do not get out of line with those in 
neighbouring jurisdictions or cause psycho- 
logical blocks to certain kinds of economic 
activity. 

In our opinion, the ideal tax is one which 
places most stress on reformed and broadened 
income and wealth taxes, and de-emphasizes 
property taxes, sales taxes, flat rate premiums 
and other regressive forms of taxation. 

Furthermore, in all its levies the ideal tax 
mix includes relieving clauses which lift the 
burden of taxation from the low income 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



195 



groups, who really have no surplus after they 
have provided for their food, clothing and 
shelter needs. These groups may even be 
entitled to a negative tax which would return 
to them some of the collective contributions 
from other groups which are fortunate 
enough to have more bargaining power in 
the market place. 

You can call this principle a negative in- 
come tax, or a guaranteed annual income, or 
whatever term you wish. If it is m~re than 
a refund of over-taxation it recognizes our 
fiscal system must include redistribution as 
one of its elements, to compensate for the 
imperfections of the market system. 

The New Democratic Party tax mix will 
not, I assure you, follow the present Tory 
trend of reducing the proportion of revenue 
derived from corporate income— something 
which has been going on for the past ten 
years or so— while increasing the proportion 
from personal income. Even if we concede 
that some of the corporate taxes is passed on 
to consumers and becomes, in effect, a sales 
tax, the exact amount varies from industry 
to industry and depends on the competitive 
conditions of the moment. 

There are strong arguments for continuing 
to collect a fair share from corporate sur- 
pluses, particularly when a large proportion 
of them go across the border, and if untaxed, 
simply benefit either foreign shareholders or 
foreign governments at the expense of the 
Canadian taxpayer. 

Transfer of wealth between generations is 
another revenue source which must be in- 
cluded in the tax mix. This source has been 
neglected by the present government. In a 
paper delivered to the Canadian Tax Foun- 
dation conference on the Smith report last 
January, Professor Claude Forget, of the 
University of Montreal, said: 

"Wealth taxation could make a decidedly 
greater contribution to public finances. 
Moreover, from an economic viewpoint, 
given the reason for people saving, estate 
and gift taxes are most unlikely to reduce 
the amount of savings. If anything, those 
taxes may very well stimulate savings. 

A rather sharply contradictory view to that 
which is normally propagated, I suggest to 
you, Mr. Speaker. 

The new federal rules under which trans- 
fers between spouses are exempt, and heavier 
taxes are placed on other transfers, will make 
it necessary for Ontario to re-examine our 
succession duties. If we do not act promptly, 
the lack of harmonization between the two 
statutes will cause great inconvenience to 



taxpayers and our failure to impose a gift 
tax will permit the revenue to be seriously 
eroded. The Smith committee recommended 
a provincial gift tax, but the select commit- 
tee's conservative majority— and I think that 
could be a small "c" there— backed away 
from it. The New Democratic members dis- 
sented from the committee's timidity. 

I note that the Ontario Economic Council 
does not appear to share the select commit- 
tee's feeling that transfers between genera- 
tions are a suitable tax source. On page 11 
of its report, the select committee says: 

Your committee, moreover, thinks that 
the area of wealth taxes has been inade- 
quately explored, and that it offers both 
qualitative and quantitative advantages as 
a potential source of revenue. 

The economic council's conclusions are in 
striking contrast to that. It claims that the 
present wealth taxes in Canada represent "an 
economically regressive taxation policy". Its 
study of succession duties is a lop-sided 
analysis of their effect only on closely-held 
private corporations. In order to permit the 
small segment of the population engaged in 
this type of business activity to establish 
small dynasties, the council is prepared to 
completely free from taxes the shares of 
such companies. Its tender solicitude for this 
class of succession duty taxpayers is based 
on a premise which both Carter and the 
Smith commission found false after consider- 
able research, namely, that estate taxes and 
succession duties are the cause of the break- 
up of family businesses or their take-over by 
foreign owners. 

One wonders then if the government will 
respond to the economic council's neanderthal 
advice to discriminate in favour of one form 
of business activity, and to question the 
whole function of inheritance taxes, when 
the select committee urged greater reliance 
on them. 

One also wonders about the merits of 
retaining a body such as the economic coun- 
cil which appears to have become so pre- 
occupied with the building up of special 
privilege and inequality of economic oppor- 
tunity in this province. 

But, Mr. Speaker, to return to the general 
picture. The New Democratic Party also 
believes that a proper tax mix must include a 
fair return to the people of the province for 
the use of their resources. The present rev- 
enue amounts to less than two per cent of 
the $2 billion produced by our mining and 
forest industries. It does not even cover the 



196 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



cost of the services provided to those in- 
dustries by the provincial and local govern- 
ments. 

Furthermore, in our tax mix, the heavy 
burden of the regressive property tax will 
be lightened by the provincial government's 
gradual assumption of education, health and 
welfare costs, and by promoting efficiency 
through regional government. 

In addition, burdens and costs will be 
equalized through the adoption of the muni- 
cipal foundation programme for general serv- 
ices, similar to the educational foundation 
programme now in effect. I dealt with this 
proposal at length in the Throne speech last 
February and I note that the select commit- 
tee on the Smith report moved toward 
acceptance of the principle in its recom- 
mendations for mining municipalities. Unfor- 
tunately, its formula does not go far enough 
and equalizes mainly the revenue side of 
the equation, without giving sufficient weight 
to differences in costs of providing services 
among these municipalities. Also, it only 
brings municipalities up to the provincial 
average, which may not be adequate to 
assure a proper standard of services to all 
residents of the province. 

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party 
would also lighten the sales tax, either by 
exempting additional necessities of life, or 
by providing tax credits and rebates for 
those which are difficult to administer. The 
credit approach is a familiar device for off- 
setting tax on items where an exemption is 
cumbersome, but it is completely unsuitable 
as a substitute for a food exemption since 
food constitutes such a large proportion of 
the spending of low income families, and 
they simply cannot afford to wait for a 
refund of excess tax six months or a year 
later. 

Under our tax mix, we would depart from 
the highly regressive method of financing 
hospital and medical care largely through 
flat rate premiums. Instead, we propose 
nominal premiums for most families and in- 
dividuals, with complete exemption for wel- 
fare recipients and low income groups. The 
balance of the cost would be financed from 
the progressive tax system which a New 
Democratic government will substitute for 
our present lopsided system after the 1971 
election. 

We believe that gasoline and motor ve- 
hicle taxes should be kept to a level sufficient 
to negotiate the motorists' fair share of the 
cost of providing road systems. Current eco- 
nomic thinking in the Smith report places 



this at somewhere between two-thirds and 
three-quarters of the expenditures. 

Incidentally, our present highway taxes 
are something over 100 per cent, and yester- 
day, by a decision that has not yet come 
before this House, we had an increase further 
in car licenses. ^ 

However, Mr. Speaker, having dealt in 
many details in this broad tax picture with 
the tax mix that we would advocate let me 
then summarize the approaches which a 
New Democratic government would follow 
in reforming the tax system of the province 
of Ontario. 

First, the tax mix would be altered to 
emphasize those taxes which are most pro- 
gressive, growth-producing and offer the 
most potential for revenue. 

Second, we would reform the personal 
and corporate income taxes so as to broaden 
the overall tax base, close the present tax 
loopholes, and afford a greater measure of 
relief to low income earners. 

Third, we would institute a tax on capital 
gains and on speculative land transactions. 

Fourth, relief of the property tax would 
flow from the province assuming a larger 
proportion of current municipal costs, and 
through a foundation plan for municipal 
finance. 

Fifth, we would decrease reliance on the 
sales tax, and exempt additional necessities. 

Sixth, we would move away from regres- 
sive, flat rate premiums as the principal 
means of paying for health and hospital 
services. 

Seventh, taxes on motor vehicles and gaso- 
line would be kept to a level representing 
their fair share of road costs. 

This then is our concept of an ideal tax 
system. It is the only one which will en- 
sure that our collective needs are paid for 
in accordance with ability to pay, and that 
they are not denied because the burden of 
taxes is too heavy on some segments of the 
population. 

While the Smith committee and the select 
committee on taxation fell short of this ideal 
system, it did provide us with a wealth of 
material and proposals which must now be 
sifted through and the progressive proposals 
implemented. What we need, Mr. Speaker, 
is the machinery for establishing a continu- 
ing working relationship between the pro- 
vincial government and the municipalities to 
achieve this objective. 

My proposal would be that there should 
be set up a provincial tax structure commit- 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



197 



tee for working out collective decisions and 
producing an integrated taxation policy at 
the provincial level. 

If there is a need— and Ontario has been 
arguing it vigorously for years— for the fed- 
eral government to sit down with the prov- 
inces and work out systematically a more 
accurate equation of responsibilities and 
revenues to meet them, then there is an 
equally pressing need for the province to 
sit down with the municipalities. Together 
they must work out an integrated tax policy, 
providing the municipalities with the neces- 
sary revenues to meet whatever responsibili- 
ties are going to be left with them, and that 
is our decision as to what shall be left with 
them. 

An integrated tax policy at the provincial- 
municipal level becomes even more important 
as we move to the establishment of regional 
government. Larger and more efficient units 
of local government will make it possible for 
their province to restore local autonomy and 
make certain that each region can raise 
more of its revenue needs. We can then 
get away from the present extensive reliance 
on provincial grants. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, how does this restruc- 
tured tax system worked out through the 
more democratic machinery of a provincial 
tax structure committee contrast with what 
the Tories have built up over the last 25 
\cars? Let us take a look at it. 

In the first place, this government has left 
an excessive load on the homeowner by fail- 
ing to lighten the property tax burden through 
a substantial shift in the responsibilities to the 
province. The $150 million basic shelter 
grants were only a token handout which offset 
1968 tax increases, but will not stop the 
steady rise in urban costs next year or the 
year after. It is doubtful if they will benefit 
many tenants at all. 

The government also has made no real 
effort to obtain a reform of the income tax. 
They have rejected a capital gains tax, or an 
unearned increment tax on land speculation, 
and regretfully the select committee backed 
them up on this with that Conservative ma- 
jority. They have not endorsed any of the 
Carter proposals for broadening the tax base 
or closing the loopholes. All this government 
has done is ask for a bigger share of an unre- 
formed income tax which hits the lower in- 
come groups unfairly and is not producing its 
full revenue potential for either the federal 
or provincial governments. 

Instead of looking to a reformed income 
tax, both personal and corporate, for more 



revenue the government has continued to add 
to the regressivity of our tax system by in- 
creasing flat-rate premiums for hospitalization 
and OMSIP, and by raising gasoline and 
motor vehicle taxes well beyond the level 
needed to finance the motorists' proper share 
of road costs. 

In addition, the government has taken no 
steps to increase significantly, revenue from 
our mining industry. It contents itself with 
a yield of about $16 million from a billion- 
dollar industry to meet both provincial and 
municipal purposes. 

The recent increases in forest levies were 
also token, and will likely bring in only a 
million dollars extra from this second billion- 
dollar resource industry. 

In summary, Mr. Speaker, all of the present 
government's recent tax reforms have reduced 
the progressivity of our provincial tax system 
and added excessive amounts to the burden 
carried by the lower and middle income 
groups. All this at a time when promises of 
tax reform arc bandied about with reckless 
abandon. 

The select committee demanded that: 
"Changes in the tax mix and in the tax rates 
be designed so that the overall Ontario tax 
system is restructured along more progressive 
lines in the interest of social justice and eco- 
nomic growth." High-sounding words! We 
are still waiting for some indication that the 
government shares this philosophy. 

Nor have we seen any sign that the Lib- 
erals accept this philosophy. They have not 
called for a fundamental reform of the in- 
come tax, nor have they endorsed a capital 
gains tax or a land speculators' tax. They did 
not put in a dissent on the proposal to tax 
food under the sales tax, though I will have 
to agree— 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi- 
tion): That is incorrect. 

Mr. MacDonald: I repeat— they did not put 
in a dissent on the proposal to tax food under 
the sales tax in the report but, I will agree 
that when the public storm broke, their panic- 
was exceeded only by that of the Tory back- 
benchers and they have been dissenting daily 
ever since. 

Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): I advocated 
the tax on land here last year and the member 
for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) jeered at 
me. 

Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): The hon. mem- 
ber for Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick) is right 



198 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



when he says the hon. member for York 
South (Mr. MacDonald) is not credible. 

Mr. MacDonald: Instead the Liberals— I 
guess I have gotten to them— instead the Lib- 
erals have spent most of their time defending 
the federal government's shifting of the tax 
system away from progressivity and its denial 
of additional tax room for the provinces. They 
have offered no solution to the pressing rev- 
enue needs of this province beyond sugg3sting 
that economies should be made by govern- 
ment reorganization. 

Admittedly, Mr. Speaker, there are savings 
possible from the elimination of waste and 
improvement of government efficiency. We 
do not overlook them. We would apply 
modern and imaginative techniques of for- 
ward planning, regional decentralization, pro- 
gramme budgeting, cost-benefit analysis, 
operations research, centralized purchasing, 
and so on. 

It should be pointed out that the most 
expensive politics are crash programmes, 
hastily devised in reaction to some crisis. This 
is the kind of spending which the present 
government is forced into in the housing 
crisis, the sewage problem, growing unem- 
ployment and the shortage of serviced land. 
Heaven knows how many millions are wasted 
because of inadequate planning to anticipate 
highly predictable needs. 

The New Democratic Party government 
would also look to increased revenues from 
the expansionary economic policies which we 
would pursue. Raising productivity, and put- 
ting the unemployed to work would increase 
the revenue share of the provincial pie and 
mean a lighter burden of taxes for everyone. 
Turning welfare recipients into self-support- 
ing citizens through rehabilitation would both 
increase revenues and reduce expenditures. 

But in the last analysis, Mr. Speaker, we 
would rely on a restructured tax system for 
the main financing of our programmes. Tax 
reforms cannot be delayed any longer; and 
the Throne Speech on this as on most things, 
is simply bankrupt. 

Now, we recognize that Ontario cannot 
reshape its tax system alone. The level of 
taxation and the tax mix chosen by the fed- 
eral government inevitably affects our free- 
dom of action, and vice versa. The fiscal 
climate is affected by the interplay of the 
taxing and borrowing decisions of all three 
levels of government. Nor can we achieve a 
full reform of the income tax structure with- 
out the co-operation of the federal govern- 
ment. Regardless of constitutional provisions, 



we are not 11 watertight compartments, but 
rather a nation seeking common economic 
and social goals. We cannot achieve these by 
acting in isolation, whether we are a large 
province or a small one. We do so at the 
peril of national unity, economic growth and 
a rational system of priorities and taxation. 

The present impasse in the federal -provin- 
cial relations is a serious one. We all recog- 
nize that we have growing needs at all levels 
of government. We all want to develop 
Canada as a strong viable economy, and in 
a country where every resident has an equal 
right to a basic standard of services. We all 
want a society in which mobility of popula- 
tion is always available so that citizens will 
not be penalized because of geographic 
location. 

But, we also recognize that our resources 
are not unlimited and we must allocate them 
among our different wants in both the public 
and private sector in a way which is most 
likely to achieve these national goals. 

The present Liberal government at Ottawa 
is pursuing a stiff-necked attitude of con- 
sidering only federal priorities and federal 
problems. Trudeau's parochial approach rep- 
resents such an abdication of national leader- 
ship that it may be an even greater threat to 
the long-term interests of this country than 
the aimless drift of the earlier Pearson regime. 

For example, the federal government's cur- 
rent proposal that the provinces take almost 
full responsibility for the three programmes 
which most closely affect our lives today- 
education, health and welfare— will remove 
these areas from inclusion in federal priorities 
and federal initiatives. It will simply lead to 
a hodge-podge of standards and a jungle of 
regressive taxes to finance them. 

Without adequate equalization, some prov- 
inces will be unable to provide an acceptable 
basic level of services in these fields. Cana- 
dians will not be able to move from province 
to province without grave disturbances in 
their lives. Wherever they live they will face 
unequal tax burdens. We shall be creating 
and consolidating nationally the inequities 
which we are seeking to remove within each 
province. 

There will be a balkanization of decision- 
making in the most crucial areas of our 
national well being. All this from a Prime 
Minister who presented himself to the people 
last June as a champion of national unity! 

Mr. Nixon: And now commands over 50 
per cent of national support. 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



199 



Mr. Sopha: Do the hon. members under- 
stand why the hon. member for Riverdale says 
"MacDonald cannot win"? 

An hon. member: Now we know. 

Mr. MacDonald: If this devolution of re- 
sponsibilities to the provinces is accompanied 
by an adequate transfer of tax room, the fed- 
eral government will be left with insufficient 
control of the fiscal levers for stabilizing the 
economy. There is as yet no sign of any joint 
federal-provincial machinery to take over this 
responsibility. Unless the granting of the tax 
room is accompanied by more adequate 
equalization than we now have, the rich prov- 
inces will get richer and the poor ones poorer 
under such a system. Emerging from the con- 
stitutional conferences a year ago was a wide- 
spread recognition that regional disparities 
and economic growth and living standard 
represented as great a threat to Canadian 
unity as the differences between English and 
French Canada. In spite of that recognition 
the federal government is pursuing policies 
which will increase those disparities. 

I will give Ontario's Prime Minister credit 
that the government here has seen the danger 
to our national unity arising from such a 
federal stance. It has asked for federal-pro- 
vincial machinery to set priorities, and engage 
in joint fiscal planning. It has expressed its 
willingness to share in an equalization pro- 
gramme to remove regional disparity. 

But this government, Mr. Speaker, has 
also shown an unwillingness to face realities 
when it simply aks for more room for pro- 
vincial priorities within an unreformed income 
tax structure that already bears too heavily 
on the lower income groups. 

With rapid growth in provincial and muni- 
cipal r^sponsibi'ities I believe that the prov- 
inces do need a bigger share of the dynamic 
progressive tax fields. But we must go beyond 
this and a^k for fundamental tax reform, and 
a radical change in the federal-provincial 
sharing of fi cal decisions. We can no longer 
solve our problems simply by accusing the 
other level cf government of selfishness. The 
kind of conduct that has been going en in 
recent months. 

Just last week, for example, Dean W. R. 
Lederman cf Queen's University law faculty, 
put his finger on the problem when he told 
the conference of the Canadian Tax Founda- 
tion: 

I beMeve in the future of Canada as a 
purely federal state. I believe our political 
leaders can ensure a great future for Canada 
as a federal state, but they will have to work 



at it in a spirit of partnership and co-opera- 
tion." 

He went on: 

"While the primary leadership must come 
from the federal government, nevertheless 
the provinces, large and small, must be 
treated as partners and not subordinates." 

And taking income taxes as an example of 
an area where this approach is necessary, 
because of the concurrent jurisdiction in that 
field, Dean Lederman said: 

"A federal system of income tax, having 
at its territorial base the whole country, can 
be more effective and more fair than separate 
provincial taxes. But the constitutional point 
is that we are dependent on voluntary inter- 
governmental agreement on the partnership 
principle of co-operative federalism— some- 
thing we must make every effort to retain 
and advance." 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Nixon: Is that a first prize boar button 
the Premier is wearing. 

Mr. MacDonald: As a matter of fact, Mr. 
Speaker, it looked like one of the MacDonald 
buttons from the convention. I just wondered 
whether one of them had been delivered to 
the Prime Minister. 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr. 
Speaker, I am interrupting the hon. member. 

I just met a group of young people who 
were in the gallery here, who are sponsoring 
youth safety clubs across Canada to increase 
the degree of safety on our highways. They 
are worling particularly with the young 
people of our country. 

I would have met them outside had I not 
felt that I should sit here and listen to the 
words of wisdom of the leader of the New 
Democratic Party. I explained to them that 
this was a leaders' day that has lasted for 
three days, and is now going to last for 
several more. In any event they are here and 
I would like to bring their activities to ycur 
attention, because they deserve all the sup- 
port we can give them as they work among 
their own age group to ensure safety on our 
highways, and this is one of their buttons. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. MacDonald: I thank the Prime Min- 
ister for his explanation of the button, and 
I thank him for a two minutes' period of 
respite. 

Picking up once again, Mr. Speaker, in my 
Throne Speech of 1967, two years ago, I 



200 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



stated that Ontario must work for the devel- 
opment of an integrated fiscal policy. When 
it was deemed advisable and necessary to 
channel the greater share of the national 
product into social capital and public serv- 
ices, we must convince Ottawa that the onus 
for raising taxes should be shared by all 
levels of government, and be done in con- 
cert with a view to the overall economic 
consequences. 

Increases should be mainly in the dynamic 
and progressive fields, and be based on ability 
to pay. I would even go so far as to suggest 
that after the 11 governments have sat down 
together, bargained about priorities, and 
agreed on changes on tax rates and the tax 
mix, they should then make a joint pre-bud- 
get announcement of the proposed changes. 
This could not include change which must 
be kept secret until implemented, but I sug- 
gest that much of the time-honoured tradition 
of budget secrecy is irrelevant today, in the 
complex inter-relationships of a federal state. 
The only purpose of secrecy is to prevent tax- 
payers from taking advantage of company 
changes to the detriment of revenue or their 
fellow citizens. 

I can see no reason why changes in per- 
sonal or corporate income tax could not be 
handled by 11 governments in the same way 
they are now handled by single governments, 
made effective on a set date and subject 
to legislative ratification. 

The sharing of the proposed tax increases 
by the different levels of government must 
also be worked out jointly in light of national 
goals and priorities. We must start develop- 
ing machinery to facilitate this joint fiscal 
planning at once, and I would hope that this 
would be one of the top items on the agenda 
of the forthcoming federal-provincial con- 
ference. It does not need to wait for con- 
stitutional reform, since it is, as Dean Leder- 
man said, "a voluntary process of negotiation 
to rationalize the sharing of joint jurisdiction 
on common tax fields." 

The reconstituting of the tax structure 
committee at the last federal-provincial con- 
ference is a step towards the establishment 
of the necessary machinery for this exer- 
cise. If, as I mentioned earlier, this whole 
effort is underpinned by a provincial tax 
structure committee, providing the machinery 
for a working— continuous working— relation- 
ship between the province and the munici- 
palities, then Ontario's delegation will be in 
a position to reflect fully and accurately the 
full range of needs within the province. 

I would further suggest that a federal tax 



structure committee should undertake, not 
only a projection of revenue and capital ex- 
penditure trends, but actually set out to con- 
struct a five-year budget for all three levels 
of government. This could be on the basis 
of bargaining and fiscal planning which we 
propose for the 11 governments and senior 
municipalities. In my view, Mr. Speaker, 
this is the only alternative for the present 
stalemate. It is the only path to national 
unity and a viable federalism. 

I have already noted, Mr. Speaker, that 
many of our large urban municipalities have 
budgets that are greater than those of the 
smaller provinces. It follows therefore, that 
if we are going to achieve integrated fiscal 
and taxation policies for the nation, the role 
and needs of these so-called "city states" 
must be more fully taken into account. 
Otherwise any integrated national policy is 
going to be ineffective. 

We must devise machinery that would 
bring the large urban municipalities more 
intimately into the consultative and decision 
process. More and more the problems we 
have to deal with in this Legislature find 
their most traumatic expression in our cities. 
This is true whether we speak of the housing 
shortage, or tenants' rights, or transporta- 
tion, pollution, municipal taxes, industrial 
development, labour relations, discrimination, 
poverty, educational opportunities, or student 
unrest. 

We should ask ourselves just how well are 
we equipped to handle these issues. What 
kind of genuine working relationship does 
this Legislature have with our cities? Are 
we satisfied that the federal government, 
insofar as its jurisdiction permits, is sharing 
the burden of these problems with us? 

There is a profound confusion in the pub- 
lic mind about the roles that are supposed 
to be played by the various levels of govern- 
ment in this country. It is a confusion grow- 
ing, not so much of the ignorance of our 
constitution, but a sense of frustration that 
real issues affecting people are just not being 
faced. 

The division of powers by which we still 
operate was arranged to govern a society 
that was largely rural. Now that society has 
changed to the point where it is over 75 per 
cent urban. People live in cities and the 
people are growing. The cities are growing 
and so are their problems. There has evolved, 
Mr. Speaker, in our cities a structure of 
governments which operates parallel to the 
provincial and federal, but rarely is there 
any meaningful or continuing relationship 
with them. 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



201 



What kind of productive contact, for ex- 
ample, has Metropolitan Toronto with this 
Legislature and the government? No more 
than the smallest rural village. That, I sug- 
gest to you, is an anachronism that we can 
no longer afford. We, at the provincial level, 
have failed in this regard. True we have a 
Department of Municipal Affairs. True, the 
work of other government departments 
affects urban life— officials from both levels 
talk to one another, not always amicably. 
But surely it is time, in view of the growth 
of our cities, and the advent of regional 
government, that we look ahead to see if we 
can develop a more modern relationship with 
urban Ontario and ensure that the making 
of key decisions is done by and at the level 
of the people most affected. 

The federal Liberal government, with its 
fixation about ensuring the most rigid divi- 
sion of powers, must take some blame for the 
hesitation to recognize a changing pattern of 
life in Canada, but there is no excuse for 
us in the Ontario Legislature to bury our 
heads in the sand. 

Why, for example, must we continue to 
pretend that there is no need for a separate 
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs? Why 
do we refuse to establish a committee of this 
Legislature to deal with housing? We are 
content to leave housing as an adjunct of 
The Department of Trade and Development. 
The Minister in charge is ignorant of the 
complexities of planning as witness his be- 
haviour over the Waterloo land use study. 
His credibility as a believable spokesman of 
government policy is now totally shattered 
by the recent revelations surrounding the 
Flemingdon Park extension. To leave the 
most critical and massive single problem fac- 
ing this government in his hands is to wel- 
come chaos, and quite frankly we are getting 
it. 

Why, for example, do we continue to re- 
fuse the municipalities the authority to insti- 
tute rent control if, in their view, the local 
situation warrants it? Why must "Big Daddy" 
at Queen's Park dictate what every munici- 
pality must do in terms of meeting their 
needs when the government has not acted 
sufficiently to build adequate housing? 

Why, for example, do we insist that pollu- 
tion must come under The Department of 
Health? Certainly it is a health hazard, but 
does that need still to be proven? Surely 
the prevention of pollution must arise from 
a co-ordinated government programme rely- 
ing on techniques and sanctions which The 
Health Department is powerless to imple- 
ment. 



I could, Mr. Speaker, give many other 
examples, but I hope I have made my point. 
Increasingly the procedures and structures 
of the government in Ontario seem irrele- 
vant to the problems and situations which 
confront the peoples. There are few munici- 
pal governments as fusty and archaic in 
their approach as this present provincial ad- 
ministration. With their day to day con- 
frontation of real problems which can be 
passed no further down the line they have 
no alternative but to be contemporary. 

But not so Queen's Park. That is why we 
have to conceive of a new relationship 
between our cities and this Legislature. I 
propose that we start by setting up on a 
permanent footing, with a permanent staff, 
an urban council for Ontario. Let us ask the 
cities to join with both government and 
Opposition members of this Legislature on 
a body where the specific pressing problems 
of the cities can be given the priorities they 
need, and the needed impact on determin- 
ing government policies. 

I would go further and invite the federal 
government also to be represented on an 
urban council for Ontario, for as in housing or 
pollution or in many other areas, Ottawa has 
a major role to play as well. 

An urban council for Ontario can provide 
a context in which municipal spokesmen, pro- 
vincial Legislatures, and representatives of 
the provincial and federal governments, can 
focus on the range of problems which have 
their greatest impact in the cities. 

I do not suggest that this council will sub- 
stitute for any present government body. It 
wouid rather fill a vacuum, and operate ancil- 
lary to this Legislature. I envisage it would 
be an ex officio body not elected, but made 
up of men and women there by virtue of 
offices held at all three levels of government. 
An urban council for Ontario can be a new 
channel of communication and a new forum 
for dialogue between Queen's Park and our 
cities. 

I hope we will not raise the nineteenth 
century constitutional roadblocks in its way. 
I recollect earlier this year that the Provincial 
Treasurer was less than welcoming when 
Ottawa proposed becoming more directly in- 
volved with urban policies. His response, in 
effect, was "stay off our property," and inci- 
dentally he was rapidly clobbered by the edi- 
torial pages of the three Toronto papers. 

That kind of attitude will only make our 
future problems more difficult and it runs 
counter to public opinion. The average man 



202 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



is not worried about constitutional jurisdic- 
tions. His view is, "We are all in it together, 
let us work it out together." 

I suggest we must be prepared to experi- 
ment with a new kind of inter-governmental 
relationship. An urban council for Ontario 
would be one such innovation, affording the 
cities and Queen's Park for the first time a 
chance to talk meaningfully with each other. 
I commend it to the government and this 
Legislature for their most serious considera- 
tion. 

Mr. Speaker, I turn in conclusion to the 
amendment which is before us, moved by the 
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nixon). 

May I say at the outset that we will sup- 
port this amendment. We will support it in 
part because it contains ideas that were ex- 
clusively ours until a year or so ago and have 
now been picked up in that normal pattern. 

We have fought with the Liberals support- 
ing the Tories in bucking permissive rent 
controls for the last two or three years. Now 
they have come over; now they recognize it 
is necessary. We also fought for years to get 
some sort of a prices review board. Last year 
they cl.mbed on that band wagon. Interest- 
ingly enough their enthusiasm is such that it 
has dropped out of any inclusive condemna- 
tion of the government, though certainly the 
government has not moved about it. So there 
is a waning of enthusiasm on the part of the 
Liberals for that issue. 

However, as one gaes through the amend- 
ments—the nine points of this amendment- 
there is nothing to which anybody who is 
opposed to this government can really take 
exception. 

That the government shouM put its hous3 
in order— we have listened all this fall to the 
cry of doom from the Prime Minister and 
the Provincial Treasurer. The province is 
facing a financial nightmare. It is rather in- 
teresting that the leading spokesmen for the 
Cabinet after 25 years of Tory rule should be 
proclaiming to the people of the province 
that the province has such a dire future ahead 
of it. However, there it is. 

Adequate housing programme— I dealt with 
this. 

The neglect of northern development— this 
is something that we have been hitting at 
continuously since the government took some- 
thing of a c he!lacking in the last provincial 
election. The Prime Minister, in pique, cut 
down the Cabinet representation frcm the 
north as a result. We will come back to that 
again. 



Provide educational opportunities and facil- 
ities, and failed to develop any effective poli- 
cies to meet the university unrest. I am rather 
interested, for example, in the specifics that 
emerged behind this general statement com- 
ing from the member for Scarborough East 
(Mr. T. Reid) in his proposals for universities. 

Two years ago I brought into this House a 
resolution in which I spelled out guidelines 
for the restructuring of the universities and I 
deliberately said, that these were guidelines 
which we could debate and proclaim, leaving 
the initiative for action to rest with the uni- 
versities so that we would not encroach upon 
their autonomy. 

The government not surprisingly said that 
this in itself was an encroachment on the 
autonomy of the universities. But the hon. 
member for Sudbury speaking, so he said, 
specifically with the approval of the leader 
of the Opposition, joined with the Tories and 
voted and argued against the resolution. 

Now we have the Liberal Party doing a 
comolete backflip and coming in with what, 
in effect, is an imposed restructuring on the 
universities. 

Mr. Sopha: Is the hon. member for the 
Duff-Berdahl report? Does he know that 
everybody in the university community has 
rejected it? Is he for it? 

Mr. MacDonaM: I am on record. If the 
hon. member has not read Hansard, I suggest 
he do so, instead of interrupting. 

Mr. Sopha: That is what his resolution was 
about— he was for the Duff-Berdahl report. 

Mr. MacDanald: "Has failed to bring about 
meaningful reform in our ancient and ineffi- 
cient system of municipal government"— that 
is a little weak but one cannot object to it. 
I would like to have seen something a little 
strongsr in terms of this government's failure 
to give leadership on regional government. 

We are drifting towards regional govern- 
ment—moving only when the pressures build 
up to the point where they have to do a 
study— when the Smith committee, the select 
committee, and many other people have indi- 
cated that there has gat to be a pattern of 
regional government provided so that all 
parts of the province will know exactly where 
they might fit in and be a guide to them to 
really come to grips with this p'oWem. 

The Prime Minister, on occasion, has said 
"plan or you will be planned". But on the 
level of regional government, they will not 
move with the necessary leadership to give 



NOVEMBER 27, 1968 



203 



assistance to this kind of planning. Even 
where you do have people who move with 
some vigour and imagination to exercise their 
responsibilities locally, as in the county of 
Waterloo, then that barnstorming Minister 
of Trade and Development (Mr. Randall) 
suddenly announces that there is going to 1m? 
a new city developed in their midst, a city 
of 60,000 people, and the locale of the city 
has nothing to do with the planned develop- 
ment in the area. 

I have reason to believe that two or three 
other Ministers in the Cabinet knew nothing 
about it at all. Then, when Doctor Fyfe, who 
is doing the overall study, reopened his hear- 
ings to find out how they are going to 
reshape their plans, and invited the Minister 
and the Ontario Housing Corporation to 
come and make representation, the Minister 
declared the criciticsm was not valid and the 
Ontario Housing Corporation would not even 
come. 

This kind of arrogant, bull-in-the-china- 
shop operation, when a region has moved 
to do some intelligent planning, is thoroughly 
disruptive. 

Mr. Speaker, this government obviously 
should be attacked for its deficiencies. How- 
ever, I just wanted to draw attention to the 
fact, as I have earlier this afternoon, that 
the Liberal amendment does not really get at 
some of the fundamental failures for which 
this government is guilty. We have heard 
very little, for example, on the kind of re- 
structured tax system which would get at a 
capital gains tax and would get at those fun- 
damentals which that creator of a just society 
pursues in Ottawa with inequitable social 
development taxes— so inequitable that even 
the water boy from Queen's Park has to 
oppose them. 

So, Mr. Speaker, I move- 
Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. MacDonald: There are a number of 
points, Mr. Speaker, which should be in- 
cluded for consideration of this House if 
we are going to get at some fundamentals; 
if we are going to do something more than 



merely tinker with the status quo, therefore, 
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the mem- 
ber for Riverdale, that the amendment be 
further amended by adding after the words 
". . . efficient system of municipal govern- 
ment," the following words: 

10. has failed to alter the existing struc- 
ture of power and wealth in our society, 
and to use the full powers and resources 
of a modern state, to 

(a) affirm housing as a basic right, and 
assist this by channelling corporate sur- 
pluses and investment funds into a major, 
government-direoted housing programme; 

(b) establish a universal, public car in- 
surance programme at cost, based on com- 
pensation without fault; 

(c) set out a realistic charter for hun- 
dreds of thousands of unorganized workers, 
including a minimum wage of $2.25 an 
hour and proper overtime and holiday pro- 
visions, and laws which will facilitate 
organization and collective bargaining; 

(d) set up a public development corpora- 
tion to undertake policies aimed at increas- 
ing Canadian ownership of Ontario industry; 

(e) solve the financial impasse by radical 
reform of the tax system, including a tax 
on capital gains and land speculation. 

11. has failed to express adequate con- 
demnation of those federal Liberal fiscal 
policies which will result in dismembering 
the Canadian nation. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment 
of the debate. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr. 
Speaker, tomorrow we will resume this 
debate. His Honour will be here to give 
Royal Assent to one bill and then we will 
resume this debate. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment 
of the House. 

Motion agreed to. 

The House adjourned at 5.45 o'clock, p.m. 



No. 8 




ONTARIO 



legislature of (Ontario 




OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION 



Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature 



Thursday, November 28, 1968 



Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C. 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C. 



THE QUEEN'S PRINTER 

TORONTO 

1968 



Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto. 



CONTENTS 



Thursday, November 28, 1968 

First report, committee on standing orders and printing, Mr. Henderson 207 

Town of Parry Sound, bill respecting, Mr. A. Johnston, first reading 207 

Ontario Co-operative Credit Society, bill respecting, Mr. Root, first reading 207 

Ontario Hurricane Relief Fund Act, 1955, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 207 

Milk Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 208 

Borough of Scarborough, bill respecting, Mr. T. Reid, first reading 208 

City of Niagara Falls, bill respecting, Mr. Bukator, first reading 208 

Came and Fish Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 208 

Bobier convalescent home, bill respecting, Mr. Spence, first reading 208 

City of Ottawa, bill respecting, Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence, first reading ......: 208 

Town of Burlington, bill respecting, Mr. Kerr, first reading 208 

Town of Lindsay, bill respecting, Mr. R. G. Hodgson, first reading 208 

March Diamond Drilling, bill respecting, Mr. Carton, first reading 208 

City of London, bill respecting, Mr. Olde, first reading 209 

Brock University, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. T. Reid 209 

Band council elections on Indian reservations, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. MacDonald 211 

Peterborough "Examiner", question to Mr. Bales, Mr. MacDonald 212 

Construction of educational facilities, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. MacKenzie 212 

Transfer review boards, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Pitman .., 213 

Teacher-pupil ratio and teaching load, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Pitman 213 

Cost of Centennial project for Ontario, question to Mr. Connell, Mr. Spence 214 

York University, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 214 

Indian schools in Ontario, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 216 

CNE auto racetrack, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 217 

Mr. Robert Clark, questions to Mr. Connell, Mr. Shulman 217 

Report of the Ontario College of Art, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Burr 217 

Corn production in Ontario, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Spence -....- 218 

Texas-Gulf smelters, questions to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Ferrier 218 

Faulty brakes in new automobiles, question to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Young .'.:.' 219 

Elwin A. Rogers case, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 219 

Horizontal windshield wipers, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Sargent 220 

Death of Mr. James O'Brien, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Martel 220 

Jurors at coroners' inquests, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Martel 220 

Chelmsford Valley district composite school, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Martel 221 

Construction speed zones, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Singer 221 

Escape of Brookside school residents, questions to Mr. Grossman, Mr. Ruston 222 

Death of Kenneth Haines, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 222 

Royal assent to a certain bill, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor 223 

Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Robarts 223 

Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Sopha, agreed to 242 

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 242 



207 



LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 



The House met at 2.30 o'clock, p.m. 
Prayers. 

Mr. Speaker: Today our guests in the east 
gallery are the Sunday school class from St. 
Andrew's Presbyterian Church at Newmarket 
and students from the Richard W. Scott 
Separate School in Toronto; in the west gal- 
lery, students from Winchester Street Senior 
Public School, Toronto and Maryvalc Public 
School in Scarborough. 

Later this afternoon, in the east gallery, 
we will be joined by students from Brennan 
High School in Windsor. 

Petitions. 

Presenting reports. 

Mr. Henderson from the standing orders 
and printing committee presented the com- 
mittee's first 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 city of Ottawa 
praying that an Act may pass permitting the 
corporation to establish a rental authority. 

Of the Ontario Co-operative Credit Society 
praying that an Act may pass authorizing an 
increase in its capital. 

Of the corporation of the city of London 
praying that an Act may pass vesting the 
management, operation, equipment and con- 
trol of the hospitals of the city of London in 
a board called The Board of Hospital 
Trustees of the City of London. 

Of the corporation of the borough of Scar- 
borough praying that an Act may pass author- 
izing the borough to pass by-laws respecting 
advertising devices. 

Of the corporation of the town of Burling- 
ton praying that an Act may pass establish- 
ing a parking area. 

Of the corporation of the city of Niagara 
Falls praying that an Act may pass author- 
izing it to exempt, by agreement, owners and 
occupants of buildings from the necessity of 
supplying parking facilities. 



Thursday, November 28, 1968 

Of the corporation of the village of Dutton 
and the corporation of the township of Dun- 
wich praying that an Act may pass permitting 
them to maintain a home for the care of the 
sick and distressed in the area. 

Of the corporation of the town of Lindsay 
praying that an Act may pass authorizing the 
removal or demolition of buildings that are 
in a ruinous or dilapidated condition. 

Of Cyril W. March, Daniel McLean and 
Donald Graff praying that an Act may pass 
reviving March Diamond Drilling Limited. 

Of the corporation of the town of Parry 
Sound praying that an Act may pass pro- 
viding that the time limited for appealing the 
1963 decision of The Department of Munici- 
pal Affairs, with respect to the equalization 
factors for that year, may be extended to 
allow such an appeal to be made. 

Mr. Speaker: Motions. 

Introduction of bills. 



TOWN OF PARRY SOUND 

Mr. W. E. Johnston (Carleton) in the ab- 
sence of Mr. A. Johnston (Parry Sound) 
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act 
respecting the town of Parry Sound. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 



ONTARIO CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT 
SOCIETY 

Mr. W. E. Johnston in the absence of Mr. 
Root (Wellington-Dufferin) moves first read- 
ing of bill intituled, An Act respecting On- 
tario Co-operative Credit Society. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 



THE ONTARIO HURRICANE RELIEF 
FUND ACT, 1955 

Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour) 
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act 
to amend The Ontario Hurricane Relief Fund 
Act, 1955. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 



208 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, this is an 
amendment to provide increases in pensions 
to widows and children who are eligible 
under The Ontario Hurricane Relief Fund 
Act. This legislation was passed by the Legis- 
lature in 1955 and under its terms money- 
collected by the Ontario Hurricane Relief 
Fund was transferred to the Ontario Work- 
men's Compensation Board pension fund to 
provide assistance to widows and children of 
those who lost their lives in Hurricane Hazel. 
It was stipulated that assistance will be paid 
in accordance with The Workmen's Compen- 
sation Act of that time. This policy has been 
followed over the years. Periodic evaluations 
of the fund have been carried out. Because 
some of the widows have remarried, there 
remains sufficient capital to permit the pen- 
sions to be increased to the level now being 
paid under The Workmen's Compensation 
Act, 1968. These latter pensions were in- 
creased as of last August 1. 

The bill now before us, to be known as, 
An Act to amend The Ontario Hurricane Re- 
lief Fund Act, 1955, will permit the eligible 
widows and children to receive pensions at 
these increased rates, and it is our intention 
to make the effective date of this legislation 
August 1, 1968. 



THE MILK ACT, 1965 

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul- 
ture and Food) moves first reading of bill 
intituled, An Act to amend The Milk Act, 
1965. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this bill 
does not confer any new powers on the On- 
tario Milk Marketing Board but simply clari- 
fies the manner in which the marketing board 
may carry out powers already conferred upon 
it by the milk commission of Ontario. The 
bill also validates the orders of the marketing 
board which have already been filed as regu- 
lations in accordance with The Regulations 
Act. 



CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS 

Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls) moves first 
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting 
the city of Niagara Falls. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 



THE GAME AND FISH ACT, 1961-1962 

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first 
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend 
The Game and Fish Act, 1961-1962. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of 
this bill is to prevent the use of certain traps 
in trapping which cause unnecessary suffering 
in the killing of the animals. 



BOBIER CONVALESCENT HOME 

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent) moves first reading 
of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Bobier 
Convalescent Home. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 



CITY OF OTTAWA 

Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Carleton East) 
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act 
respecting the city of Ottawa. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

TOWN OF BURLINGTON 

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West), in the 
absence of Mr. Kerr (Halton West), moves 
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect- 
ing the town of Burlington. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

TOWN OF LINDSAY 

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) 
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act 
respecting the town of Lindsay. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 



BOROUGH OF SCARBOROUGH 

Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East) moves first 
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting 
the borough of Scarborough. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 



MARCH DIAMOND DRILLING 

Mr. R. G. Hodgson, in the absence of Mr. 
Carton (Armourdale), moves first reading of 
bill intituled, An Act respecting March Dia- 
mond Drilling. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



209 



CITY OF LONDON 

Mr. N. L. Olde (Middlesex South) moves 
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect- 
ing the city of London. 

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi- 
tion): Mr. Speaker, the Ministers for whom I 
have questions are not in the House. I was 
wondering if, in this event, you might permit 
me to put the questions before you, sir, and 
they might be answered at their earliest con- 
venience? 

Mr. Speaker: Until we have the discussion 
which we had hoped to have today, I think 
that we should retain the previous practice 
that questions will not be asked if the Minis- 
ter is not present, nor answers given if the 
member is not present, unless the leader of 
the party is agreed that they should be given. 
I would ask the indulgence of the hon. mem- 
bers of the Opposition for that. When we 
redecide the manner of handling questions, 
then I will be most pleased to carry out the 
decisions. 

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. 
Speaker, I have a number of questions. One, 
held over for a couple of days, is to the Min- 
ister of University Affairs. 

Is The Department of University Affairs 
putting pressure on Brock University to 
change from a seminar-oriented institution, to 
the old-style lecture classes? If so, why, and 
if so, is this not a case of unwarranted viola- 
tion of a legitimate area of university auton- 
omy? 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion, and it appears that I can be afforded 
the privilege to ask it now. The question, Mr. 
Speaker, is in three parts. 

1. What was the name of the report of the 
Minister's department which checked the 
budget, staff and courses at Brock Univer- 
sity, and concluded that the university's first- 
and second-year students' seminars, which 
have approximately 15 students each, were 
too rich and unnecessary? 

2. Has this report, referred to by the To- 
ronto Daily Star, November 25, 1968, been 
made available to the public? 

3. What were the results of the negotia- 
tions between Dr. James A. Gibson, president 
of Brock University, and the officials of The 
Department of University Affairs on Monday, 
November 25, 1968? 



Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education 
and University Affairs): I shall start the 
answer by dealing basically with the ques- 
tions from the member for York South. The 
answer to the first question is "no", which 
means really there is no need to answer ques- 
tions two and three. 

I would expand on it a little bit by making 
it very clear that neither the department nor 
the committee determines or dictates the 
nature of the teaching that goes on in our 
universities. Their task is to determine an 
equitable way for the allocation of resources 
among all the provincially assisted institu- 
tions. Then it is up to that institution, within 
the limits of the resources made available, to 
make the decisions as to how it would best 
offer the programmes. There has been no 
pressure from The Department of University 
Affairs on Brock University as to how, per se, 
it offers its programmes. There is a concern, 
with respect to all the universities, that they 
are receiving equitable treatment. Then, the 
internal decisions must be made by them. 

After the formula was announced last year, 
Mr. Speaker, concern was expressed by sev- 
eral of the emerging universities. I am now 
replying to the member from York University 
or Scarborough East or whichever constitu- 
ency he- 
Interjection by an hon. member. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was not a formal com- 
mittee per se; there was no name for it. It 
was a subcommittee of the committee of 
university affairs, and I asked this committee 
to study specifically the problems as they 
related to Brock, Trent, Lakehead and 
Laurentian Universities. When the commit- 
tee started its operation, Laurentian asked to 
be excluded from the study, so that it then 
only related to Brock, Trenton and Lakehead. 
The subcommittee was composed of the 
following members: Dr. Wright, who is chair- 
man of the committee; Dr. Elizabeth Arthur, 
professor of history at the Lakehead; Dr. 
Maurice Lavigne, manager, physical metal- 
lurgy department of Falconbridge; and Dr. 
David Slater, who is the dean of graduate 
studies at Queen's University. This was the 
membership of the subcommittee of the com- 
mittee on university affairs. 

The report, Mr. Speaker, has not been 
made public, but it has been made available 
to the university presidents, and of course 
those institutions directly affected. The report 
contained a number of comments about the 
current cost of operation at each institution 
and possible "models of university operation 



210 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



combining high academic quality and finan- 
cial viability" were also set out. It was noted 
in the report— and this is something we have 
debated in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, 
on several occasions— that the problem of 
financing emergent universities relates to the 
need to respond to the extraordinary costs 
associated with starting a new and smaller 
institution. I think it is fair to state that the 
committee, in its deliberations, has taken this 
into account in the grants that have been 
awarded to these institutions as emergent 
universities in this province. 

As I say, the report was widely circulated 
through the committee of presidents, and I 
have received within the last day or so their 
response to this report. I must be very frank, 
Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity 
to assess their response to it yet at this 
moment. 

With respect to Brock University itself, it 
met with the committee— this is the third part 
of the question, I guess— in its usual pres- 
entation with respect to the coming year's 
operations. Of course, there have been no 
decisions made by the committee on uni- 
versity affairs vis-a-vis Brock, or any other 
provincially assisted institution at this par- 
ticular time. So there is nothing to relate to 
the hon. member with respect to those spe- 
cific discussions. Mr. Speaker, I shall en- 
deavour—let me put it that way— to obtain a 
copy of this special subcommittee report for 
the hon. member. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the 
Minister if he will also make that report avail- 
able to the other Opposition party? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, delighted. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if 
the Minister would entertain a number of 
brief supplementary questions? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: I shall certainly entertain 
them; I cannot guarantee I will answer them, 
but I will entertain them, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. MacDonald: The first one is: Would 
the Minister not agree that while there is 
formally no intervention on the decision with 
regard to courses and so on, there is a back- 
door intervention through your grant struc- 
ture? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I say 
without fear of contradiction there is not, nor 
does there need to be, nor is there intended 
to be, any back-door intervention into the 
way the universities handle their academic 
programme by the grant structure or any 



other policy administered by The Department 
of University Affairs. We have always made 
this abundantly clear. There is no question 
that the economic resource available to the 
total university community determines to a 
degree, shall we say, the extent of the offer- 
ings in some course areas. You could relate 
this to the field of medicine, dentistry, and 
what have you, but there is no attempt, in a 
back-door fashion or in a front-door fashion, 
to determine just how these programmes are 
to be offered within the individual institu- 
tions. I want to make this abundantly clear. 
We try to make the same number of dollars 
available as equitably as the formula allows 
and the wisdom of the people dealing with it, 
for each institution. There is just no intent 
to do so. 

Mr. T. Reid: I wonder if I could ask a 
supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wonder if I could take 
those, Mr. Speaker, from the member for 
York South so that I may keep them in order 
in my own mind? 

Mr. T. Reid: That would be very difficult, 
sir. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is quite difficult, but I 
try. 

Mr. MacDonald: My second supplementary 
question to the Minister is: How long are 
these special grants to the emergent universi- 
ties going to continue? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the period of 
emergence is very difficult to determine, but 
I recall that the report— and I cannot put my 
finger on it immediately— had some reference 
to this. There is a suggested length of time. 
I think York is in its eighth or ninth year of 
what has been called emergent status, and I 
believe it is coming very close to the end of 
that situation. Brock and Trent, of course, 
have several more years to go and I think 
the report will give some indication, but at 
the same time you cannot draw a hard and 
fast rule on these situations. That is some- 
thing the committee, I think, determines each 
year. There is no question that for Brock 
and Trent and the Lakehead it will go on 
yet for a period of years. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- 
borough East. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, will the Min- 
ister accept a supplementary question? Would 
not the Minister's remarks about the degree, 



: NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



211 



if any, of government interference in the 
academic curriculum of the university be 
more believable if he accepted the Act I 
introduced in this House yesterday, establish- 
ing an independent university commission? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we, I hope, 
will have an opportunity to discuss this, not 
necessarily in the discussion of the hon. mem- 
ber's bill, but perhaps during the debate on 
The Department of University Affairs, be- 
cause with great respect, Mr. Speaker, in the 
bill introduced by the hon. member there is 
some parallel that can be drawn with the 
U.K. grants commission and practices and 
procedures elsewhere. And I say, with the 
greatest of respect, it builds in a rigidity 
which I believe the universities do not want, 
and it is not in any way a solution- 
Mr. T. Reid: Is the hon. Minister debating 
or is he answering a question? 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister is answer- 
ing the member's question. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
want to say that concept is "old hat" because 
that would not be quite accurate. But it has 
been debated here and I think we can have 
a very useful dialogue about this at the ap- 
propriate time. I do not regard it as being a 
solution. It gets right down to the avail- 
ability of funds on as equitable a basis as 
one can determine and the fact that the hon. 
member, through legislation, thinks he can 
isolate this from some mythical control by 
the department or the Minister, Mr. Speaker. 
I say, with respect, this is a fiction. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorl; 
South. ^ 

Mr. MacDonald: I had three questions for 
today, one to the Minister of Trade and 
Development (Mr. Randall), who is not here, 
which I shall hold, I presume, until next 
Monday; another was to the Prime Minister. 

Will the Prime Minister intervene with the 
federal Indian affairs branch to help resolve 
the impasse arising from the order for hold- 
ing new band council elections in the Garden 
City reserve outside Sault Ste. Marie? 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr. 
Speaker, I would have to say that we have 
no intention of interfering in this matter. I 
have gone into it reasonably thoroughly, and 
it is a procedural matter. Perhaps I could 
give you the details of it, but in any event 
band council elections on Indian reservations 
are purely under the jurisdiction of the fed- 



eral government. We have nothing to do 
with them whatsoever. The federal Act pro- 
vides for the holding of the elections and 
provides the methods by which they are to 
take place. And I am told that in this par- 
ticular Indian reserve— the Garden City In- 
dian reserve, the Indian superintendent for 
the Sault Ste. Marie area is the acting elec- 
toral officer for band elections, because the 
band itself did not appoint an electoral offi- 
cer. You see, such is not within the control 
of our electoral officer here at all. The super- 
intendent compiled a list of band members 
prior to the election; and he counted slightly 
over 600 on the list. The Indian Act allows 
for one councillor per hundred band mem- 
bers, thus there was provision for six coun- 
cillors to be elected. 

I am further informed that when the offi- 
cial returns were sent to Ottawa it was found 
there were fewer than 600 on the lists, so 
that they were entitled only to five council- 
lors. Therefore the election was declared 
illegal and a new election was ordered by 
the Indian affairs staff of the federal govern- 
ment. A nomination meeting was held but 
there were no names put in nomination at 
that meeting and this is where I would imag- 
ine the impasse arose, but we have no juris- 
diction and I rather think any interference 
by us would (a) be ineffectual, and (b) prob- 
ably not be welcome. 

Mr. MacDonald: I would just like to add 
very briefly, Mr. Speaker, that there are loop- 
holes- 
Mr. Speaker: Order, order, the member 
may ask a supplementary question but he 
may not add remarks to what has been said. 

Mr. MacDonald: Since the Prime Minister 
has reviewed so extensively the circumstances, 
may I ask whether he has also reviewed the 
fact that the federal Act has a clause in it 
which states, 

However, an exception may be made 
and the number of councillors may be in- 
creased or decreased with the consent of 
the Minister if, for some good reason, the 
number of councillors based on population 
is not satisfactory. 

In other words, if the superintendent 
"goofed", why does the Minister not accept 
responsibility for it and get them out of the 
impasse? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I can only 
say that this is a question for the federal 
government. If somebody from the federal 
government started to interfere with our 



212 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



electoral procedures in this province because 
they did not like what our electoral officer 
had done, or because somebody had boobed, 
I think every man in this House would be up 
in arms in very short order and say to the 
federal government, "You exercise your own 
jurisdiction". To settle the matter, perhaps, 
the hon. Attorney General who comes from 
Sault Ste. Marie informs me the band was 
on its way to Ottawa yesterday, so I assume 
they will sit down with the officials who have 
jurisdiction and will straighten this matter 
out. 

Mr. MacDonald: I would like to inform 
the Prime Minister- 
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): I understand 
the Indians do not want the interference of 
this government; they do not want it. 

Mr. MacDonald: I would say to the Prime 
Minister, Mr. Speaker, that he is very right. 
This is a federal matter, but the Indians are 
so disturbed that they visited us and they 
are now going to Ottawa. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member is 
asking a question. 

Mr. Sopha: They always dealt with Ottawa 
on these matters. 

Mr. Speaker: Order! 

Mr. MacDonald: In the fullness of time, 
we wiU have an opportunity to explore it 
more fully, Mr. Speaker. 

I have a question for the Minister of 
Labour. Does the Minister consider that the 
Thomson management of the Peterborough 
Examiner has been bargaining in good faith? 
If not, what does the Minister propose to do 
about it? 

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, the responsi- 
bility for such a decision rests with the 
Ontario Labour Relations Board and it has 
not been asked, by either of the parties, to 
make a ruling in this situation. I am particu- 
larly interested in assisting the parties in 
finding a mutually acceptable solution and 
to this end, the concilation branch of my 
department has been in touch with both sides 
several times this week and will continue its 
efforts to help them. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa 
Centre has a question of the Minister of 
Education. 

Mr. H. MacKenzie (Ottawa Centre): Mr. 
Speaker, a question for the Minister of Edu- 
cation-^three questions. 



1. Could the Minister of Education indicate 
whether or not every effort is being made 
to ensure that only materials of Canadian 
manufacturers are being used in the construc- 
tion of all educational facilities in which 
grants in any form are made? 

2. Would the Minister outline in limited 
detail the directives issued with regard to 
using materials of Canadian manufacturers in 
the construction of educational facilities on 
which grants in any form are made? 

3. Would the Minister give us a listing 
of major materials used in the construction of 
educational facilities on which grants in any 
form are made— which are not of Canadian 
manufacturers? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to answer 
the first part of the question. The department 
does, and I do, make an effort to encourage 
the boards to buy Canadian where they can. 
The decision, of course, rests with the local 
board but I would read to the House a 
direotive that was sent out by myself on 
May 31, 1968. 

The support of the Canadian economy 
is a responsibility that each of us must 
share and I regard it as particularly impor- 
tant that the authorities and officials of the 
educational institutions of the province 
keep this constantly in mind. 

It is suggested that boards, officials and 
administrators of our many educational in- 
stitutions should encourage the policy of 
"Buy Canadian" by advising architects and 
consultants to specify Canadian goods and 
manufactured products whenever possible 
and by instructing purchasing departments 
to adhere to the practice of buying Cana- 
dian-made goods where price and quality 
are comparable. 

In 1965, a similar statement was made in 
support of the "Buy Canadian" policy, and 
at this time, I am urging all boards and 
persons connected with education to maintain 
this policy. I am certain that a significant 
stimulation of our Canadian economy can 
result in the combined effort of the many 
educational authorities in this province. 

Now, with respect to the third part of the 
question, Mr. Speaker, I really cannot get 
such lists for the hon. member. This would 
mean getting down into the breakdown of 
almost every school that is built— and there 
are many hundreds of them— and getting a 
detailed list of all the specifications, what 
materials are manufactured in Canada, and 
so on. And I think, Mr. Speaker, when the 
hon. member looks at it, he will realize just 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



213 



how difficult a compilation of this kind 
would be. 

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Minister 
allow a supplementary question? 

Mr. MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, would the 
Minister consider gathering such lists of 
materials if I were to put such a question 
on the order paper? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be 
prepared to do this for the hon. member. I 
will see just how much we might get for 
him. To put it on the order paper really 
would not solve the problem, perhaps because 
the bulk of the information would have to 
come from the individual school boards, and 
at this present moment we are still talking 
of many hundreds. This is further compli- 
cated by the fact that within a few weeks, 
while the records will still be available, the 
administrators and so on will not be perform- 
ing the same function. But certainly, I shall 
try and get maybe some general statistics 
that will be helpful for the hon. member. I 
am not sure that I can undertake to get 
it from each individual school board in the 
province. 

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member for 
York South care to place his question with 
the Minister of Trade and Development? 

Mr. MacDonald: Do builders have author- 
ity to use the HOME label on advertisements, 
such as the one in the Toronto Daily Star, 
November 27, 1968, for Bramalea homes 
available with carrying charges of $167 per 
month requiring an income of $7,422, plus 
a down payment of $1,995? 

Are there any homes available in the Metro 
Toronto area under the HOME programme 
for persons with incomes below $7,422? 

Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and 
Development ) : Mr. Speaker, I was out of my 
office. I just saw the question when I got 
here. I am having it checked and will give 
the hon. member the answer, perhaps first 
thing Monday. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter- 
borough. 

Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Thank 
you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address a 
question to the Minister of Education. Has 
the Minister made any progress in the intro- 
duction of transfer review boards or with leg- 
islation introducing teacher transfer review 



boards as a result of his meeting last week 
with the Ontario Teachers' Federation? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess one 
should really get down to asking the hon. 
member to define what he might mean by the 
word "progress". I would say at this stage 
I must answer the question by saying the 
problem is still under active consideration. 

Mr. Pitman: Perhaps I might be more 
specific in a supplementary question, if 
allowed, Mr. Speaker. 

Does the Minister intend to introduce a 
Schools Administration Act into this Legis- 
lature allowing at least some debate on the 
question within the next few weeks? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recall the 
discussions in the last sessions which, on 
some occasions, appears to me really just to 
have finished a few days ago, I undertook 
either to have an amendment to The Schools 
Administration Act introduced here or to find 
some other way whereby this question can be 
debated; either here or before the education 
committee. I shall endeavour to live up to 
the undertaking that I gave to the hon. 
member. 

Mr. Pitman: Thank you. Another question, 
Mr. Speaker: Is an investigation being carried 
on at present, of teacher-pupil ratio and 
teaching load in Ontario's schools? If so, 
what is the purpose of the investigation? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is no 
formal investigation per se on a province- 
wide basis with respect to teacher-pupil ratio 
but I think, Mr. Speaker, that if there were 
one and the hon. member really were seeking 
out the purpose; one would relate such a 
study, of course, to the economic investment 
that we are making in education. Of course, 
one area of greatest investment relates to the 
numbers of teachers involved. Of course, if 
one is looking for economies, the question of 
student-teacher ratio, I think, becomes rele- 
vant. But there is no province-wide study as 
such at the present moment. But this matter 
is always under study in some manner or 
other within the department internally. 

Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might 
ask a supplementary. 

Would the Minister assure the House that 
there is no specific and special purpose in- 
volved in trying to raise the teacher-pupil 
ratio or increase the teaching load as a spe- 
cific means of solving the economic problems 
of the province of Ontario? 



214 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that 
when one is looking at the whole question 
then perhaps we could debate this during 
the Throne debate. I perhaps shall partici- 
pate in this area myself. One must look at all 
facets of what is happening in the educa- 
tional field to detennine where economies 
can be effected and to isolate one. I could 
say to the hon. member, "No, you cannot 
isolate a single area and expect to find a solu- 
tion here. But at the same time you cannot 
overlook any area where the cost factor is 
really fairly significant." 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent 
placed a question with the Premier which has 
been re-directed to the Minister of Public 
Works. 

Mr. Spcnce: Mr. Speaker, a question to 
the Minister of Public Works: How much 
money has been spent to date on die Cen- 
tennial project for Ontario? When will this 
Centennial project be completed? 

Hon. T. R. Council ( Minister of Public 
Works): Mr. Speaker, the answer to die first 
question is that The Department of Public 
Works has made payments totalling 
$19,765,585.54 to date. 

As far as the completion is concerned; 
buildings "A" and "C" were completed and 
handed over to the Centennial staff in early 
October 1968. The contractor is endeavour- 
ing to complete the external work on build- 
ing "B" by January or February 1969, and 
die external work such as sodding and 
grading will be completed in the summer of 
1969. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of 
order, my understanding was that the Min- 
isters were in a certain order. I have three 
questions of the Minister of Education. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member, if he had 
been observing this afternoon, would have 
realized that we have gone back today to the 
former system. Perhaps on Monday, until it 
lias been decided, we will go back again to 
the procedure of referring them to Ministers 
in turn. 

However, the hon. Minister for Scar- 
borough East had my eye and he now may 
place the questions which he had. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I hope you do 
not change Hansard, to read "member". I 
would be delighted to be a Minister in a 
Liberal administration in 1971. 

Interjections by hon. members. 



Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion for the Minister of University Affairs. 
It is in tiiree parts: 

(a) Why did York University have to turn 
down 700 academically qualified students last 
fall, as reported by York University president 
Dr. Murray Ross in his annual report re- 
leased on Tuesday, November 26? 

(b) Does the Minister agree with Dr. Ross 
that continued lack of government financial 
support may damage York's system of col- 
lege clusters on its Keele Street campus, and 
does the Minister agree with Dr. Ross that 
the college systems at the Keele Street cam- 
pus "are not simply frills to be dispensed 
with in times of financial stringency" because 
the college systems make it possible to main- 
tain personal contact with each individual 
student, thereby making the likelihood of 
destructive student rebellion a great deal 
less? 

(c) What financial steps is the Minister 
taking to ensure that 700 academically quali- 
fied students will not have to be turned down 
again by York University in 1969-70, as 
reported in— 

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is die end of 
die question and the hon. member has not 
been reading the questions as submitted. He 
has been substituting other words. However, 
the variations- 
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): It was close. 

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it was pretty close, as 
the hon. member says. The hon. Minister has 
the floor. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is good enough- 
Mr. Sargent: We will get the Prime Min- 
ister later. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is 100 per cent. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, one might 
express the thought diat they were as accu- 
rate as the wishful thinking expressed by the 
hon. member as to his own political future in 
1971. 

However, dealing with the question, Mr. 
Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to 
read all Dr. Ross's report, so I cannot com- 
ment in detail on all aspects of the question. 
But I think two or three points must be made: 
(a) I am sure that York University was not 
the only university not to admit all appli- 
cants- 
Interjection by an hon. member. 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



215 



Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. member will 
wait until I am finished, he may have to 
retract what he has said. Just be patient. 
You wait, and you will have the opportunity, 
and if you are big enough, you will. 

Before we were somewhat interrupted, Mr. 
Speaker, I was trying to get around to this 
question of the 700 students at York Univer- 
sity. What happens is, Mr. Speaker, that the 
students of this province make multiple ap- 
plications—they apply at more than a single 
institution. As a result of this, a lot of uni- 
versities receive applications from students- 
Mr. Sargent: That is always the answer. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. member will 
just be patient, I have an answer for him. 

If one takes this into account, I think it 
is quite reasonable to anticipate there will 
be some universities which will receive a 
number of applications from students who 
are selecting that institution as their first, or 
perhaps second, third or even fourth choice. 
I do not intend to make a lengthy govern- 
ment statement on this, but I think even the 
hon. member can share some pride in this 
fact that I am going to relate next. The fact 
is that first year enrolment in Ontario this 
year increased to 26,664 students from 22,000 
just one academic year ago. This is an in- 
crease of approximately 21.2 per cent. And 
despite this very significant increase, Mr. 
Speaker, the universities of this province in 
total were enabled, through policies of their 
own and of the government, to accommodate 
all students who met the admission require- 
ments in some university in the province of 
Ontario, and I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, 
this does not apply to very many jurisdictions. 

When the member for Grey-Bruce suggests 
that we should be ashamed of the fact that 
certain students could not get into York, I 
think we can be very proud of the fact that 
a student who received proper marks in grade 
13 was able to find a niche in some uni- 
versity in the province of Ontario. I have 
stated in this Legislature before and I state 
it again, no matter what plans we develop 
there is no question that some students will 
not always be able to get into the university 
of their first choice. I think the most impor- 
tant aspect, Mr. Speaker, is that the students 
found some place in a university— and they 
are all good universities— in this province. I 
know now that the member for Grey-Bruce 
will be delighted to get up on some future 
occasion and compliment the government and 
the universities for this very admirable accom- 
plishment. 



Mr. Speaker, I think it would be presump- 
tuous of me as a layman to pass an opinion 
with respect to the second part of the ques- 
tion. I do not propose in this Legislature to 
get into a lengthy debate as to how academic 
programmes are best developed or adminis- 
tered within individual institutions. Surely 
this is a matter that must be determined by 
that institution. Dr. Ross has some very 
strong points of view and I would be the last 
one to take issue or dispute them, because I 
do not pretend to be as knowledgeable as the 
president of York as to how the programme 
should be administered within that particular 
institution. 

I would say with respect to the last part 
of the question, we are taking steps, as we 
have in the past two or three years, to see 
that all the universities in the province of 
Ontario, once again in an equitable way, re- 
ceive the amount of financial support that will 
enable them, in total, to accommodate the 
number of students who will be graduating 
from grade 13 this year and will be seeking 
admission into some university in the fall of 
1969. I think, Mr. Speaker, this is as helpful 
as I can be on those three questions. 

Mr. T. Reid: By way of a supplementary 
question, if I may, with all due respect to the 
hon. Minister's ability to think logically, I 
suggest that the arguments he put forward- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! Is the hon. member 
asking a supplementary question? At the 
moment he is making a suggestion. Will he 
please frame a question? 

Mr. T. Reid: My question, Mr. Speaker, is 
this: 

Would it be proper to deduce from the 
Minister's remarks that York University is 
quite entitled to reduce its growth rate, in 
order to maintain its individuality in terms of 
staff-student relationships? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I under- 
stand the situation in York— and the hon. 
member can correct me because I understand 
he is still very closely associated with that 
great university— the question of the college 
concept does not necessarily relate to the 
student-professor ratio; it relates to the num- 
ber of students within, shall we say, a physi- 
cal or environmental structure whereby the 
relationship may or may not be close, I would 
not know. But it does not necessarily relate 
to the total number of professors available 
for the total number of students. This is not 
necessarily a part of the college structure 



216 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



per se as I understand it. So I do not think 
the hon. member can interpret what I have 
said one way or the other in that regard. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, a question for 
the Minister of Education this time: 

How many Indian schools in Ontario are 
inspected by supervisors of the programmes 
branch of The Department of Education? 
How many pupils are enrolled in these 
schools? How many of these schools have 
television sets in them? How many of these 
schools have more than one television set in 
them? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. 
member knows, the federal department of 
Indian affairs provides, equips, and actually 
operates the Indian schools in the province. 
At the request of the federal department we 
do arrange for —"inspection" is not the right 
word any more— we do arrange for visits by 
departmental staff. The main purpose behind 
these visits is to ascertain that these schools 
are following the Ontario courses of study, 
so that the child, who may leave that par- 
ticular school at any stage of his schooling, 
may readily move into the total Ontario 
school system. 

Mr. Nixon: Why can the Minister not call 
it inspection? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are getting away from 
that. I thought the hon. leader of the Oppo- 
sition agreed with— 

Mr. Nixon: I thought he was a visiting 
resource. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is what I am saying, 
we make visitations, but we are not having 
formal inspections per se any more. We use 
the term "visit". 

Mr. Nixon: They have no resources either. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are 56 Indian 
schools that are currently being visited by 
members of the Ontario department. With 
respeot to the question of equipment or 
enrolment, I shall endeavour to find this out 
for the hon. member, but I think he could 
perhaps more rapidly ascertain it from the 
federal department, because this is where 
we are presently going to get the information 
for him. I am informed, though, through that 
agency, that every Indian school within range 
of a television transmission tower is equipped 
with one or more TV sets. With respect to 
numbers and equipment, I shall endeavour to 
obtain this for him from the federal 
authorities. 



Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, by way of a 
supplementary question, with all due respect 
to the Minister's memory, will the Minister 
in his next September report use the word 
"visit" instead of "inspect", which is the word 
he used in his September, 1968, report? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it takes 
a while to bring about these philosophical 
changes. We are very hopeful that the term 
"inspection" per se will fade from the voca- 
bulary of the— 

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Why does 
the Minister not strike it out of the dic- 
tionary? 

Mr. T. Reid: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker- 
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member has 

a right to ask a supplementary question, not 

to make suggestions. 

Mr. T. Reid: If the Minister would allow, 
Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Education not 
responsible for educational television in this 
province? If so, surely he should know 
whether the Indian schools have television 
sets. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
want to get involved, because this really 
provokes a rather lengthy answer as to the 
question of responsibility and the view of 
the member for Scarborough East on ETV 
and how it should be administered. I really 
am delighted to have the question but I am 
not really prepared to answer it. I will get 
the aotual number of TV receivers for him, 
but the first part of his question, I think, 
would provoke a very lengthy discussion on 
this occasion. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, my final ques- 
tion for the Minister today, is: 

Regarding assistant superintendent Walter 
Currie of the supervision section— and it is 
still called the supervision section, Mr. 
Speaker— of The Department of Education, 
who has been charged by the Minister to 
undertake a study of the educational needs 
of Indian children in isolated parts of the 
province, what meetings has he had with: 
(a) the Minister of Indian Affairs of the 
federal government, (b) the hon. Robert 
Andras of the federal government, (c) the 
Indian-Eskimo Association? And finally, Mr. 
Speaker, how many miles has Mr. Currie 
travelled in Ontario since his appointment? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, not wishing 
once again to become controversial, I would 
say to the hon. member that I detect some 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



217 



slight difference between "inspection" and 
"supervision", but perhaps he does not. 

To answer part (c) of the question first, I 
guess, Mr. Currie is himself a member of 
the executive of the Indian-Eskimo Associa- 
tion. He is a former vice-president and is 
presently chairman of the educational com- 
mittee, so there is a fairly close liaison be- 
tween Mr. Currie and the department and 
the same Mr. Currie is the chairman of the 
educational committee of the Indian-Eskimo 
Association. 

He has met with Mr. Chretien and Mr. 
Andras informally on several occasions in 
the course of his activities relating to Indian 
education, but the majority of his contacts 
have been with the federal government or 
with the senior officials of that government, 
and these have been rather frequent and 
quite productive. For example, at present a 
joint programme is being developed with 
the federal government for a special course 
for teachers of Indians. This is something 
new that is being discussed. The assistant 
superintendent, Mr. Currie, does not meet 
formally— or has not since his appointment— 
with the federal Minister, and I think in 
fairness one would anticipate that if there 
were to be such a formal meeting it really 
should be on a ministerial level. 

With respect to the number of miles Mr. 
Currie has travelled, I understand he has 
travelled across the province several times 
since joining the department in August. This 
is only an approximation— I cannot be too 
specific— but the approximate number of miles 
travelled by air and by road would be, we 
think, somewhere around 8,000. 

Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in the way of a 

supplementary, if the Minister would permit, 
would the Minister suggest that Mr. Currie 
ask the federal people how many pupils are 
enrolled in the Indian schools so the Minister 
could answer my first question? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Currie 
or somebody shall certainly find out. As I say, 
the hon. member probably has as speedy 
access to the federal authorities as we do, but 
certainly we shall get this for him. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High 
Park has the floor. 

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Attorney 
General, Mr. Speaker. 

When will The Attorney General's Depart- 
ment complete the study of the different 
problems in connection with the CNE auto 
racetrack forwarded to us by The Depart- 



ments of Municipal Affairs, Transport and 
Highways, and will the findings of The Attor- 
ney General's Department be made public? 

Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr. 
Speaker, the department is not making a 
study of the nature suggested by the hon. 
member for High Park. The opinion of the 
law officers has been sought by certain per- 
sons as to the legal aspect of the matter, and 
our opinion will be given to those people 
who have sought it. The opinion of the de- 
partment is as a rule not made public and we 
will not be making it public in this case. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion of the Minister of Public Works. 

Has Mr. Robert Clark, executive-director 
of supply been given a staff? When was Mr. 
Clark appointed? Have any economies re- 
sulted from Mr. Clark's appointment, as orig- 
inally forecast? Are departmental buyers still 
shopping for the province on a decentralized 
basis as reported in the Financial Post of 
October 5, 1968? 

Hon. Mr. Connell: Mr. Speaker, the answer 
to the first question is "yes". The answer to 
the second question is February, 1968. He 
commenced duties on March 11, 1968. On 
question 3, the economies of central purchas- 
ing originally forecast and announced are 
anticipated but were not confined to any 
period of time following Mr. Clark's appoint- 
ment. On question 4, yes. 

Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a 
supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Connell: Yes. 

Mr. Shulman: Inasmuch as Mr. Clark's ap- 
pointment was forecast to lead to centralized 
buying, when will Mr. Clark begin centraliz- 
ing buying as was the intention of the gov- 
ernment? 

Hon. Mr. Connell: That has already started. 

Mr. Shulman: It has started? 

Hon. Mr. Connell: Yes. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sand- 
wich-Riverside. 

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. 
Speaker, a question of the Minister of Edu- 
cation. What was the cost of printing the 
report on the Ontario College of Art, Sep- 
tember, 1968? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the cost of 
printing the report was $5,998.65. 



218 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Mr. Burr: A supplementary question? Could 
the Minister inform the House why 11 of the 
28 pages in this report are blank, two others 
are virtually blank, and four are at least half 
blank? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in that I did 
not design it, I could not comment on that. 
I would only say that while there may be 
some blank pages, that does not detract, I 
think, from the quality of a very excellent 
report. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent 
has a question of the hon. Minister of Agri- 
culture and Food. I missed him before. 

Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, my question to 
the Minister of Agriculture and Food: 

Is the Minister aware that in southwestern 
Ontario the farmers produced approximately 
68 million bushels of corn in 1967, a large 
portion of which was shipped to Montreal 
and Port Colbome— where there is no corn 
produced— at 21 cents a bushel, and that the 
American corn was shipped to both markets 
at eight cents per bushel? Will the Minister 
make a feasibility study of the possibility of 
locating a corn processing plant in southwest- 
ern Ontario where the corn is produced, in 
order to improve the income of the corn pro- 
ducers in southwestern Ontario? 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome 
the opportunity to reply to this question be- 
cause I am sure the hon. member is aware of 
the corn industry study that was announced 
some weeks ago by me, and which will be 
carried out by the present farm income com- 
mittee when they have completed their assign- 
ments as far as their income report is 
concerned. That report will be submitted 
early in January. The committee will be 
carrying out in more detail a study of the 
corn industry, right from the research that 
goes into the production of the seed, to 
maturity dates and what have you, and qual- 
ity of production that would flow from such 
research. It follows right through all of the 
stages of the cost of the seed, the cost of the 
fertilizers involved in the planting, the pesti- 
cides, the herbicides, and the cost of growing 
an acre of corn in the various areas of On- 
tario. Their terms of reference also cover 
transportation costs, storage facilities, and, as 
is indicated in your question, the possibility 
of establishment of corn processing industries 
in the corn-growing areas of southwestern 
Ontario. By the same token, Mr. Speaker, I 
would not want to be left unsaid that com is 
now being grown in many areas of Ontario, 



particularly eastern Ontario. I would not 
want to— 

Mr. Sargent: A lot in this House, too. 

An hon. member: You should know. 

Hon. Mr. Stewart: From what comes from 
over there, I would say that if it could be 
spread on the corn fields of Ontario we would 
get better crops of corn. 

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, that we 
would not want to leave unstudied the won- 
derful area of eastern Ontario from which 
you come, sir, because we know there are 
corn industries in that area that are using 
corn that is now grown in eastern Ontario. 
Corn from western Ontario is now moving 
to the industries of eastern Ontario. 

The freight rates that you mention here 
are, I gather from what you say, the rates 
that pertain at 20 cents a bushel by rail 
compared with eight cents by water. This is 
a significant difference. But I hope that the 
committee will be able, in its investigations, 
to determine how this might be equalized 
to some degree. We will look forward to that 
report. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Coch- 
rane South. 

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

Can the Minister inform the House of the 
present state of affairs concerning the loca- 
tion of the zinc and copper smelters to be 
built by Texas-Gulf Sulphur to process their 
ores from their Ecstall mining operations? 

Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines): 
Mr. Speaker, you will remember at the time 
of the estimates of the department last year 
I indicated that we had been in very close 
contact with Texas-Gulf in relation to this 
very important matter. We had been in- 
formed that feasibility studies had been 
undertaken by that company and the feasi- 
bility studies, we were informed by the com- 
pany, were going to be ready by January 1, 
1969. We have continued this close contact 
with the company and just within the last 
week we have been informed by the com- 
pany that they, in turn, have been informed 
by their consultants that these feasibility 
studies will not now be ready for at least a 
few months after the date that they had 
originally given to us. So the only progress 
report I can give the House at the moment 
is, that I hope that before this session is 
prorogued next spring, we may have some- 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



219 



thing a little bit more specific in relation to 
the location and the feasibility of building 
these smelters in Ontario. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York- 
view. 

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I 
have a question of the hon. Minister of 
Transport. 

In view of the Globe mid Mail story from 
Detroit this morning that the Ford Motor 
Company is recalling 81,200 cars because of 
faulty brakes, can the Minister assure the 
House that Canadian models with this prob- 
lem are being recalled immediately so that 
the defect may be rectified? 

Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport): 
Mr. Speaker, yes. The manufacturer in- 
formed us, in the usual way, of this recall 
programme now under way and affecting 
some 5,731 cars in Canada. These vehicles 
will be examined for a possible defect in 
that the brake hose may have been installed 
with a torsional twist causing it to take on 
a buckle which in the case of the front wheel 
would bear against the brake drum at three- 
quarter right or left lock. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey- 
Bruce. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, before I ask 
my question here, I would like to rise on a 
point of privilege as a taxpayer about this 
pile of conglomerate nibbish here. I would 
like to know where we are going to stop sub- 
jecting the taxpayers of this province to pay 
for this kind of nonsense. 

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member 
would proceed with his questions which he 
has placed with the Speaker's office. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would 
like to point out that the "conglomerate 
rubbish" as referred to by this— 

Mr. Sargent: Of which the Prime Minister 
is a great part. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: His leader simply asked 
that all this be made available in all delibera- 
tions in his remarks in this House, so they 
had better get together- 
Mr. Sargent: Do not tell me— 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The leader of 
the Opposition has the floor. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point that 
has been raised and replied to by the Pre- 



mier: He should surely recall that the de- 
liberations, that these pamphlets report, are 
now a full year old. I brought to his atten- 
tion yesterday, in my remarks, not that we 
get the reports from that committee but that 
it advise a standing committee of the Legis- 
lature rather than a committee of the Cabinet. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: I just cannot accept 
the fact that the hon. leader of the Opposi- 
tion would agree that this is a conglomerate- 
Mr. Singer: He did not say that. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Or whatever the term 
the hon. member used. I might say that if 
you bother to read it, it is as topical today 
as it was when it was delivered. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The hon. mem- 
l>er will proceed with his— order, order! The 
hon. member will now proceed with his 
questions. 

I would also point out to the hon. member 
that when Mr. Speaker takes the floor the 
member will return to his seat until he is 
given the floor again. 

The hon. member now has the floor. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to 
the Attorney General: Has the Attorney Gen- 
eral read the transcript of the Elwin A. 
Rogers case? 

1. Will the Attorney General advise why 
Mr. Rogers has never been granted the privi- 
lege of any citizen, the right to enquiry into 
his case? 

2. Does the Attorney General agree that 
because of a traffic offence a person can be 
locked up and subjected to inhuman treat- 
ment by police and authorities and have no 
recourse for months of imprisonment? 

3. Will the Attorney General agree to re- 
open this case and to focus public attention 
on such a machine that can perpetrate this 
to a law-abiding citizen? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. 
members will perhaps recall that Mr. Rogers 
is the gentleman who entered on the floor of 
die House in 1966, in order to address the 
Legislature. 

Mr. Sargent: He is still trying to get 
justice. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: He has visited my de- 
partment on many occasions. He has been 
interviewed by at least four of the lawyers 



220 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



on my staff, including the Assistant Deputy 
Minister. His various allegations have been 
reviewed in similar detail by other depart- 
ments including The Department of Health 
and The Department of Labour. The files 
respecting this and other complaints of Mr. 
Rogers go back to 1964. 

In reply to the specific case raised by the 
hon. member for Grey-Bruce, Mr. Speaker, 
I would point out that when this gentleman 
was stopped for speeding on the Don Valley 
Parkway in 1964, his conduct was such that 
the court referred him to the Ontario Hos- 
pital for observation. 

Mr. Sargent: It does not say that here. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am saying it to the 
hon. member now. 

He was then committed to the hospital for 
a period of five months, under The Mental 
Hospitals Act for the purpose of treatment. 
Since that time he has visited us on various 
dates with various problems. We have, to the 
best of our ability, attempted to answer his 
questions. Unfortunately, we have not always 
been able to satisfy him. We have, however, 
investigated his complaints most thoroughly 
and cannot find justification for his allega- 
tions. 

We do not propose to institute any further 
investigations. 

Hon. Mr. Randall: On a point of order, 
Mr. Speaker, may I speak for this gentleman? 
He is in my riding. The kindest thing I can 
say is that the gentleman is emotionally 
upset and the— 

Mr. Sargent: What do- 
Mr. Speaker: Order, order, order. 
Hon. Mr. Randall: The kindest thing- 
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that 
this is the proper place for the Minister to 
enter this particular area. The hon. member 
will proceed with his questions. 

The hon. member has a question of the 
Minister of Transport. 

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to 
the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister 
aware that the hidden windshield wipers on 
the 1969 automobiles have been indicted as 
a serious safety hazard and will act as a hori- 
zontal guillotine for passengers involved in 
head-on collisions? 

What steps is the Minister taking in this 
regard? 



Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, the ques- 
tion comes in two parts. 

My answers are: to the first part, "no", 
and to the second part, "at the moment, 
none". 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud- 
bury East. 

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. 
Speaker, a question of the Attorney General. 
Will an inquest be held into the death of Mr. 
James O'Brien, as requested by Mr. Paul 
Falkowski of the United Steelworkers of 
America? If not, why not? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I would 
like to say I personally wrote to Mr. Fal- 
kowski on November 26. I advised him that 
Doctor Cotnam, our supervising coroner, 
would review the matter to determine 
whether or not an inquest should be held. 

I can advise the hon. member that the re- 
view by the chief coroner is not yet complete. 
When it is, he will make a decision as to 
whether or not an inquest will be held. 

Mr. Martel: Another question of the Attor- 
ney General, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister 
accept the request of the safety committee of 
the United Steelworkers of America that 
jurors in an inquest be given the opportunity 
to visit the site of an accident to familiarize 
them with the conditions giving cause to the 
accident, and thus enabling jurors to arrive at 
a more informed verdict and recommend- 
ations? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, we do 
take jurors to the scene of an accident or a 
death that they are investigating, in every 
case where we think it will assist the investi- 
gation. We advise that this be done but the 
decision is one that is made by the coroner 
who is carrying on the inquest. 

Our attitude is that the jurors should see 
the scene of the fatality where it will assist 
the inquest proceedings. 

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary 
question. In view of the fact that many of 
the jurors involved in mining accidents have 
never seen a mine, and because of the diffi- 
culty in ensuring that all jurors do in fact, 
who have not seen a mine, get to visit it, 
it almost becomes a compulsion for this to 
happen so that they can- 
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. member 
place his supplementary question? 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



221 



Mr. Martel: Will the Minister instruct the 
coroners that those members of a jury who 
have never seen a mine, see the site of the 
accident so they can have a fair chance of 
good recommendations? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I think, 
having been a Crown attorney and having 
assisted at inquests on quite a number of 
occasions, the important thing is that the 
persons who are to give the evidence to the 
jury, which is presided over by the coroner— 
those persons who are usually summoned by 
the Crown attorney after consultation with 
the coroner— are the persons who should be 
fully aware of all the circumstances and that 
there be sufficient evidence in the way of 
description, sketch, and all the other evidence 
that is available; that those are the persons 
who should acquaint the jury with the facts 
of the matter. I do not think it is necessary 
in every case, for all the jurors to be taken 
to the scene of the fatality. 

Mr. Martel: It might help. 

Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of 
Education. Will the Minister arrange for a 
vote of the students at Chelmsford Valley 
district composite school to determine whether 
the school should be turned into a French 
environmental school? 

If yes, will the vote be taken before the 
end of this year so that the $1.5 million 
approved for new construction can be utilized 
in time to provide adequate facilities by the 
beginning of the next school year? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really do 
not think there is any legislative way whereby 
I could arrange for a vote. And obviously, 
even if there were one, there is no legal 
authority in the present board to institute 
French-language instruction until after Janu- 
ary 1, 1969. I would suggest that really the 
decision would have to be that of the new 
divisional board which assumes its obliga- 
tions within a few weeks. Perhaps the best 
way to approach it, from the students' point 
of view, would be to have some of the 
students or students' council make some 
representation to the new divisional board 
after it assumes its obligations on January 1, 
1969. 

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary 
question then, if I might. Is the Minister 
aware that there is apparently going to be 
a serious problem of housing the number of 
students involved come next September, and 
that any delay in this could necessitate a 
staggered system at night? 



Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand that there 
is some urgency with respect to the planning 
of the addition at that particular school. I 
do not see how this really relates to the 
question of it being a school where French 
is the language of instruction. I do not think 
the two are related. 

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask 
the Minister: If it is turned into an all- 
French school where will the English stu- 
dents go? The boards in the surrounding area 
are quite concerned whether there will be 
an influx in their area. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, surely this 
is one of the obligations, one of the reasons 
why next Monday— and I hope everybody 
votes before they come back here to the 
Legislature Monday— this is one reason the 
new board is being elected, just to help 
resolve these problems. 

It would really, I think, be presumptuous 
of me to dictate to the board that is in the 
process of being elected, just how they 
should come to grips with the situation. 
Surely, this is part of their responsibility. I 
cannot, at this stage, give the hon. member 
answers to these individual situations at all. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs- 
view, finally. He has been very patient. I 
commend him for his patience. 

An hon. member: He has got great patience. 

Mr. Singer: As ever. 

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attor- 
ney General. In view of the reply made by 
the Minister of Highways— the text says "yes- 
terday" but it was a few days ago now— to 
a question to the effect that wherever war- 
ranted construction speed zones are removed 
on the highways during the evenings and 
weekends, has the Attorney General instructed 
police not to lay speeding charges in certain 
45 mile per hour zones on the Queen Eliza- 
beth Way? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, Mr. Speaker, I have 
not so instructed the police and I would 
presume that the police would not be issuing 
summonses where there are no breach of the 
traffic signs as posted. If there are no signs 
in the construction zone then the ordinary 
traffic speeds apply to that road. 

The police do not go laying summonses 
and they do not need instructions to refrain 
from issuing them, if there are no signs to 
the contrary. 

Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary 
question, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact 



222 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



that certain information has come to our 
attention in any event, the police have been 
laying charges after the construction hours 
are over, would the Attorney General look 
into it and ascertain what the situation is 
and take whatever action is necessary? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I 
will be glad to, but I do not quite under- 
stand. Police have been laying charges and 
issuing summonses, I take it. 

Mr. Singer: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: For speeding after con- 
struction ceases— is this a case where there 
are no signs? 

Mr. Singer: Yes, the signs go up in the 
daytime, while construction is going on, and 
come down at night, but the police are still— 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, if they come down 
at night I would— 

Mr. Singer: They do not come down— I 
am sorry, they do not come down. But the 
charges are laid. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: I will check it out but 
I would like to get the facts the hon. mem- 
ber has. I will check it. 

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Cor- 
rectional Services. 

Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional 
Services): Mr. Speaker, mine is in answer to 
a question which I took as notice from the 
hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston). 
He is out of his seat for the moment, per- 
haps the Attorney General might proceed 
with his— 

Mr. Nixon: We would like to have the 
answer. 

Mr. Speaker: Then perhaps the Minister 
would give the answer. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. 
member for Essex-Kent on November 26, 
asked me a question in three parts, the first 
part of which reads, "Is it the policy of the 
department to provide compensation for 
property damage caused by individuals who 
are wards of the province in training 
schools?" 

The answer, sir, is that the department is 
concerned with losses suffered by individuals 
in a community, under such circumstances. 
Therefore, each case is considered on its 
individual merits, as was the occurrence 
referred to in the second part of his ques- 
tion, which is, and I quote again, "Will there 



be compensation for tractor damage, destroy- 
ing of antiques and other valuables at the 
Harper residence north of Cobourg as a 
result of the escape of nine residents of 
Brookside School on August 28?" 

Mr. Speaker, when this incident occurred 
the superintendent of the school and the 
deputy superintendent visited the home of 
the owner, Mr. Eric Harper and informed 
him that the boys who had caused the dam- 
age would be made responsible for cleaning 
it up. This was done by the boys under the 
supervision of our staff and incidental ex- 
penses for such things as glass, door locks 
and so on, amounted to slightly over $100 
plus the labour of our maintenance staff. 
Action of this nature is also taken as a 
salutary measure for the boys responsible. 

The department offered to repair the dam- 
aged farm tractor at our own institution with 
our own skilled mechanics. This offer was 
refused by Mr. Edwin Harper on behalf of 
his uncle Mr. Eric Harper. 

And the third part of the question, "Has 
any disciplinary action been taken with re- 
spect to the conduct of the Brookside super- 
visor who said to one of the nine Brookside 
boys who was apprehended with a bleeding 
hand"— And there follows then, Mr. Speaker, 
a rather outrageous statement which was 
alleged to have been made, and which I, 
with my middle class morality hesitate to 
repeat and I will not. It was reported in 
the Cobourg Sentinel-Star of September 4. 

The answer, sir, is that the quotation from 
the newspaper— which, it should be noted, 
was reported as being overheard at third 
hand— was investigated and it was established 
that the supervisor did not make this state- 
ment. As a matter of fact, the superinten- 
dent of the school advises me that such a 
remark would be entirely out of character 
having regard for this particular staff mem- 
ber's philosophy and attitude towards his 
work at the school during the 13 years he 
has been with us. 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, yesterday 
the hon. member for High Park asked a 
question which I was not able to answer at 
that time. I promised to answer it today. 

The first part of the question: "Why was 
the death of Kenneth Haines on October 29 
in the Scarborough General Hospital not 
reported until five days afterward?" The an- 
swer, Mr. Speaker, is that it was the opinion 
of the officials at Scarborough General Hos- 
pital that the case was not a reportable death 
required to be reported to the coroner's 
office. 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



223 



An autopsy was performed at the hospital 
and it was ascertained that the child had died 
of natural causes. When certain articles 
began to appear in the newspapers the hos- 
pital felt it wise to report it to the coroner 
so that it might be reviewed by him. This 
was therefore done and the matter was in- 
vestigated by the coroner. 

The second part of the question: "Is it 
true that Mr. Haines was refused admission 
to another hospital shortly before his death?" 
Actually, the person was a child of one year 
of age by the name of Haines. I am informed 
that the child was never refused admittance 
to any hospital. 

The facts as they are related to me is that 
this child, aged one year, was taken by the 
mother to St. Mary's Hospital on two separate 
occasions during the course of treatment for 
an infection. At each time, the child was 
treated and then was sent home. At the 
same time, the child was under the care of 
the family's physician. When the child was 
home on the last occasion, it went into con- 
vulsions rather suddenly, the mother tele- 
phoned the St. Mary's Hospital, and they 
advised that the child be brought in immedi- 
ately. Police and the fire department officers 
rushed the child to Scarborough General Hos- 
pital because it was nearer, and the child was 
admitted there. 

The third part of the question: "Why is the 
coroners' office not holding an inquest in this 
unusual death?" The answer to that is: The 
cause of death has been established as one 
from natural causes; the coroner's office does 
not feel that an inquest is necessary. I would 
just like to add, Mr. Speaker, that I wrote the 
hon. member on November 13, this year, in 
answer to his enquiry, and recited to him in 
my letter the finding of the autopsy as to the 
cause of death. I set that forth in my letter 
to the hon. member. 

Mr. Shulman: Would the Attorney General 
accept a supplementary question? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes. 

Mr. Shulman: Would the Attorney General 
agree with me that if a child is sent home 
from a hospital a few hours before it con- 
vulses and dies, the practice should be to 
treat it as an unusual death which merits an 
inquest? 

Hon. Mr. Wishart: The hon. member has 
much more medical knowledge than I have, 
but I can think of situations that I think per- 
haps we have all experienced, where deaths 
and serious situations which result in death 



arise very suddenly, even after treatments in 
a hospital, or at home. 

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day. 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr. 
Speaker, with your permission I will ask His 
Honour if he will come into the Chamber 
and give one bill Royal Assent. 

The Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor 
of Ontario entered the Chamber of the legis- 
lative assembly and took his seat upon the 
Throne. 

Hon. W. R. Macdonald (Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor): Pray be seated. 

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, 
the legislative assembly of the province has, 
at its present sittings thereof, passed a bill to 
which, in the name and on behalf of the said 
legislative assembly, I respectfully request 
Your Honour's assent. 

The Clerk Assistant: The following is the 
title of the bill to which Your Honour's assent 
is prayed: 

Bill 2, An Act to amend The Municipal 
Act. 

To this Act the Royal Assent was an- 
nounced by the Clerk of the legislative 
assembly in the following words: 

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, 
the Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor 
doth assent to this bill. 

The Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor 
was pleased to retire from the Chamber. 

The first order: Resuming the debate on 
the amendment to the motion for an address 
in reply to the speech of the Hon. the Lieu- 
tenant-Governor at the opening of the session. 

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE 

Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr. 
Speaker, in the traditional style, I would 
indeed very sincerely like to offer my com- 
pliments to you as I commence the first con- 
tribution that I have made to this, the first 
large formal debate of this session. 

I am interested in the comments you made 
concerning the rules of the House, particu- 
larly the question period. I have been watch- 
ing the clock these last few days, and keeping 
an ear on the questions as well, and as we 
consider these matters I think we might be 
wise to think in terms of the fact that the 
question period really is for questions of 
immediate urgency. There are other ways of 
obtaining information from the government. 



224 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Questions can be put on the order paper, 
where they are answered— particularly those 
questions that require a good deal of re- 
search and involve figures, and so on. 

But if we are to have an efficient and 
orderly House, I think we might, all of us, 
pay some attention to the fact that the ques- 
tions are supposed to have at least some 
degree of urgency and some degree of public 
interest. Public interest is a fairly broad 
term, and it does not include some of the 
purely local matters that are the subject of 
questions here. I only throw that out as a 
suggestion. We will be looking at this whole 
matter of questions in the next few days, but 
that is an observation I would like to make. 

I would like also to welcome all the mem- 
bers back from their summer vacation, if we 
could put it that way. It did seem to me it 
was nothing more than a long weekend. I 
heard the same barracking coming from the 
same quarters, and the same questions from 
the same quarters, but for my part, Mr. 
Speaker, I can only say that my happiest days 
in government are spent inside this Chamber, 
and I have no objections to sitting here for 
any given period of time. I am delighted to 
be back and dealing with the business of the 
public in an open manner such as we do 
here. 

I would hope that we will be able to 
complete this Throne Debate and some legis- 
lation by approximately December 20, which 
is the Friday prior to Christmas, and then 
we might await the completion of the Budget 
and the good news that it will contain before 
we reassemble. 

One of the large events of the period 
since we last met was the members' tour 
of northwestern Ontario. I thought it was 
quite successful. We were fortunate in the 
weather. In fact, wherever we went we were 
told we got the first decent weather in 
northwestern Ontario during the whole sum- 
mer. I have asked my own members here 
for comments on that tour. These tours 
will continue. I would hope that perhaps 
not next fall but the year after that, we 
might take a tour into another part of 
northern Ontario. 

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): How about 
Japan? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: We will deal with that 
when we get to it. I have some ideas in 
that regard too, Mr. Speaker. 

I would welcome any suggestion that any 
of the members may have as to how these 
tours may be made more productive. It 



occurred to me as we went about north- 
western Ontario that we might easily have 
offered the members a choice— in other 
words, instead of attempting to move as a 
body wherever we went, we might have been 
able to break down the examination that we 
were doing and the visits we made, into 
various units so that members could make 
up their minds as to what was of particular 
interest to them. 

I think anyone comes away from a tour 
of that kind with some sensation of the vast- 
ness of northern Ontario, and the fact that 
a five-day tour in northern Ontario really is 
not very much in terms of a true examination 
of the country, or a chance to speak with 
the people and find out what they are think- 
ing. It did occur to me that we might 
organize it somewhat differently another 
time. If any member, as a result of last fall's 
tour, has any ideas as to how it might be 
improved, we would be pleased to receive 
his comments. 

While there are various matters that I 
could deal with here that have been touched 
upon by previous speakers, one thing that 
rather intrigues me is the constant reference 
to my own retirement. These come particu- 
larly from the Opposition and I get the feel- 
ing there is a good deal of wishful thinking 
going on over there- 
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Do 
not blame it on us, all the public prints have 
been speculating. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: I went through all this, 
you see, so I have no problem about dis- 
cussing it, because I went through a similar 
situation prior to the last convention of our 
national party, when no one would really 
believe me when I said I was not going to 
be a candidate for the national leadership. 

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi- 
tion): That was good thinking! 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: But it does seem to me 
that inasmuch as I am frank enough to 
put my intentions on the table, I would like 
to hear some expression of opinion from the 
Opposition. For instance, our friends over 
there are in the habit of changing their leader 
about every two years, and I was just won- 
dering whether there is any such intention 
over there at the moment. Perhaps we could 
put these questions to them, if they put these 
questions to us. I sit here and I see the 
hopefuls, and I sometimes think by the tone 
of question that is asked and the approach 
that is being taken that maybe each one is 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



225 



trying to build a position for the next 
spasm of leadership change that will take 
place in that group. I detect in the member 
for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) that he would 
like to have another run at it. I am certain 
he would, and he wants to improve his record 
from the last time. 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Oh, there are the old 
perennials. I do not know about the hon. 
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha), I do not 
think he really cares any more. But there is 
some new blood; the hon. member for Sarnia 
gives every indication to me of really casting 
a long and envious look on that seat down in 
front. I sit in this House pretty constantly 
and I can look across there and I can prob- 
ably see the interplay of expression on those 
faces better than you can see it from where 
you sit, and sometimes it is— 

Mr. MacDonald: How about the hon. mem- 
ber for Humber (Mr. Ben)? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. member for 
York Centre, too, I think is rather keen, that 
member from this great city of Toronto that 
is so soundly supported by the member for 
Grey-Bruce in this Legislature— I think per- 
haps he thinks he might have a chance. There 
was one more but I will save a comment 
about him until I am going through the rev- 
eries once again. 

Now when we turn, of course, to the 

other- 
Mr. MacDonald: That has been settled, the 

Prime Minister does not have to speculate 

on it. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Oh no. There, Mr. 
Speaker, is a real dreamer. He thinks it is 
settled. The other thing is, you see, if you 
sort of take the natural progression of things 
—it does not necessarily have to happen this 
way— but about every four years we have an 
election and the last election was in 1967, so 
that empirically, I suppose you might say that 
we would have another election in 1971. But 
does this group have to go through this agony 
again between now and 1971? I wonder, well 
I do not worry, but I am so interested. It has 
been a fascinating few weeks. We all read 
the paper with great eagerness to see what 
the frank comments were going to be on that 
particular day. Now the hon. member for 
High Park (Mr. Shulman) has indicated that 
he will be a candidate next time and it seems 
to me the hon. member for York— he has been 
in the House so little I have forgotten the 



name of his riding— the hon. member for Mt. 
Royal in Montreal— that was his riding. He 
spent three months in Montreal, fruitless I 
might say, but none the less I have a feeling 
that he might aspire to the post over here 
too. We do not know about the hon. member 
for Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick), we do not 
know whether he will aspire again— we do not 
even know if he has accepted the result of 
die last one. But, nonetheless, I think this 
will probably be an exercise that we will all 
have an opportunity to view between— 

Mr. Sargent: What is the Prime Minister 
worried about? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am worried about my 
group of stalwart friends here. These are the 
people that will eventually clean up the thing 
again you see, but for laughs we watch these 
performances. I would not presume to sug- 
gest, but I can only tell you that we will 
watch with interest and we will see who 
really will lead this group into the next elec- 
tion. I have never heard an expression of 
opinion from the hon. member for York South 
that he intended to stand. It may be he has 
made such a statement, but it has not come 
to my attention. These are the things that 
interest me when all these questions are con- 
tinuously put to me about what my personal 
future may be. 

Mr. Sargent: Why does the Prime Minister 
not tell them, and make them feel good? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well I guess that is a 
fair assumption and one that I could not 
quarrel with. There are other things that 
have happened in the intervening periods. 
One was the select committee on taxation and 
this gave certain members who just came 
into the Legislature last year an opportunity 
to take part in the functioning of our select 
committees. I understand that this was a 
good committee, that it functioned very well. 

However, I understand there were certain 
members of it who found their freedom of 
action sort of cut off in the latter days. After 
examination was made and the conclusions 
were to be reached all of a sudden the hand 
of the hierarchy reached up and said "thou 
shalt not do it that way in this committee, 
thou shalt do it this way, according to the 
dictates of the caucus and the socialist ex- 
perts who advised it." I just wondered what 
kind of an experience that was for those men 
who laboured long and hard, did a terrific 
job, came to some conclusions with their own 
consciences and their own minds as to what 
recommendations should and would be right, 



226 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



and then found that these all had to be 
changed because the hierarchy said "no, no, 
no, that is not the way we want to go." 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well I wonder person- 
ally what the reaction is of the individual 
members on that committee who eventually 
were given their orders— let us face it, they 
were allowed to go along and listen to the 
submissions and do the research, but when 
the chips were down, they took their orders 
and signed, or not signed, agreed or disagreed, 
according to the hierarchy of the party, and 
their socialist advisors. 

It seems to me— 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, with the 
reaction I get I must be right. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few com- 
ments about federal-provincial relations and 
constitutional matters. On July 23 last, the 
Provincial Secretary (Mr. Welch) addressed 
this House at some length about the course 
the government of Ontario is pursuing in con- 
nection with major federal-provincial and 
inter-provincial issues, and I would like to 
review for the House some of these issues 
and the events associated with them. I would 
like to bring the members up to date on the 
events concerning inter-governmental rela- 
tions that have occurred since the House rose 
last July. 

Yesterday, the twenty-seventh day of No- 
vember was the first anniversary of the Con- 
federation of tomorrow conference which 
was, you will recall, convened by this gov- 
ernment upon the direction of this Legisla- 
ture. I believe the direction was almost 
unanimous, perhaps there was one dissent- 
ing vote, but in any event, certainly the vast 
majority of the members of this Legislature 
approved of the government doing what it 
did in calling that conference. I think that 
in the light of what has happened since, we 
can now be proud of what credit we can 
take in that event. 

No specific decisions, of course, were 
reached at that conference and none were 
intended to be reached. It was not the pur- 
pose of the conference to reach decisions. 
The conference was convened so that the 
leaders of all of the governments of Canada, 
of all areas of Canada, could get together 
and discuss with each other, through the 
medium of radio, television, newspapers, 
with the people of Canada, the issues which 
they believed and thought were responsible 



for the stresses and strains that had been 
developing in our federal system of govern- 
ment. I think that the conference was com- 
pletely successful in meeting the goals that 
we established for it. 

The leaders of the governments of the 
Atlantic provinces, for instance, spoke to us 
about their very deep-seated economic prob- 
lems. The Prime Minister of Quebec ex- 
plained for us the difficulties faced by French 
speaking people of Canada and their belief 
in the necessity to ensure for them their 
linguistic and cultural survival and growth. 

Mr. Sargent: It cost a million dollars too. 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, when you 
are dealing with the future of your country 
I do not think you consider dollars and cents. 

I think that the representatives of the 
prairie provinces and British Columbia ex- 
pressed primarily a strong desire to under- 
stand more fully what was going on in the 
other parts of Canada, and the challenges 
that Confederation offered. These matters 
have traditionally been much more debated 
here in central Canada than they have been 
among our western neighbours, and I think 
that when they realized what the situation 
was, they indicated, of course, their willing- 
ness to participate in the discussions which 
would be entered into, in order to resolve 
some of the difficulties that were laid out 
before us all at that conference. 

Despite the differing viewpoints— because 
the viewpoints did differ, quite markedly— 
and despite the different approach taken by 
different areas of the country, there emerged 
eventually from the conference a very defi- 
nite spirit and mood of co-operation. Any- 
one and everyone who became in any way 
involved in this conference, either as a par- 
ticipant or as an observer, or by radio, 
television or the press, realized that modera- 
tion and understanding really are the pre- 
requisites, the basic fundamental prerequi- 
sites to the successful solution of Canada's 
constitutional problems. 

This conference was notable in two other 
respects: First, by opening the session to 
journalists, the television cameras and radio 
microphones for the first time in the his- 
tory of our country, we were able to ensure 
that the people of Canada would join in the 
deliberations about the future of our country. 
By so doing, we set a precedent. I feel quite 
certain, no one will attempt to reverse this 
precedent, because I believe that the very 
presence of the people of Canada had con- 
tributed a great deal to the success of that 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



227 



conference and to the constitutional confer- 
ence held in Ottawa in February. 

I hope that our future federal-provincial 
conferences of heads of government will be 
opened to the people of Canada through the 
news media. I welcome this; I believe it is 
a healthy and a mature step forward in our 
approach to matters of vital importance to 
the people of our country. I am informing 
the Prime Minister of Canada by letter, that 
insofar as Ontario is concerned, we are agree- 
able and indeed we are very anxious that any 
arrangements which will help to make the 
December conference and future conferences 
open to the public will be made. We will 
do anything on our part to ensure that this 
is done. 

We have no interest whatsoever in going 
to Ottawa and discussing behind closed doors 
the matters that are of fundamental interest 
to all the people of Canada. Now, when we 
get into some of the financial and budgetary 
questions— long-range budgeting of course, it 
may l>e impossible for a whole variety of rea- 
sons to have these conferences open. But I 
think many conferences are closed which do 
not need to be closed. I think you can 
always have executive sessions if you need 
them, to discuss certain matters when it 
would not be in the public interest to dissemi- 
nate the information produced, but that does 
not mean you put a lock on at the begin- 
ning of day one, and take it off at the end 
of day three or four or however long the 
conference may lie. As far as this govern- 
ment is concerned, we would like to be able 
to put our position on a whole variety of 
subjects before the people of the province 
and the people of Canada. We do not want 
to be muzzled by closed conferences. We 
accept the position that there may be in- 
formation that cannot be made public but 
that can be sorted out and dealt with in a 
separate way. 

If I may digress for a moment, I would 
like to suggest that perhaps it is time we 
gave some consideration in this Chamber to 
the advisability of allowing access to our 
proceedings here in this Legislature for 
television and radio coverage. 

The people of Ontario would be better in- 
formed about the important debates in each 
session if television and radio were allowed 
to cover the proceedings with live broadcasts. 
Of course, the Legislature itself must retain 
control over access to the Chamber by tele- 
vision and radio, but I believe that it might 
be possible. I only put this forward as a 
proposition, because I realize there are enor- 



mous technical and economic difficulties in- 
volved. The Legislature must always retain 
control over itself and the affairs here, but 
we should be able to reach some agreement 
between the Legislature and the media in- 
volved in order that we can decide, for 
instance, what debates might profitably be 
subjected to live coverage. 

For specific examples of what I think might 
be appropriate: the addresses by the leaders 
of each party at the beginning of this debate. 
I do not think we could subject the public 
to six or seven hours of it, because you would 
lose your audience. I am told that in Aus- 
tralia there is one radio channel tuned in to 
their Parliament that is never shut off. It 
just goes on all the time, and it is never 
listened to either; that is the ultimate result. 

There would have to be, I think, some 
degree of discrimination, but I can think of 
debates we have had here on resolutions that 
were of wide significance beyond the mere 
local issues that we dealt with in a great deal 
of our work here, and would be of interest to 
the people. The people would like to hear 
the expression of opinion as advanced by 
members speaking here; the Budget Address, 
the addresses of the leaders of parties in the 
Budget debate where policies are being set 
forth— broad policies as advocated by different 
political parties and different groups in the 
House. Surely, Mr. Speaker, these matters 
could be and would be of value if some of 
these debates could be broadcast and all our 
people could share them. 

I would propose, as this session proceeds, 
to set up a committee to do some examina- 
tion in this field to see if it is, in fact, feasible. 
The preliminary examination would include, 
of course, the whole question of cameras, 
lighting, and so on, and sponsorship time. 
Well, we will leave the questions and make- 
up to the individual members if they feel 
they need it. I suppose they are using it now. 

But in any event, returning to the Con- 
federation of Tomorrow conference, and 
leaving that short digression, a great deal of 
preparation, of course, went into it. We pro- 
vided this material that was spoken of so 
highly by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce; 
this was given to the delegates from all 
across Canada. This material was distributed 
to them all, to provide background for their 
discussions. And here we have the theme 
papers of the conferences, the verbatim re- 
port of the proceedings, which is a very valu- 
able reference work indeed. Included here is 
a translation of a special supplement of Le 
Devoir, entitled "Quebec in the Canada of 



228 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Tomorrow". If you really want to under- 
stand the Quebec viewpoint, I suppose you 
could call that a bible of position because it 
contains all the thinking of the best brains in 
Quebec, dealing with this problem from their 
point of view. 

Now, sir, the positive spirit we generated 
there was carried forward to the conference 
of Prime Minister and Premiers during the 
first week in February, and I reported on this 
in some detail last February. I should like to 
recall the two important agreements that 
were reached at that conference. First, the 
participating governments reached a con- 
sensus on language rights; and second, they 
agreed to undertake a comprehensive review 
of the constitution of Canada. For this pur- 
pose, the Prime Minister and Premiers con- 
stituted themselves as they are continuing, as 
a constitutional conference, and they estab- 
lished a committee of officials to aid them in 
their consideration of the constitutional re- 
view. 

The continuing committee of officials, or 
CCO as it is called, was organized in the 
spring following our conference, and has 
since met on four occasions. It will meet 
once more before the constitutional confer- 
ence reconvenes next month. In accordance 
with its mandate, that committee of officials 
established a full-time secretariat which is 
directly responsible to the 11 governments 
which constitute the continuing conference. 
Thus all the governments concerned have 
control in this development. In other words, 
it is not being run by one level of govern- 
ment; it is being run by all 11 governments, 
which I think is a very important point. 

Mr. Nixon: May I just ask a brief ques- 
tion? The continuing committee to which 
the Prime Minister is referring— is that the 
one that was constituted by the Confedera- 
tion of Tomorrow group? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: No. 

Mr. Nixon: It is the one from the February 
conference? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes. 

Mr. Nixon: Was there not a continuing 
group from the conference a year ago, here in 
Toronto, as well? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: I will mention the out- 
come of that, and what it has done, but this 
is a continuing committee of officials whereas 
that other committee that you are referring 
to is really the committee of heads of govern- 
ment. 



Mr. Nixon: Has it met? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes, but this Continu- 
ing Committee of Officials, as I say, has met 
four times and will meet once more. The 
delegates from Ontario are the Deputy Treas- 
urer and Deputy Minister of Economics, Mr. 
H. I. Macdonald, and the Deputy Minister of 
Justice and Deputy Attorney General, Mr. 
A. R. Dick. The other governments of Can- 
ada are represented on this committee by 
similar senior public servants. It has worked 
very hard as a committee to provide the pre- 
liminary analysis which is necessary to the 
leaders of the government in their compre- 
hensive review of the constitutional chal- 
lenges facing Canada. There are many of 
them, and it is very difficult to sort them out 
by subject or in any priority at all. It is not 
easy even to decide where one should start. 

The progress achieved to date has neces- 
sarily not been very dramatic— I would have 
to say that— because of the many opinions 
on these issues that we have in various 
regions of Canada. It is not simply a question 
of getting together and deciding what we 
can agree upon. You first really have to agree 
upon what you disagree about, and attempt 
to reconcile these many conflicting points of 
view. I am sure that everybody will recog- 
nize, as I mentioned earlier in these remarks, 
that the primary necessity in this is an 
enormous amount of patience. It is a novel 
exercise. It has not been done before, and 
patience is necessary, because we must seek 
to understand one another's views about these 
very fundamental matters related to the 
future of Canada. 

This committee will submit a formal re- 
port on its work at the constitutional con- 
ference next month. It will be the responsi- 
bility of the Conference itself, after it has 
received that report, to provide the commit- 
tee with further instructions about the nature 
of the review, and the future direction of 
the work of that continuing committee. 

I mentioned a consensus was reached con- 
cerning language rights at that conference 
as well, and it consisted of three parts. This 
is taken from the final communique: 

Recognition by this conference that as 
proposed by the Royal Commission on Bi- 
lingualism and Biculturalism, and as a 
matter of equity, French-speaking Cana- 
dians outside of Quebec should have the 
same rights as English-speaking Canadians 
in Quebec. Secondly: Recognition as the 
Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bi- 
culturalism has recommended of the desir- 
ability of proceeding by governmental 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



229 



action as speedily as possible, in ways most 
appropriate in each province and without 
diminishing existing rights, recognized by 
law or usage. Thirdly: The establishment 
of a special committee to examine the re- 
port of the Royal Commission on Bilingu- 
alism and Biculturalism and the views 
expressed at this conference on the report, 
and on other matters relating to language 
rights and their effective provision in prac- 
tice, and to consult on methods of imple- 
mentation, including the nature of possible 
federal assistance, and on the form and the 
method of constitutional amendment. 

That is quite fonnal language, but it has 
to be, because it has to embody the positions 
that are put forward by each of the 11 gov- 
ernments. 

The special committee referred to in this 
last part of the consensus was created at the 
first meeting of the continuing committee of 
officials in May. Since that time the sub- 
committee on official languages has met 
twice, once in July and again in October. At 
these meetings the subcommittee examined 
the recommendations of the first report of 
the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and 
Biculturalism and exchanged information on 
problems of implementing bilingual pro- 
grammes. A report of its work and progress 
will be submitted to the conference next 
month. 

The position of the government of Ontario 
on the provision of bilingual services was 
explained in detail at the February confer- 
ence. I reviewed it for the House here on 
February 27 of this year. We stated then, 
as now, that we endorsed the guiding prin- 
ciple and the spirit of the first volume of 
the Royal Commission report, namely that 
both English and French be recognized wher- 
c\ cr the minority is numerous enough. We 
also announced on the two occasions in 
February, the creation of four task forces 
which would undertake a full examination of 
the report, particularly as its recommenda- 
tions affected Ontario. These task forces are 
examining the administration of justice, the 
Legislature and provincial statutes, municipal 
administration, and are looking at the pro- 
vincial public service. I gave an interim 
report on that work to this House on July 22. 

The reports of these task forces were sub- 
mitted to the government last month, and 
I believe the hon. member for York South 
referred to these in his remarks of yesterday. 
I congratulate him on the use of French in 
his contribution to the Throne Debate, and 
it was the only difference I could find in the 



whole speech from his contribution from the 
last three or four years, but it was a very 
significant one, and I enjoyed it. 

Mr. MacDonald: There were portions of 
my speech that the Prime Minister must have 
missed. 

An hon. member: You are improving, Mac- 
Donald! 

Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. MacDonald: When can we see these 
reports? 

Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
know that they really are public documents. 
These were task forces established within 
the government service. They did not hold 
public hearings, and so on. They were drawn 
up as a basis for action by the government. 
They are presently being examined, and I 
have some doubts as to whether really they 
are documents that should be made public. 
But in any event, they will be the basis for 
the policies that the government will an- 
nounce. At the moment we are looking over 
what they have been able to dig out and 
what is in those reports, and I will report 
to the Legislature before this session is com- 
plete. 

Sir, last July this Legislature passed a 
motion permitting the use of both English 
and French in the deliberations of this House. 
Legislation authorizing the establishment of 
public French-language secondary schools 
and classes were also approved. Legislation 
was also passed to provide a statutory basis 
for the French-language elementary schools 
which have existed in Ontario for many 
years. 

Mr. Speaker, before I review the progress 
of bilingualism in the field of education, I 
should like to mention one other matter. 
Recently, we were all pleased, I am sure, to 
learn of the early intention of the govern- 
ment of Quebec to introduce legislation which 
would guarantee the rights of both French- 
and English-speaking people in Quebec to 
have their children educated in either of the 
two languages. I would like, really, to remind 
everyone that this assembly passed such legis- 
lation last July. I offer this reminder not in 
a self-congratulatory manner to the members 
of this House, but I think it is a fact that 
can probably be easily overlooked. The fact 
is that Ontario has taken the lead in such 
matters, and it has done so to ensure the 
equal educational opportunity of all the 
residents of this province. I think in this 



230 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



respect that we have much in which we can 
take pride. 

Sir, when the committee on French-lan- 
guage schools was established by government 
a year ago it was charged with two tasks. 
The first was to prepare the necessary legis- 
lation. This was one, of course, and the 
government has implemented the commit- 
tee's proposals in that regard. Since that 
time the committee has turned to such ques- 
tions as curriculum, teacher education, financ- 
ing and related matters. The report of this 
committee is nearing completion on these 
other matters and will soon be presented to 
the Minister of Education. 

We have been greatly encouraged by the 
goodwill and by the action which led many 
boards of education to introduce French - 
language instruction this past fall, although 
the bill will not come into effect formally 
until January 1, 1969. I think this indicates 
the depth of goodwill and understanding that 
exists among the people of the province, and 
their basic recognition of the justice of this 
position that it is a right for people to have 
their children talk in their own language. 
I think that many of our children are being 
served now, rather than a year from now, 
because of the attitude taken by many boards. 
There are two specific instances of this that 
I might mention to you. In Ottawa, the 
collegiate institute board took under its con- 
trol this fall the former private French- 
language secondary schools in that city, and 
those schools are now integral parts of the 
public secondary school system. 

You will recall that under the new legis- 
lation, French-language committees will be 
created, made up of four French-speaking 
representatives and three members appointed 
by the board. These committees will act, 
in effect, as advisory committees to the 
boards who are charged with the responsi- 
bility of administering these schools. Their 
role will be extremely important to the 
proper functioning of French-language sec- 
onder^ schools. 

In Ottawa, approximately two weeks ago, 
a meeting was held to choose the four 
French-speaking representatives. I was de- 
lighted to learn that 3,500 people turned 
out at a local high school in order to choose 
four people to sit on that advisory board. 
Then, in the same evening, the Ottawa col- 
legiate institute board named its three mem- 
bers to the committee and this, I think we 
would all agree, is a very enthusiastic begin- 
ning for this programme. 

I feel certain that this relationship that has 
developed in Ottawa will develop in other 



parts of the province, and will serve as a 
model for other parts of the province, too. 
In other parts of the province, the initial 
progress may not be so striking. It will take 
time, of course, but it is heartening that 
matters are going ahead in the way that I 
have indicated here. It justifies all our faith 
in the inherent good sense of our people and 
in their ability to successfully arrange these 
matters without strife and without acrimony 
such as we sometimes experience in this 
House. 

The second instance to which I refer is 
the ceremony held in Welland on Monday 
of this week. I was to have participated 
and at the last moment was unable to do so. 
The hon. member for Stormont appeared for 
me. I am referring, of course, to the offi- 
cial opening of Confederation Secondary 
School, the first French-language composite 
secondary school to be established in Ontario. 
This school, once again you see, has been 
opened well before the legislation goes into 
effect on January 1 next, and this too re- 
flects the ability of the people of that area 
to get together and the desire that they 
obviously show to solve these problems in a 
proper fashion. 

To conclude my remarks on this particular 
subject of French-language schooling and 
instruction, I would like to stress my own 
confidence in the continuation of the work 
we have done. We will meet as a govern- 
ment and as a Legislature to see to the 
needs of our Franco-Ontarian people and 
Franco-Ontarian community. We will do it, 
I hope, in what will be the most efficient and 
practical fashion. We recognize and have 
spoken often, of course, of the great contri- 
bution that this community has made to our 
entire province. We have accepted the prin- 
ciple of bilingualism, we are engaged in its 
implementation and we look forward to this 
being done not in a token fashion, but in 
a sincere way, so that it will produce the 
ultimate results over a long period of time 
which we believe are possible and necessary. 

These things will all, of course, play their 
part in the strengthening of the total unity 
of Canada, and I think also will make us 
all more aware of the interdependence of 
the various parts of Canada and the various 
units which make up Confederation. Evi- 
dence of the interdependence of the various 
parts of our country is provided by the fre- 
quent meetings which are taking place be- 
tween the provinces themselves, and between 
the federal and provincial governments. 

A very wide variety of dialogue has taken 
place in recent months. It is on the rather 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



231 



dramatic matters such as constitutional re- 
form that the real confrontations take place. 
These are the matters that are brought 
forcibly to everyone's attention. But there 
is an enormous amount of co-operation and 
interaction that is going on that does not 
necessarily get as high a degree of publicity. 

In Saskatchewan, and I will mention this 
later, all the Premiers met in August. We 
have had federal-provincial meetings dealing 
with health, consumer affairs, and various fis- 
cal matters, and interprovincial meetings deal- 
ing with mining, trucking and transport. Then, 
of course, there is the annual meeting of the 
Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, and 
there have been all the meetings which I 
have described to you relating to the con- 
tinuing study of the constitution. 

So as we move along there is a great dc.il 
of intergovernmental co-operation taking 
place, and I think that it is wise that this is 
emphasized and drawn to the attention of the 
public, because I think a good many people 
do not really realize what is going on. Of 
course, the ultimate objective of all this con- 
sultation must be to improve the administra- 
tive governmental machinery of our country, 
and the federal and provincial governments 
must work together if there is to be harmony 
in their efforts and if there is to be maximum 
efficiency. I can assure you that interprovin- 
cial co-operation is flourishing between the 
provinces. There is a great deal of co-opera- 
tion, and I am quite satisfied, quite confident, 
that it will continue in the future. 

I have mentioned the meeting of provincial 
Premiers held at Waskesiu, Saskatchewan, in 
August. A very wide-ranging agenda was 
dealt with there, including proposals for pro- 
vincial co-operation on pollution control, 
securities regulation, problems of provincial 
and university financing, administration of 
Indian affairs— which concerns us all a great 
deal and which is a problem for each one of 
the ten provincial governments— housing, and 
of course, the report of the continuing com- 
mittee of the Confederation of Tomorrow 
conference. 

At Waskesiu, among the resolutions passed 
by that meeting, were those requesting fur- 
ther consultation with Ottawa on health and 
fiscal matters. Another initiated a review 
leading to uniform guidelines for pollution 
control, because we must have national guide- 
lines dealing with pollution. This is becom- 
ing more and more apparent, but they do 
not exist now. Another was aimed at achiev- 
ing greater consultation on the growing prob- 
lem of alcoholism and drug addiction, which 



is a problem besetting every provincial gov- 
ernment. We agreed also to improve the 
effect of these conferences by concentrating 
attention, at each meeting, on several com- 
mon areas of concern. 

Next year we will meet in Quebec City 
and we are already at work on four problems 
—housing and urban problems, health, educa- 
tion and pollution. The continuing committee 
of the Confederation of Tomorrow confer- 
ence, which was the committee referred to 
by the leader of the Opposition a moment or 
so ago, will meet in the new year to review 
progress on those matters dealt with by the 
Confederation of Tomorrow conference— 
namely regional disparities, linguistic rights, 
and a review of the constitution. 

This is the continuing committee, and I 
am chairman of that committee, but that 
committee really was set up in order that the 
Confederation of Tomorrow conference would 
not simply disappear from the scene. The 
Confederation of Tomorrow conference was 
really not instituted with an idea that it 
would in any way supplant a federal-provin- 
cial constitutional conference. On the other 
hand, it did demonstrate that there could be 
a good deal of good done in this country if 
the provinces met together and discussed 
some of their common problems. So that con- 
tinuing committee really is there in order that 
this machinery can be kept available when it 
will be needed. 

While I am discussing Ontario's relations 
with the other governments of Canada, I 
would like, at this time, to express my own 
personal sorrow, and I think the sorrow of 
the people of Ontario, at the heavy loss suf- 
fered by Canada and Quebec in the death of 
the hon. Daniel Johnson, a month or so ago. 
He was Prime Minister of Quebec for only 
two years, but he became very well known 
to the rest of Canada. I think he displayed 
moderate views, but he certainly was insistent 
on establishing the rights and the needs as he 
saw them for his own people in Quebec, and 
in his support of all the rights of French 
Canadians, wherever they might live. I think 
all of us will remember how he used the 
Confederation of Tomorrow conference to 
put his point of view in Ontario and across 
Canada, and certainly it was a great loss to 
all of us when he died. 

I wish also at the same time to offer my 
congratulations to his successor, the hon. 
Jean-Jacques Bertrand, on his appointment 
as the leader of the party and the govern- 
ment. I have known Mr. Bertrand for some 
years, and I am quite confident that the close 



232 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



relationship that has existed between Quebec 
and Ontario will not be in any way dimin- 
ished by the fact that he has replaced Mr. 
Johnson. We will, of course, continue to do 
anything in our power to develop a close 
relationship, in order that we may find solu- 
tions to the problems that beset us. 

I suppose also, while I am referring to 
people in other provinces, I might refer to 
Premier Manning of Alberta who is retiring 
after 25 years as the leader of the government 
in that province. You see what is possible, 
gentlemen. We always refer to him as the 
senior member of the Premiers" club, but 
that very fine man indeed did so much for 
his province, in so many ways, and I would 
take this opportunity to congratulate him on 
the record of service he has to Canada, and 
to his own people in Alberta, and to wish 
him well on his retirement. I think one 
thing retirement is costing him is attendance 
at the Grey Cup game here on Saturday, the 
first time in 20 years that Calgary has been 
able to come east. In any event, I guess they 
are getting ready to choose his successor; it 
happens in all jurisdictions. 

Sir, I am pleased to have had this oppor- 
tunity to review some of these matters, and 
the progress that has been made since we 
last discussed these matters here in the 
House. I would say that in some way sig- 
nificant advances have been made in the 
question of languages, and intergovernmental 
contacts have proven generally more sophisti- 
cated. Such difficulties as have inevitably 
been encountered in the process of constitu- 
tional review will be discussed, and, I would 
hope, faced squarely at next month's meeting 
of the constitutional conference and at the 
meeting of Ministers of Finance which will 
immediately follow. The fact that these two 
meetings will be held during the same week 
helps to emphasize the fact that constitutional 
review and fiscal economic problems of Can- 
ada are inextricably linked together. A satis- 
factory solution of either is impossible with- 
out a satisfactory solution of both, and we 
intend to pursue the crucial matters with 
renewed vigour. 

I am very aware of the leader of the 
Opposition's comment, when he said that we 
were using our participation in constitutional 
reform in this country as a threat in connec- 
tion with our discussions about fiscal matters 
with the federal government. Mr. Speaker, 
I will only say this, that I think we have a 
reputation for co-operation and desire in the 
field of constitutional reform, and certainly 
we will not use the term "opt out". I do not 
know whether it was intended in this way, 



but in my ears that was quite offensive. This 
province will never opt out of any discussion 
which is for the benefit of Canada. 

But I must tell you, if the Confederation 
of Tomorrow conference proves one thing 
and nothing else, it proves that there are 
great areas of this country that are vastly 
more interested in what is going to happen 
to them economically than they are in what 
is going to happen to the constitution. To 
wander around in the theoretical areas of 
certain forms of constitutional reform, when 
you have not solved the economic imbalances 
from one region to another in this country, 
will be a very bad exercise indeed. These 
matters have to proceed together, and we 
have to solve the problems of our people, 
whatever they may be. We cannot separate 
them out. 

I will deal with this with some other re- 
marks I have to make, but I will point out 
now the constitutional implications in some 
of the discussions that have taken place with 
the federal government just recently. I think 
the leader of the New Democratic Party has 
a good grasp of this, as I read in his remarks 
yesterday. 

I would say that the process of arriving at 
solutions depends to a great extent on the 
attitudes of the governments involved. At 
conferences on these questions, the federal 
government and the provinces must regard 
each other as partners in an enormously com- 
plex federal system. There can be no room 
for paternalism, or unilateral action, and pro- 
vided that attitudes of reason and moderation 
prevail— and we should do our utmost to 
encourage those attitudes— the government of 
Ontario is optimistic about the outcome of 
the continuing financial and constitutional 
discussions. 

But we are not interested in going to 
Ottawa to any conference to be faced with 
a cut-and-dried position which has never 
been discussed, and where we are told to 
take it or leave it. I think it must be obvious 
to anyone that this is an attitude that will 
get us no place, and certainly will not solve 
the problems of this country. I think every 
day it becomes more obvious that for Mr. 
Sharp and Mr. Benson and his cronies to 
turn to us and say, "Go and impose your own 
taxes, do what you like, but do not ask us 
to give you any more room because we are 
not going to. Get your taxes where you like," 
can lead to situations that I think are very 
destructive indeed. 

In this province, I suppose, we could estab- 
lish without too much difficulty a very 



NOVEMBER 28, 1968 



233 



sophisticated fiscal bureaucracy. We could 
collect our own personal income tax and our 
own corporation tax. We are big enough to 
do it, we have the resources and manpower 
to do it. But what would we create? We 
could very easily create something that in 
the hands of some government some day 
could effectively block any fiscal or monetary 
policy that the federal government might 
choose to introduce. This is the type of thing 
we want to avoid. We do not want to be put 
in the position where we create competing 
systems, we must co-operate. 

In a country the size of this one with the 
problems it has and with the 20 million it 
has, the whole secret to our survival is co- 
operation and not unilateral action, because 
the provinces have grown up whether the 
federal government wants to accept the fact 
or not. 

Now, sir, I am into, of course, the next 
section of my remarks and that is that the 
major problem— and I believe this has been 
said by both the other leaders in the last two 
or three days— the major problems that we 
have to face during this current session will 
relate one way or another to finance. Perhaps 
of all these, the most important is the way 
in which Ontario will restructure its taxa- 
tion system. Hand in hand with it is the 
more immediate financial problem with which 
the government is dealing and which has 
been made more difficult by our failure to 
achieve what we feel is a reasonable balance 
of taxing room between the federal and the 
provincial governments. Believe me, this is 
not a request for a hand-out. This a request 
for room, for elbow room to manoeuvre, and 
I think this is getting through at long last. 
We do not go to Ottawa asking for hand- 
outs, we go to Ottawa looking for room to 
raise the money that we have to raise to pro- 
vide the services that our people not only 
want, but need. 

A number of important measures will also 
be placed before the Legislature during the 
session relating to the rationalization of our 
taxation system. Chief among these are 
measures relating to our relations with the 
municipalities and the structure of local gov- 
ernments in Ontario. There is, as I have said, 
a direct relationship between federal-provin- 
cial financial problems and the forthcoming 
constitutional discussions where one of the 
main items on the agenda will be an approach 
to the distribution of powers between the 
federal and provincial governments. The 
meeting ground for these intergovernmental 
relationships will be found in the decisions 
we take on the tax structure. The relation- 



ship is direct because the extent to which the 
province can meet the major recommenda- 
tions of the report of the Ontario committee 
on taxation— that is, the Smith committee— 
and transfer part of the burden on the re- 
gressive property tax to more progressive tax 
fields now shared by the federal and provin- 
cial governments will be dependent in large 
part on the division of revenue from these 
shared tax fields between the federal and pro- 
vincial governments. In other words, if we 
are to relieve the homeowner of the regressive 
taxes that presently rest on him, we have to 
have more space in the progressive tax field, 
because we have to replace that money from 
tax from another source. Surely this is what 
the exercise is all about— where the incidence 
of tax lies. This is the question really. 

Now, if we are to restructure our tax sys- 
tem in the province to benefit the home