Full text of "Official report of debates (Hansard) : Legislative Assembly of Ontario = Journal des débats (Hansard) : Assemblée législative de l'Ontario 1972"

f^^i)rte/ tytjyt'rvcu^na/

No. 1

ONTARIO

Hegtslature of Ontario

Beiatcs

OFFICIAL REPORT — DAILY EDITION

Second Session of the Twenty-Ninth Legislature

Tuesday, February 29, 1972

Speaker: Honourable Allan Edward Renter
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, QC

THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO

1972

Price per session, $10.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue.)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

Tuesday, February 29, 1972, being the first day of the second session of the 29th Pariia-
ment 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, February 29, 1972

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.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

Hon. W. Ross Macdonald (Lieutenant Gov-
ernor): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker and members of the legisla-
tive assembly, on this occasion of the open-
ing of the second session of the 29th Parlia-
ment of Ontario, I extend warmest greetings
to you.

The people of Ontario, having been re-
cently consulted as to their wishes with re-
spect to their representation in this Legisla-
ture, have assigned to each of you the most
solemn duty and charge which I know you
will serve steadfastly and well, whatever
your place and part in our democratic pro-
cess. On behalf of our Sovereign, I convey
my best wishes to the Premier (Mr. Davis)
and to his ministers in their several new re-
sponsibilities, and to all members of the legis-
lative assembly.

Laissez-moi vous exprimer mes voeux les
plus chaleureux en ce jour d'ouverture de la
deuxieme session de la vingt-neuvieme Legis-
lature de rOntario.

La population de notre province ayant ete
recemment consultee quant au choix de ses
representants au sein de cette Legislature, a
confie a chacun de vous un mandat et des
responsabilites d'une importance on ne pent
plus capitale. Je demeure persuade que,
quelles que soient vos positions respectives et
votre role individuel dans le processus demo-
cratique qui est le notre, vous accompHrez
tous votre tache avec Constance et eflBoacite.

Je transmets, au nom de notre Souveraine,
mes meilleurs voeux de reussite a notre
Premier Ministre et a ses ministres, ainsi qu'a
tous les membres de Tassemblee legislative,
dans les nombreuses et nouvelles responsa-
bilites qui sont les leurs.

My government wishes to outline to the
Legislature the various proposals it intends
to submit to your scrutiny and consideration
during this session. These, and other meas-
ures to be placed before you in due course,
will be designed to carry forward the major
purposes of the government in response to
present conditions of our society and its
more urgent requirements at this time in our
history.

My ministers believe that, as a result of
their recent mandate, they have a renewed
responsibility to make the growing com-
plexity and scope of government services
more eflficient and productive while, at the
same time, bringing government closer to
the people, so that it may be more respon-
sive to the continuing needs for change and
reform.

My ministers are aware of the widespread
concern over the condition of the national
economy of which Ontario's industry and
commerce are such a vital part. To maintain
public confidence in the basic strength and
vigour of our own economy requires the gov-
ernment to use fiscal prudence and restraint
in the areas of its responsibility and to en-
courage individual incentive, endeavour and
entrepreneurship in the private sector.

My ministers believe it is their duty to
give leadership and provide purposeful means
by which our people may continue to enjoy
the natural beauty and serenity of our On-
tario landscape and a daily life in a healthy
and wholesome environment. As well, my
ministers believe it is their duty to maintain
a standard of life for all citizens, the quality
of which will reflect the compassionate and
generous spirit of our people. My govern-
ment will also seek new ways to encourage
the achievement of excellence in the many
fields of citizen endeavour from which all of
Ontario's people may draw inspiration and
example.

It is expected that ouj: province will con-
tinue to enjoy a substantial expansion of its
economy in 1972, with a real growth rate

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

in excess of six per cent. Such an achieve-
ment will represent a significant improve-
ment over the past year. Despite such
growth, my government considers the pres-
ent and projected unemployment levels to
be unacceptable. It is therefore the primary
objective of my government's economic, so-
cial and fiscal policy to attain the highest
possible rate of employment.

Budgetary and fiscal strategy will be de-
signed to maintain a rate of expansion in all
areas of economic policy in order to effect
substantial improvements in the employ-
ment rate. While much has been done, and
more will be done, to achieve this objec-
tive, the speed with which it can be
achieved depends in large measure on the
improved co-ordination of federal and pro-
vincial policies and programmes.

My government will continue to make
constructive proposals to the federal govern-
ment in order to improve intergovernmental
co-operation in such specific areas of cur-
rent concern as fiscal and monetary policy,
and in areas relating to competition and
foreign trade, including the vital considera-
tion of the auto pact between Canada and
the United States.

My government has proposed to the fed-
eral government that eflFective means of
dealing with longer-term economic issues be
created through regular meetings of Min-
isters of Finance, which would be consti-
tuted as a joint economic committee.

My government is convinced of the need
for both federal and provincial action in
order to sustain and develop an interna-
tionally competitive secondary manufactur-
ing sector, a matter of critical importance
to Ontario.

The government is also committed to the
pursuit of policies which will encourage
more economic activity and greater partici-
pation by Canadians in the development of
their own resources and in the utilization
of their own skills. Further action in this
regard will follow the report of the select
committee of this Legislature on economic
and cultural nationalism.

My ministers will continue to devote their
attention to the imany important economic,
fiscal and trade matters in which Ontario,
the government of Canada and our sister
provinces have a common interest and re-
sponsibility, and in which the co-operation
of all is essential. In particular, my govern-
ment is eager to achievie federal-provincial
agreement in the following areas:

1. Tax sharing, so that the basic imbal-
ance in our federal system between revenue
sources and expenditure responsibilities can
be corrected;

2. Constitutional reform, and particularly
the distribution of powers, a matter closely
related to tax sharing, so that government
responsibilities and institutions are more in
accord with the contemporary needs of
Canadians; and,

3. Shared-cost reform, so that the prov-
ices can assume full financial responsi-
bility for existing shared-cost programmes if
they so desire.

In a broader, but no less significant area
of inter-governmental aflFairs, Ontario in-
tends to make strong representations to the
federal government, emphasizing the need for
full provincial consultation and participation
in formulating national policies of vital con-
cern to the provinces, including future con-
siderations of national policy relating to
agriculture, communications, energy, foreign
investment, international trade and urban
aff^airs, with particular emphasis on urban
renewal and housing.

To this end, my government proposes to
offer to host a tri-level conference this year
in Ontario, in which federal, provincial and
municipal governments will be represented.
Such a conference will advance the important
work begim last year, which my government
has supported and helped to sustain.

In the major reorganization which follows
the study undertaken by the Committee on
Government Productivity, a new Ministry of
Treasury, Economics and Inter-Governmental
Affairs will be established, with special re-
sponsibility for urban and regional planning,
provincial-municipal relations and finance,
and federal-provincial relations. The imple-
mentation of these activities will be inte-
grated in the annual fiscal plan through the
provincial budget. The ministry recognizes
the need for stronger and more independent
local governments and, in preparing future
urban and regional plans, my government
will be able to avoid a fragmented approach
and piecemeal planning by achieving a closer
partnership with municipal representatives.

Proposals will be made to the Legislature
on many specific urban and regional matters
and a series of Design for Development
reports will be made available, which will
indicate the potential pattern of development
in all regions of the province. Plans will be
introduced to create regional governments in
Sudbury and Kitchener- Waterloo. Action will

FEBRUARY 29, 1972

be taken to further the implementation of
the Toronto-centred region plan and the
Design for Development of northwestern
Ontario.

As a result of the study by the committee
on local election law, the government will
introduce a bill designed to reform election
procedures, which will include the abolition
of property qualifications for voters in muni-
cipal elections.

My government, recognizing the significant
role of the Ontario Municipal Board and be-
lieving it now appropriate to examine rela-
tionships of this board with the municipal-
ities, will conduct a review of the functions,
responsibilities and practices of the board,
including consideration of appeals and peti-
tions from its decisions. Municipalities, mimi-
cipal organizations and the general public
will be invited to participate in this review.

My government will continue in the sum-
mer months the employment for youth pro-
gramme and will increase the scope of this
programme by providing additional funds for
its activities. The summer employment for
youth programme, which provides jobs for
students and also funds alternative volun-
teer activities, is designed to complement the
Opportunities for Youth programme of the
federal government. The success of the vari-
ous provincial programmes including the re-
tardation student volunteer programme, proj-
ect SWEEP, and the summer volunteer
programme of the Department of Social and
Family Services, all initiated last year, is a
tribute to the energy, enthusiasm and dili-
gence of the young people of Ontario who
were involved.

New activities will be added to the exist-
ing programme, among them a correctional
rehabilitation programme involving student
participation, as well as the project Youth
and the Law, which has been designed to
involve young people in an appreciation of
law enforcement and the administration of
justice.

In the present year, the substantial and
practical task of reconstructing the organiza-
tion and processes of administration will be
pressed forward as the government imple-
ments the major recommendations of the
Committee on Government Productivity. My
ministers are convinced of the need for such
a reorganization in order to improve overall
effectiveness and to develop new and better
processes by which future policy imay be
considered and created, and existing policy
can be reviewed and reformed.

To this end, new legislation will be intro-
duced in order to provide for the implemen-
tation of these farreaching recommendations.
This legislation will be incorporated in an
omnibus bill and hon. members will have the
opportunity to debate its provisions, both in
principle and specific detail.

The publication of other reports arising
out of the continued work of the Cronyn
Committee on Government Productivity will
be forthcoming in the near future, including
studies and recommendations on automatic
data processing, communications and infor-
mation, and on human resource utilization.

My government will propose to hon. mem-
bers that a commission be appointed to
review the functions and processes of the
Legislature and means by which these might
be improved to give elected members better
opportunities to serve their constituents and
to enhance the role of the private member in
this Legislature.

My government will introduce legislation
to prohibit the holding of more than one
elected public oflBce by any individual.

Legislation will be introduced allowing
for reforms in the Ontario school record
system, and providing greater safeguards to
ensure the confidentiality of student records.
This will establish the right of students and
parents to have access to these records, based
on the principle that such information is the
private property of the individual concerned.

Legislation will be introduced that will
enable school boards and municipal author-
ities to share in the development of various
facilities for both school and community use.
Through such arrangements the use of school
buildings should be considerably enhanced
and the concept of the school as a community
resource will come closer to being a reality.

My government intends to extend bilingual
services, as required, through the municipal
level and in court proceedings. The report
of the ministerial commission on French-
language secondary education is expected in
the near future and the government will con-
sider its recommendations and consult the
Legislature as to appropriate action. A senior
position will be created in the Department
of Education with specific responsibilities for
integrating and co-ordinating the various
existing programmes and activities which the
department provides in support of the French-
language instructional programmes in the
elementary and secondary schools of Ontario.

As part of a general review of overall
economic policy, my government considers

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

it urgent that there be a re-evaluation of its
role and responsibility with regard to the
Ontario housing industry, and will seek
further means by which housing construction
can be encouraged so that more homes are
available to more people at the lowest pos-
sible cost.

My government will continue to give close
attention to the needs of the agricultural in-
dustry, with increasing emphasis on the busi-
ness aspects of farming, particularly farm
management. Further initiatives will be taken
to increase and diversify the use and sale of
Ontario-grown agricultural and food products
in domestic and export markets.

The Farm Products Marketing Act and
the Ontario Milk Act will be amended to
reflect the principles of recommendations
contained in the recent report of the royal
commission inquiry into civil rights. Amend-
ments to the Edible Oil Products Act to
permit the blending of certain dairy products
with edible oil products will be proposed.

In the field of health services, the recom-
mendations of the Grange report on hospital
privileges will be implemented by legislation
which will provide an appeal mechanism for
physicians who may be refused courtesy
privileges in a hospital.

Legislation will be introduced providing
insured services in nursing homes and homes
for the aged, allowing the province the
necessary authority to expand its health
care insurance programme to cover needed
medical care in this area.

My goverrmient will take steps to improve
the availability of essential dental and med-
ical services to people in more isolated parts
of the province.

My government, in considering the ob-
servations and recommendations of the Willis-
ton report, will accelerate its efforts to pro-
vide improved treatment and facilities for
the mentally ill, and expand the scope and
availability of training programmes for the
retarded within their home communities.

My government shares fully the concerns
of the people of Ontario in respect to the
protection and enhancement of our natural
environment. The Ontario Water Resources
Commission has maintained constant liaison
with officials of the federal government, and
has been involved in the discussions with
the government of the United States on co-
operative measures to clean up the Great
Lakes. The government of Ontario will con-
tinue to press for the signing and imple-
mentation of an international agreement with

respect to the control of pollution on the
Great Lakes system.

My government has completed a study on
the many and increasing problems of waste
and litter. A proposal to eliminate various
unsightly conditions in our environment will
be placed before you. A progranmie will be
implemented to remove the blight of aban-
doned automobile hulks and automobile
graveyards from our landscape.

Substantial programme expansion in out-
door recreation is planned over the next
five years to include the development of
parks and land acquisition for both public
open space and for environmental protection.

A select committee of the Legislature will
be asked to consider proposals with regard
to public safety and convenience in relation
to motorized snow vehicles and all-terrain
vehicles.

Experiments will be undertaken to test
promising new systems and equipment in the
field of urban transit, in the anticipation that
Ontario may achieve technological leader-
ship which can become the basis for new
types of industries.

The government will be proceeding with
proposals to develop the lignite deposits at
Onakawana in northeastern Ontario, which
are capable of supporting a 1,000-megawatt
power plant to help meet Ontario's continuing
need for increased power. Such a develop-
ment would create a much-needed focus of
industry and employment and provide a
stimulus for the whole James Bay area.
Further exploration and testing will be
carried out as a joint undertaking by the
new Minister of Natural Resources, the
Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario,
and a Canadian-owned corporation.

It is the intention of my government to ex-
tend its programme of annual achievement
awards which has existed for some years in
the field of sport. The expanded programme
will cover other areas of citizen endeavour
and recognize the contribution of the indi-
vidual to our society.

In the field of the rats, such awards will
be coupled with scholarships to permit
further studies and to encourage further
achievement in this important area of our
daily lives.

The government believes greater recog-
nition must be given to the fact that many
of our cultural organizations are resources to
be enjoyed by the whole province, and means
will be provided to make them more acces-
sible to people throughout Ontario. To facil-
itate these and other programmes, the

FEBRUARY 29, 1972

various forms of provincial government sup-
port to individuals and cultural organizations
will be reviewed and integrated.

My government proposes to establish a
community programmes division within the
Department of Correctional Services. This
year, regional detention centres are to be
completed at Ottawa and Niagara, con-
struction will begin at London, and new
centres in the Toronto and Hamilton areas
are being planned.

Group homes for juveniles will be estab-
lished in a number of communities in the
coming year, sponsored by community-based
organizations, in keeping with the policy of
my government to increase its involvement
in support of community programmes.

New clinical facilities are being provided
to expand on the present treatment pro-
grammes for prisoners with drug abuse and
other problems. These new facilities will en-
sure that treatment in a modem clinical set-
ting is available to all such offenders.

My government will continue the mineral
exploration assistance programme initiated
last year as a means of encouraging mining
exploration in northern Ontario.

The government's resources transportation
programme in the north of our province will
include the construction of major roads in a
northwesterly direction from Pickle Crow and
Red Lake.

The board of directors of the Ontario De-
velopment Corporation and the Northern On-
tario Development Corporation will be en-
larged and their membership further diversi-
fied.

New policies concerning investments and
loans, giving preference to Canadian-owned
enterprises, will be introduced, and loans
under the venture capital fund for businesses
employing new technologies and for assist-
ance in the growth of smaller enterprises will
be broadened.

My government is aware of the current
changes in world trading patterns and their
possible effect on Ontario. Particular atten-
tion will be given to the changes affecting
our exports to Great Britain, the European
Common Market and to the United States.

To facilitate the gathering and dissemina-
tion of information for our business com-
munity, additional trade offices will be
opened in new locations, as warranted by our
export interests, including the establishment
of an oflBce in Washington, D.C.

It is my government's intention to expand
its activities in the fields of industrial re-
search and development, metric conversion

and international standards and specifica-
tions, and to take all effective and practical
steps to decrease Ontario's reliance on im-
ported technology.

The Legislature will be asked to consider
further amendments to the Ontario Paperback
and Periodical Distributors Act, designed to
encourage the distribution and sale of our
own national or provincial publications.

The government will have ready its pro-
posals for a system of off-track betting facil-
ities to be administered by a provincial gov-
ernment board with representatives from
various areas of the racing industry, as soon
as the Criminal Code of Canada is amended
to permit this. The government's belief is
that this province, and any other province
that desires to do so, should be given the
exclusive jurisdiction, by federal enactment,
to control and administer this activity.

My government believes, as do the people
of Ontario, that our political system nas
been well served by municipal representa-
tives, many of whom have accepted public
office and responsibility at some personal
sacrifice. A few of these elected o£5ciaIs from
time to time have found themselves, inadvert-
ently or otherwise, in a conflict-of-interest
position between their public responsibilities
and their private interests. Due to the wide
area of public concern in this matter, studies
have been circulated to a number of muni-
cipalities and organizations, seeking their re-
actions. These are presently under considera-
tion and it is my government's intention to
introduce legislation during the current
session to clarify any ambiguities that pres-
ently exist.

The programmes outlined on this occasion
have been the object of intensive scrutiny
and thought on the part of the government,
as being in the best interests of the people
of Ontario. We look forward with confidence
to a fresh and revitalized approach to many
complex problems of our society, and to the
purposeful deliberations of the hon. members
of this House.

May Divine Providence guide you in this
task.

Clod bless the Queen and Canada.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor
was then pleased to retire from the chamber.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: To prevent mistakes, I have
obtained a copy of His Honour's speech,
which I shall now read.

(Reading dispensed with.)

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

CONDOMINIUM ACT

Hon. Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill
intitiJed, An Act to amend the Condominium
Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker,
I move that the speech of the Honourable
the Lieutenant Governor of this House be
taken into consideration on Thursday next.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, just before the motion
for adjournment is put, I would like to ask
the Premier if he intends to continue with
the debate on the reply immediately we im-
dertake it on Thursday? In other words, what
other orders of business might we expect?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would
anticipate the reply from the Leader of the
Opposition ^id the leader of the New Demo-
cratic Party (Mr. Lewis) probably on Friday
—I thought we might have an opportunity to
discuss this tomorrow— rather, on Monday of
next week. The mover and seconder would
speak Thursday; Friday would be devoted to
the setting up of certain committees, and the
Leader of the Opposition would have his
opportimity to make his contribution starting
on Monday.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 3:38 o'clock, p.m.

FEBRUARY 29, 1972

APPENDIX

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

(117 members)

Second Session of the Twenty-Ninth Parliament
Speaker: Hon. Allan Edward Renter Clerk of the House: Roderick Lewis, QC

Member

Party Constituency

Post Office Address

Allan, James N.

Haldimand-Norfolk

Apps, Hon. C. J. S.

Kingston and
the Islands

Auld, Hon. James A. C.

Leeds

Bales, Hon. Dalton A.

York Mills

Beckett, R. B.

Brantford

Belanger, J. Albert

Prescott and Russell

Bennett, Claude

Ottawa South

Bernier, Hon. Leo

Kenora

Birch, Mrs. Margaret

Scarborough East

Bounsall, E. J.

NDP

Windsor West

Braithwaite, Leonard A.

Etobicoke

Breithaupt, James R.

Kitchener

Brunelle, Hon. Rene

Cochrane North

Bullbrook, James E.

Sarnia

Burr, Fred A.

NDP

Sandwich-Riverside

Carruthers, Alex

Durham

Carton, Hon. Gordon R.

Armourdale

Cassidy, Michael

NDP

Ottawa Centre

Clement, John T.

Niagara Falls

Davis, Hon. William G.

Peel North

Davison, Norm

NDP

Hamilton Centre

Deacon, Donald M.

York Centre

Deans, Ian

NDP

Wentworth

Downer, Rev. A. W.

DufFerin-Simcoe

Drea, Frank

Scarborough Centre

Dukszta, Dr. Jan

NDP

Parkdale

Dymond, Dr. Matthew B.

Ontario

Eaton, Robert G.

Middlesex South

EdighofFer, Hugh

Perth

Evans, D. Arthur

Simcoe Centre

Ewen, Donald Wm.

Wentworth North

Ferrier, Rev. William

NDP

Cochrane South

Foulds, James F.

NDP

Port Arthur

Gaunt, Murray

Huron-Bruce

Germa, Melville C.

NDP

Sudbury

Gilbertson, Bemt

Algoma

Gisbom, Reg.

NDP

Hamilton East

Givens, Philip G.

York-Forest Hill

Good, Edward R.

Waterloo North

Grossman, Hon. Allan

St. Andrew-St. Patrick

Guindon, Hon. Fern

Stormont

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
12 Inwood Dr., Brantford
Sarsfield

35 Avenue Rd., Ottawa
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
2121 Riverside Dr. W., Windsor
50 Pettit Dr., Weston
90 Church St., Kitchener
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
881 Tuder Close, Sarnia
4005 Howard Ave., Windsor 22

RR # 1, Campbellcroft
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
160 Waveriey St., Ottawa
3397 St. Mark St., Niagara Falls

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
122 Sandford Ave. S., Hamilton
Glenbum Farms, Unionville
38 Beaconsfield Dr., Hamilton
263 Beech St., Collingwood
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
40 Park Rd., Apt. 702, Toronto 5
280 Cochrane St., Port Perry

RR #2, I>orchester
147 Nelson St. Mitchell
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

292 Cedar St. N., Timmins
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

170 Diagonal Rd., Wingham
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
RR #1, Richards Landing
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
76 Caribou Rd., Toronto
Box 116, Main Parhament Bldg.,

Toronto
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Member

Party Constituency

Post Office Address

Haggerty, Ray

Welland South

RR #1, Sherkston

Hamilton, Maurice

Renfrew North

RR #5, Pembroke

Handleman, Sidney B.

Carleton

81 Grandview Rd., Ottawa
K2H8B7

Havrot, Edward M.

Timiskaming

148 Tower St., Kirkland Lake

Henderson, Lome C,

Lambton

Parliament Bldgs,, Toronto

Hodgson, R. Glen

Victoria-Haliburton

Box 240, Haliburton

Hodgson, William

York North

RR#l,Kettleby

Irvine, Donald R.

Grenville-Dtmdas

River Rd. W., Box 135, Prescott

Jessiman, James H.

Fort William

Vickers Heights, PO,
Thunder Bay "F'

Johnston, Robert M.

St. Catharines

10 Canal St., St. Catharines

Kennedy, R. Douglas

Peel South

120 Harbom Rd., Mississauga

Kerr^ Hon. George A.

Halton West

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Lane, John

Aigoma-Manitoulin

Box 214, Gore Bay

Laughren, Floyd

NDP

Nickel Belt

RR#1, Copper CliflF

Lawlor, Patrick D,

NDP

Lakeshore

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Lawrence, Hon. Allan F.

St. George

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Lawrence, Hon. A. Bert R.

Carleton East

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Leluk, Nicholas G.

Humber

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Lewis, Stephen

NDP

Scarborough West

19 Parkcrest Dr., Scarborough

MacBeth; John P.

York West

9 Palace Arch Dr., Islington

MacDonald, Donald C.

NDP

York South

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

MacNaughton, Hon. Charles PC

Huron

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Maeck, Lome

Parry Sound

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Martel, Elie W.

NDP

Sudbury East

46 Ferguson Ave., Capreol

Mcllveen Charles E.

Oshawa

100 Alexandra St., Oshawa

McKeou^, Hon. W. Darcy

Chatham-Kent

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

McNeil, Ronald K.

Elgin

RR #2, Springfield

McNie, Jack

Hamilton West

Box 250, Hamilton

Meen, Arthur K.

York East

95 Lord Seaton Rd., Willowdale

Miller, Frank S.

Muskoka

RR #1, Bracebridge

Momingstar, Ellis P.

Welland

97 Albert St., Welland

Morrow, Donald H.

Ottawa West

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Newman, Bernard

Windsor- Walkerville

1290 Ypres Blvd., Windsor

Newman, William

Ontario South

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Nixon, George

Dovercourt

315 Salem Ave., Toronto 4

Nixon, Robert F.

Brant

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Nutall, W. J.

Frontenac-Addington

797 Princess Anne Bldg.,
Suite 206, Kingston

Parrott, Dr. Harry C.

Oxford

22 Wellington St. N., Woodstock

Paterson, Donald A.

Essex South

1 Talbot West, Leamington

Potter, Hon. Richard T.

Quinte

Box 42, Parliament Bldgs.,
Toronto

Reid, T. Patrick

Rainy River

Box 187, Fort Frances

Reilly, Leonard M.

Eglinton

639 Yonge St., Toronto 5

Renwick, James A.

NDP

Riverdale

Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

Reuter, Hon, Allan E.

Waterloo South

45 Main St., Gait

Rhodes, John R.

Sault Ste. Marie

60 Hussey St., Sault Ste. Marie

Rollins, Clarke T.

Hastings

RR #1, Bancroft

Root, John

Wellington-Dufferin

RR #1, Orton

Rowe, Russell D.

Northumberland

546 Lakeshore Rd., Cobourg

Roy, Albert J.

Ottawa East

255 Montreal Rd., Vanier

Ruston, Richard F.

Essex-Kent

Box 4, South Woodslee

FEBRUARY 29, 1972

Member

Party Constituency

Post Office Address

Sargent, Edward
Scrivener, Mrs. Margaret
Shulman, Dr. Morton
Singer, Vernon, M.
Smith, Gordon E.
Smith, John R.
Smith, Richard S.
Snow, Hon. James W.
Spence, John P.
Stewart, Hon. Wm. A.
Stokes, Jack E.

Taylor, James A.
Timbrell, E>emiis R.
Turner, Joha M.

Villeneuve, Osie F.

Walker, Gordon W.
Wardle, Thomas A.

Welch, Hon. Robert
Wells, Hon. Thomas L.
White, Hem. John
Winkler, Hon. Eric A.

Wiseman, Douglas J.
Worton, Harry

Yakabuski, Paul J.
Yaremko, Hon. John

Young, Fred

Grey-Bruce

St. David

NDP

High Park

Downsview

Simcoe East

Hamilton Mountain

Nipissing

Halton East

Kent

Middlesex North

NDP

Thunder Bay

Prince Edward-Lennox

Don Mills

Peterborough

Glengarry

London North

Beaches- Woodbine

Lincoln

Scarborough North

London South

Grey South

Lanark

Wellington South

Renfrew South

Bell woods

NDP

Yorkview

Green Gables, Owen Sound
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
378 Roncesvalles Ave., Toronto 3
Suite 405, 365 Bay St., Toronto 1
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
42 Sunninghill Ave., Hamilton
676 Mclntyre St. W., North Bay
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
RR #2, Muirkirk
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
Box 178, Schreiber

RR #2, Picton (Box 110)
Parliament Bldgs. ^ Toronto
371 Park St. N., Peterborough

Box 27, Maxville

69 Dundas St., London 12
11 Fallingbrook Woods,

Scarborough
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
40 Gore St., Perth
15 Queen St., Guelph

PO Box 219, Barry's Bay
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto
Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

12 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

Hon. William G. Davis, Q.C Premier and President of the Council

Hon. Allan F. Lawrence, Q.C Provincial Secretary for Justice

Hon. W. Darcy McKeough Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of

Economics, Minister of Municipal
Affairs

Hon. Robert Welch, Q.C Provincial Secretary for Social

Development

Hon. a. Bert R. Lawrence, Q.C Provincial Secretary for Resources

Development

Hon. John Yaremko, Q.C Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Citizenship

Hon. Allan Grossman Minister of Revenue

Hon. William A. Stewart Minister of Agriculture and Food

Hon, Charles MacNaughton Chairman, Management Board of

Cabinet

Hon. James A. C. Auld Minister of the Environment

Hon. Rene Brunelle Minister of Social and Family Services

Hon. Dalton A. Bales, Q.C Minister of Justice and

Attorney General

Hon. Thomas L. Wells Minister of Education

Hon. Fern Guindon Minister of labour

Hon. John White Minister of Trade and Development,

and of Tourism and Information

Hon. George A. Kerr, Q.C Minister of Colleges and Universities

Hon. C. J. S. Apps Minister of Correctional Services

Hon. Gordon Carton, Q.C Minister of Transportation and

Communications

Hon. Leo Bernier Minister of Mines and Northern

Affairs, and of Lands and Forests

Hon. Eric Winkler Minister of Financial and Commercial

Affairs

Hon. James W. Snow Minister of Public Works

Hon. Richard T. Potter, M.D Minister of Health

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 29, 1972

Speech from the Throne, the honourable the Lieutenant Governor 3

Condominium Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 8

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Davis, agreed to 8

Appendix: Alphabetical list of the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario 9

No. 2

ONTARIO

Ht^i&Utmt of Ontario

Betiates!

OFFICIAL REPORT — DAILY EDITION

Second Session of the Twenty-Ninth Legislature

Wednesday, March I, 1972

Speaker: Honourable Allan Edward Renter
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, QC

THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO

1972

Price per session, $10.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceedings appears at bade of this issue.)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: We are pleased today to
have with us, in the west gallery students
from the Canadian Martyrs' Separate School
and from the Burlington Central High
School.

Statements by the ministry.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Mines and
Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
make a statement concerning a decision
taken today to designate additional areas of
the Province of Ontario as areas coming
within the provisions of the Pits and Quar-
ries Control Act and its regulations.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the govern-
ment has indicated that it was its intention
to apply the provisions of this bill and its
regulations as broadly as possible throughout
the provinces as circumstances warranted
and the capacity of the Department of Mines
and Northern Affairs permitted. Until today,
42 townships in southern Ontario were
designated as areas of application of this
Act. I am happy to announce today that the
government has designated 18 additional
townships, bringing to 60 the number of
townships coming within the provisions of
this Act.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Let's get the
townships first!

Hon. Mr. Bernier: These townships are
Brock, East Whitby, Gloucester, Lobo, Lon-
don, Markham, Nepean, Osgoode, Pickering,
Reach, Toronto, Toronto Gore, Vaughan,
Westminster, West Nissouri, Whitby, Whit-
church and Hallowell.

All companies engaged in the extraction of
sand and gravel in these townships will now
apply for licences to continue their opera-
tions and file with the Department of Mines
and Northern Affairs rehabilitation site plans
in accordance with the terms and the con-
ditions of the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

You will note, Mr. Speaker, that one of
the townships designated today, Hallowell
township, includes an area known as the

Wednesday, March 1, 1972

Sandbanks Provincial Park. As you know,
the government has viewed with concern the
possible destruction of sand dunes adjacent
to this park. It is the government's intention
that these dunes shall be protected as a
natural resource for the use and the benefit
of all the citizens in this province.

For some months now, the government
has been engaged in discussions concerning
the relocation of certain pit operations in
this area. These discussions have now reached
a point where in-depth geological analyses
are required. I have therefore appointed Dr.
Walter M. Tovell, associate director of the
Royal Ontario Museum, as an adviser to my
department to conduct these studies. Dr.
Tovell will also work closely with officials of
the Lake Ontario Cement Company in the
determination of an alternate site for the
company's operations.

Dr. Tovell brings to this undertaking a
wealth of geological experience. He is a
former president of the Toronto Field Natu-
ralists, the Federation of Ontario NaturaHsts
and chairman of the Canadian Audubon
Society. In addition, Dr. Tovell is currently
a member of the Metropolitan Toronto and
Regional Conservation Authority, a member
of the Conservation Council of Ontario, an
associate of the Institute of Environmental
Studies, Great Lakes section, and a leading
authority-
Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I certainly
hope he rescues the government from that
pitfall.

Mr.

nice.

S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Very

Hon. Mr. Bernier: — ^on the origin of the
Great Lakes and their effect on the environ-
ment. Mr. Speaker, he will begin his work
immediately.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Is he the
fellow who is going to decide where we are
going to put Toronto's garbage?

Mr. Lewis: He will finish it just as the
last dune recedes.

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Renwick: They should never have
granted it in the first place.

Mr. Speaker: Order

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker,
I would just like very briefly to introduce to
the members of the House the new Sergeant-
at-Arms, Major G. R. Soame. Mr. Soame
was bom and educated in England. He
emigrated to our neighbours to the south,
came to Canada, and in 1942 joined the
Canadian Army. He served in active service
from 1942 to 1946, has been a continuing
member of the militia, has served as direc-
tor of the photographic arts department at
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, has been
awarded a number of citations for his service
in the military, and is a gentleman who
brings a great deal of dignity and, I gather,
some enthusiasm to his task.

Mr. Speaker, I would welcome him here
in his new responsibihties, assure him that
I am sure he will enjoy it, and of course I
am very satisfied that he will never be
called upon to discharge that part of his
responsibilities that perhaps are his preroga-
tive, which I haven't seen exercised here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Has he a sharp sword?

Mr. Sargent: Take away his swordi

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Maybe he
will test it this afternoon.

An hon. member: Eddie will test him!

Mr. J. E. BuIIbrook (Samia): Watch your
language.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the members, I do welcome Major G.
R. Soame as our new Sergeant-at-Arms.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a statement really,
just an observation. I have asked that all the
hon. members and in particular the leaders
of the two opposition parties receive the
latest updating as to the present placement
of government branches, agencies, within the
new department— and if they haven't received
them they will today or tomorrow-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is for this week?
All of this week?

Hon. Mr. Davis: —so that they will be
able to more properly ask the appropriate
minister.

Mr. Lewis: Like sending a copy to your
minister.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Changing
names this week again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize
that we will perhaps go through two or three
days of adjustment as to the appropriate
minister to ask, but I have given instruc-
tions that all of this material will be made
available to help expedite the question
period.

Mr. BuIIbrook: The sign painter is making
more money than the Premier's cabinet min-
isters.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Provincial Secre-
tary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, do you think
we should be paid more?

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, before you call questions. I would
point out, sir, that yesterday during the
reading of His Honour's speech the custom
was not followed whereby the leaders of
the opposition parties were sent copies of
the speech by the government. This I regret.
They were available, I suppose, from the
press gallery. Certainly I am glad to see
that the Clerk of the House was provided
with a copy. And even the chap who was
doing the filming up behind the government
benches.

Mr. Speaker, I would just express my re-
grets that this customary courtesy was not
extended. It would have been of consider-
able assistance if it had.

The second matter, sir, on a point of order,
is that I would like to ask for your opinion.
We were informed by the Premier, at least
through the press some days ago, that his
parliamentary secretaries would, as part of
their responsibility, answer questions in the
House. I ask for your direction, sir, as to
whether under our rules these estimable
gentlemen who are not part of the ministry
would, in fact, be able to answer the ques-
tions.

Second, it has been the custom— at least
under your predecessor's jurisdiction— that
questions asked on policy matters were fre-
quently ruled out of order. And since some
of the senior members of the cabinet deal
only with policy matters, would they then be
completely exempt from questions?

Mr. BuIIbrook: How would he know? If
the government doesn't know, how would he
ki^ow?

MARCH 1, 1972

Mr. Speaker: I might respond to the point
raised by the hon. leader of the Opposition.
Under our standing orders, of course, the oral
question period is provided for the benefit of
the members to direct questions to the min-
istry. I find no provision whatsoever in our
present standing orders to direct questions to
the ministry. I find no provision whatsoever
in our present standing orders to direct ques-
tions to any parliamentary assistants and
therefore it would be out of order under our
standing rules of procedure.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Then on matters of policy
you will permit questions to be directed to
the so-called policy ministers under those
circumstances?

Mr. Speaker: To deal with the second part
of the point raised by the hon. Leader of the
Opposition— no.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): No?

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, are you saying that questions cannot
be directed to the Provincial Secretary for
Social Development (Mr. Welch)?

Mr. Speaker: If the questions are directed
to that particular member as the minister of
one of the new ministries, the questions
would be in order.

Mr. Singer: He is not a minister, he is a
secretary.

Mr. Speaker: If they are questions of
policy then, of course, the respective min-
isters would probably not answer the ques-
tions,

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, now, that is a dif-
ferent thing.

Speaking to the point of order if I might,
Mr. Speaker, that is a different answer, I say
most respectfully, than the first answer you
gave to us. Surely we are entitled to ask the
appropriate minister a question of policy?

Hon. J. White (Minister of Trade and De-
velopment and Minister of Tourism and In-
formation): The campaign has started.

Mr. Bullbrook. If he does not want to
respond that is his prerogative.

Hon. Mr. White: He is off and nmning.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, another
matter just before—

Mr. Bullbrook: I knew it would come from
that minister first. I knew it would.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Another matter, just
before you begin the question period, sir—
at least the timing of it. I asked the Premier
yesterday about his intention in the order-
ing of the business. And I ask you if you
would assist me in interpreting this answer:

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate
the reply from the Leader of the Opposition and
the leader of the New Democratic Party probably on
Friday rather than on Monday of next week. The
mover and seconder would speak Thursday. Friday
would be devoted to certain setting up of commit-
tees, and the Leader of the Opposition would have
his opportunity to make his contribution starting
Monday.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That
is perfectly clear.

Mr. Lewis: Perfectly clear.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The member nodded
his head in agreement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I noticed
that the Leader of the Opposition fully un-
derstood what was said yesterday when I said
it will start on Monday. I saw the head go
up and down with enthusiasm.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I thought I did until
I read it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I made it quite
clear, Mr. Speaker, in what I said yesterday
that his contribution— which, I anticipate,
will be very helpful, very constructive, lauda-
tory of the Throne Speech-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Always.

Hon. Mr. Davis: —as always— would com-
anence Monday afternoon.

Mr. Singer: The Premier's first answer was
wrong.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I can hardly wait to hear
what I say.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My first answer did say it
would start on Monday, even as I read the
rather questionable observation made yester-
day.

Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Revenue):
I look forward with bated breath to Monday.

Mr. Sargent: The Premier is kind of mixed
up.

Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, before the question period begins,
I would like to thank the government for

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

extending the normal courtesies of the Throne
Speech in advancing a copy of the Speech
from the Throne prior to its being read.

An hon. member: What happened to my
copy?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I was right here and no
copy came.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer): The
Leader of the Opposition has a poor organi-
zation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did another member
get it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think they put it on the
wrong seat.

Mr. Lewis: I think it is the pages who
have entered into a conspiracy.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

REMOVAL OF SAND FROM DUNES IN
PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, further to
the statement made by the hon. Minister of
Northern Affairs, Mines, Resources and stuff
hke that, can he tell the House whether
under his new regulations the operation of
the removal of sand from the Sandbanks will
be stopped as of today, until some further
arrangement is made with the alternative
sources that evidently have been made avail-
able—or at least studied by his department?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the Leader of the Opposition's questions,
I can say that the previous minister imple-
mented some very intensive studies as to
alternative sites. We have run into some
problems because of weather conditions and
it is impossible to do very intensive probing
and sampling and other such examination
that would provide an alternative site. But as
far as the closing down of the operation at
this time is concerned— no, it will not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So the removal of the
Sandbanks will continue?

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker;
will the announcement of these regulations
bringing these various townships under the
ambit of the legislation mean that the oper-
ations will continue during the period when
the townships are applying for licensing and
examining the operations that are presently
under way?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes, they will. We hope
to have the matter resolved just as soon as

weather conditions permit. We are moving
ahead just as quickly as we can, I can assure
the member.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary,
Mr. Speaker. Precisely what time limits for
reporting has the minister given Dr. To veil?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I have not given any
time limits. Just as soon as he can reach an
agreement between the company and obtain
an alternative site.

Mr. Renwick: What about now? Not later
in the middle of the month!

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister set out for
the Legislature— would he table in the Legis-
lature—the negotiations which have so far
taken place and indicate to the Legislature
which alternative site is under scrutiny and
what the problems are, since much has been
rumoured, privately and publicly, as to the
proceedings?

Mr. Renwick: And the cost to the people
of the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I
could table that information. I will be glad
to.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supple-
mentary, am I to gather then from the min-
ister's reply that nothing will be closed
down, except that investigation is going to go
on into the near future with some form of
licensing to come about in due course?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The mem-
ber gathers correctly.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: We are moving ahead as
quickly as we can, as I pointed out, because
of certain weather conditions-
Mr. MacDonald: So are the sand dunes.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I think the members will
all accept that problem-
Mr. Renwick: So is the sand removal com-
pany.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The sands
are running out.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: —it is facing us right
now. I can assure the members we are just
as anxious to settle the problem as they are,
sir.

Mr. Singer: The minister settled nothing
today.

MARCH 1, 1972

LOCATION OF NEW AIRPORT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of the Premier. Is he now in a posi-
tion to inform the House of any decision
made with the government of Canada with
regard to the location of the airport? Can he
comment on recent news stories— last week in
the Sun and today in the Globe and Mail-
indicating quite specifically the level of nego-
tiation and what the final decision is appar-
ently to be?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I am
not in a position to comment any further on
that particular issue at this moment.

INCREASE IN POWER COSTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Another question of the
Premier: Did the eight per cent increase in
the cost of electric power sold by the power
commission to the mimicipalities, announced
by the chairman today or yesterday, get
cabinet approval? Second, does the Premier
agree, on a matter of policy with the chair-
man of Ontario Hydro, that we can look for-
ward to an increase every year in the costs
of energy?

An hon. member: For the next five years!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
comment on the latter part— the question of
the rates for hydro. The government was in-
formed; I have a copy of the chairman's re-
marks here. They are not subject to approval
by the cabinet of this province. I can't com-
ment at this moment as to the suggestion
made by the chairman of Hydro that there
would be a continuing increase in the rate
over a period of time. The only observation
I would make is that Task Force Hydro has
been asked to look into not only the question
of the administration of Hydro, but the ques-
tions of rates and of energy supply. I would
anticipate that report hopefully some time in
the latter part of June or the early part of
July, which may give us and Hydro some
insight into this particular problem.

As I read the text of the remarks of the
chairman of Hydro, the interim rate increase
as of July 1 will provide X million dollars
of additional revenue. It also means the draw-
down, I think, on their rate stabilization fund
of some $41 million— I think I'm right in this
—over that period of time. Rut beyond that,
Mr. Speaker, I can't comment as to his sug-
gestion as to whether rates will continue to
increase over a period of time. I haven't
assessed that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary ques-
tion: How does the Premier square his answer
with the undertaking made by the administra-
tion less than a year ago that rate increases
would not come forward during 1972 or as
long as the economic and employment prob-
lems beset the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don't think
this government gave any undertaking that
there wouldn't be rate increases in many
fields. What we did say was we discouraged
rate increases or we were not anxious to have
rate increases. We've tried to maintain it as
a matter of government policy, but the ques-
tion of rate increases of Ontario Hydro, of
course, is their ultimate determination.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary ques-
tion: Mr. Speaker, wouldn't the Premier agree
that he is in a position to more than dis-
courage rate increases in Ontario Hydro, and,
in fact, stop them?

Mr. Sargent: Who is running the store?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are
many things, I guess, where the ultimate
authority to do this rests with this Legislature
—no question about that!

Mr. J. R. Rreithaupt (Kitchener): It is a
totally owned and controlled corporation!

ROLE OF ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a
further question of the Premier having to do
with a policy matter. Would he explain to the
House how the Lieutenant Governor's state-
ment yesterday pertaining to the Ontario
Municipal Board could be matched with what
apparently is government policy, recently
made public when the Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. McKeough) sent a communica-
tion to the Municipal Board instructing that
it be read at the beginning of the Municipal
Board hearing pertaining to Metro Centre,
indicating publicly further that the govern-
ment approved of the Metro Centre pro-
gramme? Surely the Premier would have
some difficulty in co-ordinating this kind of
an approach that he himself has enunciated,
with the statements and emanations from his
Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don't think
there's anything contradictory here at all.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, it is direct inter-
ference!

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. Davis: There have been sugges-
tions made to the Ontario Municipal Board
before. On some issues the Ontario Munici-
pal Board seeks a report from the Depart-
ment of Municipal AfiFairs on certain matters
before it. There's nothing inconsistent or con-
tradictory in this whatsoever. But it does
point out one of the reasons for the part of
the Throne Speech yesterday suggesting the
reassessment of the role and function of the
Ontario Municipal Board, the involvement of
the executive council of Ontario with respect
to appeals, whether the Ontario Municipal
Board should be basically an administrative
or financial board, and whether it should get
into matters of policy. There's nothing con-
tradictory whatsoever in what has happened
with relation to that.

Mr. Lewis: How to curtail its powers? That
is the primary object of the inquiry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not at all, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe there is a need to increase its powers.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: One supplementary ques-
tion! Would the Premier agree that there is
a substantial diflFerence in asking for the
opinion of the experts in the department and
receiving a communication from the minister
himself which directed that it be read before
the hearings began?

Mr. Singer: Sure!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it
is quite proper for this government to have
made known, and made known publicly, its
attitude on broad matters of policy— we're
criticized from time to time. As a matter of
policy this government supports the concept
of the development of Metro Centre— not in
detail; we're not as knowledgeable in some
aspects of the details, and obviously this is
one of the functions of the board. But on a
matter of basic policy on something as
significant for this area and this province as
Metro Centre, I think it would be an abdica-
tion of responsibility if we didn't indicate
some-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is interference with
an independent board.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not interference with
an independent board whatsoever. That is
completely and utterly nonsensical.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: In keep-
ing with the approach that the Premier has
just indicated, would the government then
consider sending an appropriate message to

Hydro saying that it is our policy not to
increase rates and inflate the economy?

Mr. Breithaupt: Oh, we can't have that.
That is interference.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is quite possible for us
to send some sort of communique, and I've
pointed out-
Mr. MacDonald: Why don't they, in keep-
ing with the minister's statement last year?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What I suggest is that
certainly we would look forward to the Task
Force Hydro report. I think it's quite obvious
that Hydro actually were anticipating a rate
increase as of January 1, 1972, and this Legis-
lation does have the capacity— there is no
doubt about that. No one's going to debate
that.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of sup-
plementary question-
Mr. MacDonald: It is the inconsistency of—

Mr. Bullbrook: Supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. As a lawyer, doesn't the Premier
see the obvious inconsistency in his minister
eventually sitting as the court of last resort
on an appeal from the Ontario Municipal
Board, after he's given direction to that court
in the first instance.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is
nothing inconsistent whatsoever. We're talk-
ing about matters of broad policy, which, as
I say, we have been criticized as a govern-
ment from time to time for not enunciating.

This we have done, and there is nothing
inconsistent in this.

If there were to be an appeal from the
Ontario Municipal Board's determination of
the application for Metro Centre, there is
nothing inconsistent or contradictory to that
because they will be dealing, I would
assume, with certain matters that are not re-
ferred to in any communication to the board
—the question of the visual access to the lake
and so on.

Mr. Lewis: The chairman of the board is
not happy with Mr. McKeoughl

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supple-
mentary, does the Premier then mean that
whatever the minister has said is an absolute
direction to the board? And if the matter
follows so logically in broad matters of prin-
ciple, why did the Premier, or his assistant,
the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Mac-
Naughton), not send a similar communica-
tion in this broad matter of principle relating

MARCH 1, 1972

to the continuation or non-continuation of
Spadina, because the member for Huron is
the man who signed the contract saying it
must be done?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize
the member for Downsview is going to wish
to debate the matter of Spadina ad nauseam
here in this House, which is fine.

Mr. Singer: Oh no. No, the Premier will
be nauseated.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just wish he would con-
sult with his leader as to what the position
of that party is with respect to Spadina, be-
cause I can never quite understand exactly
what it is.

Mr. Singer: That is a good answer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Par for the course.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, certainly it is par

for the course-
Mr. Singer: How about answering the

question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: —but I think we are en-
titled to know whose policy it is— the member
for Downsview's, or his leader's— as it relates
to Spadina?

Mr. Bullbrook: How about answering the
question?

Mr. Singer: How about answering the
question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will re-
peat it. There is nothing contradictory, there
is nothing improper, about indicating a
general area of pohcy to the Municipal
Board. There is nothing in the letter that
says to the chairman of the board, "You will
decide it in such and such a fashion"; but it
does put on record that the government, as
a matter of policy, accepts the broad prin-
ciples of the development of Metro Centre.
It is as simple as that.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of further
supplementary, what then is the point of the
OMB hearing? The government has already
decided.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not at all.

MEDICARE COVERAGE OF NURSING
HOMES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a final ques-
tion of the Premier, as far as I am concerned:
Is it still the policy of the government to

implement the extension of Medicare to cover
nursing homes and that sort of service by
April 1?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this will be
dealt with by the Minister of Health (Mr.
Potter). It will be stated to the House very,
very shortly.

Mr. Cassidy: That is not a very clear
answer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe I could pursue this
matter slightly further in a diflPerent direction
and put a question to the Provincial Secre-
tary for Social Development.

When the policy as announced in the
Throne Speech becomes law, will it cover all
of the chronic care cases presently housed
in nursing homes and homes for the aged?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for
Social Development): Mr. Speaker, as already
indicated in the response of the Premier, this
will be covered in the statement of the Min-
ister of Health.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let us hear from the
parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Singer: That's not the Minister of
Health.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Good try, Stephen!

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): A
supplementary of the Provincial Secretary for
Social Development. Has the minister, or his
department officials, been in contact with the
Ontario Medical Association in regard to their
apparent responsibility in determining the
eligibility of these persons in these par-
ticular homes?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I can only
repeat again that this is the type of question
that should be directed to the Minister of
Health. The Premier has already indicated
this -will be covered in the statement; ask the
Minister of Health.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: It v^U take us a while to figure
it out.

MINISTERIAL DUTIES

Mr. Lewis: Well, maybe I should ask an-
other question then— not so much of the Min-

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

ister of Social Development, because he prob-
ably feels unduly harassed in the short ques-
tion period today, but let me direct it to the
Provincial Secretary for Justice. What does he
do?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I think.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: And I am here one
day a month to collect my cheque.

Mr. Lewis: Does the provincial secretary
find it an exhausting activity?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Not as exhausting as
it used to be, no.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, in a
recent speech the Provincial Secretary for
Justice described himself, if I recall, as a
'linkage with the people." Can he give us
some definition as to the nature of his link-
age?

An hon. member: A weak link?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should say that it was
a missing link.

Mr. Lewis: How long has it been missing?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I just wanted to
contrast my posiiton, as an elected member,
with that of some others which I have known
who have been described as the missing
linkage.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The member has certainly pol-
ished his repartee, with all his time to think.

An hon. member: He has an assistant there.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, he has got an assistant,
right. He will perform with greater and
greater flair as the session goes on.

May I ask the provincial Treasurer, and his
various other titular appendages, what—

Interjections by hon. members.

TAX CREDIT FOR MACHINERY

Mr. Lewis: I thought that description was
pretty definitive on my part in terms of
describing the Treasurer's work!

Can I ask the minister whether he intends
to continue in the year 1972-1973 his $125
million tax credit for the purchase of ma-
chinery and equipment in the corporate sector
in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The legislation ex-
pires as of March 31, 1973. Any plans to
change that legislation would be brought
forward, presumably, at the time of the
budget.

Mr. Sargent: In his attempt to cover it.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is the
Treasurer implying there is a possibility of
changing that programme?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would not want to
imply one way or the other, but the answer
is no.

Mr. Breithaupt: You can see that he thinks,
too.

Mr. Singer: That is why he needs two
parliamentary assistants.

Mr. Cassidy: They should give us the staflF
to do it.

Mr. Lewis: Since the Treasurer is persist-
ing with the programme, could he inform the
House, now that virtually a year has elapsed,
how many new jobs were created in the
Province of Ontario by the $125 million re-
bate in the last year?

Mr. Renwick: And how many in the United

States?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would hesitate just
to roll out a precise figure.

Mr. Sargent: Why not say five per cent?

Mr. Deans: The minister could use his
hands and feet.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I could, of course,
point out that there are something like over
100,000 more people working in Ontario to-
day than there were a year ago.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would like to point

out—

An hon. member: Nothing wrong with
that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: —that the propor-
tion—

An hon. member: That disappoints hon.
members opposite!

An. hon. member: The labour force has
been extended.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The proportion of
the unemployed in our work force— the per-
centage—is less than it was a year ago.

MARCH 1, 1972

I would like to think that our monetary
and fiscal policy is responsible for that very
happy turn of events in the last 12 months.
On the other hand, I have to think really
that more of it was related to the events
of October 21 last, when the NDP was laid
out.

Mr. Bullbrook: His repartee hasn't im-
proved much.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary,
if you will permit me to pursue it.

Mr. Singer: Did the Treasurer have his
team write some jokes for him?

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps he can evoke yet fur-
ther thunderous applause in his subsequent
reply.

By way of further supplementary, does
the minister not have, with a year of the
programme, any statistics, any measure, any
documentation to provide to the House about
the number of jobs created in Ontario
through the programme that he described as
the single most important boost to the
economy?

Mr. Stokes: That is specific progress.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. The answer is
no, because we said a year ago that it
would be impossible to measure in terms of
jobs; it is just not possible.

I can say this—

Mr. Deans: The Treasurer said he would
have figures for the House.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can say this to the
members, that the Department of Revenue in
the course of its ongoing work is undertaking
certain sampling techniques to see what in-
vestment there has been and will be in
capital investment in the province.

I can also say that there are a number of
requests to have the programme continued
beyond March 31, 1973. The gear-up time, I
think it would be fair to say was somewhat
longer in onany instances than we thought it
would have been.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask one final supple-
mentary? Could it be that the request to
extend the programme beyond March 31,
1973, is because of how much it has added
to corporate profits and not provided a single
job-
Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: —which is, of course, what they
discovered in the United States on the same
programme?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That of course, is
great socialist claptrap.

Mr. MacDonald: It isn't.

Hon. Mr. McKeough. If the member would
examine corporate profits, he will find that
they have declined in the last couple of
years.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And we are looking
for them to go back up because we believe
in profit. You don't; we do.

An hon. member: That's precisely what
Nixon said in the US.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Let's get some information
on which we can discuss this.

An hon. member: State the facts.

TRANSPORTATION POLICY FOR METRO

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the
new Minister of Transport and Communica-
tions, again relating to matters earlier in the
question period: When exactly will the date be
for the initiation of GO Transit through
northwestern Metropolitan Toronto, as prom-
ised during the course of events last fall;
and what use has it been decided to make
of the rapid transit line?

Hon. G. R. Carton (Minister of Transporta-
tion and Communications): Mr. Speaker, there
is an ongoing study with respect to this—

Mr. MacDonald: The ongoing study is go-
ing on!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Carton: Mr. Speaker, I may say
that during the course of the events in
October I weathered a greal deal of dis-
cussion on this particular topic, living in the
riding perhaps closest to this particular area.
In any event there is a joint technical trans-
portation committee that has been meeting
continuously.

We were to have had a report last Friday
with the Metro chairman and the chairman
of the TTC. Unfortunately that had to be
postponed until March 10. There are cer-

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

tain other aspects in connection with this
matter and by April 30 we will have cer-
tain reports in connection with the part of
that ditch from Lawrence down to Eglinton.
We will have reports on the—

Mr. Lewis: That's a nice choice of phrase,
"that ditch." Felicitous.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Carton: —on the traflBc and pro-
posals for that area.

I think Mr. Speaker, to sum it all up, the
present Minister of Transportation and Com-
munications is very interested in this par-
ticular matter.

Mr. Lewis: Oh I seel

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Supple-
mentary?

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

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, would the min-
ister say whether it was as a result of the
ongoing study that the government decided
to oppose the Local Initiatives Programme
to provide a three-month trial service from
Barrie by cutting oflF all GO Transit buses?
Was that a result of that study?

Hon. Mr. Carton: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker,
if the member could enlarge on that. I am
sorry, I—

Mr. MacDonald: That's not a supplemen-
tary question.

Mr. Deacon: The government of Ontario
indicated to the government in Ottawa that
if the government in Ottawa approved the
three-month trial service for GO Transit
from Barrie proposed by John Medcof, they
would pull off the GO Transit buses and put
those people who are operating the GO
Transit buses out of work.

Hon. Mr. Carton: Mr. Speaker, with all
due respect, that is not a related question,
but I don't mind answering it.

I would say in answer to that, that if the
government in Ottawa has money to provide
I would hope it would provide it to this
government of Ontario in order that we may
experiment on this.

Mr. Speaker: I believe there can be no
supplementary on a question which was not
a proper supplementary in the first place.
The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Supplementary:
The minister mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that a
study is going forward of the GO Transit line
that was mentioned in the original question.
Does that study include the possibility of GO
Transit from Union Station to Woodbridge
as well as Union Station to Malton and west-
ward?

Hon. Mr. Carton: I am not certain, Mr.
Speaker, I will check into it.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of sup-
plementary, the minister made reference to
this so-called group of the three wise men—
the chairman of Metro, Mr. Campbell; the
chairman of the TTC, Mr. Day; and it used
to be the member for Huron (Mr. Mac-
Naughton). Is he still one of the three wise
men or has the minister replaced him?

Hon. Mr. Carton: He has been replaced
by an equally wise man.

Mr. MacDonald: What is his name?

Mr. Lewis: They dipped into the ranks
of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Does the hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough West have further ques-
tions?

Mr. Lewis: Just two, very brief, Mr.
Speaker.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL
EMPLOYMENT LOANS PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: A question of the provincial
treasurer. I would imagine, about the special
development loan programme, federal and
provincial. I gather that the funds ran out
rather in advance of all the applications
being received. Would the provincial govern-
ment consider expanding the available loan
capital, if not the forgivable features, for the
purpose of facilitating all the additional
projects and work?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): As a
supplementary question, Mr Speaker: In the
specific example of the city of Windsor, is
there absolutely no possibility therefore of
the province providing, if not the forgivable
loan portion the low-interest loan part of
their 10 projects since the city felt, perhaps
erroneously, that a letter from the director
of municipal subsidies acknowledging their

MARCH 1, 1972

programme on December 8 was tantamount
to acceptance of that programme, with the
result that the city didn't hasten to provide
the data on the individual forms-
Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South):
Question!

Mr. Bounsall: Therefore the forms were
received after the moneys had been granted.
In this specific instance where that confusion
arose, is there no possibility that the province
could not provide at least the low-cost loan
portions to that city?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker,
this is a federal programme with some fea-
tures which frankly we found were not
desirable. The programme was announced, as
we all know, unilaterally by the federal gov-
ernment on October 14, without consultation
either with the provinces or with the munici-
palities. Aside from that, we undertook to
assist them in the administration of it, and
the applications were processed through here
on a first-come, first-served basis. Unfor-
tunately, I think something like 20 munici-
palities came in before the deadline we had
established, and when the federal government
established a later deadline, the money sim-
ply was not available.

I don't think the Management Board of
Cabinet or I as Treasurer can particularly
suggest that it is appropriate for us to put
money into what is essentially a federal
programme. My predecessor, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, wrote Mr. Marchand. We
have been in touch with Mr. Turner and told
him about this problem and suggested that
perhaps an additional $10 million should be
made available by the federal government;
but they have said "no."

I might say that two or three days before
they said no to that request, they added $50
million to the Local Initiatives Programme—
$50 million cash, not loans. I find some great
inconsistency about that, and I imagine the
good people of Windsor would too.

Mr. Bounsall: As a further supplementary,
was it the province's idea or the federal
government's idea that it be on a first-come,
first-served basis in terms of approval; and
if it was the province's idea, was that a fair
way of deciding on the merits of these loans?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, had we been
consulted in the first place. We might have
suggested some form of allocation. We didn't
know of any better way to do it. There were
some, I think, reasonable limits; no one was

going to apply for the whole $26 million.
Basically, that was governed by the amount
of work which could be done between now
and May 31, which was the key date.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor- Walkerville had a supplementary.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Yes, I was going to ask the minister if he
considered accepting all of the application
forms from the municipalities within the
given deadline and then allocating the funds
on a per capita basis rather than on a first-
come, first-served basis?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, because the pur-
pose of the programme was to get people to
work and not wait until January 31 to divvy
it up. Some of the money was being spent
as early as December, as I understand it,
which was all to the good.

Mr. Lewis: How does the minister know
so much about federal programmes and so
little about provincial programmes?

Interjections by hon. members.

SCARBOROUGH HOSPITAL SITUATION

Mr. Lewis: May I, Mr. Speaker, address
my last question to the Minister of Health,
very briefly.

What is his position on the present con-
troversy in Scarborough about expanding
Scarborough Centenary Hospital versus the
building of the entirely new complex that
Grace Hospital wishes?

Mr. Singer: That is a matter of poUcy for
the other fellow.

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Health): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. mem-
ber finally knows where to go for the
answers.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The member asked
me what I did. What does he do?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, I am inclined to agree and I will
take the advice to heart. Why doesn't the
minister go back to his office and make a few
calls?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The Minister
of Health had enough trouble getting in
there.

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. Potter: The member is not just
kidding.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: Will the minister have as much
trouble getting out?

Mr. Stokes: Confession is good for the soul.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, Metro-
politan Toronto Hospital Planning Council
is presently reviewing the situation-
Mr. MacDonald: An ongoing study.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Oh no, it is finished; the
study is finished. We have more studies than
you can shake a stick at.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is right.
Some are ongoing and some are stopped.

Hon. Mr. Potter: This is a good one.

Mr. MacDonald: I like the distinction.

Hon. Mr. Potter: And then at the same
time members probably read in yesterday's
Star or today's Star-I didn't think I would
get it that fast; it is today's Star-that the
special role study has been done of the
teaching hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto.
This report now is being submitted to the
senior co-ordinating committee and I am
waiting its report. I only got the report my-
self this morning, and I have not had an
opportunity to study it. But I think the
members will appreciate that we must corre-
late these two-
Mr. Renwick: Better study the report; it
is an ongoing study.

Mr. Potter: Does the member want to
answer this?

Mr. BuUbrook: The minister's best response
was the first sentence.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: Better keep on; he will get it
somehow.

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister trying to
say?

Hon. Mr. Potter: What I am trying to say,
if they will listen for a minute, is that we
now have completed the studies of the needs
of hospital beds in the Metropolitan Toronto
area, and included in this are the needs for
teaching purposes-and there have been rec-
ommendations from both of these committees
which we must new-

Mr. Singer: Study!

Hon. Mr. Potter: Nol I fooled the member!
We look at these.

Mr. MacDonald: Reconcile.

Hon. Mr. Potter: And one of the recom-
mendations, of course, as far as Scarborough
is concerned, is that the additional beds be
added to Scarborough Centenary. The other
recommendation by some groups-
Mr. Singer: Is that they shouldn't be.

Hon. Mr. Potter: —was that Grace Hospital
locate there.

Mr. Lewis: I think that is what I asked you
about.

Hon. Mr. Potter: And now we must-
Mr. Reid: Do another study!

Hon. Mr. Potter: —take into consideration
the recommendations of this teaching hospital
group to determine whether or not St.
Michael's Hospital is going to build in down-
town Toronto or in the suburbs where the
beds are needed, and it is going to have an
effect on the whole thing.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Singer: Certainly. That clears it all up.

Hon. Mr. Potter: So I hope I will be able
to have an answer to this for you within the
next week or so.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Well by way of a supplemen-
tary, doesn't the discussion about building
entirely new medical models of the large
hospital kind, run counter to the social philo-
sophy of the minister's predecessor, now ele-
vated, and himself, to develop community
medical models rather than the traditional
kind?

Hon. Mr. Potter: There is no question that
we are interested in developing community
medical models. And when we are talking
about the addition of hospital beds, we have
to take into consideration what type of bed
we are going to build. When we are talking
about extending bed facilities in Scarborough
Centenary, for instance, we must determine
what types of bed are needed. I don't think
for one minute that we are going to continue
a programme of building active treatment

MARCH 1, 1972

beds in areas where we find that beds of a
convalescent nature, or beds of a self-care
nature are much more efficient. And this is
why we have to spend some time in looking
into this and decide what we are going to
build.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Scarborough West have further questions?
If not, the hon. member for Prince Edward-
Lennox is next.

REMOVAL OF SAND FROM DUNES IN
PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox):
Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of
Lands and Forests: Does the government
intend to acquire the outstanding leasehold
interest of the Lake Ontario Cement Com-
pany in the Sandbanks area? And if so, when;
and if not, why not?

Mr. Breithaupt: Norris wouldn't have asked
that!

Mr. Foulds: The member is on the right
side of the House.

Hon. L. Bemier (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, this is one of the pro-
posals that Dr. Tovell will be looking into
and when I get his report I will be prepared
to make a decision on it, and not until that
time,

Mr. Lewis: Is it because he is a member
of the Audubon Society that qualifies him
to do that?

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

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
that I am going to address to any one of
three, whoever is able to answer me; the hon.
member for St. George-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member must di-
rect a question to a minister.

Mr. Singer: Well, I do not know which
one can answer it because even, Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order, reading through this
document that the Premier sent us yesterday,
called Revised Listing of Ministerial Respons-
ibility, it is very hard to ascertain whether
questions relating to the administration of
justice belong to the hon. member for St.
George (Mr. A. F. Lawrence), the hon. mem-
ber for York Mills (Mr. Bales), or the hon.
member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko). Well,
let's start at the secretary-

Mr. Speaker: Well I say to the hon. mem-
ber that he must make a choice, and if it is
wrong—

CORONER'S COURT REVIEW

Mr. Singer: Perhaps Mr. Speaker will let
me ask three if the first one doesn't seem to
know. Thank you.

To the hon. member for St. George, the
Provincial Secretary for Justice: Could the
minister advise us as to whether or not the
government is intending to take any action
in relation to the compleat report of the Law
Reform Commission about the revision of
the system of coroner's court, particularly in
view of the tragic events that have flowed
from the Hayes inquest and from the Murphy
inquest?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member struck out on his first time up
at bat. That should be asked of the Solicitor
General-designate, the hon. member for Bell-
woods.

Mr. Bullbrook: It really doesn't do any-
thing!

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a new
question? I don't see the Solicitor General-
designate.

We have no statute that sets out the duties
of the Solicitor General-designate. In fact
the Solicitor General-designate isn't even in
his seat.

Mr. Renwick: It doesn't exist.

Mr. Lewis: It doesn't exist.

Mr. Singer: Could I ask the Premier who
he would delegate to answer this question
pending the advent of all these three criteria?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to help out the member for Dovmsview. I
know he's anxious. I will answer it for him
and say that this matter is under consider-
ation by the government. I expect we will
be coming forth with recommendations and
perhaps legislation to deal with the matter
the member for DovvTisview has raised.

Mr. Sargent: That is the standard answer.

Mr. MacDonald: We are still running
ahead!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South, in keeping with the policy of alter-
nating.

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Lawlor: Which was the right minister
to ask?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: It was the right
question to ask, though I wouldn't try—

TAX REFORM PROGRAMME

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the provin-
cial Treasurer: In view of the announcement
of the government proceeding with the tax
rebate in preference to residential payments
of past years, may I ask the provincial Treas-
urer why has the sales tax credit been
dropped from the so-called tax reform pro-
gramme?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think there are two
reasons; one monetary. Within certain con-
straints we proposed to deal with roughly the
amount of money which is now available
under the existing programme; whether or not
we would be prepared to add to it in this
year, might be somewhat difficult.

I think the more sound reason— or the other
reason— is simply the administrative difficulties
of converting the system. I'm not sure that a
sales tax credit would be my preference as
something to add in future years, as the next
preference to add in future years. I think
perhaps the field of Medicare premiums
might, for example, take priority.

Basically, it's an administrative one. There's
an enormous job of education, of publicity,
to be done adding these people, in effect, to
the tax rolls one step at a time.

Mr. MacDonald: Two brief supplementary
questions: In this switch in priorities from
sales tax credit to health insurance premium
credit, is this not a change from the position
taken by the government prior to the elec-
tion?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. I don't think
particularly before October 21 we gave any
indication, necessarily, of what our prefer-
ence would be. At the meeting of Ministers
of Finance-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Can there be credits for
all of those things?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -on November 1 we
tabled a document which indicated how both
the property tax credit and the sales tax
credit would work. We wanted to give a
couple of examples-
Mr. MacDonald: Has the change been
since then?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Since then? No; no
decision had been made at that point— cer-
tainly on the property tax credit but not on
the sales tax-
Mr. MacDonald: My final supplementary:
Is it correct that the federal government was
not willing to include the sales tax credit
rebate this year?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don't think it would
be fair to say that. Certainly after we had
tabled that document and the Prime Minister
of Canada had indicated their \villingness to
do their best to do something about it, it is
fair to say that they were greatly relieved
from the administrative point of view when
we said, "Let's just look at the one pro-
gramme." I don't think they stopped us. No,
that would not be a fair answer. Certainly
they were relieved when we took it out or
made it clear that we didn't want it in.

CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR SPADINA
EXPRESSWAY LANDS

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-
Forest Hill.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Has
the Premier had an opportunity, since last
December when he promised the figure, to
tote up the invoices of the Buckminster Fuller
report and tell us what it cost? Could he tell
us how the ongoing study on that report is
coming along, please?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can answer
the second part of the question— I don't have
the figure as to the first part, I will get it
for the hon. member.

What has happened since that time is that
the joint technical committee referred to by
the Minister of Transportation and Com-
munications has been dealing with the pro-
posed alignment of the rapid-transit portion
of what was referred to, prior to that period
of time, as the Spadina Expressway.

As I understand it, five alternatives have
been suggested. There is to be a determina-
tion as to which of the five is to be selected
and it will be after that point, I would
assume, that Metro would be then consider-
ing the development or use of the land that
will not be required for the rapid-transit
portion.

I will restate my offer to the member for
York-Forest Hill again, that, when that time
comes this provincial government would be
quite prepared to discuss with him either the

MARCH 1, 1972

conceptual approach that Mr. Buckminster
Fuller suggested, or any other approach for
the logical utilization of the land that may
not be required for the rapid-transit portion
of what was the former Spadina Expressway.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Samia
—supplementary?

Mr. Bullbrook: No, not supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamil-
ton East.

INTENDED LAYOFFS BY
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO.

Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Labour.

Have the officials of the minister's depart-
ment been notified by the International Har-
vester Co., or has he knowledge other\vise,
that they intend to lay off, between April 1
and June 13, 1,800 employees? If so, does he
intend to take the usual action of bringing
about dialogue to try for reinstatement of
the employees, and to bring about an inquiry
as to the unstable, irrational functions of
that farm implement industry in Hamilton?

Hon. F. Cuindon (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, it is always, of course, the purpose
of our department to have dialogue with
both labour and management in cases such
as the one stated by the hon. anember.

I have no specific knowledge about this
particular case, but I would like, tomorrow
perhaps, to give the member more informa-
tion about this situation. I am not right
up-to-date at the present time.

Mr. Gisbom: A supplementary, Mr.
Speaker: Did the minister's department not
receive, approximately two weeks ago, corre-
spondence from the Hamilton District Labour
Council as per resolutions submitted by the
employees of International Harvester in
regard to their problem of anticipated lengthy
layoffs in the near future?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, as I say,
I've been away from my office for a couple
of days. I would be glad to look into it
tomorrow and report to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Samia.

ABSENCE OF JUDGE FROM DUTY.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of the Attorney General, in connec-

tion with the publication of an item in the
London Free Press yesterday saying, "No
Official Explanation for Absence of Judge."
Could he give some explanation for the
absence of Judge G. C. Marshman from his
duties in the provincial court at London?

Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, I make no statement on this at
the present time, but I will take the question
as notice.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for River-
dale.

IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORTS

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Minister of Financial and Com-
mercial Affairs. Is it the intention of the
minister to introduce legislation implement-
ing the report of the minister's coonmittee on
franchise legislation and to implement the
report of the select committee on company
law relating to credit unions at this session?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, both
of these matters are at the moment policy
matters and I will make an announcement
in due course. I will be dealing with both
of them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-
Bruce.

SHEAFFER PEN STRIKE

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): I have a
question of the Minister of Labour. Has the
conciliation branch of the minister's depart-
ment made any progress with respect to
bringing together the parties in the Sheaffer
Pen strike in Goderich?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, I know
that they are still working on this imatter.
They are having discussions at the present
time. I understand they are making progress,
but that is as much as I can say for today.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
They are meeting currently, are they?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes, they are always
in touch with it.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has
expired.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, a question of you sir, again. I
notice that none of the policy ministers today

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

managed, in fact, to answer any questions
which were put.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I thought I gave
the member of good answer.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that— apart from
the frivolity. Tlie Minister of Pubhc Pro-
tection, or whatever the new name is, indi-
cated in reply that that was a poHcy question.
Would it not then be natural in the course
of events that the Provincial Secretary for
Justice would rise and give the answer to
such a matter? I mean, can the Speaker
ask that that kind of process take place? No?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think I
can answer that.

In reply to the member's observation, the
two matters referred to by the member for
Riverdale were specifics and are within the
purview of my department. I will deal with
them in due course, and part of my pres-
entation to my colleagues will be in the
policy field. However, in the meantime they
are my responsibility and I will answer.

Mr. Lewis: The minister won't have his
portfolio usurped by the member for St.
George?

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, if I might: How do we extricate our-
selves from the dilemma in connection with
appropriate questions to the Solicitor General-
designate? I invite the House leader to help
us in this connection. There was one today
that was appropriate in the fullness of time
to the Solicitor General-designate. What do
we do with him now? He is not the Solicitor
General.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I think I can answer
that one too, Mr. Speaker. The Solicitor
General-designate will answer. It is maybe
unfortunate he was not here, but he will
answer those questions.

Mr. Bullbrook: He has no portfolio re-
sponsibility to reply to the questions.

Mr. Sargent: It is incredible.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, if the member for Samia and mem-
bers of the opposition wish to revert and go
back to what are the statutory authorities of
the ministers of this government, this is fine.
This we can do, but we are trying to facilitate
matters because the legislation will be before
us very shortly.

We thought it would facilitate the ques-
tioning in the House if we were to move

into those areas where designated respons-
ibilities have been given. We can do it both
ways and we are quite prepared to— I have
made this very clear to my colleagues— if the
opposition wishes.

Mr. Deans: Leave it as it is.

Mr. Lewis: We will do it the government's
way. It is more fun.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sure it is. Certainly it is
more fun. It is more informative and it will
work much better in the long run.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: It is a heck of a
lot easier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All we are trying to do
is be helpful during this transition period.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Premier is not speak-
ing to that point of order. He is not trying
to be helpful.

The fact of the matter is that a question
was legitimately directed today that was
appropriate to the Solicitor General-designate.
The policy minister, the Provincial Secretary
for Justice, took it upon himself not to
answer it. If the government is going to co-
operate with us, why didn't he answer it
himself today?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: To be perfectly
honest, Mr. Speaker, I didn't reaUze that the
Solicitor General-designate was not in his
seat. It is just like the hon. member for
Samia indicated; some of us are going to
find it awkward to be in our seats all of the
time.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, could there not be an arrangement
where, as in Justice, there now are apparently
three or four ministers who are sharing the
old responsibility, if the question be ad-
dressed in its original form to the apparent
senior one— if we can work that out— and if
it is not his responsibility then it is some-
body else's, because the government has dis-
tributed all of this responsibility; rather than
continue this foolish game of, "No, it is his
job; and he is not here; it might be some-
body else's." The whole object of the question
period is to elicit information, unless the
object of the government reorganization is
to hide information.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don't want
to prolong this discussion. If the member for
Downsview will read carefully the material
that has been provided to his leader— we will
get copies for all members on both sides of

MARCH 1, 1972

the House— I think it will become very
evident, as it relates to 95 per cent of the
problems, just what minister should be asked.
There may be two or three gray areas for
a period of time that need further definition.
I am not going to debate this, but I think it is
abundantly clear from the material that the
member's leader now has.

Mr. Singer: It is not abundantly clear.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well it is, Mr. Speaker, it
is.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is because the
member has not read it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think even the member
for Downsview can digest this and find out
the appropriate minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The trouble is he can't
digest it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We want to tell the mem-
bers as much as we can.

Mr. Singer: Yes, I noticed that, like Buck-
minster Fuller's expenses.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I will get that for
the member.

Mr. Speaker: Order please!

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it was around
$15,000.

Mr. Lewis: That is not bad-$15,000 for
Buckminster Fuller?

Mr. Singer: For how many hours?

Mr. Lewis: I will do it for the government
for half that.

Mr. Speaker: Order please! The hon. mem-
ber is trying to present a report.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It would not be half as
good.

Mr. Lewis: It would be just as implausible.

Mr. R. D. Rowe (Northumberland): I beg
leave to submit the preliminary report of the
select committee on economic and cultural
nationalism.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the great interest
that our hearing has engendered, perhaps as
chairman of the select committee on eco-
nomic and cultural nationalism I should make
a few comments on the committee's prelimin-

ary report, which I have the honour to pre-
sent to the House right on the target date of
March 1.

The committee has met continuously since
January 11. We have heard presentations
from 33 organizations and individuals and, in
response to advertisements, received a number
of written briefs. Mr. Peter Honey appeared
on behalf of Ontario's interdepartmental task
force on foreign investment. The Ontario Eco-
nomic Council made a presentation through
its chairman, Dr. James Gillies. The commit-
tee also had the benefit of consultation with
Senator Maurice Lamontagne, chairman of
the Senate special committee on science
policy. The committee is most grateful to all
those who have contributed to its delibera-
tions.

I would also like to draw the House's
attention to the high level of interest and
effort that was displayed by all members of
the committee. It is I believe to the credit
of all members that in the short space of six
weeks, the committee was able to achieve a
broad consensus. This consensus is reflected
in our preliminary report.

I would also like to acknowledge the con-
tribution of our staff. We have been ably
served by our counsel. Professor Ivan Felt-
ham of Osgoode Hall Law School; our eco-
nomic consultant. Professor Stephen Triantis
of the University of Toronto; and our re-
search director, Mr. C. K. Marchant-and
these three gentlemen are in the Speaker's
gallery this afternoon— and also Mr. John
Holtby, who is the deputy clerk and was of
great service and value to us.

In the short time available to it, the com-
mittee has confined itself to a general survey
of the current status of opinion and informa-
tion on economic and cultural nationalism.
The committee is not satisfied that the present
state of information and analysis is adequate
to justify detailed policy recommendation.
Accordingly the committee concentrates in its
preliminary report on proposals for definitive
studies designed to provide a basis for new
and specific policies.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the
attention of hon. members to some of the
highlights of the preliminary report. The com-
mittee recommends that the government in-
crease efforts toward development of an in-
dustrial policy for Ontario. Such a policy
should focus on the full employment of
Canadians and the development of Canadian
skills to their full potential. The committee
also recommends a systematic programme to
gather information necessary to evaluate the
performance of both domestically owned and

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

foreign-owned firms against public-interest
criteria.

With respect to economic nationalism, the
committee makes the following proposals:

1. A study of capital markets and the avail-
ability of capital to finance Canadian enter-
prises;

2. The committee recommends that govern-
ment incentives should discriminate in favour
of companies with a significant level of Cana-
dian equity participation;

3. The committee recommends that all
companies have Canadian representation on
their boards of directors;

4. The committee recommends that On-
tario set up immediately a register of foreign
acquisitions of corporations within its juris-
diction. The committee proposes to study the
desirability of having Ontario control foreign
acquisitions of firms within its jurisdiction;

5. The committee proposes to study in
detail the behaviour, the performance, and
the impact of foreign-controlled firms from
an Ontario perspective. On the matter of land
for recreation, the committee recommends an
immediate study of a need for recreational
land and its availability to Canadians.

Mr, Speaker, the committee's terms of
reference also include a review of the current
status of opinion and information regarding
cultural nationalism. In the short time avail-
able to it the committee has not had an
opportunity to gather evidence on tiiis sub-
ject although some have made representa-
tions to the committee.

At this time, the committee makes the
following general proposals:

1. That eff^orts be intensified with a view
toward the early development of more and
better educational materials for use in On-
tario schools and universities;

2. That an examination and airing of the
issues relating to university recruitment of
foreign nationals would be in the public
interest. The committee proposes to carry
out this task;

3. The committee proposes a policy-
oriented examination of nationalism in rela-
tion to the cultural industries.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
add the following brief comments on this
matter. First of all, I would like to say how
pleased I was to be able to have the oppor-
tunity to study our provincial responsibilities
in the matter of foreign control. Second,
although we have some recommendations
here, they are recommendations which we

feel are in effect proposing that we crawl
and that we move rather slowly toward this
field of reversing foreign control of enter-
prises and operations in the province. We
will have an opportunity— I hope at an early
date— to study very deficient areas of knowl-
edge in this whole matter and propose areas
where we can move much more rapidly to
regain control over our own destiny.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I have
just one comment to add to the comments of
the two members who have spoken, to say
that both my colleague from Sudbury East
(Mr. Martel) and myself recognize the tenta-
tive nature of the report that has been placed
before the Legislature. We certainly hope
that we will have an opportunity to continue
the study and to come to the conclusions
that obviously will necessitate some direct
government action at some point.

Although during the short period we had
at our disposal we did conduct a great deal
of investigation and undertake considerably
more work than perhaps many of us had
expected we would be able to in that period,
we do feel that much more has to be done
and done as rapidly as possible. We hope
the government will see fit to permit the
committee to continue to sit during the time
the Legislature is in session in order that we
can continue with the study and make recom-
mendations prior to the end of this year, if
possible.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Davis moves that Mr. Speaker be
authorized to arrange for the printing of the
reports of debates and speeches in the
amount of 3,000 copies daily, copies of such
printed reports to be supplied to the Honour-
able the Lieutenant Governor, to Mr. Speak-
er, to the Clerk of the legislative assembly,
to the legislative library, to each member of
the assembly, to the reference libraries of the
province, to the press gallery, to the news-
papers of the province as approved by Mr.
Speaker, and the balance to be distributed
by the Clerk of the assembly as directed by
Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Davis moves that a select com-
mittee of 13 members be appointed to pre-
pare and report with all convenient dispatch
a list of members to compose the standing
committees ordered by the House, such com-
mittee to be composed of as follows: Messrs.
Henderson, Chairman; Allan, Deans, Gilbert-
son, Hamilton, Hodgson (Victoria-Halibur-

MARCH 1, 1972

ton), Leluk, Nuttall, Smith (Nipissing), Smith
(Simcoe East), Stokes, Worton and Yakabuski.

Mr. Bullbrook: The hon. member for
Lambton gets all the plums.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): What
does the hon. member for Samia want?

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL
MORTCACES ACT

Hon. Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend the Bills of Sale
and Chattel Mortgages Act.

Motion agreed to: first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: Would the minister explain
this magnificent piece of legislation?

Hon. Mr. Bales: To deal with the bill that
is before us, Mr. Speaker, the present Act
provides for a time limit of five days for the
registration of a mortgage or conveyance
after execution. This is proving impractical
and under this legislation the time limit is
set at 30 davs.

Mr. Lawlor: The Emancipation from Slav-
ery Act!

CONDITIONAL SALES ACT

Hon. Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend the Conditional
Sales Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the
bill.

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, the Condi-
tional Sales Act provides that a contract
must be registered within 10 days of the
date of the execution of the contract. Under
this bill the time limit has been extended
to 30 days.

ESTABLISHMENT OF ECOLOCICAL
SANCTUARIES

Mrs. Scrivener moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to provide for the Establish-

ment of Ecological Sanctuaries in the Prov-
ince of Ontario.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mrs. M. Scrivener (St. David): Mr. Speaker,
the purpose of this bill is to provide for the
establishment in Ontario of areas set apart
as sanctuaries for the preservation of plant
and wildlife, within which no motor vehicles
or motorized snow vehicles may be used for
recreation during the winter season.

COMMISSIONER TO INVESTIGATE

DECISIONS AND ACTS OF

GOVERNMENT

Mr. Singer moves first reading of biU in-
tituled, An Act to provide for the Appoint-
ment of a Commissioner to investigate Ad-
ministrative Decisions and Acts of Officials
of the Government of Ontario and its Agen-
cies and to define the Commissioner's Power
and Duties.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a very
brief explanation. This is, I think, my eighth
attempt to try to convince the government
that we should have an ombudsman in the
Province of Ontario who would protect the
citizens of Ontario against what gets to be
more and more complex civil servant de-
cisions against which, and in relation to
which, the citizen has no ability to contend.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that at this
point, now that we have a Provincial Secre-
tary for Justice, who has a lot of time to
think, that he could perhaps give some seri-
ous thought to this important proposal and
perhaps consult with his immediate predeces-
sor, the former member for Sault Ste. Marie
(Mr. Wishart), who had a draft bill on his
desk for this at the time he went out of
office.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjoumonent
of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 3:20 o'clock, p.m.

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 1, 1972

Designation of additional areas of the province under the provisions of the Pits and Quarries
Control Act, statement by Mr. Bemier 17

Introduction of Major G. R. Soame as Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Davis 18

Removal of sand from dunes in Prince Edward County, questions of Mr. Bemier: Mr. R. F.

Nixon, Mr. Levwis, Mr. Singer 20

Location of new airport— news references, question of Mr. Davis: Mr. R. F. Nixon 21

Increase in electric power costs, question of Mr. Davis: Mr. R. F. Nixon 21

Role of Ontario Municipal Board, questions of Mr. Davis: Mr. R. F. Nixon, Mr. MacDonald,

Mr. Singer, Mr. Bullbrook 21

Medicare coverage of nursing homes, questions of Mr. Davis and Mr. Welch: Mr. R. F.

Nixon, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Paterson 23

Ministerial duties, questions of Mr. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Lewis 23

Tax Credit for purchase of machinery and equipment, continuation of, question of Mr.

McKeough: Mr. Lewis 24

Transportation policy for Metro— initiation of GO Transit through northwestern area,

question of Mr. Carton: Mr. Lewis, Mr. Deacon, Mr. Young, Mr. Singer 25

Federal-provincial employment loans programme— expanding available capital, questions

of Mr. McKeough: Mr. Lewis, Mr. Bounsall, Mr. B. Newman 26

Scarborough Hospital situation— expansion or new complex, question of Mr. Potter: Mr.

Lewis 27

Removal of sand from Prince Edward dunes and Lake Ontario Cement Co., questions of

Mr. Bemier: Mr. Taylor 29

Coroner's Court review and revision of system, question of Mr. Davis: Mr. Singer 29

Tax reform programme and dropping of sales tax credit, questions of Mr. McKeough:

Mr. MacDonald 30

Conceptual plan for Spadina Expressway lands— Buckminster Fuller report, question of

Mr. Davis: Mr. Givens 30

Intended layoffs by Intemational Harvester Co., questions of Mr. Guindon: Mr. Gisbora 31

Absence of judge from duty in provincial court at London, question of Mr. Bales:

Mr. Bullbrook 31

Implementation of reports on franchise legislation and company law re credit unions,

question of Mr. Winkler: Mr. Renwick 31

Sheaffer Pen strike in Goderich, questions of Mr. Guindon: Mr. Gaunt 31

Preliminary report, select committee on economic and cultural nationalism, Mr. Rowe, Mr.

Mr. Deacon, Mr. Deans 33

Motion re printing of reports of debates and speeches, Mr. Davis, agreed to 34

Motion to appoint select committee re standing committees, Mr. Davis, agreed to 34

Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 35

Conditional Sales Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 35

Establishment of ecological sanctuaries in the province of Ontario, bill to establish, Mrs.

Scrivener, first reading 35

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
power and duties, bill to provide for, Mr. Singer, first reading 35

Motion to adjoum, Mr. Winkler, agreed to 35

No. 3

ONTARIO

ilegtslatttre of Ontario

Beiates!

OFFICIAL REPORT — DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Ninth Legislature

Thursday, March 2, 1972

Speaker: Honourable Allan Edward Renter
Qerk: Roderick Lewis, QG

THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO

1972

Price per session, $10.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

•:5

;S CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue.)

N^*^-

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to have
guests with us today in both galleries: In
the east gallery students from the George-
town High School; and in the west gallery,
also from the Georgetown High School.

Statements by the ministry.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, and
Minister of Economics, and Mimicipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to
make a statement about a subject which I
think is of intense interest to all members of
the House and to citizens throughout southern
Ontario.

I am today announcing two major steps
in the implementation of the Toronto-centred-
region plan. First, the governments of Can-
ada and Ontario are at this time making a
joint announcement of the site of a new
international airport for the Toronto region.
Secondly, in order to ensure that the airport
is efiFectively integrated into the proposed
community structure east of Toronto, the
province will acquire approximately 25,000
acres in the vicinity of the airport— land that
is crucial to the development of integrated
service, transportation, recreation and com-
munity facilities.

Legislation will be introduced this after-
noon by my colleague, the Attorney General
(Mr. Bales), to permit this development to
proceed as a co-operative venture with the
federal government for the purposes of the
Expropriations Act of Ontario.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, a statement is
being made in the House of Commons by
the Hon. Donald Jamieson, Minister of Trans-
port, which has been concurred in by the
govemiment of Ontario and which shall be
considered a joint annoimcement of the two
governments. Tliis annoiuicement is as
follows:

The government of Canada and the gov-
ernment of Ontario have agreed that a new
major airport will be located in Pickering
township just to the northeast of Toronto.
The site is roughly between a line just north
of Highway 7 in the south, north to the
Uxbridge-Pickering township boundary, and

Thursday, March 2, 1972

between the Little Rouge Creek on the west
and East DuflBn Creek on the east.

As a cooperative venture, land will be
acquired by the federal government for the
airport site and by the provincial govern-
ment for the immediate surroundings.

The choice of a site northeast of Toronto
has come after an exhaustive federal-provin-
cial evaluation since 1968 of 59 potential
airport sites in the area within a 50-mile
radius of Metropolitan Toronto.

It has now been decided that for a number
of compelling reasons the Pickering township
site is more suitable than any of the other
sites studied. In the first place, it is an excel-
lent site, consistent with safety and other
aeronautical considerations.

Secondly, it is also the closest site to
Toronto of all the proposed sites and, there-
fore, provides the easiest accessibility.

Thirdly, because it is reasonably close to
Lake Ontario and to a number of major
transportation arteries leading out of Toronto,
investment in water, sewage, and transporta-
tion access facilities will be less than at other
sites.

Fourthly, even though it is close to To-
ronto, population in the immediate vicinity
of the new airport is small. No major com-
munities will be seriously affected by expro-
priation or very high noise levels and the
environmental impact is minimized.

Finally, and in many respects most im-
portant, the location of the airport east of
Toronto is the result of joint federal-provin-
cial effort to provide a major stimulus to
development east of Metropolitan Toronto,
as called for in the Toronto-centred region
plan.

The southern part of the airport site lies
along the route of a series of proposed urban
communities to the east of Toronto, which
will be separated from existing lakeshore
urban centres by a series of multi-pui-pose
transportation, service and recreation corri-
dors. The government of Ontario has been
redesigning the shape and location of some
of these proposed communities in order to
take accoimt of the airport location and to
ensure that areas which could be affected by
uncomfortable noise levels are not slated for

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

residential development. Transportation and
service access facilities are also being de-
signed so that the airport will be on a rapid-
transit line linking the new communities east
of Toronto to Metropolitan Toronto and Mal-
ton. The proposed parkway belt and service
corridors are also being designed to serve as
a separator between the airport and the air-
port-related community and tlie existing
urban centres along the lakeshore.

The airport site itself is in the neighbour-
hood of 18,000 acres. The initial role of the
airport will be to provide a variety of ser-
vices, including international, scheduled and
charter operations, thus complementing on a
rational basis services at Malton and relieving
congestion at Malton.

In addition to providing a new national
major airport site, it will also be an integral
part of an air system for the Toronto region,
and will ensure the provision of efficient and
adequate air services, minimizing the prob-
lems of noise and air pollution. The land
acquisition will begin immediately and the
opening date for the first airport activities
is planned for 1978-1979. Flexibility in the
scale and time of expansion is a designed
feature of the new airport system.

The governments have agreed that serious
consideration will be given to the utilization
of the existing Toronto Island Airport for
short takeoff and landing— STOL— aircraft as
this technology develops.

The federal government is today filing
notice of intention to acquire, in accordance
\vith its new Expropriation Act, all the land
required for the airport site itself.

Tlie provincial government is introducing
legislation today related to the acquisition of
land in the vicinity of the airport which will
be crucial to the orderly provision of service
and transportation access to the airport and
the development of the planned community
associated with the airport.

The provincial government will ensure by
a number of actions that land use in the
airport vicinity is compatible with airport
operations and with the regional planning
concept. Land exposed to aircraft noise and
areas being substantially influenced by urban
growth pressures generated by the airport
will be controlled by the Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs.

Agreement has been reached in principle
between the two governments on the sharing
of many of the expenditures associated with
the airport development. A portion of the
land acquisition by the province will be car-
ried out through funding arrangements under
a variety of joint endeavours.

Generally speaking, it has been agreed that
the federal government will be responsible
for on-site costs of airport projects as well as
relocation costs resulting from the displace-
ment of services. The provincial government
will assume responsibility for the provision
of basic services, such as water and sewage,
to the boundaries of the airport. Federal
assistance may be provided to a certain ex-
tent through existing programmes. The two
governments have agreed to study the im-
plications of mass transit and other transpor-
tation facilities related to airport develop-
ment, with a view to workkig out joint
financing arrangements. This is, in fact, a
continuation of work now going on in the
Toronto area.

To study tliis and other related co-opera-
tive aspects of implementation, the federal
government and the government of Ontario
have agreed to establish a federal-provincial
committee to make recommendations to their
respective governments.

The implementation of the airport project
will require close collaboration among all
three levels of government. Obviously, the
federal government will have basic respon-
sibility for the development of the airport site
itself. The province has the prime respon-
sibility, in co-operation with the area muni-
cipalities, for the implementation of develop-
ment off the airport site. Tlie municipahties
will be infonned immediately of the implica-
tions for them and discussions will begin on
the establishment of machinery to ensure that
they are effectively involved in the imple-
mentation process.

Mr. Speaker, that completes the joint an-
nouncement, but I would like to add some
comments that I feel are of particular interest
to Ontario, particularly to people living
within the Toronto-centred region. The de-
velopment concept for the Toronto-centred
region was unveiled by tlie government of
Ontario in May, 1970. This concept envisaged
a structured urban system between Hamilton
and Bowmanville, consisting of two tiers of
urban communities separated by a series of
service and recreational corridors. Within this
area a high priority was given to the stimula-
tion of growth to the east of Metropolitan
Toronto.

In my budget statement of last April I
announced the government's decision to en-
dorse the principles of the Toronto-centred-
region concept as a guideline for whatever
decisions the province may make that would
affect the Toronto-centred-region.

MARCH 2, 1972

Public reaction to the Toronto-centred-
region plan has been overwhelmingly favour-
able to the general concept. Some 200 briefs
and submissions were received from regional
development councils, municipalities, associa-
tions and private citizens and some 50 public
discussions and presentations were held. A
number of specific criticisms were received
and many of these are being incorporated
into the plan as it becomes more refined and
comprehensive.

I am happy to say that public reaction
obtained through these discussions and sub-
missions has been particularly favourable to
the proposals for channelling development
east of the highly urbanized core of the
region along Lake Ontario; for preserving a
large area of low population density north of
this urbanized core; and for stimulating
growth to specific areas beyond commuting
distance from Metropolitan Toronto.

After analysis of the initial public re-
action, the government released a status
report on the Toronto- centred region in
August, 1971. This report announced a num-
ber of specific refinements which had been
made to the original concept and revealed a
number of specific decisions v/hich had been
made on individual development proposals.
Included in the status report was the following
reference to a proposed new international
airport for the Toronto region:

We believe strongly that the location
of the second international airport can be
a major stimulus to the development of
the region, and that its location should not
be dependent solely on the current direc-
tion of population trends.

Mr. Speaker, such a stimulus to development
can have favourable and far-reaching eiffects
not only on the region but on the entire
eastern sector of southern Ontario. The air-
port will encourage growth of urban centres
further east, and these in turn will bring
welcome prosperity to parts of Ontario that
have not shared in the province's overall
growth.

With that background in mind, you will
recall that the government of Ontario is
seeking ways to restructure the municipalities
to the east of Metropolitan Toronto. One of
the vital decisions to be taken is the deline-
ation of the eastern boundary of Metro-
politan Toronto. This government believes
that it would be a mistake if there were to
be a major annexation to the east of Metro-
politan Toronto and therefore no expansion
of Metropolitan Toronto is contemplated at
this time. The vitality of a new governmental

structure, once it is established, will be
dependent in part on the dynamically grow-
ing areas now within Pickering township.
Obviously, the growth of these areas will be
greatly stimulated by the airport location.

In the meantime, the province wishes to
work very closely with Pickering township in
the first place and with all of the other
municipal governments in that region which
will be involved in planning the provision of
sendees and facilities related to the airport.

Acceptance by the province of prime re-
sponsibility for ensuring the implementation
of airport-related activities outside the air-
port site itself requires the establishment of
a full-time implementation team. Mr. Larry
Forster, who has until now been regional
director of the Department of Transportation
and Communications for northwestern On-
tario, will be the chief of the implementation
team.

He will be assisted by a small full-time
staff, as well as by staffs seconded for vary-
ing periods from the involved departments
and agencies of the provincial government.
The implementation team will of course
work closely with the team refining the
Toronto-centred region concept and with the
federal and municipal bodies responsible for
particular activities. Overall responsibility for
co-ordination of provincial activities associ-
ated with the implementation of the airport
site will rest with my department. Obviously,
there are still many questions remaining to
be resolved on the planning of the airport
development and the specific financial and
other responsibilities of the governments in-
volved. We are establishing a joint federal-
provincial committee to deal with many of
these questions. Meanwhile, I have exchanged
letters with Mr. Jamieson, the federal Min-
ister of Transport, containing an agreed annex
of understanding. I am tabling these letters,
and a copy of the agreed annex, to place on
record the agreements made between us con-
cerning the responsibilities to be carried out
by our two governments.

This afternoon Mr. Jamieson is making
some remarks relating to a further study
of airport facilities for southwestern Ontario.
As the joint announcement mentioned, the
new airport is part of an air transportation
system for all southern Ontario. The estab-
lished airport at Malton, of course, will re-
main a major component of this system. As a
potentially specialized component of the sys-
tem, the Toronto Island Airport will become
the subject of a joint study by the Ontario

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

and federal governments. This study will
pay particular attention to the island airport's
potential as a base for STOL— short take-off
and landing— aircraft. In any case, the con-
tinued use of the island airport will make
development of Harbour City impossible.

The implementation team I mentioned ear-
lier will begin its work immediately. No
announcement of a project of this magnitude
would be complete without reference to some
of the more important investigations and
studies which have preceded this announce-
ment.

In one of the most important and conten-
tious areas of investigation, our Department
of the Environment conducted a study to
determine what impact an airport operation
would have on the surrounding area. This
study encompassed such considerations as air
quality, vegetation, wildlife, soil, water, min-
erals and open space— in short, virtually every
natural resource of the area.

As well, the effects of the noise to be
generated by the airport were studied in
relation to this location. The site proved to
be sufficiently removed from existing and
proposed urban centres so as to pose no
serious problems from the noise to be ex-
pected from day-to-day airport operations.

Mr. Speaker, the new airport will have
many long lasting effects on the municipali-
ties in the Toronto-centred region area, par-
ticularly those in the eastern and northeastern
sector.

Apart from the increased opportunity for
realizing the growth and urban structure
objectives set out in the Toronto-centred
region concept many additional advantages
will accrue in terms of increased employment
opportunities and the tremendous potential
for strengthening the economic conditions
within the municipalities.

However, it must be realized that the air-
port and the economic activities generated by
it will also create growth pressures which, if
not properly handled, can seriously threaten
and impair the economic health and the
social and physical environment of those
municipalities lying close to the new airport.
Municipalities that have, to this point, been
confronted with relatively slow grov^i^h will
be subjected to vast pressures on every side
to approve more land severance applications,
to support urban subdivisions, to amend their
bylaws to permit an intensification of de-
velopment. Such municipalities as Pickering,
Markham, Whitby and East Gwillimbury
which are already subject to substantial

pressure to develop will have these pressures
greatly intensified.

Some of the municipalities that will be
influenced by the airport's development are
already equipped with land-use policies in
the form of official plans and zoning bylaws,
supported by permanent staffs who will be
able to consider the new situation and to
recommend suitable alterations in these poli-
cies where they are found to be inadequate.
Some of the municipalities, however, will
have great difficulty in adjusting in sufficient
time to accommodate themselves and their
policies to the rapidly developing pressures
which will be exerted on them.

While the standard of readiness of muni-
cipalities within the region varies greatly they
all have one thing in common. None con-
templated the establishment of the airport in
the development of their growth strategies.

To assist municipalities in adjusting to
these circumstances, it is the intention of this
government to take the following actions in
the immediate future.

First, to meet with each of the municipal-
ities to discuss with them the impact of the
airport and to consider changes which will
be required in their development policies.

In this connection there are representatives
of the municipalities in the galleries today. I
am now pleased to invite them to come to a
joint press conference today at 5 o'clock in
Departure Room No. 20 in the main terminal
building at Malton Airport, Toronto, where
the federal Minister of Transport and the
Ontario ministers will be answering questions
from the press.

Second, to allocate experienced stafi^ who
will be able to work with the municipalities
in making the necessary adjustments.

Third, to act under the provisions of
Section 32 of the Planning Act, to establish
minister's zoning orders on those situations
where the growth pressures are greatest and
where the capability to react to these pres-
sures is less than required in the circum-
stances. Special attention v^dll be given to
those situations where high noise levels are
expected, where land use policies are inade-
quate or non-existent and in critical areas
close to the airport.

Until the full implications of the airport
have been considered, this government will
exercise its powers as they pertain to official
plans and will decline to approve any appli-
cations that propose residential development
in areas which may be subjected to excessive
noise levels from the airport. These policies
have been successfully applied in dealing

MARCH 2, 1972

with new growth around Malton. We intend,
of course, to continue to deal with apphca-
tions within the criteria estabhshed by the
Urban Development in Rural Areas policy—
UDIRA— and the concepts expressed in the
Toronto-centred region concept.

The minister's orders referred to earlier
may appear unduly restrictive but I indicate
that they are short term in nature and will
be modified as soon as the full implications
of the airport decision have been assessed in
conjunction with the municipalities. I am
quite prepared to remove the orders as has
been done in other parts of the province, as
soon as the local bylaws and ojBScial plans
have been readjusted.

We do not want to create problems for
owners of individual parcels which may have
been held for some time and we are quite
prepared to consider amendments to the
orders to relieve exceptional hardships. How-
ever, let me reiterate that it shall be our
objective to keep residential development to
a minimum within the areas of potentially
high noise levels and immediately around the
airport lands.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the regional
municipality of York is preparing an oflBcial
plan as required by the Act establishing that
municipality. The plan is required to be pre-
pared in 1974. Fortunately, the state of the
work done on the plan is still at a suflBciently
early stage to take the impacts of the air-
port into consideration. This work being done
by the regional municipality will be of tre-
mendous assistance to the individual muni-
cipalities and the province in realigning land-
use policies in the light of the airport de-
velopment.

Mr. Speaker, I note— this was in and out
but I think it is still out, although it is in the
agreement which I have tabled and it is in
other documents— the land which will be
acquired by the province south of the air-
port is approximately 25,000 acres.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time, I suppose
it is fair to say, no one has been more critical
of federal policies than the Treasurer of On-
tario.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): This is
the second retreat in a week.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: However, I am
happy to acknowledge the results of this form
of joint planning.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr.
Speaker, could I rise on a point of clarifica-
tion?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): No.

Mr. Speaker: I think in view of the im-
portance of the announcement that one or
two or three questions of clarification might
be permitted.

Mr. W. Hodgson: I would like-
Mr. Speaker: Just a moment!

It seems to me that we have had points
of clarification after statements. However, if
it is the wish of the House that we handle
these during the question period, this is the
way it will be.

Mr. Lewis: That is the way it is going to
be.

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, out of order.

Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

LOCATION OF NEW AIRPORT

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, would the Treasurer in-
dicate to the House how much provincial
money vidll be involved in the aspect of the
responsibility that we have in connection
vwlth the airport— not necessarily with the de-
velopment of the extra 25,000 acres— and
what the total cost is projected to be for the
whole facility?

Mr. Lewis: I would say about $70 million.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Plus or minus.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Plus a few
hundred million after!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I appreciate the
question. I don't think that I could give an
answer off the top of my head and I suppose
it's going to be some months before we can
give that answer. Obviously, we're talking
of a community which we think it is desir-
able to build, in the neighbourhood of
150,000 or 200,000 people, who will require
services in any case. What the incremental
cost is to the airport is sometliing which I
imagine the federal government and ourselves
are going to be arguing for some time.

I would imagine, for example there has
been an agreement between the government
and negotiations are going on between water
resources— the Department of the Environ-
ment—Metropolitan Toronto and the regional
municipality of York, to provide trunk ser-
vices through Pickering, across the top of

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Metropolitan Toronto. It may be that those
trunk services now— I'm not an engineer-
may move shghtly farther east and be en-
larged to accommodate this commmiity as
well.

The cost of that trunk, as I recall, was
something in the neighbourhood of $50
million. Whether we assign that to the air-
port, the airport community or continue to
assign it to York is perhaps the choice to be
made. Undoubtedly our bargaining position
will be that it's all caused by the airport.
But I can't answer that question simply.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary on the
same line. When the minister talks about a
new airport, a cost figure, an approximate
one, will be tagged to it. What would the
figure be?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The cost of the
airport?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the member
will have to ask Mr. Jamieson that at 5
o'clock this afternoon.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Will the minister ask
him for me? I may not get out there.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: His figure for acquisi-
tion of land, in the estimates, is what, $60
million to $80 million.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Another supplementary,
Mr. Speaker, having to do with serving the
large population to the west of the Metro
area, which must surely have been the bone
of contention, at least according to the news
stories that we have been reading. Is the
province taking any steps in conjimction with
the federal government to improve air trans-
portation from the southwestern part of the
province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: My colleague, now
Chairman of the Management Board (Mr.
MacNaughton) and the present Minister of
Transportation and Communications (Mr.
Carton), I think it is fair to say, have been
involved in discussions going back over a
year to ensure that services all over Ontario,
national service and regional service and
third lever service-I think that is the correct
term-are adequate, and better than adequate
hopefully, for the people of northern On-
tario and for the people of southern Ontario.

I think it is fair to say that as a result of
•some of those discussions Mr. Jamieson's
announcement, which he is making in the
House of Commons pertaining to a study of

southwestern Ontario's needs, is very much
related to the requests made and indeed
positions taken by Ontario in terms of our
overall air needs. In that study, we have
been asked, and will supply, whatever assist-
ance we can.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is there a compensation
programme for those landowners who will be
affected by noise and other disturbances
associated with the decison to locate it at
a specific place?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The federal govern-
ment is acquiring those lands required for
the ail-port and where noise levels are exces-
sively high. We have agreed, as the member
will see in the agreement, to take whatever
steps we can, as we have done at Malton by
a variety of methods, to ensure that no new
development takes place in the other noise-
affected lands— which I may say are enormous
according to the map. They have not yet
been refined and undoubtedly will be nar-
rowed. At the tip of the noise line, I suppose
it is fair to say that there is less noise there
than there is perhaps in Queen's Park with
planes flying overhead. I am serious about
that.

The lines look much larger than they are
and they are not as critical as perhaps they
might appear to be on some of the maps.
They are a long way from being finally
refined.

In those areas we have indicated that if
there is to be any compensation, that is the
responsibility of the government of Canada
and not of Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They accept that, do they?

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a supple-
mentary-
Mr. Speaker: Is it a supplementary?
Mr. Deans: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
North has a supplementary.

Mr. W. Hodgson: A supplementary ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the
minister with regard to his announcement,
since he has pretty well clarified where the
eastern boundary of Metro is going to go, is
he in a position to clarify the northern boun-
daries between Metro and the region of
York?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am pleased to
clarify that it is the decision of the govern-

MARCH 2, 1972

ment that the northern boundary of Metro
will remain at Steeles Avenue.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a supple-
mentary question. Would the minister be
able to clear up what provisions might have
been made by the government to compensate
the municipalities for what would obviously
be a decrease in their growth during the
interim period when the airport is being de-
veloped, as a result of zoning and the stop-
ping of development?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think one has to
remember that the growth in the township
of Pickering has been severely limited over
the last few years, and for financial reasons
mainly.

Mr. Deans: Another supplementary ques-
tion: Can the minister indicate what has
become of the plans to develop the airport
in the Hamilton area— the Mount Hope Air-
port—as the result of this particular decision
by the two levels of government?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Jamieson's state-
ment in the House of Commons includes this
sentence: The initial step in developing an
aviation system for Toronto and southwestern
Ontario will be the extensive improvement of
facilities in Hamilton, London and Windsor
airports.

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

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr. Speak-
er, I have a couple of supplementary ques-
tions.

The minister referred to Pickering, Mark-
ham, East Gwillimbury and one other munici-
pality. I note that he is going to make certain
government staff available to them from time
to time, some on a permanent, some on a
temporary basis. Is there any planning for
those municipalities insofar as aid for ser-
vices that they are going to be required to
supply, because these municipalities are, by
and large, low in assessment and small in
potential revenue and it would seem to me
that the scope of this development is going
to put great burdens on those municipalities
to provide services? Is that part of the think-
ing in this plan?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Those municipalities
and the regional municipality of York, of
course, are being assisted— I can't name the

figure off the top of my head— by quite large
grants made available to the regional govern-
ment to assist in the preparation of their
regional plan by 1974.

Mr. Singer: No, I don't know that the
minister properly understood me; not just aid
in the planning but in the implementation
and in the provision of services, which is
most important. In other words, if the gov-
ernment is going to ask Pickering to indulge
in building a very large trunk sewer line or
trunk watermain while their growth is very
limited, it is going to be an intolerable bur-
den on Pickering, Markham, East Gwillim-
bury and the others.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The trunk services,
of course, which are going through Pickering
to serve Pickering, the airport, the airport
community, and undoubtedly the regional
municipality of York and possibly at some
point in the future parts of Metropolitan
Toronto, will be a provincial undertaking.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for On-
tario South, a supplementary?

Mr. W. Newman (Ontario South): A sup-
plementary: In staying to the true point of a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask the minister who will be responsible for
the fringe areas not included in the purchase
or acquisition, either by the province or
federal government? Whose responsibility
will it be to pay compensation for noise and
nuisance to those people in the area?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The government of
Canada.

Mr. W. Newman: That is all I want to
know.

Mr. Lewis: The member is a parliamentary
assistant for goodness sake.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: The member does not listen
very well.

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

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the minister
for what reason he is plarming a brand new
city of 150,000 to 200,000 on a 15,000-acre
site which lies within the high-noise area?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It does not lie within
the high-noise area.

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Deacon: Looking at the map it appears
to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Lewis: As a further supplementary—

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough
West.

Mr. Lewis: On that point, Mr. Speaker,
what proposals does the minister have for
the development of what I gather he is going
to call Cedarwood, in terms of the degree of
government participation, the degree of
private participation and how he intends to
develop the plan, put out tenders, whom he
is going to involve? Has the minister some-
thing that he can tell the Legislature now?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The government has
no fixed position on this. We are obviously
a day or so away from breaking ground at
that area. My own view is, and I think it is
shared by my colleagues, that it has become
necessary because of the high cost of land,
for the government to take action to acquire
that land.

If one compares this with the English new
towns for example, the English new towns
are a development corporation financed
either by the city of London or by the gov-
ernment of the UK and they plan every bit
of it and they finance every bit of it and
they own great chunks of it when it is all
over. We would hope that having acquired
the land we could adopt some broad prin-
ciples as to where the core was going to be,
the composition of the community, how much
high rise, how much low rise, how much
single family and so on; and then we would
be able to turn segments of that over as it
became available to the private sector to
finance and develop.

Mr. Lewis: Holding onto the land?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not necessarily!
That's an option, as to whether we would
lease the land for 99 years or 50 years. That
might be appropriate for the commercial
core for example. I don't think it's as appro-
priate for the Ontario citizens, most of whom
want to own their own land and don't want
a 99-year lease.

We would of course control, through some
device or another, the selling price of that
land in the first instance; so that having
achieved by the large purchase and the early

f)urchase the economy of purchasing that
and, we would not see it sipnoned off as we
have seen in so many other instances.

Mr. Lewis: Great opportunity for a little
socialistic economic planning.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well there are some
Tories who perhaps would turn over in their
graves; but there will be a lot of private
sector involvement in this, believe me.

Mr. Lewis: Well I am glad the minister is
reassuring them now.

Mr. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, a supple-
mentary question of the minister: I would
like to ask him if he could tell me why the
government of Canada is buying such high-
priced highly-productive agricultural land
when they could move 10 miles further north
and buy low-priced land and low-agricul-
tural-productive land?

An Hon. member: That is a fair question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The
Premier just lost his job. He is fired.

An hon. member: His farm is north.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, as I in-
dicated, there were 59 sites studied at one
point or another. Each one of those sites had
a number of variations depending on the
location of the nmways for example, and it
has a tremendous implication, and in effect
almost changes the site even though the
terminal may be in the same place. I don't
think it is appropriate that we get into a dis-
cussion this afternoon of the relative merits
of one site or another.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, supplementary:
The minister made reference to planning for
STOL aircraft; are there any definite plans
that will involve either the province or the
federal government in the purchase of STOL
aircraft and assistance to de Havilland, which
is the only manufacturer in Ontario?

Mr. Lewis: He might try to solve the strike
first.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are discussions
going on between my colleague, the Minister
of Industry and Tourism, and between the
Minister of Transportation and Communica-
tions and the federal government. We of
course took the initial steps last fall with
STOL aircraft in northern Ontario on a two-
year basis, which I am told is a great success.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Hear, hearl

MARCH 2, 1972

Mr. Speaker: I think there have perhaps
been a reasonable number of supplementary
questions. The entire period should not be
devoted to the one matter. I don't want to
be too rigid on this; if the hon. members feel
that we should continue with supplemen-
taries, fine, but I point out to you the stand-
ing orders call for a reasonable number of
supplementaries. The hon. member for York-
Forest Hill.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): What
is to be the name of the new airport?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Givens International.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Provincial Secretary
for Justice): Or Givens Memorial.

Mr. Givens: Let us call it the Spadina air-
port! You may decide to abort that, tool

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That will be a de-
cision of the government of Canada, not of
the government of Ontario.

Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Revenue):
He is not on speaking terms with them on
that!

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Speaker, a supplementary question: Will the
former Century City property be involved in
this and will this in any way clean up some
of the problems that have resulted there from
land which has been sold and the farms hav-
ing gone into ruin?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sure that the
member would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that
those of us on these benches who have been
involved in this have done our utmost to
ensure that we didn't know whose property
was involved and whose property wasn't in-
volved. It runs through my mind that one of
the federal ojBBcials indicated to us that
certain parts of the land formerly known or
known now as Century City would be
acquired for airport purposes, and certain
other parts would lie in the noise zones, but
not high noise zones.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): A supple-
mentary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It may or may not.

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

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Since the
operational date for the new airport is
1978 or 1979, is the minister able to com-
ment on what the trafBc situation might be

in Malton in this interim period? In effect,
what would the long-term ejSect be in
Malton? Does he see that as staying even or
being scaled down? He mentioned in the
report the government is going to relieve
the pressure. Can he enlarge on that a bit?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I wouldn't want to
comment on that. Mr. Jamieson is coming to
the joint press conference this afternoon at
5 o'clock. I think he and his oflBcials will
be fully prepared to answer those questions.

Mr. Kennedy: A supplementary: Has Mis-
sissauga council been invited?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, but the member
has got two hours to invite them.

Mr. Kennedy: They wiU be. Two minutes
is adequate.

Mr. Deans: Can't you guys pass notes?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-
Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
ask the minister how long does he anticipate
the joint study involving the Toronto Island
Airport will take?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don't think we
can answer that. The viability of the
economics of STOL is not yet a sure thing.
That technology is being developed else-
where, mainly by the manufacturers them-
selves. What we are really saying is that
the island airport should be retained, hoping
that at some point, and I think with a certain
degree of expectation, it can be used as a
STOL port. How soon, I wouldn't like to
venture a guess.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Don
Mills.

Mr. D. R. Timbrell (Don Mills): Mr. Speak-
er, the minister in his remarks referred to
serving the new airport site with rapid
transit. What I am interested in knowing is
whether or not he might anticipate that the
same service might also serve central and
northeastern Metropolitan Toronto— if so,
whether he might anticipate that service
beginning prior to 1978 or 1979?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the government
going to do about northeastern Toronto?

Mr. Lewis: Where is the northeast ex-
pressway going?

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the answer to
the question is yes, but timetables are a
thing of the future.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further supple-
mentaries? If not, the hon. member for
Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Where is the new northeastern
expressway proposed to go? I gather that
the government committed itself to 407
now, several miles north of the 401, and a
connecting expressway in the northeast as
well. Surely that is now planned?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that is a
question, Mr. Speaker, more appropriately
asked of the Minister of Transportation and
Communications.

Mr. Lewis: May I redirect it with enthu-
siasm, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Trans-
portation and Communications, who can ob-
viously answer it.

An hon. member: Is that another study?

Hon. G. R. Carton (Minister of Transpor-
tation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I
knew I would get into this eventually.

Insofar as the particular route is con-
cerned, this has not been decided. It is be-
ing studied but there will be— at least it is
in the study stage— a freeway somewhere
around Highway 48, I would say, and this
will connect with Highway 407 in the High-
way 7 area.

Mr. Singer: For cars or for people?

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

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the
rapid transit line is concerned, is the gov-
ernment of Ontario going to build it or are
the municipalities going to build it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Which?

Mr. Singer: The rapid transit line.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The study is going
on now jointly between the joint committee
established by my predecessor-
Mr. T. P. Raid (Rainy River): Which one?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: —by Mr. Mc-

Naughton— now chaired by the present min-
ister of the Department of Transportation
and Communications, looking at all aspects
of rapid transit in the Metropolitan Toronto
area. In this particular instance, of course, it

extends outside Metropolitan Toronto, But
how it is to be funded is a subject which
will be dealt with in that context.

Mr. Singer: That certainly clears that up.
Mr. Givens: In your announcement today-
Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary, sir?

Mr. Givens: Yes sir, I may not have under-
stood. Does the minister's announcement to-
day seal the fate of Harbour City or is that
to be an outcome of the study on the use of
the island airport? It was not clear.

Mr. Singer: That study is finished. Stan is
gone and so is Harbour City.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, there was hand-
waving on that side, but I did not get an
answer.

Mr. Lewis: Just read Stanley Randall's
original statement in the record.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Stanley Randall has
said a lot of great things and we are still
very proud of him on this side.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The minister spends most of
his time repudiating them.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the member does
one-tenth of what Stanley Randall did for
this province, he will have something to be
proud about when he retires.

Mr. Marteh The minister is so sanctimoni-
ous standing there!

Mr. Deans: However, Stanley's project is
gone.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: However, he was
not always right!

No, I would say this; let me say this: We
believe at this moment that a high priority
should be given to a study of the existing
Toronto Island Airport. As we see it now,
that Toronto Island Airport should be con-
tinued to be used as an airport, hopefully for
STOL purposes that—

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Very handy for the lands
and forests types too.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: —precludes a Har-
bour City; finishes it. Strikes it dead, I think
the hon. member for York-Forest Hill said.
That could change, as a result of our study,
but I doubt it.

Mr. Reid: The minister is pretty confident.

MARCH 2, 1972

Mr. Martel: I am glad the minister quali-
fied that.

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

lease— for a period of time. And they have
been the ones who have, up until this point,
done most of the research as to the burning
capacity of the lignite in that area.

TRADE TOUR OF CHINA

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It just occurred to me I
would like to ask the Minister of Trade and
Development, Tourism and Information, if
he is going to accompany the Minister of
Revenue (Mr. Grossman) on his trade tour to
China?

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): One
way.

Hon. J. White (Minister of Trade and De-
velopment): No, I am not!

LIGNITE DEVELOPMENT BY ONTARIO
HYDRO

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of the Premier. Can he explain to
the House some reference in His Honour's
speech the other day about the involvement
of a private corporation in the projected de-
velopment of the lignite deposits by Ontario
Hydro? Is there, in fact, any unwillingness
on the part of Ontario Hydro to undertake
the technology to remove and use the lignite?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The concept, Mr. Speaker,
has been discussed for a period of time and
has been studied jointly now by Ontario
Hydro, by the government and what was
foi-merly known as Alberta Coal— and I can't
tell the House the name of the corporation
that has taken over Alberta Coal, other than
that it is a Canadian-owned corporation
which owns the mineral rights in that area.
The company had made a proposal to Hydro
that they would provide, through private
sources, the financing and development on
the project; Hydro would buy on site at
certain rates that would be determined— if
the burning process proved to be successful,
transmission problems resolved, etc. But that
is the involvement of the private corporation.
They are the people who presently have the
rights there, who have been doing the re-
search up until this time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Did
they purchase the rights or were they granted
soone time ago?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker I would have
to check this out. They have had them—
whatever it is, by purchase or by way of

TRADE TOUR OF CHINA

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a question
of the Minister of Revenue. Did he ask the
Minister of Trade and Development to go
with him?

Hon. Mr. Grossman. Yes, but I found out
that the Minister of Trade could not speak
mandarin Chinese; and it is very important.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): But this
minister can.

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

The hon. member for Scarborough West.

HOUSING SITUATION IN ONTARIO

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question of the
Premier: How is the housing portfolio to be
handled in the House hereafter? I gather in
the draft outline that it seems to fall into
more than one area.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes Mr. Speaker, there is
a reference in the Throne Speech to an
assessment of housing policy and some of
our problems in the housing field. I think
in this assessment there would probably be
some determination as to the proper admin-
istrative functions. For this period of time,
though, the Minister of Revenue will be re-
sponsible for the Ontario Housing Corp, and
to answer for the corporation here in the
Legislature.

CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR SPADINA
EXPRESSWAY LANDS

Hon. Mr. Davis: While I am on my feet,
Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question from the
member for York-Forest Hill as to the cost
of the conceptual project on his favourite
roadway. The fee was $15,000 plus $886.75
in expenses.

And while I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker,
because I would not want the Leader of the
Opposition to feel that he had been neglected
on Tuesday, as was customary a copy of the
Throne Speech was delivered to his oflBce
approximately 14 minutes before 3 o'clock.
At the same time a copy of the speech was

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

delivered to the Leader of the New Demo-
cratic Party. I can't tell him what happened
to it after that, but it was delivered.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well since the Premier
raised it, might I suggest that next year, if
he is in his place, he consider just giving
the copy to a page so that my successor
would have a convenient way of following
the words of His Honour on such an im-
portant occasion.

Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Who
is the member's successor?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of sup-
plementary to the Premier —

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: The Premier will recall that
in the December session I asked the same
question as the hon. member for York-Forest
Hill, but in addition—

An hon. member: It might be the member
for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Singer: —I asked him to provide in-
formation as to how many hours of work
were involved by Buckminster Fuller and/or
his associates, and he undertook at that time
to get that information.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure that I did undertake to get that, but I
will try to get it. We don't keep track of the
number of hours. We pay the cost of the con-
ceptual material and, as I say, the bill for it
was $15,000-

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Conservative Party
should pay that bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: —and there is an item for
$886.75 in expenses.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of a fur-
ther supplementary, could the Premier advise
us the basis on which the bill was submitted?
Was it a fee bargained for in advance or did
he just pay whatever was asked? On what
basis was it prepared and paid?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I shall endeavour to find
out.

Mr. Singer: Oh, that is nicel

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West.

INCO EMPLOYMENT POLICY

Mr. Lewis: Yes, a question of the Minister
of Labour, Mr. Speaker:

Can the Minister of Labour report to the
House on his undertaking to the Sudbury and
District Labour Council and to members of
this Legislature to have discussions with
International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd. on
its present policy on layofiEs; and what may be
imminent and what security there is for the
work force in the Sudbury basin?

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Yes,
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. leader of
the New Democratic Party, as he knows I
did meet on February 17 with the leaders of
the Sudbury and District Labour Council and
I have a letter on the way now to Mr.
Brown, the president of the Sudbury and
District Labour Council, in connection with
our meeting with the management of Inco.
They had, of course, asked a number of ques-
tions of Inco. For instance, they wanted to
know if the company could give them a long-
range forecast insofar as employment or lay-
offs with Inco are concerned. We were not
able to obtain any definite commitment from
Inco because as we realize— and members
opposite will too, of course— this layoff was
because of market conditions.

Mr. Deans: It was due to bad market
planning.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: That may be the mem-
ber's opinion but it is not mine at the present
time, and I have not seen—

Mr. Deans: Inco admitted that!

Hon. Mr. Guindon: —any evidence to the
contrary.

Mr. Deans: They admitted it was bad
planning on their part!

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Anyone connected with
the nickel and copper industry will realize
that since 1965 the market had been excep-
tionally buoyant and by 1971, particularly in
the first few months of 1971, there was a
decline in market conditions and it became
apparent in December 1971 that there was
a very sharp decline in the industry. That is
the main reason, in fact, for the layoffs.

I am very happy to report to the hon.
member, Mr. Speaker, that both the union
and the company have done exceptionally
well in trying to mitigate the effects of this
layoff.

MARCH 2, 1972

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker,—

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary
question?

Mr. Martel: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a supple-
mentary question of the minister: Has he
been able to ascertain specifically how much
nickel the International Nickel Co. was able
to stockpile in the preceding year, based on
the number of excess overtime hours they
forced the men to work?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr, Speaker, I cer-
tainly don't have this figure now and I doubt
if the company could give it to us. The
reason for stockpiling, as I said earlier, is
simply because the forecasts were fairly
good, the market was good and all of a
sudden there was a very serious decline.
That's one of the reasons why the company
did stockpile, not knowing what would
happen.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Minister, is the minister
aware that International Nickel Co. admitted
to having excess production over sales from
January 1 of 1971 on and that during the
entire period they continued to hire em-
ployees, bringing them from all over Canada?
In not one month were their sales equivalent
to their production.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that although the
hon. member made a statement, there was
a question in it. Perhaps the hon. minister
wishes to reply before we call another mem-
ber. Is there a reply to that, or was it purely
a statement?

Mr. Martel: No. I wanted to know if the
minister is aware that the production was
greater than the sales from January 1, 1971.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Production might have
been in excess of sales, but that was because
of the forecast of the company. They just
couldn't forecast— that was the reason they
gave us. They just couldn't.

As a matter of fact, you will find that even
in governments. You may have all kinds of
computers and experts, and their forecasts
are sometimes way off the beam.

Mr. Lewis: It was a bad market analysis.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Is the
minister prepared to table in the House the
results of the inquiries carried out by the
Department of Labour prior to the granting
of the certificates to work overtime?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: I would be prepared
to give the member full details of our com-
munications with both labour and manage-
ment anytime.

Mr. Deans: I was referring to the certifi-
cates that are necessary for permission to
work overtime during the year 1971.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: I would be glad to
consider this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. members please
indicate if they have any supplementaries, so
we can keep the question period orderly.
Does the hon, member for Rainy River have
a supplementary?

Mr. Reid: No sir.

Mr. Speaker: Well then he should wait
until I determine that the hon. member for
Scarborough West, as leader of the New
Democratic Party, has no more questions.

Mr. Lewis: There is a supplementary be-
hind me.

Mr. Speaker: Right! Supplementary from
the hon. member for Parkdale?

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Sudbury, Mr.
Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Sorry.

Mr. Germa: Taking into consideration the
minister's statement about the soft position
of the nickel market, will he consider lifting
all overtime permits for the International
Nickel Co., both in their production sector
and in their development and construction
sector?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: This may not always be
in accordance with the desire of labour or
of management, but I would be glad to con-
sider it.

NOTICE OF LAYOFFS

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, which
is, I think, not a supplementary.

Will the minister consider plugging those
holes in the Employment Standards Act which
he knows exist, to prevent a company from
neglecting to give appropriate notice by lay-
ing off less than 10 per cent of the work
force, which in a case like Inco can be an
enormous number of men?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this
is a very sensitive area; one which I'm look-
ing at very seriously at the present time. It

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

is premature, of course, to come up with any
decision but, I think, in the case of Inco, the
notices were within the law.

I'm looking at the whole spectrum, because
I think this is an area where our department
can play a very important role.

TELEGRAM PUBLISHING CO. LTD.

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of
Labour, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister of Labour report to the
House on the investigation, which his pre-
decessor I'm sure launched, into the be-
haviour of the Toronto Telegram in its deal-
ing with its employees at the point of its
shutdown?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, I am not
in a position today to tell the member oflF-
hand what has taken place so far. But if it is
the wish of the hon. member, I will be glad
to give him a report as to where the matter
stands now.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, the
House was assured that before the end of
January an investigation would begin into
the behaviour of the Telegram, a matter
which clearly concerned the manpower
branch and the employment standards branch
of the minister's department. Has the inves-
tigation begun, and is the minister then say-
ing that if it has he will give us a report on
its proceedings and how this House intends
to deal with the Telegram?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Our oflScials in the
manpower services branch have been active.
They have been working very closely in the
case of the Telegram with both labour and
management. I will get up-to-date reports
from them for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy
River.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Environ-
ment): Mr. Speaker, first, let me remind the
hon. member that the negotiations between
Canada and the United States are under the
Department of External AflFairs of Canada.
We have two members on the committee— the
technical committee— that is doing the nego-
tiations.

As far as the original negotiations are con-
cerned, I am informed that they are proceed-
ing. It is hoped that there will be a suitable
agreement ready for signature between Can-
ada and the United States some time later on
this year.

The report that was in the paper about a
week or so ago had to do, as I understand it,
with the refusal, or the turn down, of the
ofifice of the budget of the United States to
agree to the US enviromnental protection
agency's request to accelerate the programme
which is being negotiated. The original pro-
gramme negotiations are still continuing.

As far as our position is concerned, we are
disappointed, of course, but we are still
confident that the original negotiations will
be concluded.

Mr. Reid: May I ask, by way of supple-
mentary, Mr, Speaker, what effect this "de-
acceleration," if that is the way to put it,
of the American programme is going to have
on Canada's and Ontario's cleaning up of the
Great Lakes? Is it going to mean that our
efforts are useless in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I don't know that I can
answer that in a few words. We are still
continuing our work with the government of
Canada, with which we have our agreement,
and we propose to continue on schedule.
What the effect of no acceleration on the
US side will be I don't know, because I
don't know how rapidly they will be able to
proceed with the original agreement.

GREAT LAKES CLEANUP

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have
a question of the Minister of the Environ-
ment. Can he indicate whether the Ontario
government has made known its feelings with
regard to the statement that was in the paper
last week to the effect that the United States
was not going to proceed rapidly with the
cleanup of the Great Lakes? What represen-
tation did this government make to Ottawa
and to Washington in this regard?

ROBARTS LIBRARY

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister
of Colleges and Universities. Does the min-
ister support access to the Robarts library
stacks by undergraduates and the public?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Minister of Colleges and
Universities): Mr. Speaker, this is something
that, of course, is being looked into by the
board of governors of the university and
also by the library council.

MARCH 2, 1972

I understand that there has been a new
proposal made to the student council, made
by a committee that was appointed by the
library council which had student representa-
tion. It means that students will have more
access than was originally indicated, but I
understand that it does not provide for free
public access as far as browsing is concerned.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, as a supple-
mentary may I ask the minister if he sup-
ported the open access?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I support the
recommendation of the committee. I am not
in the—

Mr. Deans: The minister learned his lesson
in the environmental portfolio.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am not in a position to
disagree with its findings at all. I think there
are good reasons for this latest solution.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, then
the library which stands in the name of the
former Premier is to become an exclusive
preserve of certain doctorals, other students
and people who can afford a sum of money—
a fairly substantial sum of money— to enter?
Is that what the minister would wish?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, that is not the case
at all. The public will be able to use the
library, it just won't have the same privileges
that the students at the university will have.

Mr. Lewis: Not even all the students will
have all those privileges.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think the important thing
at this point is to at least give this latest
solution a trial. There are certain unknown
factors involved in the operation of a library
of this size, particularly in the type of mate-
rial and books and other things that will be
included in that facility. So at least in view
of the concern for loss of certain original
material in the existing library, I think the
decision of the committee is right.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Laughren: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel
Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Has the minister in his
deliberations considered that his position is
contrary to the recommendations of the
Wright commission report?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Well, I think the Wright
commission report didn't specifically deal

with the Robarts library, as the hon. member
well knows.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but they dealt wdth all
other libraries.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The report did recom-
mend, certainly in a very general way, that
access should be given to the public to
institutional or university libraries where pos-
sible. I think that is being followed here.
The terms of that access, of course, may
vary from institution to institution, but I
don't really think there is a serious conflict
between those two opinions.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
I would like to ask the minister, as a matter
of principle does his government define the
word access as public use of the books, or
does he define access as simply being able
to go in one door and out the other?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Really Mr. Speaker, I
can't see much difference in the two illustra-
tions given by the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: No, apparently the minister
can't.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Public use would include
going in and ordering—

Mr. Deans: The public have access to the
legislative chamber, but they can't sit there.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: —a particular text or a par-
ticular book from that facility. Now if there
is going to be some management, some con-
trol, some regulation as far as the use and
tenure of that particular book, I think the
plan is reasonable; and I still think it pro-
vides public use and access to that library
at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor- Walkerville has been attempting to place
a supplementary previously. I will permit it
right now.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville): No,
I will bypass. I have a supplementary to an-
other question.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further supple-
mentaries on this one? If not, the member
for Windsor- Walkerville.

HAM RADIO OPERATORS

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of
the Minister of Transportation and Com-
munication, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

plan on taking any action concerning the
requests of ham operators for a special licence
plate?

Hon. Mr. Carton: This is under study
presently, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. B. Newman: May we expect an answer
within the next month or so, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Carton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has
expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko presented the following
reports:

The Ontario Department of Health 46th
annual report, 1970; the 25th annual report
of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario,
March 31, 1971; The University of Toronto
financial statements for the year ended June
30, 1971; the report of the Ontario Tele-
phone Service Commission, 1970; the report
of the Crop Insurance Commission of On-
tario, 1970-1971; the report of the Public
Service Superannuation Fund for the year
ended March 31, 1971; the annual report
of the Ontario Energy Board for the year
ended December 31, 1971; the 1970 annual
report of the Ontario Housing Corporation,
Ontario Student Housing Corporation and
Housing Corporation Limited; the Provincial
Auditor's report of 1970-1971; and the Public
Accounts of the Province of Ontario for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 1971.

An hon. member: What a busy day.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

EXPROPRIATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill
intituled An Act to amend the Expropriations
Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Justice): Mr.
Speaker, with the advent of large joint un-
dertakings such as the federal-provfnrial pro-
ject like the airport, it is desirable that our
expropriation laws recognize these joint ven-
tures and be made to apply to them.

This bill provides for two amendments to
the Expropriations Act. The first amendment
clarifies an existing provision that prevents
enhancement of market value of lands expro-
priated for the project itself and the re-
sultant compensation to be paid.

The second amendment ensures the pro-
tection of the pubHc by applying that pro-
vision to joint ventures such as the airport
development.

The principles and procedures recognized
in the Expropriations Act are preserved and
compensation provisions can be made to ap-
ply to joint ventures.

ETHICS OF ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Shulman moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act respecting Ethics of Elected
Representatives.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

DANCING SCHOOLS

Mr. Drea moves first reading of bill in-
tituled. An Act respecting Dancing Schools.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr.
Speaker, the intent of this bill is to limit the
amount of the registration fee at the danc-
ing school or social club. In the past there
has been a tendency to enrol or dupe people
into long-term agreements and they had very
little opportunity to get back any funds.

An hon. member: Has the member ever
been taken?

Mr. Drea: No, I have never been taken, but
I have got a lot of people out of it.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, con-
sideration of the Speech of the Honourable
the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of
the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. J. P. MacBeth (York West): Mr.
Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by
Mr. Eaton, that a humble address be pre-
sented to the Honourable the Lieutenant
Governor as follows:

MARCH 2, 1972

To the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald,
Lieutenant Governor of the Province of
Ontario:

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: Mr. MacBeth moves, seconded
by Mr. Eaton, that a humble address be pre-
sented to the Honourable the Lieutenant
Governor as follows:

To the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald,
Lieutenant Governor of the Province of
Ontario.

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. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour
and a great privilege for me to be called
upon to move this address to His Honour
the Lieutenant Governor. I am certain all
members of this Legislature will join me in
thanking His Honour for his words of con-
fidence and inspiration that will surely guide
us well in our deliberations in the days ahead
—deliberations which will indeed have a de-
cided effect on all of us in this province in
future years.

I am certain, too, Mr. Speaker, that the
hon. members of this Legislature will agree
with me when I say that the years ahead will,
without doubt, be the most challenging we
have ever known.

It is my privilege, sir, to be among the
first in this session of the Legislature to oflFer
most sincere congratulations on your election
to the post of Speaker of this assembly. I
and all the hon. members are fully aware of
your wealth of experience, your years as
chairman of the committee of the whole
House. We are all confident that you will not
only serve with distinction in your new role
but with fairness to all.

I am confident of that, sir, and I am con-
fident that the restructuring of our govern-
ment and the civil service will ultimately lead
to the provision of the finest service for our
people and our province. I am a great
believer in change where and when change
is necessary, and it was necessary to update
the structure of our government to keep in
step Mdth the needs of our people. I take this

opportunity of congratulating this govern-
ment on its effort and foresight in implement-
ing this new structure.

Although I do not intend to elaborate, I
congratulate all those members of cabinet
who have been appointed to new positions
within government. I am confident that each
and every one of them vdll carry out their
new assignments to the fullest degree. In
particular my congratulations go to the newly
established posts of provincial secretariats
which have been assumed by the Hon. Robert
W^elch, the Hon. A. B. R. Lawrence and the
Hon. A. F. Lawrence.

I also congratulate the Hon. Darcy
McKeough, provincial Treasurer, who has
been named to head up the very important
new post of Financial and Intergovernmental
Affairs and the Hon. Charles MacNaughton,
who has assumed new responsibilities as
Chairman of the Management Board of
Cabinet. I wish them every success in their
new assignments.

I also take this opportunity to congratulate
the hon. members for York East (Mr. Meen),
Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), Hamilton Moun-
tain (Mr. J. R. Smith), Ontario South (Mr. W.
Newman), and Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Rhodes),
who have been appointed parliamentary
assistants. I am confident that they will be a
great asset and that they will contribute
much toward the functions of this govern-
ment as they carry out their various respon-
sibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not
make mention of the last Ontario election in
which our people gave this government a
rather respectable mandate. I was delighted,
Mr. Speaker, to be a member of the Con-
servative team which was so ably led by our
Prime Minister (Mr. Davis). It was indeed an
easy task to conduct a campaign on the plat-
form which he and his ministers provided.
There was no false or impractical promises-
there were no "pie in the sky" offers which
could not be delivered when this government
was re-elected.

Interjection by hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): That got a
smile.

Mr. MacBeth: Warming up a little? The
response of the electorate was an excellent
indication of the strong support of our people
who were undoubtedly confident of our
party's and government's ability to cany out
our promises. Now we all look forward to
participating in the implementation, under

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

the capable leadership of our Prime Minister,
the legislative programme outlined for us by
His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. Ruston: Now the bad news.

Mr. MacBeth: Now the good news. As a
private member and as the new member for
York West I welcome the opportunity pro-
vided by this traditional motion to express
some personal thoughts on fields of legisla-
tion referred to in the Speech from the
Throne.

While recognizing democracy is the best
form of government yet devised, I believe
most will agree that by its very nature it is
not the most eflBcient. The government's ex-
pressed intent to become "more eflBcient and
productive while at the same time bringing
government closer to the people," presents
somewhat of a paradox.

Both are admirable goals, but I hope in
our attempt to achieve the latter we will not
sacrifice the former. The people of Ontario
have given this government a strong mandate
to govern and the majority of the people of
this province expect it to do just that, listen-
ing to the dissidents and extremists but not
being unduly influenced or delayed by them.
The greatest common weal generally lies in
the middle course of moderation and toler-
ance.

All will welcome the expressed intent to
preserve the natural beauty and serenity of
our Ontario landscape. I would hope that this
intent will lead to expansion of our provin-
cial parks system and to continued strong
measures to improve the environment.

No problem has had greater interest to our
youth and their concern came through clearly
and loudly during the October election
campaign. Even now, I have on my desk a
number of letters from a class of grade 8
pupils of Lambton-Kingsway school. All ex-
press concern over this problem and inquire
as to what I and the government are doing
about it.

Most of our generation, raised with a
different philosophy, are not yet prepared to
make the personal sacrifices required to pre-
serve our ecology best. We want our instant
television sets, with their constantly burning
tubes, not content to wait 30 seconds to
preserve the energy that is required. Mr.
Speaker, our hope lies with the education and
concern of our youth who may be prepared
to make some of these sacrifices that our gen-
eration is loath to do.

The Throne Speech, hopefully, holds an
open door for federal-provincial fiscal re-
form. For the economic welfare of our entire
country, no reform is more urgent. The
economic problems of the Thirties, the de-
pressions of those years and the subsequent
war years, led public opinion to favour a
strong and well-financed central government.

During those war years, provincial conces-
sions were willingly made which the federal
authorities, regardless of party— and indeed
with public approval— have not seen fit to
relinquish. Developments of recent years are
leading to re-examining the divergent aspir-
ations and needs of the people of our 10
provinces in such fields as education and
social programmes. These show that the
Fathers of Gonfederation were wise in their
intent to make the provinces strong in their
own fields of responsibility.

The good of our country depends upon
recognizing our differences and providing
each province the financial means and inde-
pendence to control its own destiny within
the bounds of constitutional responsibility.
Ottawa's largesse for frivolous programmes
on its terms and without concern for pro-
vincial priorities, must be replaced by un-
conditional grants or the surrendering of
some share of its present taxation, I hope, Mr.
Speaker, that our government will work to
that end.

I note with interest the proposal to create
regional governments in Sudbury and the
Kitchener-Waterloo areas. I would remind
the government of some outstanding matters
in regional government legislation yet re-
quired for the Niagara region and the York
region, that is, having to do with the re-
sponsibilities of hydro-electric commissions
in those municipalities, I hope that these
responsibilities of the commissions will be
defined early this session and the outstanding
matters finally determined.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the proposed
review of the role of the Ontario Municipal
Board, As a former municipal council mem-
ber, I have had my differences with that
board, I appreciate its functions and the pur-
pose for its existence, but I have often
questioned its zeal in supplanting its wisdom
for that of the elected representatives and
the costly and protracted procedure it itself
has evolved. As a quasi-judicial body, it
should not change policy made by an elected
body. Examination and reform is welcome.

Of personal interest to me is the short
paragraph on legislation to prohibit the
holding of more than one elected public

MARCH 2, 1972

office. If this is an offence, I personally am an
offender. If any conflict does in fact exist, it
is a public and open one.

I suggest that good often comes from
such dual capacities. The wisdom of placing
senior officials ex officio on various public
bodies is a well-accepted practice, even
though in certain dealings between the bodies
conflicting interests may arise. The liaison
and understanding gained is valuable. The
important factor, Mr. Speaker, is that the
public knows of the two positions and has
full knowledge of any conflict that may exist.

As far as I am concerned, I have no inten-
tion of seeking re-election to the hydro com-
mission of the borough of Etobicoke. Pres-
ently, however, the time demands of both
offices— that is, as a commissioner and a
member of this House— are not in conflict,
and I believe that to resign now would be a
disservice to my municipality and place coun-
cil in the unenvious position of appointing a
short-term successor.

Would the cost in conducting a general
election over the entire borough of Etobicoke
be warranted at this time? Perhaps those who
have undertaken the job and have been
elected to do it should be allowed to com-
plete it. In this matter, Mr. Speaker, I urge
the government to proceed with caution.

Earlier I spoke of the concern of the young
people of York West for their environment.
York West, now consisting of the central
portion of the borough of Etobicoke, is gen-
erally regarded as a pleasant residential
community. Surprisingly, one of our major
problems is that of pollution— pollution from
the transportation industry by way of motor
traffic throughways slicing through the com-
munity and aircraft noise and exhaust.

The Toronto International Airport has
brought both good and bad to my riding-
good in terms of employment and growth,
bad in terms of environment and zoning
problems. The federal government controls
the airport but leaves to the local munici-
pality the cost of acquiring the buffer land
areas that are required, of soundproofing
schools and hospitals and of safely zoning the
flight paths.

I hope that relief will soon be provided
from some of the ills Etobicoke is suffering
from the international airport by the early
development of the Pickering airport which
was armounced in this House this afternoon.

I do, however, urge the government to
ensure sufficient land will be acquired by the
federal authority in Pickering so that the

local municipal taxpayer will not have to pay
for federal shortcomings and that the local
council will not have insoluble zoning prob-
lems. That, Mr. Speaker, is the condition we
found in Etobicoke, where the federal gov-
ernment supposedly financed the airport but
left many of the surrounding problems to the
municipality— and they are very costly and
difficult to overcome. I again urge the gov-
ernment in this new location that they make
sure to have a broad-sighted policy to acquire
all the land that may be necessary.

In closing, I take this opportunity to pay
tribute to H. Leslie Rowntree, QC, my pre-
decessor for York West. He has served his
province well in many capacities and his
recent retirement as chairman of the board
of the Ontario Science Centre is noted with
regret.

Mr. Speaker, in his closing remarks. His
Honour the Lieutenant Governor advised us
that the programmes he had outlined—

. . . have been the object of intensive
scrutiny and thought on the part of the
government, as being in the best interests
of the people of Ontario.

He stated:

We look forward with confidence to a
fresh and revitalized approach to many
complex problems of our society, and to
the purposeful deliberations of the hon.
members of this House.

I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.
members of this Legislature, and this new
government of Ontario, have every intention
of carrying out the wishes of His Honour the
Lieutenant Governor.

As a result, our province shall continue to
grow and develop as never before and we
shall continue to maintain our leadership as
the most progressive jurisdiction in the
continent.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Mid-
dlesex South.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Mr.
Speaker, I am most pleased to have the
opportunity to second the motion of the hon.
member for York West for the adoption of
the Speech from the Throne presented by
the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of
Ontario.

The Speech from the Throne has laid
down the foundation for deliberation and
action over the months ahead. It is a founda-
tion of concern for people, combined with
good common sense which the people of

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

this province so readily and overwhelmingly
endorsed last October.

I am sure that this government will deal
with the great many complex issues which it
faces, with confidence and decisiveness re-
flected by its leader, the Premier (Mr. Davis)
of this province, and with the skill and
dedication shown by those selected to serve
in the cabinet. I would like to congratulate
them on their appointments and assure them
of the responsible and enthusiastic support
of the members. As we who were chosen by
the people of this province to govern proceed
to do so, we will, with the best interests of
the people of this province in mind.

I was most pleased with the reference in
the Speech from the Throne to expanded
policies concerning investments and loans,
giving preference to Canadian-owned enter-
prises, and in particular, for assistance in the
growth of smaller enterprises. I am sure the
Minister of Trade and Development (Mr.
White), my neighbour in the riding of Lon-
don South, is a man of vision with that
touch of practicahty that will inspire confi-
dence by the small businessman. I know I
have many small businessmen in my riding
who will be looking forward to the develop-
ments in this programme.

Speaking of my riding— the one which we
proved in the last election was a great Tory
riding-
Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Eaton: —I feel I must restore it to its
just position in the eyes of the public. The
recently disposed-of member seemed to have
a habit of referring to it in derogatory terms;
such as a poor and underprivileged place.
Well, it is not. It is a riding which exempli-
fies the cross-section of the very foundations
of this province.

It contains the basic rural hfe of Ontario,
with a backbone of numerous family farms
which produce practically every agricultural
product grown in this province; from the
dairy farms close to the city of London to
the beef areas of Ekford and Mosa, hog
operations, orchards-all the field cash crops
grown in Ontario. It supports two canning
factories with a third being built close to
the border in the riding of the hon. member
for Oxford (Mr. Parrott), to which I am sure
some of our produce will flow.

It is a riding of many small communities
which foster the small independent business-
man. It contains a portion of the city of
London, which is labour intensive, providing

the very lifeblood of our developing indus-
trial complex— people; proud, hard-working,
industrious people. There are also native
Canadians in my riding who don't want the
charitable type of talk provided by the past
member, but government co-operation with
their own ambitions, such as is exemplified
by the recently approved day care centre for
Muncey, and government co-operation which

1 am sure will be forthcoming when the
appropriate time comes on the recently
started project to raise funds for a commun-
ity centre in Oneida.

I think the last member thought that the
people of Middlesex South were his flock. He
found they couldn't be led. They didn't want
the socialistic philosophy of being told how
they will live.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): They were
lucky; he made speeches.

Mr. T. P. Held (Rainy River): The member
is in the right place.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He
got 9,000 votes.

Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): It
wasn't enough, though.

Mr. Eaton: They want the opportunity
which we will give them to achieve their
own personal goals.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Eaton: I was most pleased to see the>
indication of expanded programmes in park
development in the Speech from the Throne.
The Sydenham Valley Conservation Authority
in my riding has just recently taken an option
on Mel wood Park. I urge our government to
give the necessary assistance which the
authority will be looking for in developing
the park.

There are several other projects in the
riding to which I urge our government to
give immediate consideration: the develop-
ment of water supplies in the village of Mel-
bourne and Campbellville, the Head St.
bridge project in the town of Strathroy and
the rebuilding of Highway 81 from Highway

2 to Strathroy.

I was also most pleased to see the commit-
ment in the Speech from the Throne to con-
struct the new regional detention centre in
London. It has been long needed. I would
urge the government to establish the name as
the Elgin-Middlesex area detention centre,

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Call it the Bol-
ton Memorial Detention Centre.

MARCH 2, 1972

Mr. Eaton: I was also pleased to see the
commitment in the Speech from the Throne
on the development of facilities for commun-
ity and school use. I remember distinctly
making a commitment in my nomination
speech to work toward that end.

Interjection by hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Eaton: It is of utmost importance to
the life of the people of a community and
will be most welcomed by the many com-
munities in my riding.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The mem-
ber is reading his predecessor's speeches.

Mr. Eaton: I note with interest the refer-
ence to agriculture in the Speech from the
Throne. Having worked all of my business
life for the agricultural producers of this
province, I shall have a continued interest in
the happenings of that industry. I would
make particular reference to the statement
that further initiatives will be taken to in-
crease and diversify the use and sale of
Ontario-grown agricultural and food products
in domestic and export markets. Having been
associated with the sale of a farm product
for the past number of years, of which more
than 50 per cent of our crop was exported, I
am well aware of the need of a continuous
aggressive programme of market promotion
abroad.

The programme of assistance in contacting
these markets, carried on by the Ontario Food
Council under our Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Stewart), is most appreciated. In fact,
three of my former colleagues in the Ontario
Bean Producers Marketing Board leave to-
morrow for the United Kingdom and Europe.
Some people are pessimistic about the United
Kingdom market because of its entry into
the Common Market. However, the attitude
should be one of optimism, that the United
Kingdom can become our doorway to the
new markets on the continent.

I urge our government to take steps to
give the necessary encouragement and incen-
tives. An aggressive approach to export mar-
kets by the Department of Agriculture and
Food, for which our minister, my neighbour
in Middlesex North, is to be commended, has
seen the export of agriculture products ex-
panded by nearly $500 million since 1968.

I also viewed with interest in the Speech
from the Throne that the Farm Products
Marketing Act and the Ontario Milk Act will
be amended to reflect the principle contained

in the report of the royal commission inquiry
into civil rights. I feel some of these should
be implemented forthwith. However, some of
the recommendations reflect a lack of under-
standing of the foundations of farm market-
ing in Ontario. I will not stand by and see
recommendations shoved through, just be-
cause they are in the report, which could
very well imdermine the many years of work
of producers in this province in farm market-
ing.

Agriculture in Ontario has increased its
productivity per man more rapidly than any
other segment of the economy. Agriculture
is the most dramatic success story of our
time. We take for granted the abundance of
food in our supermarkets; yet our miracle
of food production is the envy of nations
around the world and has tlie respect of all
the world. This is the result of the capa-
bilities of the farmers in this province; yet
they are not repaid in proportion to the skill
and effort which they put into their business.

In Ontario, approximately 18 per cent of
personal disposable income goes to food.
Elsewhere in the world, it is lower only in
the United States. It is comparable to 25 per
cent to 30 per cent in Europe and over 40
per cent in Russia. No person in Ontario
should object to paying more for his food
and marketing boards should be the tool of
the producers to obtain that return. My aim
is to see that these marketing powers are
maintained and extended as producers need
them.

When speaking of the agricultural indus-
try, I must express my concern, and the
concern I know that many of my colleagues
have expressed, for the current egg situation.
Much hinges on the waited inquiry report.
Although many of us feel that immediate
action is necessary, it would certainly under-
mine the inquiry to move without the report.
One realizes that one action alone is not
enough. To implement quotas in Ontario to-
morrow without corresponding action in
other provinces would be useless. There is
a need for the use of federal legislation under
Rill C-176, but as yet the federal government
has not appointed a national marketing coun-
cil.

The proposed loan programme suggested
by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has
some merit. However, unless the necessary
action is taken to ensure profitable returns,
then the loans do little more than put the
producers further in debt. I do hope the
report is forthcoming shortly. Then I urge
our government to move immediately in co-
operation with the producers of Ontario,

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

other provinces and the federal government
to ensure the egg producers the opportunity
to receive a fair return for their product.

One issue which has resulted from the pro-
posed egg vote last year, to which I think
particular attention must be paid under the
Farms Products Marketing Act, is that of
voting privileges. It is wrong that individuals
with five or six hens can control the industry.
I feel something must be done to ensure that
those voting on a marketing plan have some
reasonable proportion of their income at
stake.

Another need that I see resulting from the
egg situation is a more available and single
source of fixed and working capital, so that
the producers need not get tied up with feed
companies to finance not only their feed but
their poultry and livestock. I would urge a
study of the situation to see what could best
serve the producers of this province.

I must make mention of the capital grants
programme, wliich, due to the good judge-
ment of the Minister of Agriculture and
Food, was expanded this past year. The
amount of dollars going into the capital
grants programme has increased from $4.2
million last year to $16.2 million until the
end of February this year, and from 5,000
applications to more tlian 25,000 applica-
tions this year. Some delay was experienced
in processing these grants due to the popu-
larity of the programme. However, they are
now caught up with, wluch we are most
pleased to see.

The capital grants programme applied to
drainage, and tliis leads me to another prob-
lem. An increase has been brought about by
the capital grants programme initiated by
this government, which in turn has brought
about other needs. First, there is a need to
bring the Municipal Drainage Act into the
proper ministry, and I believe that to be the
ministry of Agriculture and Food. The drain-
age work being performed in this province is
directly concerned vwth agriculture and the
increased productivity of agricultural lands.

Secondly, with the amoimt of drainage be-
ing performed by individual drainage con-
tractors, there is a need for legislation to
give the contractors a self-governing control
in their field. With the importance of the
drainage to tlie agricultural industry, I would
urge action on these matters.

Also worthy of note is Ontario's crop in-
surance programme. Further expansion of this
programme has made it by far the most ex-
tensive and comprehensive crop insurance
programme in Canada presently being con-
sidered by other provinces. The Minister of
Agriculture and Food can be justly proud of
his actions. I know, from appearing before
the Crop Insurance Commission with pro-
ducers, that they have found a spirit of co-
operation when making their suggestions to
improve plans, and I urge this continued co-
operation. The Crop Insurance Commission
this year will offer 13 plans covering 19 crops
and bare ground coverage. This has been a
most important programme developed for
Ontario agriculture.

As I view the overall Speech from the
Throne, I am confident that the deliberations
of this House will produce actions of import-
ance to this province and will be of major
benefit to the people of this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment
of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
House leader will tell us what he is con-
templating for tomorrow morning.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Yes. We will pro-
ceed tomorrow morning with the ordinary
business as it appears in the rules, and we
will be introducing a motion tomorrow morn-
ing with regard to the establishment of the
committees. That will constitute the business
for tomorrow.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Might I further ask if
the motion will just establish the committees,
or is the House going to have the report of
the striking committee at the same time?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I cannot answer that at
this moment, but I would hope that would
be the case.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 3:45 o'clock, p.m.

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 2, 1972

Toronto-centred region plan development of new international airport and area

community structure, statement by Mr. McKeough 39

Location of new airport and other transportation facilities, questions of Mr. McKeough
and Mr. Carton, Mr. R. F. Nixon, Mr. W. Hodgson, Mr. Deans, Mr. Singer,
Mr. W. Newman, Mr. Deacon, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Givens, Mr. Good, Mr. Kennedy,

Mr. Gaunt, Mr. Trimbrell 43

Trade tour of China, questions of Mr. White, Mr. R. F. Nixon 49

Lignite development by Ontario Hydro and involvement of private corporation, questions

of Mr. Davis, Mr. R. F. Nixon 49

Trade tour of China, questions of Mr. Grossman, Mr. R. F. Nixon 49

Housing situation in Ontario— breakdown of administrative functions, questions of

Mr. Davis, Mr. Lewis 49

Conceptual plan for Spadina Expressway lands and Buckminster Fuller's fee, questions of

Mr. Davis, Mr, Givens, Mr. Singer 49

INCO employment policy, questions of Mr. Guindon, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Martel, Mr. Deans,

Mr. Germa 50

Notice of layoflFs re Employment Standards Act, questions of Mr. Guindon, Mr. Lewis 51

Telegram Publishing Company report on employee relations, questions of Mr. Guindon,

Mr. Lewis 52

Great Lakes cleanup and Canada-U.S. negotiations, questions of Mr. Auld, Mr. Reid 52

Robarts Library and access by students, questions of Mr. Kerr, Mr. Laughren, Mr. Lewis,

Mr. Foulds 52

Ham radio operators and special licence plate, questions of Mr. Carton, Mr. B. Newman 53

Presenting annual reports, Mr. Yaremko 54

Expropriations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 54

Ethics of elected representatives, bill respecting, Mr. Shulman, first reading 54

Dancing schools, bill respecting, Mr. Drea, first reading 54

Debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. MacBeth, Mr. Eaton 54

Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. R. F. Nixon, agreed to 60

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Winkler, agreed to 60

No. 4

ONTARIO

Hesi^Iature of Ontario

©eiiateg

OFFICIAL REPORT — DAILY EDITION

Second Session of the Twenty-Ninth Legislature

Friday, March 3, 1972

Speaker: Honourable Allan Edward Renter
Qerk: Roderick Lewis, QC

THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO

1972

Price per session, $10.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue.) "%

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

The House met at 10 o'clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome
our guests this morning. In the west gallery
we have students from Bennington Heights
Public School, from Jarvis Collegiate Insti-
tute and from Burlington Central High
School. In the east gallery we have students
from Westmount Secondary School. A little
later on in the morning we will also have
students from Madonna High School and
from Oliver Stephens Senior Public School.

Statements by the ministry.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): There are
not many over there.

Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Revenue):
We've got quality over here.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): At least we are over here.

Mr. Ruston: Slim pickings though!

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): There are
not too many over there.

OHC FINANCIAL RECORDS

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Minister of Trade
and Development who, I believe, according
to the latest book, has something to say
about the Ontario Housing Corp.

Could he tell us why adequate financial
records for the fiscal year ended December
31, 1971, have not been made available to
the Provincial Auditor to enable him to deal
with these, particularly in view of the fact,
Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor made sionilar
complaints about the operation of Ontario
Housing Corp. in at least his last two reports
of 1969-1970 and of 1968-1969?

Hon. J. White (Minister of Trade and De-
velopment, and Tourism and Information):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and De-
velopment is no longer responsible for hous-
ing.

Frtoay, March 3, 1972

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, could I redirect
that question? If necessary I wdll repeat it to
whoever looks after Ontario Housing.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Don't
all jump up at once!

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It is
really too complicated for the ministers isn't
it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have
not seen the Provincial Auditor's report. I
think it was tabled yesterday if I recall. Am
I correct; was it tabled yesterday?

I haven't seen the report. I saw the report
in this morning's paper. I have an idea,
though, that the term to which the Provincial
Auditor is referring doesn't refer to the period
ending December— at least the fiscal year of
1971. I have an idea that it refers to a
previous year. I have an idea, too, that these
things have been straightened out since.

The auditorial notice, if the news report is
accurate, has pointed out that the Ontario
Housing Corp., being the fastest growing and
the best operated housing corporation in
North America, has been grov^dng at a rapid
pace and because of the very complex oper-
ations of building so many housing units in
such a short period of time has understand-
ably had some problems in relation to keep-
ing up with the require»ments, one of which
is what the auditor refers to. Certainly if
there are any shortcomings which don't
satisfy the Provincial Auditor we will see to
it that they are corrected in short order.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of sup-
plementary: Even though the minister may
not have had the opportunity of reading the
report that was tabled yesterday, could he
tell us why no action has been taken in On-
tario Housing or by the responsible minister
in relation to the reports that the Auditor
made in 1968-1969 when he said:

The audit and the report thereon of
Ontario Housing Corp. for the year ended
December 31, 1968, was not completed
until September 12, 1969. Although this
date is an improvement over the previous
year I am still concerned about the delay
in closing the books and the submission of
statements for audit.

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

And the year 1969-1970, which the minister
has had available to him for 15 months or
more:

In my report of November 28, 1969, I
expressed my concern about the existing
accounting problem in Ontario Housing
and the delay in its closing of the books
and the submission of statements for audit.

An hon. member: Poor management!

Mr. Singer: And he goes on.

How many times, Mr. Speaker, does the
Provincial Auditor have to complain to the
inhabitants of the front benches that every-
thing is not being done in accordance with
the way that would allow him to report prop-
erly to the House about the financial affairs
of Ontario Housing? Why is the government
not able to so order its aflFairs in this very
large spending appendage of the government
so that the auditor can properly report to
the people of the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as I
pointed out, I haven't read the Provincial
Auditor's report. I intend to read it thor-
oughly. I intend to have a discussion with the
Provincial Auditor and my oflScials and find
out if the condition to which he refers still
exists. If it does still exist, Mr. Speaker, I
assure this House that these matters will be
cleared up.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): By way
of supplementary, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Singer: No, I am not quite through.

By way of supplementary: Has the minis-
ter or anyone concerned with public housing
read the Auditor's report for the year 1969-
1970 or for the year 1968-1969? If so, why
didn't they take action before this current
report?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think
I mentioned at the outset that I recalled
last year having a discussion on some of
these matters which came up in the previous
Auditor's report. It was my understanding
that, for the period which is referred to in
the news report, these matters had been
cleared up to the satisfaction of the auditor.

Mr. MacDonald: Obviously not!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, it is not as
obvious to me as it may be to the hon.
member.

Mr. MacDonald: That is our problem with
the minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For example, the
news report states that in his report for the
financial year ending March 31, 1971, Mr.
Spence says he has again had difiiculty in
getting financial statements and so on. For
instance-
Mr. Singer: He says "problems continue."
Those were the first two words.

Mr. MacDonald: Why didn't the minister
move then? Don't be so dense.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For instance, it is
not clear to me from the report that the
Auditor is referring to the financial year
ended March 31 in respect of—

Mr. Singer: Instead of reading the news-
paper report why doesn't the minister read
the official document?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because I haven't
had it yet.

Mr. Singer: Oh come on!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was tabled yester-
day. I just haven't had a chance to read the
Auditor's report.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Singer: They have it months before.

Mr. Grossman: No, we don't have it
months before. The Provincial Auditor's re-
port is not available to the ministers one
minute before it is tabled in this House.

Mr. Singer: Well, the minister had it for
12 hours!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I never had it for 12
hours. In fact, I still haven't seen it. And
even if I had had it yesterday, Mr. Speaker,
I would not have had the opportunity to be
in a position to discuss it.

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn't have to
be defiant about it. One day he will read it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Even if I had had it

yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't have
come to the quick conclusions that the hon.
member opposite may have come to; I
would have then asked to meet with the
Provincial Auditor and with my staff and
gone over this thoroughly before I came to
the kind of quick conclusions the hon. mem-
ber has come to.

Mr. Singer: Every year for three years it
has been the same thing!

MARCH 3, 1972

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I don't recall
ever discussing this in the House before or
being asked this in the House. I don't know
what else the hon. member would like ex-
cept an assurance that anything in the re-
port which does not satisfy the Provincial
Auditor will be thoroughly investigated and
will be straightened out in accordance with
the wishes of the Provincial Auditor.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary,
without pursuing it too far, if the minister can
find approximately 30 seconds to direct him-
self to pages 14 and 37 of the report, he
will see that it does extend to March 31,
1971— it is entirely within his purview as
minister— and that it is rather more serious
than simply bringing things into line. The
auditior says, "I am also concerned about
the-

Mr. Speaker: What is the question you
are going to ask?

Mr. Lewis: I am asking a question based
on this sentence of the report, "I am also
concerned about the number of errors in the
accounting entries and the weakness in the
controls over equipment and appliances,
etc."

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is not
asking a question, he is making a statement.

Mr. Lewis: How is that allowed to
happen in what is essentially a Crown cor-
poration over which the minister has had
purview for some considerable time. Apart
from the actual procedures of auditing, how
was it managed that there are weaknesses in
accounting procedures and questions about
purchases and equipment? How is it that the
corporation can run in a manner quite so
ineflBcient?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don't
agree, of course, that the management of
OHC is inefficient. All I can say to the hon.
member again is that there is no use me
prejudging what has happened and why it
has happened, having regard for the fact
that I have just stated I am going to
discuss these matters with the Provincial
Auditor and with the staff, and if in fact
there have been what the hon. member
refers to as ineflBciencies, they will be
straightened out.

Mr. Singer: But the Auditor refers to in-
efficiencies.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right then, I
will discuss it with the Auditor and what-
ever is required by the Auditor, 1 can
assure the hon. members will be carried
out.

Mr. Singer: He has asked for it for three
years and he still can't get it.

Mr. Speaker, despite the galaxy of titles
and new jobs and so on. It is very diflBcult—
oh, here comes the Minister of Public Works;
I have a question for him.

Interjections by hon. members.

LAND PURCHASE IN TORONTO

Mr. Singer: Could the Minister of Public
Works advise us what use was served the
people of Ontario when the Department of
Public Works purchased for $800,000 a
parcel of land on Bloor Street, having 100
feet frontage and which, according to the
Auditor and insofar as he has been able to
ascertain, has a right-of-way on it in favour
of the University of Toronto which allows a
parking facility to that institution for 31
cars; and as far as the Auditor can ascertain
is to be used by the city of Toronto and by
the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
for recreation purposes?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, this parcel of land
was purchased by my department as land
for future expansion of the building next
door. The land was appraised by outside
appraisers; the easement to the University
of Toronto was taken into consideration in
the setting of the appraised price.

Mr. Singer: Mr, Speaker, could the minis-
ter explain to us, by way of supplementary,
why the government would purchase a piece
of land to supplement holdings next door,
when the government doesn't even own the
holdings but in fact leases them.

Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
That is all.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I understand
under the terms of the lease that that build-
ing will be owoied by the government at the
expiration of tlie lease and this—

Mr. Lewis: Long range planning— lease for
99 years!

Hon. Mr. Snow: —and this lot is available
for expansion of that building at any time in
the meantime.

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, could the minis-
ter tell us why it was bought at the present
time, and if there are in fact any plans for
such expansion; and what possible use the
present investment of $800,000 is going to be
except to provide a continued parking space
for 31 cars for the University of Toronto?

Mr. B. Newman: That is over $20,000 a
car.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, of course
the land was bought when the land was
available to protect it for future expansion.
The easement for the parking of 31 cars can
be accommodated within a much larger park-
ing area that would probably be built in the
new structure, when it is ouilt. As I have
stated before, in the appraisals of this prop-
erty it was taken into consideration that
there was this easement for the parking of 31
cars.

Mr. Singer: From whom was the land pur-
chased?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I can't tell
the member that. I can get that information
for the hon. member.

Mr. Singer: Who did the appraisal?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don't have the name
immediately but I can get the name of the
appraiser.

Mr. Singer: Could the minister advise us
as to the earliest date on which it is likely
the province will make any other use of the
land than for parking and recreation pur-
poses and why it was necessary to be done
now?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will investigate, Mr.
Speaker, as to whether there is any date set
as to when the land will be built upon.

I think I did say that the land was bought
at the time it was bought because it was
available and to have it in government hands
for future use rather than to have it bought
by a private developer, and not have it avail-
able in the future.

Mr. Singer: By way of final supplementary
on that point: Could the minister advise us
why the Auditor had to say in his report "as
far as I am able to determine"? Did the min-
ister not make available to the Auditor the
information that the Auditor asked for? And
why was the Auditor forced to use as vague
.a phrase as "as far as I am able to deter-
mine," when one would have imagined that
the minister's ofiBcials would have given a
complete statement to the Auditor of the
intended use for this land?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, of course, I
can't answer that question as to why the
Auditor made that remark. I am sure the
information that he asked for from my
officials was made available to him— the
appraisal and so on. I will investigate this—

Mr. Huston: Sounds like a shady deal!

Hon. Mr. Snow: —to see whether the
Auditor asked for any information-
Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Sounded
like Eddie; but it wasn't.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have questions
for the Premier (Mr. Davis) and for the mem-
ber for Chatham (Mr. McKeough) and for a
couple of other ministers who aren't here for
the moment. We'll let them go.

Hon. Mr. White: Well it is just as well,
because—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West.

Mr. Singer: The hon. minister has no re-
sponsibility so nobody bothers with him
anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Orderl
Interjections by hon. members.

PROPOSED GAS PRICE INCREASE

Mr. Lewis: I'll bother with him before the
question period is over, and make him feel a
little better! Can I ask a question first of the
Minister of Natural Resources?

What right has Consumers' Gas to an-
nounce an intention to increase rates at a
level of four per cent before the end of this
year, based on the National Energy Board
increase granted to TransCanada PipeLines,
without a hearing before the Ontario Energy
Board? When is that hearing to take place,
and what will the position of the govern-
ment be?

Hon. L. Bemier (Minister of Mines and
Northern Affairs, and Lands and Forests):
Well, Mr. Speaker, I know of no announce-
ment that has been made by Consumers' Gas
in regard to an increase. I think that the
member is fully aware that such an increase
has to be heard before the Ontario Energy
Board. I have no knowledge of when that
hearing would be at this point in time, but
I would be glad to check into it and let the
hon. member know.

MARCH 3, 1972

Mr. Lewis: Rather recently a spokesman
for Consumers' Gas indicated that we would
pay four per cent more by the end of the
year as a result of the TransCanada return
increase. But the minister is guaranteeing
a hearing before the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Certainly. This has to
be because any increase that is granted at
the federal level for an increase at the
provincial level has to be approved by the
Ontario Energy Board.

Mr. Lewis: What gives Consumers' Gas,
then, the right to say that residential
natural gas consumers in Toronto are likely
to pay about four per cent more by the end
of this year as a result? What right do they
have to make that kind of statement before
coming before the Board?

Mr. MacDonald: Is the Energy Board in
their pocket?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I certainly can't speak
for Consumers' Gas. They can make all
kinds of statements. I am sure they do. This
is up to them. But from where we stand it
has to come before the Ontario Energy
Board.

Mr. Lewis: Has the government of On-
tario thought of making submissions to the
government of Alberta in its present hearings
over the price at the wellhead, which will
ultimately determine the price to the con-
sumer in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I think we have repre-
sentation at those hearings. Maybe the Min-
ister of Justice (Mr. Bales) would be better
qualified to answer that than I would.

Mr. Lewis: Sorry. Minister of what?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Minister of Justice.

Mr. Lewis: Minister of Justice.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: It would go through
him.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary,
does the minister know whether the govern-
ment of Ontario has made an actual inter-
vention before the hearings in Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am not certain. I
think if the member directed that question
to the Minister of Justice he would be glad
to answer it.

PROVINCIAL PARK
IN BRUCE PENINSULA

Mr. Lewis: It is diflBcult under the cir-
cumstances. I hope the Minister of Health
(Mr. Potter) returns to the House, Mr.
Speaker. I am hoping he hears me wherever
he is. I have some questions for him.

In the interim I have a question, of the
Minister of Environment first, I think. How
far have plans proceeded in the government
to purchase the acreage— I believe as much
as 90,000 acres— in the Bruce Peninsula for
the use of a provincial parkland?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of the
Environment): I think that the hon. member
should direct that question to the Minister
of Natural Resources. We are not in the
parks business.

Mr. Lewis: Fair enough! He will then
direct me to Public Works that does the
actual purchase. I leave it with them.

Mr. Singer: Here comes the Minister of
Health.

Mr. Lewis: Let me ask the Minister of
Public Works at what stage are the plans
for the acquisition of 90,000 acres for park-
land on the escarpment in the Bruce
Peninsula?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, with regard
to the particular land in the Bruce Peninsula
I believe that the hon. member is inquiring
about, I do not know the exact details at
this moment. We are, of course, purchasing
land continuously on the Niagara Escarp-
ment at different locations.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is
the minister saying that it has not come to
his attention that the government wants to
purchase a large acreage for the purpose
of a park in the Bruce Peninsula?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not aware of any
request for us to purchase that specific parcel
of land, but we are continuously purchasing
land in the Niagara Escarpment.

Mr. Singer: Yes, like on Bloor Street—
$800,000.

Mr. Lewis: Excuse me. A question of the
Minister of Natural Resources: Is it the in-
tention of the government to purchase that
large acreage, of which much has been
spoken, in the Bruce Peninsula for the pur-
poses of a provincial park?

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Speaker, if I may
answer that and assist my colleague, the
Minister of Public Works, in this particular
matter; it is the intention eventually to ac-
quire for public recreational use approxi-
mately 90,000 acres of land in four townships
in the Bruce Peninsula; but not totally a
provincial park. We have two provincial
parks in that particular area. I think mem-
bers are aware of that beautiful underwater
park that was recently declared at the tip
of the Bruce Peninsula. There is a small
national park on the very tip of the Bruce
Peninsula— an island. Just off the point— or
inside the point— we have a provincial park
which may be increased in size. But it's not
the intention to put the whole 90,000 acres
into provincial parks when it is purchased.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Has
the minister frozen land costs in the area,
since it will be a matter of public acquisition
now announced?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: No. I don't think there
is any freeze on the land at all. I think the
member is aware that we will be purchasing
land up and down the escarpment and all
over various areas. To my knowledge there
is no freeze.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is aware
of what has happened?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: We are aware of the land in-
flation as well.

Can the minister give us a timetable on the
purchase of this land?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: No. I have no time-
table right at this time, Mr. Speaker. This
will be, of course, on a priority basis.

Mr. Singer: The minister is making an-
other examination?

Mr. Lewis: By way of a question to the
Minister of Public Works. What purchase-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-
Bruce had a supplementary, unless the mem-
ber has asked the question.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): My supple-
mentary, Mr. Speaker, was taken by the
other member.

Mr. Speaker: Very good; the hon. member
for Scarborough West.

LAND PURCHASES ON NIAGARA
ESCARPMENT

Mr. Lewis: One question of the Minister
of Public Works: What purchases that he is
aware of have recently been made of parcels
of the Niagara Escarpment?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the govern-
ment has purchased a total of 19,819 acres
of land on the escarpment totally.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I—

Hon. Mr. Snow: There have been 2,950
acres purchased in this fiscal year to date.

Mr. Lewis: The minister means the fiscal
year that ends March 31, 1972?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is right.

Mr. Lewis: Right. Can he indicate to us
where that acreage has been purchased and
when it was purchased?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do not
have the exact dates of the purchases but
they are in about 10 or 12 different town-
ships. As I say, the total purchases in this
fiscal year are 2,950 acres.

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister table that in-
formation?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can make this available.

REPORT ON MENTAL HEALTH
OF ADOLESCENTS

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

A question of the Minister of Health, Mr.
Speaker: Is the Minister of Health aware that
there has been circulating in his department
for almost 20 months a report from the
children's special services branch, entitled
"Treating the Untreatable Adolescent," chron-
icling a crisis without precedent in the area
of mental health for adolescents in this prov-
ince?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Health):
That must be one I haven't seen yet. I'll look
into it for the member.

Mr. Lewis: Right. May I ask the minister
whether he has been informed that of the 10
programmes submitted from the children's
services branch, mental health division, the
Department of Health, to Treasury Board for
expansion or new projects in this last fiscal
year, all 10 were turned down?

Hon. Mr. Potter: No, Mr. Speaker. I
haven't been informed of that at all.

MARCH 3, 1972

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister aware that in
the body of the report of the document I
refer to— he probably isn't— might he make
himself aware that the mental health legisla-
tion for children which this House has passed
has forced the Children's Aid Societies into
an even more invidious position than existed
before the legislation? In fact the backlog,
the waiting lists and the facilities, are greater
in one instance and fewer in the other than
prior to the change in legislation.

Hon. Mr.- Potter: It is pretty obvious, Mr.
Speaker, that I am not aware, because I'm not
aware of the report that's been mentioned.
Perhaps I could tell the hon. member that
the whole mental health programme is being
reviewed by myself and by the director of
the mental health services in the province.

It is our intention to treat mental health
the same as any other health problem is
treated in the province. I don't think that it
should be segregated as a different entity at
all. It is our intention to see that this be-
comes much more community-oriented to get
away from our large institutions as we ve
known them in the past, and try to get the
care and treatment of mental health into the
community the same as the treatment of phys-
ical illnesses.

Mr. Lewis: One last supplementary: When
the minister has seen the report, read it and
informed himself of it, would he explain to
the House why all the recommendations in
the report to cope with this extraordinary
problem in Ontario have not been imple-
mented, have gone unheeded by his depart-
ment—all those recommendations paralleling
what the minister allegedly wishes to pursue?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Of course, Mr. Speaker,
it would be impossible for me to explain
what went on in the past and why it was
turned down in the past. All I can do is
assure the member that I will read it. I will
be prepared to discuss it with him when I
have.

Mr. MacDonald: We look forward to that
with great anticipation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-
Forest Hill.

ONTARIO PLACE DEFICIT

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Minister of Trade
and Development. Can the minister inform
the Legislature how much of the multi-
million-dollar deficit he had on Ontario Place

he expects to make up by increasing the
price of admission to Ontario Place?

An hon. member: Hot dogs at 25 cents.

Hon. Mr. White: I will have to take that
question as notice.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has taken
that question as notice. The hon. member for
High Park.

ALLEGED DISTURBANCE AT
MILLBROOK

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question of the Minister of Cor-
rectional Services. I'd like to ask the minister
about the recent reported riot at Millbrook.
What was the cause of the riot? What is be-
ing done to prevent future riots? How many
of the rioters were shipped out to other
prisons?

And, most important, would the minister
not agree with me that by shipping out his
hard-core prisoners from Millbrook, which is
supposed to hold hard-core prisoners, to other
jails, he is just spreading the dissension?

Hon. C. J. S. Apps (Minister of Cor-
rectional Services): Mr. Speaker, I have no
knowledge of a riot in Millbrook.

Mr. Shulman: On January 24.

Hon. Mr. Apps: I don't think the member
could consider that as a riot. There may be
some disturbances in Millbrook and if it comes
to our attention that there may be some
problems, what we normally do is to try to
make sure that those who may be fomenting
the unrest are sent out to various other
institutions in the province to try to prevent
what might turn out to be a riot.

Mr. Shulman: Then as a supplementary, if
I may, Mr. Speaker: In the case of this non-
riot, why was it necessary to send so many
prisoners out in an emergency and so
quickly; and would the minister not agree
with me that if these troublemakers are sent
to other prisons he is just spreading the
trouble?

Hon. Mr. Apps: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't
think that is so, because they are spread out
in different areas and they are not able to
get together. As the member will realize, we
try to prevent anything that might develop
into a riot and we found this to be a very
effective way of doing it.

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Shulman: As a final supplementary, if
I may: Would the minister call the situation
where 75 per cent of the working force re-
fuses to go to work a minor disturbance?

Hon. Mr. Apps: I wouldn't call it a riot,
Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Huston: Call it a strike!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A sit-down strike.

Hon. Mr. Apps: There might have been
some unrest, but I don't think it developed
into a riot.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor- Walkerville.

CONTROL OF TAX CONSULTANTS

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question of the Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs. In view of the
increased number of organizations and in-
dividuals dealing with the filing of income
tax forms and so forth, is the government
considering any type of legislation, regula-
tion or control to protect the public?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in-
come tax being a federal responsibility, we
have not seen fit to control this group of
people; but I appreciate the thought ex-
pressed in the question and I will look into
the matter for the hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: All sugar this morning.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thun-
der Bay.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
NORTHERN AFFAIRS

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a
question to the Minister of Natural Re-
resources. Can he explain why the respon-
sibility for northern affairs has been removed
from the north-based Minister of Natural
Resources and placed with the Minister of
Finance and Intergovernmental Affairs when
the Premier clearly indicated or promised that
particular responsibility would remain with
the northern minister?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Speaker, I am most
pleased that the member for Thunder Bay
has asked this question because I know he
appreciates how much the northern affairs
oflBcers are doing in northern Ontario.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): What a
lot of nonsense! That's one of 29 cases—

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I'm just concerned for
the north.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: The member is quite
right. The Committee on Government Pro-
ductivity did suggest that it should go to
another department of government, but I can
reassure the member for Thunder Bay that
this decision has not been firmed as yet and
the organization known as the northern affairs
branch in imy department will remain in my
department until the government makes a
decision. There is no decision made as yet.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary.

Mr. Stokes: As a supplementary, I would
like to refer to the report that was just put
on our desks yesterday afternoon and signed
by this very minister saying: "It is expected
that the northern affairs branch will become
part of the new Ministry of Finance and
Intergovernmental Affairs"— and the minister
signed it.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes.

Mr. Stokes: Now, that's pretty firm.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: That has changed.

Mr. Stokes: It's changed, too, for the
report.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: If it didn't change with the
report, it changed this morning as a result of
the question.

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

Mr. Reid: A supplementary question of the
minister, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister
realize that we in the north consider this a
downgrading of the department rather than
an improvement?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Oh, I don't think it is,
Mr. Speaker— not at all. The northern affairs
branch will get stronger instead of weaker.

Mr. Speaker: Any further supplementaries?

Mr. J. F. Goulds (Port Arthur): A supple-
mentary: I would like to ask the minister
why the northern affairs branch was assigned
to a northern minister such a relatively short
time before the events of October, 1971, and
why so soon after the events of October,

MARCH 3, 1972

1971, it was assigned to a minister whose
main concern is not the north?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Speaker, I think I
have already answered that question. The
decision by the government that tliis branch
should be moved is not firm. It is that plain
and simple.

Mr. Speaker: Any further supplementaries?
The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

ESSEX COUNTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Minister of Education. When does
the minister plan to announce a decision on
the request of the Essex county board of
education to approve or disapprove of their
action with regard to the director of educa-
tion in the county of Essex?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, I would be ready to offer a
decision very soon in this matter were it not
for the fact that there is a case before the
courts.

As the hon. member is aware, the director
who has been suspended presently has a
suit in the courts against the board and the
legal advice I have at this time is that we
should say nothing in regard to this case.

Mr. Ruston: As a supplementary, Mr.
Speaker: In what status does the present
director of education stand then, after the
county passed a resolution dismissing him?
Who now pays his salary or is he on salary?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I will be
happy to get that information for the hon.
member. I asked this very question myself
and I am not sure at this point in time.

I think the Act is rather unsure in this
particular matter. I would like to have it
checked out and I will get the answer for
both the hon. member and the Essex county
board.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East, if there are no further supple-
mentaries.

ELIGIBILITY FOR HOUSING
ASSISTANCE

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of
Revenue: In view of the fact that the board
of the Sudbury Housing Authority has issued
instructions to its staff that no one outside

the limits of the city of Sudbury is to be
considered for either senior citizen housing or
otherwise, would the minister look into this
matter? Would he bring to the Sudbury
board's attention that, first, I think it is
discriminatory and, second, because the
province and the federal government pay the
bill for this, all residents in that area should
be entitled to a house based on needs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I shall
be glad to look into this matter and provide
the hon. member with the information as
soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-
Forest Hill.

COST OF ONTARIO PLACE

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, my question is
a supplementary of the Minister of Trade and
Development but I see he is on the verge
of leaving the chamber. Has he gone? May
I have the attention of the Minister of Trade
and Development, please? He will want to
take notice of this question, I am sure.

Could the minister tell the House what the
final cost of Ontario Place is and why there
is a considerable discrepancy now between
the original forecast and expenditures al-
ready made?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, I will take
the question as notice.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minis-
ter catches up with his homework quickly be-
cause some of these answers are very urgent.

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: He can't give a supple-
mentary.

Mr. Givens: In January, there was a re-
port-
Mr. Speaker: Order! There can be no
supplementary when a question is taken as
notice; and the hon. member is making a
statement.

The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. W. Hodgson: No wonder the member
didn't get along in Ottawa if this is the way
he carries on.

DE HAVILLAND LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, in
the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Guindon), I would like to direct a question

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

to the Premier. In view of the fact that
the industrial dispute at the de Havilland
plant in North York has now entered its
seventh week without serious bargaining,
would the Premier initiate action to bring the
two parties together around the bargaining
table?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker,
I will discuss this matter with the Minister
of Labour.

Mr. Lewis: It will help to build the STOL
aircraft for the Premier's airport if he has
the plant working.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not in my riding.

COST OF WELFARE PAYMENTS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
of the Minister of Social and Family Serv-
ices. Has the minister's department done any
studies as to the costs undertaken by the
province in respect to welfare payments to
people whose unemplo5anent insurance pay-
ments have been delayed? Have there been
any studies?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I am sure this
question of delays in unemployment insur-
ance has caused a lot of problems to all the
members. It has caused severe financial
problems to the municipalities and to the
province. Our department has been working
with the federal Department of Manpower
to establish an arrangement whereby moneys
that have been paid by municipalities and
by this government could be recovered for
welfare payments that have been made.

This is a problem, of course, that is
Canada-wide. Every province is experiencing
this same problem. This is due, I believe, to
the new Unemployment Insurance Act that
was introduced last year. But we are making
progress and we hope to be able to have an
agreement soon, whereby we and the munici-
palities will be able to recover these sums of
money.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker;
I appreciate the recovery attempt, but I am
wondering, does the minister have any idea
what the cost is up until this point— the
added cost?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We in the department
know that it is a substantial amount of
money. It is in the neighbourhood of $2
million or $3 million, if not more.

Mr. Gaunt: Is it $3 million, $4 million?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, it is about that,
in that neighbourhood. As I said we are in
the process with the federal government of
trying to recover these advanced sums of
money.

Mr. Gaunt: If the negotiations with the
federal government work out, what percent-
age of that money does the minister antici-
pate recovering?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I think, Mr. Speaker,
it would be rather difiicult to answer this
question at this time.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker
no, it is a new question.

Mr. Speaker: Further supplementaries?

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

Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the hon. min-
ister if directives have gone to the welfare
departments in municipalities that they
should give priorities or pay attention to
those who are having difficulty collecting
unemployment insurance payments, because
I know in my own community a lot of them,
did not know that they could go to the local
Department of Social and Family Services.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Why
doesn't the member get after Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am just speaking from
my own experience in my own riding, Mr.
Speaker. This has been done there, so I am
sure this must be general throughout the
province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth.

HAMILTON HARBOUR PRESERVATION

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, a question of the
Prime Minister: Can the Prime Minister in-
dicate why his government has refused to
involve itself in the dispute over the preserva-
tion of the Hamilton harbour, since it is vital
to all of the tertiary treatment plants for
both industrial and municipal purposes in
that area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is a
matter that really should be raised with the
Minister of the Environment. As I recall, the

MARCH 3, 1972

minister made some observations as to the
constitutional position of the province,
whether in fact we could do anything in this
regard. I certainly will discuss it with him.
Perhaps the hon. member would like to direct
the question to him on Monday. But my
recollection is there is a constitutional
problem,

Mr. Speaker: The hon, member for Wel-
land South,

LAKE ERIE COTTAGERS
LAND RIGHTS RULING

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A question of the government leader: Will
the minister inform the House as to whether
or not the government will appeal a decision
of the Ontario Court of Appeal of February
3, 1972, pertaining to certain cottage owners
on Lake Erie, ruling that they possess and
control the lands right to the water's edge?

Mr. Singer: Nobody knows who is respons-
ible for that.

An hon. member: That's the way the
question is,

Mr. Haggerty: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, when
I said the government leader, I thought there
would be about five or six of them jump up.
But perhaps I should direct it directly to
the Prime Minister, or the Premier of the
province— I should phrase it that way.

Would the Prime Minister inform the
House as to whether or not the government
will appeal the decision of Ontario Court of
Appeal of February 3, 1972, pertaining to
certain cottage owners on Lake Erie, ruling
that they possess and control the lands right
to the water's edge?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this matter
is being discussed by the government. I hope
to be in a position to inform the House some
time very soon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Windsor West (Mr. Bounsall) I believe has
been trying to gain the floor. If not, the hon.
member for Sandwich-Riverside.

GOVERNMENT TREATMENT
OF CERTAIN RIDINGS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Premier: When a
city or a riding does not elect a government
supporter in a provincial election, it is—

An hon. member: They have made a mis-
take.

Mr. Burr: That is the point of my question.
Is it the government's policy to punish that
area by withholding loans, grants and other
favours?

Mr. Singer: It certainly is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this govern-
ment treats all ridings and all people in this
province in equitable and similar fashion.

An hon. member: Amen!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Amen!

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary
question: Would the Premier please notify
the Progressive Conservative candidates in
Essex county of this policy so that they will
not imply that he has a different policy?

Mr. MacDonald: Reply; repeat the tradi-
tional attitude.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr, Speaker, if an indivi-
dual in Essex county or in the city of
Windsor who was, or may be in the future,
a candidate for the party that I lead,
indicates that his or her participation here at
Queen's Park might be to the general benefit
of that community as their ability might dic-
tate, far be it from me to discourage that
kind of discussion,

Mr. MacDonald: Tra la! It is only a
frustration of the democratic process duly
recorded at election time.

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

IMPROPER PROMOTION

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): A ques-
tion of the Minister of Financial and Com-
mercial Affairs: Have steps been taken by
the Ontario Securities Commission to re-
cover, for the victims, the profits made by
R. G, Johnston, through improper promotion
of shares of the United Investment Life
Insurance Company, for which his former
employer was recently reprimanded by the
commission?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have
not been informed of this particular incident.
I shall inquire from my officials and reply to
the hon. member.

Mr. Shulman: Doesn't the minister read
the newspapers?

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor West.

QUEEN'S PRINTER

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A ques-
tion of the Provincial Secretary or whoever
can answer for the Queen's Printer, Mr.
Speaker: Will the minister ensure, under the
same arrangement by which the Queen's
Printer sends out all government documents
printed by him to the full depository libraries
in Ontario, that sufficient numbers of other
government publications not printed by the
Queen's Printer can be received by him for
the same and similar distribution?

Mr. Deans: Not all at one time now,
fellows. The member better tell him who it
is.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the Queen's
Printer falls under the jurisdiction of my
department. I don't know exactly what pub-
lications the hon. member is referring to, but
I do know that we do have a distribution
of publications, such as annual reports of
departments, to the libraries. If the member
would like to give me more detailed infor-
mation as to what publications he is referring
to, I will certainly get the answer for him.

Mr. Bounsall: A further supplementary-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The oral question
period has now expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.
Motions.

Hon. Mr. Davis moves, seconded by Mr.
Singer, that Mr. Rowe, member for the elec-
toral district of Northumberland, and Mr. W.
Hodgson, member for the electoral district
of York North, be appointed chairman and
deputy chairman, respectively, of the com-
mittees of the whole House for the present
session.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Davis moves that the standing
committees of the House for the present
session be appointed as follows:

1. Procedural affairs committee.

2. Administration of justice committee.

Committees 1 and 2, combined under the
chairmanship of the chairman of the admin-
istration of justice committee, will function
as the private bills committee.

3. Social development committee.

4. Resources development committee.

5. Estimates committee.

6. Public accounts committee.

7. Regulations committee.

Which said coonmittees shall severally be
empowered to examine and inquire into all
such matters and things as may be referred
to them by the House, provided that all
boards and commissions are hereby referred
to committees numbers 1 to 4 in accordance
with the policy areas indicated by the titles
of the said committees.

Public accounts for the last fiscal year are
hereby referred to the public accounts com-
mittee and all regulations to the regulations
committee.

All standing committees shall report from
time to time their observations and opinions
on the matters referred to them, with power
to send for persons, papers and records.

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

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has
put forward the same short motion that
governed committee proceedings in the last
session of the last Parliament. This was tried
as a bold new experiment, but I don't think
it was any improvement at all over what had
existed before. What we came to in fact,
and what the Premier suggests again, is a
stylized and formalized committee system
that is completely and absolutely in control
of the government, is used only for casual
examination of statutes and has no ability
to generally examine the performance of
government departments.

The putting of this motion today— and the
motion will carry, Mr. Speaker— continues the
denigration of the role of the private member
in this Legislature. We have no ability really
to inquire, when the House is in session,^
into the functioning of various departments.
An example of this today is the apparent
ignorance— and I accept it; the minister said
so— of the minister responsible for the On-
tario Housing Corp. of what has gone on in
relation to the reporting of its financial
affairs.

We can't get at it in the question period.
We are not going to be able to get at it, Mr.
Speaker, in the few minutes that might be
allocated by the particular committee to
which is allotted the affairs of Ontario Hous-
ing.

We have a myriad of government agencies
and it has become almost like the ritual

MARCH 3, 1972

rain dance. They come in every year and
the minister has a fixed statetment which he
reads about the wonders that he and his
agency perform. He is surrounded by his PR
men and by the people with ghb answers.

Under our committee system, we never
really have the ability to examine what goes
on in these various government agencies, and
we are not able to get it in the House any
longer because, by this game of tick-tack-toe
or shufflleboard, whatever it is called, we
can't get any consistency in responsibility
in the Treasury benches. We can't get any-
one who feels that he has a duty and a
responsibility to answer. And something
brand new has been added: The Premier
every now and then in the last day or two
has become sufiBciently embarrassed to stand
up and say, "Let me answer that, because
I am not sure which one of my 22 ministers
or five parliamentary assistants is in fact
going to be able to do it."

This is the best the Premier can come
to. He has got a brand-new bright, man-
agement-conceived, supposedly efiBcient sys-
tem of runnning, not the Legislature but of
running government, and he wants to leave
out the private member. This just isn't good
enough.

We don't have research facilities attached
to these committees. We don't have people
to advise the private members, and the
private members have no ability at all to
get at what government is supposed to be
doing.

Mr. Speaker, the motion is really meaning-
less. It allows the government to continue to
process matters through. It allows no new
inquiry, no real inquiry, and one must won-
der how long the Premier and his colleagues
are going to continue to fool, or believe they
are fooling, the people, who believe that this
Legislature is supposed to be a meaningful
place where debate and inquiry can be con-
ducted. It isn't, and the introduction of this
motion today adds to the continuing dis-
regard of the Legislature by the government.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more. I
don't think there is any point in continuing
this debate. We have had it year after year.
The government religiously resists the kind
of suggestions that have come forward. I am
putting them forward again, but I know they
are falling on deaf ears, and with that I will
let this motion move.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am of equally
faint heart, but for a moment or two I want
to deal with the motion.

I have some small reason to hope that the
commission, which is referred to in the
Throne Speech, may treat seriously of the
dilemma of the private member in this Legis-
lature and may treat seriously of the need to
entirely overhaul and remodel the committee
system; and without prejudging that commis-
sion I assume that in the very near future it
will emerge and something will come of its
proposals and recommendations.

In the interim, I am sorry that the Premier
has seen necessary to reconfirm a pattern
which is clearly in disrepute in the Legisla-
ture. With great respect to him, Mr. Speaker,
the committee system to which we have
been subjected in the last year or so has not
worked effectively, has spawned enormous
frustration among the members and simply
patterning it again on precisely the same
principle will do the same for this session,
which is unnecessary and a little demeaning.

I want to suggest the four areas where we
should obviously alter that committee sys-
tem and move an amendment to that effect,
because I think these things should be put:

1. It is wrong that the committee should
work only at the direction of the House. The
committee should be seen to have enough
integrity of their own and capacity of their
own to direct their own affairs at those times
when the House does not do so. It is an
absurd slur on the capacity of a committee,
made up as it is dominantly by government
members, to suggest that it cannot explore
matters of its own choosing. It is an unduly
arbitrary exercise of executive authority to
keep those committees knuckled under gov-
ernment, and to deny the committee the right
to investigate things which may cause embar-
rassment to government, although in fact all
they would do would be to bring more
information before the public.

2. The committee must have the right to
engage counsel, must have the right to en-
gage expert staff, and to pay them.

3. It is obvious that we must have unlimit-
ed substitution of members on those com-
mittees. I do not know what it is about the
government which refuses to allow members
of this Legislature to substitute freely on
committees with advance notice. The prin-
ciple of continuity which the government
argues is, of course, destroyed if the member
isn't there.

When we have committees sitting jointly
and severally, as has happened last session-
it was a real shambles— at least it should be
possible for members of the same party to

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

substitute, so that the same philosophic point
of view can continue to be made and the
things which parties have shared in caucus
can continue to be put. The government is
stubborn and obstinate in a way which is
really infantile in refusing to allow the simple
substitution of members on these committees
so that we can always have a particular
viewpoint represented.

4. Finally, of course, to make them rele-
vant, they should be reported in Hansard.
That would not be an undue procedure; it
would make sense, because the standing com-
mittees make sense.

I would therefore move, seconded by Mr.
Deans, that the resolution be amended by
adding thereto the following clauses:

1. Which said committees shall severally
be empowered on their own initiative when
not otherwise engaged on matters and things
referred to them by the House, to examine
and inquire into such further and other mat-
ters and things related to, or in any way
touching upon, matters and things within
their competence as they in their discretion
may determine.

2. Which said committees shall severally
be empowered to engage counsel and from
time to time such other expert staff as may
be necessary to enable the committees to
discharge their responsibilities.

3. That unlimited substitution of the said
committees be permitted with notice to the
chairman to be given prior to or at the
beginning of each meeting.

4. That the proceedings of the committees
be reported by Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, just to reply
very briefly to the observations. As the mem-
ber for Downsview has observed, we have
discussed this issue really for the past several
years. I think it is fair to state that from my
observations in the past two years the com-
mittee structure, while still not achieving per-
fection—and I am the first to recognize this—
has been a distinct improvement over the
procedures of former years. I think we have
made progress, but I am the first to admit
there is work yet to be done.

Of course, this was one of the reasons for
the statement in the Throne Speech related
to the commission. There is no doubt that
this will be one of the areas they will be
assessing and reviewing with the advice and
assistance of those who will be participating.
I would be hopeful that certain constructive
recommendations may emerge at that time.

I would make this personal observation, as
it relates to the question of substitution. I
would think this is something that the com-
mission might very properly assess. I have
mixed feelings on it. I really am not un-
alterably opposed to that particular concept,
but I think it would be appropriate for the
proposed commission, when we get into a
discussion of this in the House some time
very soon, that this perhaps could be part
of the assessment they would make.

I would just make this further observation
to the hon. member for Downsview. While
I appreciate his frustrations from time to
time, I would only say this to him, through
you Mr. Speaker, that it appears to us on
this side of this House that while the com-
mittee system may not represent perfection
and while he may not always get the answers
that he likes in this Legislature— usually be-
cause they don't agree with his own personal
point of view— it sounds to me that he has
somewhat abdicated his interest and re-
sponsibility in some of the observations that
he has made.

Mr. Singer: I guess we are getting to the
Premier!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not at all.

Mr. Singer: The Premier's temper is get-
ting short.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I intended to rise
before the Premier did. I would just like to
make one observation—

Hon. Mr. Davis: It sometimes hurts,
doesn't it?

Mr. Reid: —in relation to— I believe it was
the third point made by the leader of the
New Democratic Party. If I may have the
Premier's attention?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am listening very care-
fully-more carefully than the hon. member
for Downsview.

Mr. Reid: That point is simply this, that
in going over the new governmental respons-
ibilities and the switching around of those
responsibilities, it is impossible for a member
of the opposition who is given a particular
task to be put on one committee and to
fulfil his complete responsibilities for that
particular department that he was perhaps
responsible for before. Because of the dif-
fusion of these responsibilities one almost has
to sit on two or three committees.

MARCH 3, 1972

As well, there are some of us over here
who are interested in more than one field of
government and the present system does not
give us the opportunity to take part in those
other fields. Now if, as the Premier has
indicated in his remarks of a few seconds
ago, he is not tied to this non-substitution
and he feels that it is perhaps a matter that
this government commission can look into,
perhaps he would realize the feeling of this
party, the feeling of the NDP and perhaps
of his own members, and he would be wilHng
to change and allow this free substitution,
and let the government commission look into
that aspect rather than waiting until this
government commission comes in, because it
is going to be a period of complete frustration
for us. Does the Premier understand my
point?

Mr. Lewis: It is a valid point.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just going to make
this observation so we all understand one
another. The Throne Speech did not say it
would be a government commission. I think
it is rather important that we perhaps
recognize that it could very easily be a
legislative commission, not a government
commission.

Mr. B. Newman: A select committee?

Mr. Reid: Is the Premier willing to accept
that change of free substitution or not? That
is the main point.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I said that I
am not unalterably opposed to that whatso-
ever. It is something that I believe the com-
mission should assess. If we find during the
discussions in the House the functioning of
the system— to me it would be relatively
easy to change if this were one of the initial
recommendations. I am not prepared to do
it imtil this assessment is made.

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

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to make
an observation in respect to the regulations
committee. For some years past a movement
spearheaded by the then-member for Wood-
bine moved back and forth in the opposition
benches of this House asking that before
regulations are laid down the members of the
Legislature have some participation in what
those regulations are to be. And so it was
advocated at that time that the regulations
committee should be set up so that proposed
regulations could be examined by that com-
mittee of the House and then amended.

changed, and finally brought before the
House and presented. When the committee
was set up last year, those of us who were on
that committee found to our consternation
that we had absolutely no power as a com-
mittee. That is not unusual, perhaps, in many
of the committees, because of the govern-
ment preponderance on them, but in this case
what we were presented with was the
Gazetted regulations after they had been
Gazetted, so that it was, Mr. Speaker, a nice
little exercise in education.

The committee was told what the civil
service had done and what the minister had
agreed to, but we had absolutely no chance
to participate in the formation of the regu-
lations. Now it seems to me that is an exer-
cise in sheer futility, and if we are to take
time for this committee then we should have
those regulations before they go to the On-
tario Gazette. We should have some chance
to discuss them before they are finalized, and
I bring to the Prime Minister's attention this
facet of this committee's work which seems
to me must be changed to make the com-
mittee meaningful.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further dis-
cussion?

Mr. Lewis moves that the resolution be
amended by adding thereto the following
clauses:

Which said committees shall severally be
empowered on their own initiative when
not otherwise engaged in matters and
things referred to them by the House,

To examine and inquire into such further
and other matters and things related to or
in any way touching upon matters and
things vdthin their competence as they in
their discussion may determine;

Which said committees shall severally be
empowered to engage counsel and from
time to time such other staff as may be
necessary to enable the committees to dis-
charge their responsibilities;

That unlimited substitution of the said
committees be permitted with notice to the
chairman to be given prior to or at the
beginning of each meeting;

That the proceedings of the committees
be reported by Hansard.

Those in favour of Mr. Lewis' motion will
please say "aye".

Those opposed will please say "nay".

In my opinion the "nays" have it.

Mr. Lewis: We will suflFer your opinion.

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for
Downs view was so hot about this and he was
not here to vote.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of Hon. Mr.
Davis' motion will please say "aye".
Those opposed will please say "nay".

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Davis moves that commencing
on Wednesday, March 8, and imtil further
ordered, each Wednesday will be reserved
for the committees of standing and or select
committees and the House will therefore not
meet in the legislative chamber.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills. The
hon. member for St. David.

TORONTO URBAN FOUNDATION

Mrs. Scrivener moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to establish the Toronto
Urban Foundation.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mrs. M. Scrivener (St. David): Mr. Speaker,
the Toronto Urban Foimdation Act 1972: The
purpose of this bill is to establish a founda-
tion to study the sociological and psycholog-
ical affects of urban living upon residents in
Metropolitan Toronto, and to assist in the
long-range planning of urban areas in
Ontario.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Shulman moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend the Consmner
Protection Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill intro-
duces the concept of strict liability for the
manufacturing, selling or leasing of defective
and/or dangerous consumer products.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, I beg leave to present the

annual review of the Department of Mines
and Northern Affairs for the calendar year
1971. You have kindly allowed me to place
a copy of this report on each of the members'
desks and I would urge all members to go
through it with complete care. I know that
they will find it a real source of information
and, of course, for reference in the period
ahead.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Speaker, this annual
publication has earned recognition, not only
in the mining industry but throughout the
schools of Ontario, and all educational areas,
for the tremendous amount of valuable in-
formation and references in this particular
booklet

I also want at this time to comphment the
staff of my department for producing such a
comprehensive report in such a short period
of time. I did a quick examination across
Canada, I might say, and I can say to you
that no other department in any government
in Canada has produced so consistently a
report so comprehensive in such a short
period of time.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
before the adjournment of the House, I won-
der if the House leader could tell us exactly
what Monday holds for us?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Yes, on Monday, we
will proceed with the debate on the Speech
from the Throne.

Mr. Deans: And the private members' hour?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes,

Hon. W. A. Davis (Premier): We cannot
tell the hon. member exactly what it will
hold, but we can tell him that it is going to
go on.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 11:15 o'clock, a.m.

CONTENTS

Friday, March 3, 1972

OHC financial records re Provincial Auditor's report, questions of Mr. Grossman:

Mr. Singer, Mr. Lewis 65

Land purchase in Toronto adjoining U of T, questions of Mr. Snow: Mr. Singer 67

Proposed gas price increase re Ontario Energy Board hearing, questions of Mr. Bemier:

Mr. Lewis 68

Provincial park in Bruce Peninsula re land acquisition, questions of Mr. Snow and

Mr. Bemier: Mr. Lewis 69

Land purchases on the Niagara Escarpment, questions of Mr. Snow: Mr. Lewis 70

Report on mental health of adolescents, questions of Mr. Potter: Mr. Lewis 70

Ontario Place deficit, question of Mr. White: Mr. Givens 71

Alleged disturbance at Millbrook, questions of Mr. Apps: Mr. Shulman 71

Control of tax consultants, question of Mr. Winkler: Mr. B. Newman 72

Ministerial responsibility for northern a£Fairs, questions of Mr. Bemier: Mr. Stokes,

Mr. Reid, Mr. Foulds 72

Essex County director of education, questions of Mr. Wells: Mr. Ruston 73

Eligibility for housing assistance to residents outside Sudbury, question of Mr. Grossman:

Mr. Martel 73

Cost of Ontario Place, question of Mr. White: Mr. Givens 73

De Havilland labour dispute, question of Mr. Davis: Mr. Yoimg 73

Cost of welfare payments to unemployed with delayed insurance payments, questions of

Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Gaunt, Mr. B. Newman 74

Hamilton Harbour preservation dispute, question of Mr. Davis: Mr. Deans 74

Lake Erie cottagers land rights ruling, question of Mr. Davis: Mr. Haggerty 75

Government treatment of certain ridings which do not elect government supporters,

questions of Mr. Davis: Mr. Burr 75

Ontario Securities Commission and improper promotion of shares, question of Mr. Winkler:

Mr. Deacon 75

Queen's Printer re distribution of publications, question of Mr. Snow: Mr. Bounsall 76

Motion to appoint Mr. Rowe and Mr. W. Hodgson as chairman and deputy chairman of

the whole House, Mr. Davis, agreed to 76

Motion to appoint standing committees of the House, Mr. Davis, agreed to 76

Toronto Urban Foundation, bill to establish, Mrs. Scrivener, first reading 80

Consumer Protection Act, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 80

Report, annual. Mines and Northern Affairs, Mr. Bemier 80

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Winkler, agreed to 80

No. 5

ONTARIO

Hcgtsilature of Ontario

Betiatesi

OFFICIAL REPORT — DAILY EDITION

Second Session of the Twenty-Ninth Legislature

Monday, March 6, 1972

Speaker: Honourable Allan Edward Renter
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, QC

THE QUEEN'S PRINTER

TORONTO

1972

Price per session, $10.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue.)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: In the west gallery are stu-
dents from St. Thomas More School in Missis-
sauga, and froon the Woodland Centennial
Senior Public School of Pickering; in the east
gallery Oak Park Junior High School, To-
ronto, and Saint Jane Francis School of
Downsview.

Statements by the ministry.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): What
ministry?

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, there must be something
on this afternoon that is keeping the govern-
ment benches otherwise occupied.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Trips to
Chinal

PLEA BARGAINING IN ONTARIO
COURTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: However, the Provincial
Secretary for Justice has arrived—

Mr. Singer: Buying land.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: —I would like to ask
him, as he takes his seat, if he is now pre-
pared to give the House a statement on plea
bargaining which he promised some weeks
ago?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Provincial Secretary
for Justice): I believe the Attorney General
(Mr. Bales) is the one to ask.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have got the wrong
one again!

Mr. Singer: Here we go again!

Mr. Stokes: The Alphonse and Gaston act.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I believe the At-
torney General, Mr. Speaker, will be indi-
cating the nature of the directives that will
be sent out to the Crown attorneys within
a few days.

Monday, Mabch 6, 1972

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Is that not a
matter of policy?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary. The
member for Samia makes a good point.
Surely that is a matter for pohcy and why
wouldn't the policy minister have something
to say about it?

How is the decision made, Mr. Speaker,
as to which minister will actually develop
the stance and deliver it to the Legislature?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I shall be glad to
indicate some of the matters that perhaps
the Leader of the Opposition should have
read about before this. The jobs-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Doesn't the minister
think a statement such as this is a policy
statement?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I think that a state-
ment such as this falls directly within the
purview of an operating ministry or depart-
ment of this government-
Mr. Bullbrook: What does that-

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —and therefore
statements respecting those matters in the
House are better directed to those individual
ministers who have the day-to-day problems;
this is the proper procedure.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As a further supple-
mentary, does the minister recall giving an
undertaking to me in December that he
would make a statement to the House in
this connection?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, why don't we—

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: And I did that in
my function as the Attorney General of the
Province of Ontario; and I am indicating to
the Leader of the Opposition now that I
believe that statement is about ready to be
made by the Attorney General.

Mr. Bullbrook: I rise on a point of order.

I think we should clarify this as quickly
as possible. I suggest to you most respect-
fully, Mr. Speaker, that in this Parliament we

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

will not get one issue that is more blatantly
involved in policy than the statement my
leader has asked for. Now as I understand
the response, speaking to this point of order,
of the Provincial Secretary for Justice, it is
that the transference of that policy will ulti-
mately require administrative details and,
therefore, the response should come from the
Attorney General. I suggest to you then,
within the ambit of that response, Mr.
Speaker, when are we ever going to get
replies to questions from secretaries respon-
sible for policy in that government?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Neverl We
will never get any answers. They don't do
anything. How can they answer?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker I— do you
want to comment on that point, sir.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Could I ask a supplementary,
Mr. Speaker? Could the Provincial Secretary
for Justice delineate to us one or two head-
ings which he believes are policies so that
we might be able to direct a few questions
to tham?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Or tell
us what he does.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: If the question once
again is to tell members what I do, that is a
different question completely than attempting
to put me on the griddle to make answers
during the question period in this House for
administrative or even policy matters relating
to a single department.

As far as the job of policy ministers goes,
as I say if the hon. members had taken the
time to do a little bit of their homework and
read some of the material that has been
available to them, as it has been to every-
body else, generally speaking the job of the
policy ministers, as I understand it, is to
communicate, to co-ordinate and to initiate
policy within the government.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The minister
is not communicating.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): How about a
little co-ordinating in the Legislature.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a question
of the Attorney General: Is he now prepared
to make a statement to the House on plea
bargaining, which was promised by his pre-
decessor in December?

Mr. Deans: Who has since been elevated to
the position of communicator.

Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Justice): Mr.
Speaker, through you to the hon. Leader of
the Opposition, this is a matter that came to
my attention when I came into the depart-
ment. It is of great concern to me as it was
to my predecessor, the Provincial Secretary
of Justice.

Mr. Lewis: And to his predecessor. It was
part of the predecessor's chat.

Hon. Mr. Bales: The Crown Attorneys'
Association was consulted in reference to this
matter and has made certain submissions to
me, since I came to the department. I wanted
to talk to the people in the Ontario Law
Reform Commission, the chairman partic-
ularly, and this I have done. As soon as my
consideration of the plea bargaining situation
is completed, I will commimicate it to the
Crown attorneys throughout the province.
At that time, I will be pleased to present the
material to the members of this House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Can I
ask the Attorney General if he feels that
among those that he would consult would be
the policy minister for Justice?

Hon. Mr. Bales: Certainly!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A further supplementaiy:
Has he so consulted him, because the policy
minister indicated that the statement was in
preparation and would be available shortly.

Hon. Mr. Bales: The policy minister and
I have very close liaison on these matters.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: What has he said
that is different from what I said?

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South):
Nothing!

ORGANIZED CRIME IN ONTARIO

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of the Provincial Secretary for
Justice. Can he give the House some further
information to the comment that he made
publicly about a week ago, which led him to
warn that organized crime was becoming a
stronger threat in this province?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: If the hon. member
had been on his feet during the estimates he
would have learned that those were my
views in my job as Attorney General last
year. I have been reiterating this off and on
in various public statements, both within this
Legislature and without this Legislature,
since March 1 of last year.

MARCH 6, 1972

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As a supplementary ques-
tion then— really for a matter of clarification
—does the minister feel it is his duty publicly
to point out the dangers and the responsibility
of his colleague, the Attorney General or the
public protector sitting over there, or the
Solicitor General, who may or may not be
here, to take the action that is needed from
the warnings that the policy minister is
speaking about?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I would be glad to
speak to that. We have in the works, as part
of the function of my job as Provincial Secre-
tary for Justice, some new policies which v^dll
be detailed during the course, I hope, of
this session of the Legislature, and also as
part of some of those new policies which
will be enunciated by the departmental min-
ister in due course. I feel it is part of my
chore to, in effect, prepare not only the
members of the public but the members of
this Legislature in advance with some of the
reasons for some of the new policies and
some of the new structures and format and
organization as far as combatting crime in
this province is concerned; and this is part
of it.

Mr. Lewis: What does that mean? What
does all that mean?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: You just keep your
shirt on and you will find out!

Mr. Lewis: I am very comfortable, thank
you.

Mr. Singer: Is that one of the minister's
preparations?

GOVERNMENT ACTION AGAINST
DOW CHEMICAL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a further
question of the Attorney General, I guess.
Could he give a status report to the House
on the suit against Dow Chemical that was
entered into about a year ago?

Mr. Singer: That is a good question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By his predecessorl

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, the action
against Dow Chemical commenced last
spring. The defendants were Dow Chemical
of Canada Ltd. and Dow Chemical Incor-
porated, the American Company, and the in-
clusion of the American company as a de-
fendant was challenged. It went before the
court and that matter is still before the court.

I anticipate that it will be before the Master
shortly. I think it was the Master who was
dealing with it because of the challenge by
the American Company to being a defendant.
Certain law ofiicers in the Attorney General's
department were called before the court to
testify and I anticipate that it will be before
the court again this month.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: It will
be before the courts this month?

Hon. Mr. Bales: That is right.

Mr. Singer: The trial?

Hon. Mr. Bales: No, not the trial. It has to
go on—

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister mean it has
taken him a year to find out who he is
suing?

Hon. Mr. Bales: No, it has not taken us
a year to find out who we are suing.

Mr. Lewis: Of course it has.

Hon. Mr. Bales: We know very well who
we are suing. One of the defendants does not
like it, that is all.

Mr. Singer: Mr, Speaker, by way of supple-
mentary, would the Attorney General care to
guess when the trial would likely commence
-1973, 1974, 1975?

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I don't be-
lieve in guessing. I have some very definite
ideas when that may take place.

Mr. Singer: Tell us!

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Tell us;
or is that policy?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney
General has a definite idea could he take the
House into his confidence and tell us what
that idea is?

Hon. Mr. Bales: The hon. member, being
a member of the legal profession, knows per-
fectly well the steps that must take place;
there must be examinations for discovery.
They will take place in the next months and
then follovdng that the trial will take place.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It has been a year since
the announcement.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, it hasn't.

Mr. Singer: The Minister of Colleges and
Universities (Hon. Mr. Kerr) said it was going
to go to trial this spring.

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Reid: He was never right anyway.

Mr. Lewis: Then they put him in uni-
versities!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

One of the hon. ministers has indicated to
me he should like to revert to ministerial
statements. Do I have the permission of the
House in order that questions may be asked?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): No,

Mr. Lewis: It depends on which minister.

Mr. Bullbrook: Which minister? We like
some of them.

Mr. Speaker: We have not received unani-
mous consent in any case.

Mr. D. C. Macdonald (York South): That
means the minister will get here on time
for a change.

ESTABLISHMENT OF DETOXICATION
CENTRES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of the Attorney General, and this
may have to be redirected. Can he give us
a status report on the expenditure of the
$4 million that was to be used to improve
and establish detoxication centres? I think
this has importance since the death of some-
one in the drunk tank at one of the Toronto
jails occurred in January this year.

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I think that
question really should go to the Minister of
Health because the expenditure of the money
comes under that department rather than
under the ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if you will
permit me I will redirect the question. As
the Minister of Health is here, I trust he
heard the question?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Health):
Yes, Mr. Speaker. The detoxication centres
are in the process of being planned now for
several areas of the province. We will have
several of them in operation very, very
shortly.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: What
about the situation in Metropolitan Toronto?
There is the problem elsewhere, I under-
stand, but it is here where we have had the
substantial problems culminating in some
deaths; the most recent one in January.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Metropolitan Toronto will
be included in the programme, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary,
what does that mean? Which detoxication
centres have been established? Which are
pending; for which places and on which
dates?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I am sorry, I cannot give
that information. I haven't got it all at my
fingertips, but I will certainly have it avail-
able for the member tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: I won't push the minister. Just
give us one or two examples— perhaps two or
three.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Pardon?

Mr. Lewis: Just a couple of examples.

Hon. Mr. Potter: We have two operating
now in Toronto, as the member knows— one
in the west end and one in the east end—
and we have, I think, six in the process of
being organized. I can give all the details
and when we hope to have them in opera-
tion to the member tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, okay!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West,

TELEGRAM PUBLISHING CO, LTD,

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr, Speaker, of the
Minister of Labour, Can he now give us the
status report on his department's investigation
into the termination of The Toronto Tele-
gram?

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Yes,
Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to
inform the hon. member that just about one
hour ago I authorized the director of the
employment standards branch to appoint a
one-man committee to investigate in connec-
tion with the Telegram Publishing Co,

Mr. Lewis: I am not sure I can absorb all
of that so quickly. The minister has author-
ized the director of the employment stand-
ards branch to appoint someone to look into
it?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Exactly, Mr, Speaker,
under section 10 of the Employment Stand-
ards Act,

Mr. MacDonald: It took the minister five
months to do that?

MARCH 6, 1972

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Well, I have only
been minister for a month, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister and his
predecessor!

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary,
now that the minister has authorized the in-
vestigation which he undertook to make a
number of months ago, who is the commis-
sioner going to be to investigate it?

Mr. MacDonald: Not John Bassett, I hope!

Hon. Mr. Guindon: No, Mr. Speaker. The
appointee is Mr. Carter, a professor at
Queen's University who obtained a Bachelor
of Law degree from Queen's in 1966.

Mr. Lewis: I take it, by way of supple-
mentary, that Mr. Carter is one of those on
the list of the labour-management arbitration
group acceptable to all?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: I couldn't answer that,
Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, will
Mr. Carter have the right to procure docu-
ments and require that evidence be presented
to him by the owners of The Telegram as
well as by its former employees?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: I have in front of me
the terms of reference-
Mr. Lewis: Could the minister read them?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Well, they are quite
long. I think they have to do mostly with
the ground rules— to see if their ground rules
have been changed as far as notices of ter-
mination are concerned and with reference to
the status of certain employees. These are
included within the terms of reference, but
I would be glad to show the balance to the
hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: I shan't pursue it except to
say I take it that included in the terms of
reference is an examination of whether or
not the Telegram Publishing Company vio-
lated the Employment Standards Act in the
nature of its termination and the treatment
of its employees?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Exactly.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary if I
may, Mr. Speaker: But we would also assume
under these circiunstances that the other
areas of interest and concern about the clos-

ing of the Telegram would be excluded and
that this appointed person— would the min-
ister call him a commissioner?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: No, we don't call him
a commissioner. It is a one-man inquiry.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That the person conduct-
ing the inquiry would be restricted only to
matters pertaining to the Employment Stand-
ards Act. Or would he have broader terms?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: I would be glad to
make a statement tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, on
the full terms of reference.

REMOVAL OF SAND FROM DUNES
IN PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question of the
Minister of Natural Resources in a similar
vein.

Is he now prepared to table, or has he
tabled— perhaps I missed it— the full material
on the Sandbanks sand dunes negotiations
thus far and the various properties that are
being looked at?

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): By the way,
how is the minister's eyesight?

Hon. L. Bemier (Minister of Mines and
Northern Affairs, and Lands and Forests): My
eyesight? Great. I would like to show the
member the pictures of the sand dunes and
maybe take him down there and show him
a few things.

Mr. Lawlor: Look what the Globe and

Mail says about the minister's eyesight.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I don't really know
what the member is talking about.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: No, the information is
not completely prepared yet.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is obviously
too touchy.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Lewis: Well, the minister is on the
receiving end of the Globe and Mail edi-
torials.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Hon. Mr. Bemier: That was an asinine
report if you ask me.

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Singer: Is that parliamentary?

Mr. MacDonald: Globe and Mail report
asinine? Get that on the recordl

Mr. Singer: Almost as bad as tihey say in
Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I might make a state-
ment along that line. It would take eight
years to level the ground at the rate they
are taking sand out now.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please!

Mr. Lewis: It will take years to level the
ground?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Eight years— and we
will have the matter cleaned up long before
then.

Mr. Lewis: I don't know whether the min-
ister will have it cleaned up long before that;
but what about the documents he promised
to the House?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes, we're working on
those and we hope to table them very soon.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, Mr.
Speaker, it has come to my attention that
under the terms of the lease with the Lake
Ontario Cement Company, article 8 states
that trees may not be removed without prior
permission of the district forester. I'm given
to understand that there's considerable
devastation of trees now, as well. Has that
the permission of the minister's department?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I am not aware of this
matter, Mr. Speaker, but I'd certainly be
glad to look into that aspect of the lease.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps the minister should
go out and view the site.

Mr. Deans: Maybe he would know more
about it.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I'll take the member
with me.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Take them both.

Mr. Lewis: Well, take the member for
Lakeshore.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Okay.

Mr. Lewis: He'll speak for the caucus on
this. May I ask a question of the Minister
of Health, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections by hon. members.

MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES

Mr. Lewis: Now that the Minister of
Health, I'm sure, is familiar with the docu-
ment, internal to his special services branch,
the mental health division, can he indicate
to the House what action the government
intends to take?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I sure can, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Yes— we heard that last time.

Mr. Stokes: Has the minister read it yet?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I didn't; the member for
Downsview didn't ask me before.

We have two assessment centres which
will be constructed this year; and there'll be
one long-term closed unit, for long-term
patients, which will be in the mill for this
year. In the proposal that was recommended
for consideration there were two assessment
centres, three long-term closed units and a
rural community programme. We are starting,
as some of the member's confreres will tell
him, with some pilot projects, some com-
munity projects. In addition to that, the two
assessment centres will be on their way very
shortly; and one long-term closed unit will
be on its way very shortly.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is
the Minister satisfied in his own mind that
this will answer the crisis as outlined in the
document prepared by his staff?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I'm satisfied that they
can get this on the road; and we're going to
continue along the lines as recommended to
provide the facilities that are needed. I think
I told the member last week that we are
anxious to get community involved as much
as possible and to develop community centres.
We are interested in one or two projects that
have already been recommended to us in the
city of Toronto and we hope to get these
started this year. That's in addition to this.

Mr. Lewis: It was indicated in a news-
paper story that the minister was meeting
with his officials today. Did that meeting
take place today? Has there been an alter-
ation in programme based on that meeting?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I don't know anything
about that meeting. I read in the paper Satur-
day that Dr. Rae-Grant— and incidentally Dr.
Rae-Grant was misquoted. I think I should
bring to the attention of the hon. members of
the Legislature that most of that article was

MARCH 6, 1972

taken from the report; that Dr. Rae-Grant
was badly misquoted and that she didn't
make the statements she was quoted as
making. In that article it said that Rae-Grant
had arranged to meet with me this morning.
Well of course she didn't say that, because
no meeting had been set up with me this
morning. She did contact me over the week-
end because she was very concerned about
the statements that were made in the press
and I arranged to see her this morning.

Mr. Lewis: Did the minister see her this
morning?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I saw her, yes.

Mr. Lewis: Then that particular in the
Globe and Mail story was correct?

Hon. Mr. Potter: No, it wasn't correct.

Mr. Lewis: But the minister did see her
this morning.

Hon. Mr. Potter: No, that wasn't what the
member asked. He asked me if I saw her as
arranged. It was not arranged previously.

Mr. Lewis: Until the weekend! Well, per-
haps it facilitated the arrangement then.

I would be interested to know precisely
which parts of that story are alleged to be
inaccurate; because, without compromising
Dr. Naomi Rae-Grant, I also had a discussion
with her and did not find such inaccuracy.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Well Dr. Naomi Rae-
Grant, when she met with me this morning,
stated emphatically that she did say she wasn't
surprised that no action had been taken on
the report, because, quite frankly, you don't
very often get action with the report with-
out it having been reviewed to decide what
part of the recommendations you're going to
accept; and as I understood her to say, this
was what she meant when she said that, but
it was interpreted differently.

She also said, and she was quoted quite
rightly, that she wasn't surprised that this type
of illness wasn't a very high priority. I think
we'll agree that over the years mental health
as such has been very low priority, so there
wasn't anything unusual in that statement.
But unfortunately whoever wrote the article
—John Zaritsky— made a point of emphasiz-
ing these two statements. And the rest of
the quotations in here, I would suggest, came
from the report itself, and did not come
from Dr. Rae-Grant.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I thought that was very
clearly identified in the story; but perhaps

we will leave it at that. I might deal with it
tomorrow.

One last question of the Minister of— oh,
he is not here. I will end my questions.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Fort
William.

NATIONAL PARK IN THUNDER BAY
DISTRICT

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister
of Natural Resources.

Could the minister enlighten the House on
the state of negotiations between his depart-
ment and the federal government on the
placing of a national park, as proposed, in
the Thunder Bay district?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Speaker, I can only
tell the hon. member for Fort William that
I do think the Hon. Mr. Andras goofed, and
he goofed badly. I would like to explain.

About a week ago a front page story came
out in Thunder Bay which stated that the
federal government and the provincial gov-
ernment were involved in some very deep
discussions and negotiations concerning the
establishment of a national park at the Black
Bay peninsula. I want to make it very, very
clear that there are no discussions and no
negotiations going on with the Province of
Ontario in connection with such a national
park.

I do feel there has been an error made on
the federal minister's part, because we are
engaged right now in some negotiations con-
cerning the establishment of a national park
in the Pukaskwa area. It is our desire to pro-
ceed with these negotiations and we are
most thankful for the federal government's
participation so far, but I want to make it
very, very clear, that there have been no
discussions— there may have been some in-
formal comments, there have been informal
comments regarding a number of areas, be-
cause I think the federal government is most
anxious to make some national parks out of
the beautiful areas of northern Ontario— but
at this point in time I can tell the member
for Fort William that there are no discussions
and no negotiations going on with regard to
a national park in the Black Bay peninsula.

Mr. Stokes: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
To what does the minister attribute the state-
ment by the Hon. Robert Andras if there is
no basis in fact and there is no active dis-
cussion going on between the federal and the
provincial authorities?

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Election fever, what
else?

Mr. Singer: That is what it is? Good, the
minister found out!

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I think— well, the hon.
member will have to surmise himself.

There may be an event coming up which
would be of interest to him but I notice he
attributed a portion of the announcement to
his colleague, the federal member for
Thimder Bay, Mr. Keith Penner. I am not
aware whether he was involved in that an-
noimcement or not.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: What does the hon.
member for Thunder Bay attribute it to?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs has the reply to
a previous question.

IMPROPER PROMOTION OF SHARES

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial AfiFairs): Mr. Speaker, I have
an answer to a question given to me by the
member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon).

I am advised by the Ontario Securities
Commission that it has no power to institute
civil action on behalf of members of the
public, excepting in connection with insider
trading hability, and then only in accordance
with section 114 of the Securities Act and
the equivalent section of the Business Cor-
porations Act.

Individuals who feel aggrieved must seek
their remedies in the civil courts.

I am, however, informed that Mr. James
Prendergast, the chairman of the board of
United Investment Services Ltd., has stated
that the company is interested in learning
of the details of any purchases of either
United Fund Management Ltd. or United
Life Insurance Co. Ltd., shares made avail-
able by clients of UIS during February,
March and early April of 1971, on the basis
of representations made to them by UIS
salesmen. In accordance with the require-
ments of the securities commission, UIS is
bonded and insured as protection for itself
and its clients against the misconduct of any
of its salesmen.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Supple-
mentary to that, Mr. Speaker, does the min-
ister feel that it is the responsibility, or any
responsibility or should be the responsibility,
of the commission to assist action by share-
holders who are aggrieved by or suffer losses

by insider trading of this sort, or of improper
promotion— to assist them in civil action to
recover their losses?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In regard to that sup-
plementary question, Mr, Speaker, the refer-
ence I made in my general reply was to
section 114 of the Act. I would say that the
duty of the commission is to supply as much
information as is possible in regard to insider
trading. I would add that both of these
companies are incorporated under federal
charter, and therefore action in this regard
must be taken by that authority.

Mr. Deacon: A further supplementary:
Would the commission therefore undertake
to get the details of all the trading that took
place in this particular situation? For ex-
ample, regarding details of insider trading
that took place in the Slater Steel action that
is now being taken by aggrieved shareholders
of Slater Steel, would the commission under-
take to get the facts for the shareholders?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will comment further
on that particular aspect of the question when
I have the information.

Mr. Shulman: A further supplementary: In
the minister's reply he suggested that these
people should contact the company. Has the
suggestion been made that the company will
reimburse shareholders who lost money as a
result of these improper representations?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In reply to that par-
ticular question, I think it was inherent in the
last sentence of the answer: "In accordance
with the requirements of the securities com-
mission, UIS is bonded and insured as pro-
tection for itself and its clients against the
misconduct of any of its salesmen." Now part
of the action that has been taken, I under-
stand, is that the salesmen involved have lost
their registration and have been dismissed
by the company, and the company, in fact,
is inquiring into those matters.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Singer: No, a new question.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
In KRL Investments Ltd. it was disclosed that
the minister's department has not brought any
prosecutions forward for a considerable
period of time, five years or more. When does
the minister intend to enforce the regulations
and act with respect to insider trading?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In that particular re-
gard I don't know the reference that the hon.

MARCH 6, 1972

member is making but, as I said, I am in-
formed again by the authority of the com-
mission that if they are incorporated under
provincial law then that responsibility would
be ours. If it is a federal incorporation, then
it is a federal authority to prosecute.

Mr. Lawlor: They have never done it; they
just don't trust him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Labour
has a reply also to a previous question asked
by the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young).

DE HAVILLAND LABOUR DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Dur-
ing my absence on Friday, the hon. member
for Yorkview directed a question to the Prime
Minister (Mr. Davis) concerning de Havilland
Aircraft and UAW Local 112 at Downsview,
I would like to report the following to the
hon. member:

The strike, as he knows, started on Janu-
ary 21, 1972, and there are approximately
900 production employees involved. We have
been reviewing this situation with the princi-
pals of the parties each week. My latest
information is that the company is now
negotiating with the UAW for the oflBce
workers who are not on strike; this involves
300 employees. Both the company and the
union feel that following the staff negotia-
tions would be an appropriate time to resume
negotiations with the plant workers.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): As a supple-
mentary, Mr. Speaker, could the minister
indicate a timetable of the reopening of
negotiations with Local 112? It seems in-
credible that they have to wait until the oflBce
workers' contract is settled.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, as I have
said, it looks as if this is an agreement be-
tween the company and the union. They
want to settle the negotiations with the 300
oflBce workers first and then would be pre-
pared to resume negotiations for the produc-
tion employees.

Mr. Young: Well, Mr. Speaker, this almost
looks like blackmail, telling the oflBce work-
ers they must settle before negotiations can
open with Local 112. Surely the minister can
look into this aspect of the situation and per-
haps bring some pressure to bear to get these
parties aroimd the bargaining table.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the
last thing the Minister of Labour would like
to see is any blackmail. I will be glad to

look into it tomorrow and hopefully get the
two parties concerned working on it as soon
as possible.

Mr. Young: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public
Works also has the answer to a previous
question.

LAND PURCHASE IN TORONTO

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, on Friday there were
several questions I answered and some that
I said I would get information thereon.

The member for Downsview asked for the
name of the appraiser on a property on
Bloor Street. The name of the appraiser is
Mr. Amot Parrett, FRI, MAI, AAICI, SRA,
514 St. Clair Avenue East, Toronto.

Mr. Deans: Is that a position or a name?

Hon. Mr. Snow: He has got a lot of initials.
The property was purchased from a company
known as 246 Bloor Street West Ltd.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That's a catchy name.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The director my depart-
ment dealt with was Mr. T. L. Twigg.

It was also observed by one member re-
garding the lease on the building at 252
Bloor Street West that this was a 30-year
lease with 27 years yet to run.

Regarding the appraisal, I stated that there
was an adjustment for the easement for the
parking of cars. The appraiser stated that the
market value of the site was $851,000; the
value was reduced to $804,000 due to the
easement-
Mr. Singer: Oh, come on! They can't use
it at all so the government takes oflF $40,000.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, that is not right, Mr.
Speaker. I explained that on Friday if the
member would look at Hansard. The pur-
chase price was agreed at $800,000. The
member asked if the Auditor requested in-
formation from my department-
Mr. BuIIbrook: Let us have a copy of the
search of title. I want to have a look at that—
$40,000! It is incredible!

Hon. Mr. Snow: —The answer is yes. He
was advised by the oflBcials of my department
that the land would be used for probable
extension to the Department of Education
property at 252 Bloor Street and was referred
to the Department of Education for any

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

additional information regarding the use of
the property. Our department was requested
to purchase the property by Treasury Board
on May 27, 1970.

Mr. Bullbrook: For what department?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Department of Edu-
cation.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Department of Educa-
tion? I should not have asked the question-
Mr. Singer: I have a few supplementaries.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Right!

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, could the minister
advise us as to whether or not this 246 Bloor
Street West Ltd. shares any oflBces with the
lessors to the government of the OISE build-
ing?

Secondly, could the minister advise us
whether under the city of Toronto zoning
bylaws and under the city of Toronto oflBcial
plan, anything could have possibly been
erected on this lot?

Thirdly, would the minister advise us
whether or not the easement to the Univer-
sity of Toronto was a perpetual easement? If,
in fact, it was a perpetual easement, what
sense is there in deducting nearly $40,000
from an overall price of $840,000 if, in fact,
the land cannot be used?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, would the minister
table for us the appraiser's report and the
documents relating to the search of title?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Obviously, Mr. Speaker,
I do not have all the information the onember
is asking for—

Mr. Bullbrook: May I, by way of supple-
mentary, or on a point of order—

Hon. Mr. Snow: —I will take the question
as notice. Mr. Speaker, also on Friday-
Mr. Bullbrook: May I, by way of supple-
mentary, or on a point of order— why does
the minister have to take as notice the final
question? Will he table the appraiser's report
and the search of title in this House so that
the members may look at it?

Mr. Speaker: I think there is no point of
order; there may be a supplementary ques-
tion.

Mr. Bullbrook: Then by supplementary:
Why does the minister have to consider tak-
ing as notice a simple request to table the
appraiser's report and the search of title?

An hon. member: The member is out of
order.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes or no? Will the min-
ister do it for us?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, there is so
much in that question that will require re-
search, I will reply to the whole question at
a later date.

Mr. Speaker: Which is quite in accord
with the standing orders. The hon. member
was out of order.

Mr. Bullbrook: I did not say I wasn't.

LAND PURCHASE ON NIAGARA
ESCARPMENT

Hon. M. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the member
for Scarborough West asked me to table
information regarding land purchases for the
Niagara Escarpment assembly. I have this
information which I will table at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
East.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE
ON GOLF COURSE ASSESSMENT

Mr. A. K. Meen (York East): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs. I wonder if he is
in a position yet to table in this House the
report of the committee on golf course
assessment and taxation?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, and
Minister of Economics and Municipal Affairs):
It is being tabled this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs-
view. He was on his feet earlier.

BLOOR STREET PROPERTY USE

Mr. Singer: Yes, I have a question, Mr.
Speaker, of the Minister of Education. Could
the Minister of Education advise us, since it
was apparently at the request of his depart-
ment that this $800,000 purchase price be
paid to the firm, 246 Bloor St. West Ltd.,
what plans he has for the use of this land
and how he is going to get rid of the ease-
ment to park cars on it?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, 1 will take that question as
notice.

MARCH 6, 1972

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thun-
der Bay.

Mr. Bullbrook: The member has got the
minister on the run again. He does it every
year.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He hasn't got me on any
run.

POLAR BEAR CUBS
ON INDIAN RESERVE

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
of the Minister of Natural Resources. By
what authority have employees of his depart-
ment entered the Attawapiskat reserve and
demanded that band members give up two
polar bear cubs to the Toronto zoo?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Speaker, I did not
have the report on that particular incident.
The member is quite right in saying that the
conservation officer did go to the Attawa-
piskat Reserve and asked that the two cubs
in question be turned over.

Mr. Stokes: Not "asked"-"demanded".

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I have "asked."
He was told by the chief he had no
authority there; so the officer was obliged to
contact the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
which he did.

It has been our practice, of course, to
permit Indians to kill a certain number of
bears for dog food and in defence of their
own property, but we do try through a
process of education to reduce the number
of killings, because we certainly don't want
to have this particular species become ex-
tinct.

It is unfortunate that extreme steps were
taken in this particular case. We always want
to have the co-operation of the Indian people,
but I would point out that in this particular
case the two cubs in question would have
brought about $30 to $50 on the boodeg
market. Had they been handled through the
proper channels, the Indians could have re-
ceived as much as $300. So they were
actually giving them away when they could
have received 10 times more. This is where
we try to help.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not true that the Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests officials agreed
to pay $300 to the Indian in question for the
pelt of the mother, if they would turn over
the two cubs to the Toronto zoo? Inherent in
that, isn't it a foregone conclusion that the

department came to the conclusion that the
band couldn't look after the cubs in the
same manner as the Toronto zoo? Is this not
an abrogation of the aboriginal rights of
Indians in demanding the release of such
wildlife for the purposes mentioned?

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I don't know all those
specific details, but I would tell the member
for Thunder Bay that under Treaty 9, which
exists in this particular area, the Indians do
not have any special privilege to take wild-
life.

But this is not the point. I can assure the
member that co-operation with the Indians
will improve, and I have so instructed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

DAYCARE CENTRES

Mr. J. P. Spenee (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the Minister of Social
and Family Services. How many daycare
centres were approved by his department;
and also how many Indian reserves did not
qualify for a daycare centre under winter
works?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I believe 66
daycare centres have been approved by our
department, and out of that number 10 were
to Indian bands.

Mr. Lewis: How many?

Mr. Spenee: May I ask how many qualified?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: How many qualffied?

Mr. Spenee: Yes.

Mr. Reid: How many applications?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: How many applica-
tions?

Mr. Spenee: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As I just mentioned,
there were 10 nurseries approved to Indian
bands, so I would assume that the—

Mr. Reid: How many applications were
there?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: How many applica-
tions? I could find that out. I don't know
offhand, Mr. Speaker, but I would be glad
to get that information.

Mr. Spenee: A supplementary: How many
Indian reserves did not qualify, but had an
application in?

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I shall find that in-
formation.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
May I ask the minister if, to qualify, the
Indians had to make a formal application in
the first place?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I believe, Mr. Speaker,
that the Indian band or the administrator
could make the formal application.

Mr. Reid: May I ask the minister if he
really knows what is going on in his depart-
ment? Is he aware that in one of the Indian
reserves in my riding the band administrator
wrote and asked for details on the pro-
gramme, and within a week of his asking for
details, the band received a letter from the
minister's department under the minister's
signature telling them that they had received
approval for a daycare centre without any
application?

Can the minister explain: (a) How this can
possibly happen; and (b) If all one has to do is
write for details to get approval for the ex-
penditure of public funds before even the
people involved are asking for a certain pro-
ject of this type?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Election fever!

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I am sur-
prised to hear that just an inquiry has
brought a grant and I will look into it. Would
the hon. member tell me the name of the
Indian band?

Mr. Reid: It was the Couchiching band,
the Couchiching reserve.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary: All right.

Mr. Bounsall: Could the minister tell us,
regarding the funds allotted in thfe vdnter
works programme for the construction of
daycare centres, have all the funds been allo-
cated?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, there was
$10 million allocated and I would say very
close to that amount has been allotted.

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, the oral question
period has now expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. McKeough presented the report
of the committee on golf course assessment
and taxation.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

CORONERS ACT

Mr. Shulman 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, the purpose of
this bill is to allow any person whose con-
duct is relevant to an inquest or who might
be aff^ected by the verdict of an inquest to
cross-examine witnesses either in person or
through counsel.

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

Mr. Drea moves first reading of bill in-
tituled. An Act to amend the Labour Rela-
tions Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr.
Speaker, before going into the intent, I would
like to point out that the hon. member for
Eglinton (Mr. Reilly) spent some time with
me on the introduction of this bill and un-
fortunately he is away from the House on
business for the province.

The intent of this bill is that by eliminating
economic sanctions or any form of control
from foreign influences, Ontario working men
and women will have the opportunity to work
for their long-established goal of total in-
dependence for their labour movement.

Mr. Shulman: How about the same thing
for corporations?

Mr. Drea: I'll take it under advisement.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, re-
suming 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.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Oppos-
ition): Mr, Speaker, this is the first oppor-
tunity I have had, sir, to extend my con-
gratulations to you since your election to this

MARCH 6, 1972

important and high oflSce. I had the honour
of seconding your nomination, which I did
with enthusiasm.

I have had, in the past, every reason to
feel confidence in your impartiahty and fair-
ness. But I must say that I have some mis-
givings about extending compHments to you,
sir, because I am told that the last time I
did so that they were extracted from Hansard
and used for a nefarious purpose; to wit, the
election propaganda of the Conservative
candidate in Waterloo South (Mr. Renter).

As a matter of fact, I think that under the
circumstances— since this speech has the ear-
marks of my last hurrah as leader of the
party— I should, sir, be frank with you and
say it was my intention, if the Liberal Party
had formed a government and if you, sir,
had been successful in re-election, to ask you
to be the Speaker even in a Legislature that
was controlled by a party other than one to
which you had political allegiance.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Why
not even if he had been defeated?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There has never been a
feeling on my part that your judgements were
anything but your own best judgement, and I
think that is the measure of you as a man;
and certainly a measure of you in your abil-
ities as Speaker.

I did feel, however, that I should say
something about that old chestnut which
recurs in this House and elsewhere as to the
advisability of having a permanent Speaker;
one who would perform this oflSce as election
campaigns come and go and as, according
to theory at least, governments come and go.

My own feeling is that this would be a
mistake. I think that the man who presides
over this chamber must have the continuing
confidence of members on all sides; that this
confidence should be expressed openly, as I
have done sir on this occasion, and also,
when it is necessary, that the confidence be
removed so that Mr. Speaker is the servant
of the House in the best and democratic
sense.

I also want to extend my best wishes, and
to some extent, my congratulations to the
mover and seconder of the address.

The hon. member for York West (Mr.
MacBeth), while I have not known him per-
sonally, certainly has a substantial repre-
sentation in the Metropolitan area. I was
interested that his main advice to the govern-
ment was that it not proceed with the state-
ment in the Throne Speech which would, in
fact, make it illegal to hold some other

position of emolument in government service
as well as being a member of this House.

I should, I suppose, plead a conflict of
interests. Since I only hold one job, I feel
that the government's position in that con-
nection is the correct one. I know that it
may work a hardship on some members of
this House. The hon. member for Ottawa
South (Mr. Bei;ihett), I am told, has in addi-
tion to his indemnity here, as a controller
in Ottawa an additional indemnity, consider-
ably more than is paid at least to a private
member at this level.

In my view the government should proceed
forthwith to make it illegal to hold more than
one position. I think to be fair, however, Mr.
Speaker, that we should recall that one of
the former adherents and supporters of the
Liberal Party, the former member for Essex
North, Mr. Arthur Reaume, whom many of
you recall, for many years sat as a private
member of this House and also acted as
mayor of Windsor. So there has been this
tradition. But I, for one, intend to support
the bill when it comes before the House,
which would make a change.

The hon. member for York West, I
thought, removed some of the efficacy of his
remarks when he fell prey to that usual
series of statements in the motion to send a
humble address to His Honour which usually
—and much I think to the discredit of a
private member— begins, ends, and in the
middle simply adds adulation and a kind of
sycophantic support for the leader of the
government that I don't think adds much to
the government or the person who phrases
it. So, it appears that the hon. member for
York West is adding his name to the list of
humble servants and handmaidens of Tory
power.

The hon. member for Middlesex South
(Mr. Eaton) is a representative of the farm
community, I would say. I appreciated his
remarks. I sense a very close connection be-
tween the member for Middlesex South and
the member for Middlesex North (Mr.
Stewart) in agriculture. Our present Minister
of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) has
occupied that post for more than 10 years.
Perhaps the new member is thinking that
there may be some changes in this regard
in the next two or three years. Well, I sup-
pose we could do better for a short-term
appointment.

I remember very well the member for
Middlesex South's involvement in the bean
board situation some years ago now, and I
listened to his comments with a great deal

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

of interest. I'm sure that people did on all
sides, particularly those 28 new members of
the House in support of the Conservative
Party. I think it's a shame that not one of
them has been elevated to any rank in the
administration, although one or two have
been designated as parliamentary assistants.
I'll have more to say about that, actually, a
little later in my remarks.

Surely if any administration was ever in
want of some new blood and some new ideas
—perhaps, Mr. Speaker, a bit of a push in
the progressive spirit of modem government
—it is this government. I feel that within the
ranks of the new members— and I've come to
know a good many of them, if not aU— I think
that such ability does exist.

The feeling in the present leader of the
government is that they've got to be back-
benched for a while. I understand the
Premier (Mr. Davis) is now using that as a
verb, sort of like ageing meat or smoking
hams— backbenching a member. These people
have to mark time and talk about the great
leadership of the Conservative Party and the
clear views of the future. I would suggest
that they should throw the Treasurer's name
(Mr. McKeough) in from time to time too if
they know what's good for them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I think, Mr. Speaker, that
that approach to democracy is an archaic
one and certainly not one in the best interests
of the people of this province. So I regret
the timidity that the Premier has shown in
his cabinet changes. Certainly there were
changes; but rejuvenation, unfortimately no.

I, of course, have been very interested in
the steps leading to cabinet changes and
administration reform. As you know, sir, it
was our party that discussed this on the
hustings on many occasions. We were critical
of the size of the government. We felt that
the lines of responsibility had become blurred
over the years and that the taxpayers, the
citizens, the Legislature, were not well served
by a continuation of the status quo that had
simply been added to since the days of
George Drew.

As you know, sir, we called for the reduc-
tion in size of the cabinet, but we had no
intention of having two levels of responsi-
bility, I think it is generally accepted that
people of cabinet rank should all have policy
responsibility and that if you want adminis-
trators, you hire them.

This government opposite has 70,000 in
their employ, some of them paid more than

they are. I understand that quite a group
now in the senior levels of the administration
have larger emoluments than the cabinet
ministers. Of course, they probably work a
good deal harder.

But my point, sir, is this. Policy must be
a shared responsibility, according to our
understanding of responsible government, and
that those people who have, on the other
hand, responsibility for administration, are
hired— and I should say fired if necessary—
by those who have the confidence of this
House, and therefore the confidence of the
province.

So I would say, sir, that we have grave
reservations and misgivings on the basis of
tne reforms that are presently being enacted
by fiat of the government and, we are told,
by an omnibus piece of legislation which
may be put before us sometime in the next
few weeks. I particularly am doubtful as to
whether one particular minister, the one who
is sitting opposite me at the present time—
the Treasurer I'll call him for convenience
sake— should have rolled under his aegis so
many farreaching and decisive responsibilities
at this time and in this province. I think,
actually, the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr.
McKeough) has a tremendous amount of
ability in this House and out of it, but he has
got a couple of weaknesses. He is a great
fighter, you know, when he chooses to be,
but when you look, sir, at the fact that not
only is he the Treasurer, but he is the Min-
ister of Economics with all of the planning
decisions that accompany that great ministry.
He also is the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs— so that he deals with his favourite
politicians, those in the seats of the mighty at
Ottawa, whom he doesn't frighten at all; and
on the other side, those at the municipal level
whom he scares witless from time to time—
I just think, really, that the service of the
province calls for either division of those
responsibilities or else-
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): A divi-
sion of the minister.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A division of the min-
ister, yes, an excellent suggestion! It used to
be called drawing and quartering; perhaps we
ought to return to that.

However, Mr. Speaker, the change among
the cabinet ministers themselves— where al-
most every one of them, with the exception
of Agriculture and perhaps one or two others,
has had new responsibilities in the last few
months— is difficult to understand. One might
also think that the leader of the government

MARCH 6, 1972

wants his ministers to be as much off balance
as he himself is. There is a tendency we
would expect, I suppose, for the Premier to
establish the kind of authority which perhaps
was missing following the convention that
selected him as leader of the party and ele-
vated him to this supreme position in the
business of the Province of Ontario, the gov-
ernment of the Province of Ontario. Some of
the changes were substantially regrettable.

Certainly I for one regret the change in the
Department of the Environment. I would
think that the former incumbent (Mr. Kerr)
must have been somewhat surprised when he
wasn't elevated to the capacity of a thinking
minister and left in a situation where he
administers. But surely the most unkind cut
was when he woke up one— Friday morning,
was it, George?— Wednesday morning, and
found that he wasn't even in the envirormient
any more; that he was well above that, in the
esoteric air of universities and colleges, where
obviously you don't need a thinking minister.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether or not
that particular cabinet change mightn't have
been dictated by the present Minister of
Public Works (Mr. Snow), who is also the
chief Conservative arm twister and bag man,
I am told; if not the chief, let us say the man
who represented the government in some of
these more delicate dealings, because I have
read from statements on the part of industry
which has been affected by the decisions of
government over recent years, where there
was some question as to the fairness of the
positions taken by the former Minister of the
Environment.

In my view, the Minister of the Environ-
ment should not be seen to be fair by the
industrial moguls whose decisions, in fact,
have polluted our environment in the past. I
think probably that change was a political
one. We now have the Minister of the Envi-
ronment (Mr. Auld), representing Leeds, who
perhaps has a more thoughtful position in this
area.

I really would say to you, Mr. Speaker,
that this was a political change and that the
Tories weren't prepared to continue with a
tough Minister of the Environment, a man
who with his own fist broke the top of his
desk there about two years ago when he said
the polluters must pay. Somebody must have
thought that he meant it and so they thought
they had better get him out of that depart-
ment before he did any damage.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, there were
some other changes more recently— the deci-
sion made by the Premier that the province
and the administration would be well served
by the appointment of parliamentary assist-
ants Actually I believe he has been embar-
rassed with the wealth of his support, which
extends, of course, all along that side and
over into the rump— if you will pardon me,
gentlemen— embarrassed by the necessity to
occupy these able men and two obviously
able ladies, who still sit in the back row and
still religiously attend the sessions of this
Legislature and are still waiting for the call
from the Premier.

Mr. J. E. BuUbrook (Samia): And the hon.
member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) is
here a lot more than he used to be too.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am not
prepared to agree with the member for
Samia that that is an improvement but—

Mr. Lewis: And he still hasn't looked
across the House in four months.

An hon. member. That was his political
payoff.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is the member for Lamb-
ton's seat tilted or does he just sit that way.
He looks ahead.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): The hon.
member is in a new position now— his seat is
in a permanent position facing sideways.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): No
purpose!

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Keep
up the good work, Lome.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, certainly I
want to congratulate those men who have
been designated as parliamentary assistants.
The member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J.
R. Smith), I believe: There has been no
representation in the cabinet from Hamilton
for some time. They had an opportunity
during the last two parliaments to have a
woman as a representative from Hamilton,
and to boot, a very able member of the Leg-
islature, but they didn't appoint the former
member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Pritchard)
to the cabinet. I am sort of her agent in this,
or was, but I didn't do a very good job in
getting her placed in the administration.
That might have been one of her problems;
I don't know. But now the member for
Hamilton Mountain is the spokesman for
Hamilton.

100

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

The new member for Sault Ste. Marie
(Mr. Rhodes): I presume that his agent was
Arthur Wishart. Well obviously they have
got a good candidate up there. I am not sure
what price they had to pay, and whether it
was too much, but nevertheless we find that
the former mayor of Sault Ste. Marie is now,
at least, one rung up above his colleagues.

On the member for Ottawa South: The
word is that he went to the Premier and
said: "Listen, if you don't do something for
me I am going to run for mayor of Ottawa,
and so take your choice." The Premier took
his choice and this member is now a parlia-
mentary secretary; so maybe he made the
wrong choice— we will see.

The member for York East (Mr. Meen):
Nothing but good to say about him. Anybody
who can-
Mr. Lewis: Wait that long!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: —defeat the Liberal can-
didate out in York East deserves some recog-
nition.

Mr. Lewis: And commendations!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for Ontario
South (Mr. W. Newman) may actually have
fouled his nest already. His reaction to the
decision to locate the Toronto airport wasn't
in the best traditions of those who want to
get ahead in this administration. I'm a great
admirer of the member for Ontario South. I
thought he was a good deputy sub-assistant
whip for the Conservative Party. While the
whip used to have a little trouble getting
enough members in— even with their large
majority— to maintain the government, it
seemed to be the member for Ontario South
who was prepared to do the work and get
the boys out of the Black Knight and up here
to vote.

But, Mr. Speaker, the member for Ontario
South, I think, has that strength and im-
partiality which should stand him in good
stead. We look at what's happened to the
present policy minister for Justice (Mr. A. F.
Lawrence) who, I think— in 1959 was it— de-
cided that he had some differences of opinion
wdth Mr. Frost, who was then the Premier.
He hasn't expressed many differences with
the administration since, but it didn't do him
any long-term harm. Twelve years later he is
a policy minister.

The member for— what's Carton?

An hon. member: Armourdale (Mr. Car-
ton).

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Armourdale; I remember
him making an impassioned speech about the
expropriation of highway lands and there
were those on this side who said: "Well that's
the end of Carton." But he is still doing his
laps downs at the "Y" and is now Minister
of, well— it used to be Highways, a very im-
portant ministry indeed in the bad old days
of George Drew and Leslie Frost— but now
is Transportation and Communications. Yes.
Well, it is a working ministry and I wanted
to congratulate him on his appointment.

The policy secretaries: obviously we are
going to have a lot of trouble with that—
not only on this side but on the govern-
ment's side as well. The policy minister for
Justice, even in the question period today
you know, fell back on his rather unhealthy
tendency to get snarky with his questioners
when he doesn't have a reasonable answer.
You know, the sort of thing such as: "If you
would pay attention to the business of the
House." Or: "If you had heard my answer
last year on this matter." That sort of thing;
when a minister doesn't really have an answer
he tends to respond in that way.

But in matters pertaining to justice and
law enforcement, we have quite a choice.
The policy minister, the member for St.
George (Mr. A. F. Lawrence) who evidently
is not prepared to answer any questions, just
thinks. The Attorney General, the member
for York Mills (Mr. Bales), who is, I think, a
very down-to-earth, hard-working minister,
vdll probably put the Attorney General's de-
partment back on an even keel from the pol-
itical boat-rocking it has had over the recent
months.

The Solicitor General (Mr. Yaremko), I see,
is still occupying the front page of the
Toronto Star, shaking hands vidth pretty little
ethnic girls, and there is no doubt in my
mind that that is really why he is maintained;
that as long as he can slide around the
Metro area in a chauffeur-driven, black
limousine and be the spokesman for the Con-
servative Party, then certainly it is worth-
while keeping him as a minister— and a
friendlier minister one could never find. He
is now Solicitor General, and from time to
time he indicates that he is prepared to
answer questions too. Even today, he raised
his hand. I am not sure whether it was to
answer a question or he had something else
on his mind.

Mr. Speaker, the list is not complete. We
have the soon-to-be Minister of Public Pro-
tection, the member for Grey South (Mr.
Winkler), who joins that group of ministers
concerned wdth law and order and the pro-

MARCH 6, 1972

101

tection of the public. So far, consumerism
has not led to much of a debate in this
session of the House, but once again I would
expect that the minister will have a great
deal of time taken up with his responsibilities
as House leader and the whole area of con-
sumer protection once again will be bypassed
in the expansion of policy. We don't have a
parliamentary assistant, as yet, in that group
of people.

My point, sir, is that the old cabinet, the
old Robarts bunch and the organization of
the cabinet under those circumstances, had
a great deal of overlapping responsibility—
and I know the Treasurer doesn't want me to
talk again about planning overlapping, where
he had a problem with the former Treasurer
(Mr. MacNaughton) and the former Minister
of Trade (Mr. Randall), but that is the sort
of problem we had in the bad old days,
when the government was unreformed and
substantially unrepentant.

Now we have a new approach, and I
would say, sir, that it is confused, it is com-
plex and responsibilities still overlap. It is
wasteful and inefficient, and I would say it is
not in the best interests of either getting the
business of government done or even extend-
ing infonnation to the House and to the prov-
ince. I think a mistake has been made; I
think there has been too much dependence
on, let us say, efficiency expertise of the type
that would persuade the leader of the gov-
ernment to say: "Well, we must do this more
like a business."

I remember hearing somebody put this to
Trudeau, saying: "Surely as the new leader
of the government of Canada, you will run
it in a businesslike way." And he said: "If
I were to do that, I would have to auction
off Newfoundland," I think we have to recall
that the business of government is something
more substantial than simply getting the
statutes through the House, getting the com-
mittees to rubber-stamp the government's
position and getting the Legislature out of
session as quickly as possible.

I believe these changes are not going to
be in the best interests of democracy, and
certainly we will be observing how they work
out very carefully indeed.

Mr. Speaker, turning to the Speech from
the Throne itself delivered by His Honour,
I have said publicly, of course, that it was a
typical post-election speech. The phrase that
caught my attention must have come from
the Treasurer himself, that we are going to
revert to "fiscal prudence and restraint." It
is interesting to balance that attitude with
statements made by this minister and the

government in the enunciation of policy over
the past year— or until the election came upon
us. The proposals are inconsequential in this
speech; we are treated to a prospect of six
studies, committees and different conferences.

The ministers of finance are going to get
together; I think this is very good. I don't
think that a decision is to be taken by On-
tario alone, however, that this would come
about. There is to be a tri-level conference,
one that I understand, has already been
approved by the federal government and by
many municipalities which have felt that for
too long they they been left out of govem-
.mental decisions at higher levels.

It was not too long ago, Mr. Speaker—
and you may have attended it— that a confer-
ence was called by the former Minister of
Municipal Affairs— I guess the present min-
ister (Mr. McKeough) in his former capacity-
involving the municipalities and the provin-
cial government.

I remember a phrase at that conference
which was held at the Science Centre calling
for a new partnership, which was a hollow
phrase indeed when we look at what imme-
diately came from the Department of Muni-
cipal Affairs— centralization of assessment
responsibility; the imposition of regional
government; and in many respects the re-
moval of the kind of power to decide, which
has been a characteristic and an earimark of
Ontario's municipal government system since
its inception in the 1850s.

We read again in this speech the intention
of the government to strengthen the auton-
omy of our municipalities and yet they are
highly suspect because of their record in
recent months. The Ontario Municipal Board
is going to be reviewed. The government no
doubt has real problems with the OMB since
the decision on appeal, referring to the
Spadina Expressway, to reverse the board.

I would think now that any group of citi-
zens, as is their right, would think that it is
worthwhile appealing to the cabinet. The
procedures for such an appeal are ponderous
and really ineffectual in the extreme, but
the cabinet simply uses that as a means
whereby changes in policy for electroral
purposes— or sometimes I suppose more
rationally motivated— are onade. There is no
doubt that this kind of an appeal of Muni-
cipal Board decisons must go, but the pres-
sure was brought on the cabinet by itself.

There have been instances from many
municipalities when appeals beyond the
Municipal Board to the cabinet, on matters
which in my view should be settled by the

102

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

local municipalities under Municipal Board
review, should have been established and
accepted. The Spadina decision has changed
all that and now the government must find
alternatives.

The fourth committee— or commission— is a
commission on the function of the Legislature
and the role of the members of the Legis-
lature. I understand we will have an oppor-
tunity to discuss this in the next few days
when the commission is established, and I
look forward to that.

The next one is an urgent re-evaluation of
Ontario Housing. You may recall, Mr.
Speaker— I don't know whether it was an
election situation for you but it certainly was
in some areas of Metropolitan Toronto and
elsewhere— that the government had made an
election promise to expedite all of their
housing decisons. This was made by the
minister, who is now on his way to mainland
China, a few weeks before the election. Now
we find that this expedition did not occur
and that we now have an urgent reassess-
ment of Ontario Housing.

Finally, a select committee on snowmobiles.
What I have to say really about this list is
that while in most areas what is being con-
sidered is of importance, it is left to the
Legislature to consider policy on snowmo-
biles! It seems to be the attitude of the
government that if there is something im-
portant that is going to affect policy and the
future development of the province, it should
be done by so-called experts. When it is
something of substantial importance in its
own way but restricted, nonetheless, like
snowmobiles, of course this is something that
the Legislature can deal with.

One of the things that concerns me is this
attitude on the part of the administration— a
disrespect for the will of the Legislature and
the individual members in the Legislature.
According to them, we are here simply to
support blindly, or in their view oppose
blindly, government positions. This is in-
sufficient and I feel that their attitude is
expressed very well in the Speech from the
Throne. As I say, six studies are set up and
only one involving snowmobiles is left to
the membership of this Legislature to con-
sider.

An hon. member: Shame!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We look at the speech
in general. It is obviously a retrenchment
document. It is a design, as far as the gov-
ernment is concerned, that has been dictated
by the Treasurer; he has found himself in a
box, in a bind.

In previous years, it might even be called
a fiscal nightmare and the nightmare is of
his own, their own, making. In the last 12
months and actually less time than that, they
have promised free Medicare to pensioners,
an extra $127 million. You may recall that
that was announced the same day that the
election was called. They intend to extend
coverage under Ontario hospitalization for
nursing homes, something we approve of,
but which was promised a few months before
the election. This is a minimum of $50 mil-
lion in its first full year, and the problems
associated with it are almost insurmountable,
according to the policy minister for Health in
his first attempt to bring forward legislation
to enact this by the promised deadline of
April 1.

Tax reform handouts of $150 million were
spent, I think, as the most blatant political
bribe that in my memory and experience
has ever been offered in this province, to
assist farmers to pay their property tax and
to assist pensioners to pay theirs. Being a
farmer myself, I had no compunction or even
a conflict of interest in receiving a series of
four cheques from the administration. I put
the date on it just so I wouldn't forget—
October 18, 1971.

The total of these cheques was $260 and,
actually, they came in four separate envelopes,
Mr. Speaker. I know the Deputy Speaker is
a farmer himself and probably got something
the same.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Each one of these had
a pamphlet of explanation signed in his own
hand by William A. Stewart; and Dalton
Bales, Minister of Municipal Affairs, The
cheque itself had a picture of Queen's Park
in the background and it was signed by the
then Treasurer, Charles MacNaughton, I
believe.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Did the
member cash them?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I sure did!

There was every attempt made so that
there be no misunderstanding as to who was
handing out this largesse. I should tell the
people opposite, however, that I had two
old ladies phone me up and say: "I hope
when you see Mr. Trudeau, you will thank
him for us."

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is very, very difficult
to get all of the credit, even for this kind of
a blatant political bribe.

MARCH 6, 1972

103

Mr. Speaker, you are aware, being a
farmer yourself, that the tax assistance pro-
gramme went into effect two years ago. The
first cheques we received were payable after
the final instalment in November. Mine were
received in December a year ago. This year,
the payments were speeded up. It was possible
for the government, through the direction of
70,000 public servants that it controls, to
see that these cheques came out a bit early.

I think the most blatant example was the
one in Lambton where the cheques were
delivered to fine and upstanding citizens in
the nursing homes on election day itself. We
are not sure just what the—

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Nice, crisp
$50 bills.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: —advice was, but we find
that the incumbent was returned and, really,
it is very difficult to explain his re-election
other than in that way.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about what amounts to a fiscal night-
mare: Free Medicare, $127 million; nursing
homes, $50 million; tax reform handouts,
another $150 million in all; and a three per
cent reduction in tax that as enacted at the
short session. It is difiicult to tell how much
that will cost us, but according to the then
Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grossman), about
$37 million, I believe, or something like that.

During that year as well, we were treated
to an advertising campaign in which all per-
suasive powers of television, radio, four-
colour ads in newspapers and magazines—
and of course the weekly and ethnic press,
we must not forget them— were all brought
into play to persuade us that there was no
better place than Ontario. It is interesting to
note that this year, the year after the elec-
tion, such an advertising campaign does not
seem to have the priority that it had in the
spring of 1971 or the spring of 1967, or the
spring of 1963. I cannot talk about 1959; I
don't think Leslie Frost would have had the
nerve to try to buy an election with public
funds.

Mr. Speaker, we also had a promise from
the Treasurer, which has been reiterated on
more than one occasion, that there would be
no new taxes in the province in 1971-1972.
So we have a budget of $4.2 billion, a deficit
of $145 million, which is now closer to $465
million or $475 million. We have a promise
that there will be no new taxes and, in fact,

we had a three per cent tax reduction just a
few months ago.

Now if ever there was a fiscal nightmare,
surely this is it. The interesting and im-
portant aspect of this session will be the bud-
get, when we learn from the Treasurer how
and what the way qut of this maze will be.
He has said that, while there will be no new
taxes, there may be some reapportionment of
tax. In this connection I was interested to
read the announcement by the Minister of
Education (Mr. Wells) that in fact the pro-
vincial share of education costs was going to
go beyond 60 per cent to 62.5 per cent this
year.

There is no doubt that the stand taken by
the Liberal Party from 1967, which calls for
a larger share of education costs being met
from the broader tax base of the province,
has become a policy of the Conservative
Party and we are going to get this as a
piecemeal tax change probably in the name
of tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the prudent
and restrained attitude of the government
following the election, we can't help but feel
that the shades of Huey Long and Maurice
Duplessis were certainly coming out of the
electoral procedures programme of the Con-
servative Party during the last year. They
still believe, and maybe they are right, that
public funds can still bribe the electorate at
least to the extent of returning a majority as
large as the government is supported by at
the present time.

We look at the speech itself, and you can
see that other changes have occurred. I read
to you, Mr. Speaker, from page 3, and I
quote:

. . . my ministers believe it is their duty
to maintain a standard of life for all
citizens, the quality of which will reflect
the compassionate and generous spirit of
our people. My government will also seek
new ways to encourage the achievement of
excellence in the many fields of citizen
endeavour from which all of Ontario's
people may draw inspiration and example.

I doubt if Bill Rathbun would have manu-
factured that particular pearl for the Lieu-
tenant Governor to cast before the Legis-
lature.

I go on from the same page:

It is therefore the primary objective
of my government's economic, social and
fiscal pohcy to attain the highest possible
rate of employment.

104

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if perhaps their policy
before that time was something less than
the highest possible rate of employment.
Surely this is the kind of pious claptrap that
we are treated to by the government, once
they have the votes in the bag, once they
have them bought and paid for, and once
they are faced with the economic nightmare
of paying the bills.

The employment policy of this government
is simply to blame the government of Canada
for what is essentially their ovioi responsibil-
ity. We talk about shared responsibilities and
shared cost programmes; this obviously is
one. With a budget of $5 billion, or one
approaching that astronomical figure, still all
this government can do is allocate about
$125 million in a programme which is sup-
posed to expand the industrial aspect of our
economy.

This has been a failure. It has been a
waste of the $125 million, and in fact there is
no policy pertaining to improving the level
of employment in this province, other than
the political policy of trying to elect Stan-
field Prime Minister, which is doomed to
failure.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So the employment and
development aspects of the speech are a
farce, a simple mouthing of words which
do not establish policy of any significance
that I can detect.

Mr. Speaker, on a similar matter, really
closely alUed, I would read to you two brief
excerpts from the speech, the first from
page 4, and I quote:

The government is also committed to
the pursuit of policies which will encour-
age more economic activity and greater
participation by Canadians in the develop-
ment of their own resources and the utili-
zation of their own skills.

Something that for my mind is closely as-
sociated, from page 17, as follows:

New policies concerning investments and
loans giving preference to Canadian-
owned enterprises will be introduced and
loans under the venture capital fund for
businesses employing new technologies
and for assistance in the growth of small
enterprises will be broadened.

This is commendable. Of course, it doesn't
indicate how this is to be done other than
more money for the venture loan fund. I
would like to tell you, sir, that Ontario

Development Corporation is now at the cross-
roads. We have dispensed with the services
of the former Minister of Trade, Stanley
Randall. He was referred to here in the
House last Thursday when the Treasurer
announced that Harbour City was not going
to be continued. This is one of his babies
and it was simply thrown out the window.

Mr. Speaker, the thing is that ODC has
been a political football in many serious
senses. I would recall to you, sir, that a few
months before the election, in the spring of
1971, many smaller communities were desig-
nated for ODC assistance on a very short
term basis.

I call to your attention the town of Delhi
in my constituency and the town of Paris in
my constituency, both of which fall in that
category. They are relatively small towns—
4,000 to 6,000 in population— and naturally
like other towns they have difficulty in meet-
ing their municipal budget. It was accepted
Avith enthusiasm when the government,
through Mr. Randall, made the announcement
that they would-be designated for ODC as-
sistance.

When asked about the criteria for the
designation there was none, other than the
department had decided they would be so
designated and the designation would be
removed without notice and in a very short
period of time. Very little new industry was
attracted under these circumstances. But my
point is this— we of this side as well as the
government are concerned with the economic
development of this province. We approve of
the approach taken by the Treasurer which,
in my view, is going to see that the province
has what amounts to an official plan sometime
within the next four years.

There have to be programmes, however, to
direct not only population but industrial ex-
pansion along the lines of those plans, and it
cannot be done through the present mechan-
ism of ODC. It is shot full of political loop-
holes. The confidence in the criteria has
never been established, and surely something
has got to be done about this.

I make the following proposition, Mr.
Speaker, because I believe that this is what
we need in this province. We believe, on this
side, that ODC has got to have available not
only funds voted by this Legislature but it
has to have access to a pool of capital which
can be gathered from the citizens of this
province, and perhaps of Canada, through
their savings.

For many years these people have followed
the advice of the member for High Park (Mr.

MARCH 6, 1972

105

Shulman) and invested in American securities
because they, too, want to make a million.
But all this time there has been criticism
that our own citizens— those with some money
in the bank or stuck in a sock under the
mattress— are afraid to invest in the growth
of this province.

I would suggest to you, sir, that the amal-
gamation of the Ontario Development Cor-
poration and the provincial Savings Offices
would, in fact, provide a development bank
which would have access to funds voted by
this Legislature. It would also be a channel
through which our citizens could invest in
the development of the province in a fair,
equitable and effective way. Whether or not
it's called the development bank means noth-
ing.

I recall to you, sir, the strange attitude to-
ward the Savings OflBces that has been taken
by the government over the years. They, of
course, don't want to interfere with their
friends in the chartered banks by offering
banking services. Still, they don't want to
give up the access to that $100 million for
which they pay an average of about 3.5 per
cent, which is on deposit in the Savings
Offices and available for general purposes by
the government. We believe, on this side, that
the Savings Offices can be improved in their
position and usefulness, particularly if they
are teamed with the Ontario Development
Corporation.

It would be parallel to the Canada Devel-
opment Corporation, which we trust will be
effective in the very near future in assisting
and strengthening the provision of Canadian
capital for Canadian purposes and in the ex-
pansion of Canadian industry. We think that
such a programme is a progressive one and
one which, in fact, would meet many of the
present requirements for the expansion of
industry here and the strengthening of Cana-
dian ownership and control.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I want, Mr. Speaker, to
deal with a subject that is certainly of great
importance to us all and of special interest
to the Minister of Economics, the Treasurer
and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Federal-provincial relationships are a fav-
ourite topic of his and must be a favourite of
all of us.

In the speech it is dealt with extensively.
There have been those who editorially, and
I ally myself with them, have said specifi-
cally that this interest tends to be a political
one in this federal election year; that the
commitment of the Premier and his team to

the defeat of Mr. Trudeau has certainly led
them into positions which are difficult for
thoughtful Tories to support. I would say
they are not performing a service for Ontario,
and I predict a political embarrassment for
them as well as for our good friend Bob
Stanfield.

Let us assume, at least behind all of the
bombast that is usually associated with the
approach of this government and the Minis-
ter for Intergovernmental Affairs with the
government at Ottawa, that there is a state-
ment of concern on the part of the govern-
ment of Ontario for this future, and that they
are attempting to work out some mutually
acceptable basis, which must be the goal of
us all.

Well let's look at it.

Tax sharing: We have got to remember
that in the last two years taxes have gone
dovm at the provincial level— much has been
said about the three per cent reduction a
few weeks ago— succession duties have been
decreased and in very few other instances
has there been an increase in the imposition
of provincial taxes. Municipal taxes have gone
up tremendously, but at the provincial level
they have not.

It has been the government of Canada
which has raised taxes. That famous three
per cent surcharge we have heard about so
much here, and of course the capital gains
tax, have been imposed by the Parliament
of Canada and will in fact increase the net
revenues at the federal level. But at this
level there is always the feeling that, well,
the province is not prepared to raise taxes;
we should get more money from the govern-
ment of Canada instead.

I would say once again what some of you
have heard me say before, that the govern-
ment that spends the money must of course
have the main responsibility to raise it. This
is an oversimplification; and I must be care-
ful that it is not just a statement like that,
that is seen as Liberal policy.

We do have shared-cost programmes, and
I would predict to you that we wdll have
shared-cost programmes for the future of
Canada, because in my opinion the govern-
ment of Canada has the responsibility to have
programmes that will unify our country, that
it must have programmes that wall reduce the
inequalities in those areas which can be im-
proved by government initiative and govern-
ment intervention.

So let's be realistic about these matters. It
is the Treasurer's and the government's re-
sponsibility to negotiate the best possible

106

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

deal, and on a continuing basis, because there
is no end to this kind of a discussion with
the government of Canada and the municipal-
ities. But nothing is gained by the kind of
vituperative approach that is characteristic of
this year's budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I sense that the Treas-
urer is mellowing a bit. In the first two or
three days of this session he had a couple of
good things to say about the transport policy
and one or two other things. I don't know,
he may get so mellow that it won't be any
fun around here, but we'll see.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Don't
worry about that.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): I don't believe that.
He is afraid of what is going to go on over
there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But let's just look at these
shared-cost programmes which we presently
have. There is a fairly important one in
agriculture; and I am sure that doesn't con-
cern the Treasurer at all. We have got crop
insurance— federal people pay part of it. We
have got ARDA— in this conection we get
about $7 million from Otawa, and I have a
feeling that the Treasurer is not that keen
to take over 100 per cent of ARDA costs or
100 per cent of crop insurance, unless of
course the $7 million was to come from
Ottawa without strings attached. This is not
a sensitive area, however.

Medicare— that is the big bone of conten-
tion. I was interested to look at the report
of the Department of Health for 1970, beau-
tifully printed and made available just this
year. Once again there is not a single mean-
ingful reference to the cost of OHSIP or
OHSC than a reference to the amoimt of
premiiuns- the total amount of premiums-
collected by the Health Insurance Registra-
tion Board and by the Treasurer on behalf
of those programmes. There is no indication
of the total cost. There is no indication of the
amount of contribution from the government
of Canada or from the government of On-
tario, which also supports the programme,
besides the premiums involved. In the debate
on this matter last December I brought it to
the attention of the Minister of Health that
there was no effective report for OHSIP.

Frankly, I have been surprised that the
Auditor didn't say something about this very
matter, because we have been concerned at
the exploding costs of the provision of Medi-
care services, both on the hospital side and
for professional services. The minister him-

self, now the policy minister for Health and
Social Services-
Mr. Gaunt: Human Resources!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Human Resources— right

—was leading the pack-
Mr. MacDonald: His cabinet is meeting

right over there now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just a year ago in crit-
icising the doctors for charging too much
money, or for receiving and billing the
programme too extensively. But now that
seems to have drifted away and we still don't
have any kind of a report on the problems
that are faced in that connection.

The federal government, I think, is fright-
ened as to the rate of escalation of costs. It
is very diflBcult to get from the reports,
either of the Treasurer or the Department of
Health, the specific contribution of the gov-
ernment of Canada to the various health
programmes, but it is a very large one. In
the meetings at the ministerial level over the
last year, they have initiated a programme
which is designed to keep provincial costs
down.

Frankly, I don't blame the Minister of
Health or even the Treasurer for being upset
about this, because it looks to me as if we
have two managers of a programme that is
exceedingly complex, and that it is still in
its formative years; so formative that, as I
say, we have no eflFective financial report,
even to the representatives of the people.

The new minister in one of his first pro-
nouncements said that he favoured 100 per
cent payment to the doctors when we know
the government policy is 90 per cent. The
new minister has also indicated that there
should be negotiations— I don't know whether
he used that precise word; his predecessor
would never use it— between the government
and the doctors. It looks as if there are
substantial changes, at least from the rather
frank statements of the new minister, a man
noted for his frankness. We don't know
whether he has been pulled into line yet
or not.

His predecessor in his frank four days as
minister, before he got the party line, said
that he felt that Medicare should be paid
for completely from tax sources and that
premiums should not be charged. So this
particular joint-cost programme is one that
is confused but about which all of us are
adamant that costs be kept under control.

MARCH 6, 1972

107

This doesn't mean, however, that the costs
are not going to increase tremendously. In
answer to a question today, the Minister of
Health said that the whole matter of mental
health facilities was under review. This is
obviously going to be a tremendously ex-
pensive programme in the next few years,
and it should be.

On the other hand, I believe we have to
have some means whereby we can negotiate
with the doctors so that their call on the
assets of the fund is not going to be growing
at the rate that it has over the past two years.

The Treasurer himself has added his com-
ments to the Medicare debate by indicating
that perhaps we should consider a return to
private enterprise. I don't really see the
value of that particular addition to the de-
bate. I know his conservative propensities,
that he would probably like to sell Hydro to
Oakah Jones, but his reference to the fact
that private enterprise would be called upon
to meet more and more of the facilities need-
ed for Medicare, I think is a ridiculous one
and that it is one that has not added any-
thing of value to the debate.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Provincial Secretary
for Justice): We do sell hydro to Oakah
Jones.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister wants to
sell it too, does he?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I say we do.

We do already sell hydro to Oakah Jones.

Mr. MacDonald: Like the federal Liberals
wanted to sell Polymer to someone.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right, Mr. Speaker.
We are talking about shared-cost programmes.
The next one that I want to refer to is the—

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The member would
agree, in any event, that the federal people
aren't paying enough?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: —Canada Pension Plan.
We get about $200 million in shared-cost
programmes for this, and surely, Mr.
Speaker—

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, and
Minister of Economics and Municipal Affairs):
Canada Assistance.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, all right-CAP-right.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No matter what it
is, the member will agree it is not enough?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure
the Treasurer woxild never suggest that we
go it alone in this regard, because you can-
not predict the need. Where would you be
if in a time of economic downturn you didn't
have another government to call on to assist
in the tremendous payments that are needed
to keep the economy, to keep the people going,
during times when unemployment is so seri-
ously high? You have got another government
to blame for the problem in the first place,
but surely when it comes to the specific
reaction of government in the provision of
welfare services, the Canada Assistance pro-
gramme is one that is going to continue for
a good long time in either its present form
or one that is essentially very close to it.

That brings me to one of the adaptations
that I think is an important one and that is
the tax credit system, which in the long run
might very well fulfill most of the require-
ments for the provision of funds to those
people whose regular income does not sus-
tain them. I like the concept, certainly, of a
tax credit in this connection and I would
give you my assurance, as I have in the past
Mr. Speaker, that if this does lead, as it
should, to a guaranteed minimum income
concept, then I for one, and my party, will
support it in concept.

I have said that since I became leader in
1967 and I am delighted that the people
opposite— the government— are now consider-
ing this sort of an approach to the provision
of what we should call welfare, the mainte-
nance of family responsibilities in those areas
where the problems have been found in the
past. We have a jungle, a nightmare, under
our present circumstances; and if we get to
the point where a guaranteed basic income
approach through tax credits will solve this
problem, then I think that we can do away
with the shared-cost programme indeed.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: But what do the
member for Samia and the member for
Downsview say to it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, I am speaking as
the leader of the party. The minister doesn't
speak in any capacity at all.

Mr. BuUbrook: You bet you he is. And the
minister will never be able to do that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As a matter of fact, Mr.
Speaker, if we were going to predict the
future, I think it is about time that the
Provincial Secretary for Justice had a mild
heart attack here and decided he had with-
drawn from provincial politics so that he

108

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

could pave the way for another career,
because he is dead here. He is dead. He is
not going anywhere. Now that they have
taken him out of the department there is
not even any fun. I bet he doesn't even have
guards any more.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): All they can
protect him from is his own party.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the last
shared-cost programme that is of concern is
the one that involves the payment for post-
secondary education. This in a sense must
have been just like a Christmas tree when
it first came in. The govenmient of Canada,
and I think this was back about 1965 or
1964 this started, decided that in their re-
sponsibility to remove inequalities, they would
have to help pay for post-secondary educa-
tion. And unHke their approach to generalized
equalization payments, Ontario shared in this
this year to the extent of $244 million, a
transfer that in fact was a block transfer. It
had very few earmarks on it, it simply came
to support government programmes, and cer-
tainly we could use it in post-secondary
education and in grade 13 as well.

So I would say that we should get as
much as we can from another level of gov-
ernment that is prepared to levy the taxes
and pay them to us. I have tried to add
some of these up and the Treasurer knows
what my result has been from previous
speeches. As a result of the shared income
tax responsibility, this year he predicts we
will get one bilhon and fifty million dollars.
Programme transfers, $455 million— I don't
know why in his budget he separates post-
secondary, because that is a block transfer of
another $244 million. Our share of the estate
tax is $28 million. I add it up to $1.8 billion,
which in our expenditure of $4.3 billion—
I know that is about what our expenditures
will be this year— is 42 per cent of our total
income. Mr. Speaker, we should not forget
then that in paying the bills for programmes
which we administer, 42 per cent of the
dollars came from another jurisdiction by
agreement. And this $1.8 bilhon is an inter-
esting figure. From my calculations, Mr.
Speaker—

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not necessarily.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: —we get about $35 mil-
lion to $37 million for each percentage point
that is abated from federal tax and paid to
the Province of Ontario. So the Treasurer
and the government of Ontario have pro-
posed a 50 per cent deal. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In general terms, the
minister said to the government of Canada:
"We will take over full responsibility for
presently shared programmes if you will con-
sider abating 50 per cent of the taxes raised
in the province at the income tax level."

Well I would say that even that deal
is not good enough because it would return
only about $1.75 billion or $1.8 billion.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I haven't said that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But the minister is
negotiating. The minister is negotiating for
a full abatement of the shared-cost pro-
grammes that we presently have. My point
is this, even the abatement of 50 per cent of
all of the income tax collected here would
not be enough.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Rightl

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It wouldn't even pay for
the total cost which I have, in general terms,
added up on my piece of paper here.

It has got to be some kind of a judgement
along these lines: There are those who feel
that if the government of Canada has less
than 50 per cent control of the income tax in
this nation, it will lose control of the fiscal
and economic planning for the country. I
am not in a position to say whether they are
right or whether they are wrong. Frankly, I
feel that a 50 per cent division is one that
should be considered on both sides, even if
some of the programmes remain on a shared
basis. I would like to see us take over full
responsibility for some of them, some of the
ones which are now well established, and the
government of Canada simply retain its re-
sponsibility to set the basic level of service
across this nation. To say that we will not
have any shared-cost programmes, either con-
tinuing now or new ones in the future, is
completely unrealistic; a 50 per cent share
of the income tax would not pay for our
responsibilities now, so we surely should not
negotiate on that basis!

The government in Ottawa is going to be
very unwilling even to consider an abate-
ment that large, although from my layman's
point of view I can't see anything wrong
with a split down the middle as long as there
is an understanding that both governments
share in the decision that sets the tax base.

Does the minister want to say something?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, just
to give my friend a rest because I know he
wants to sit down for a minute.

MARCH 6, 1972

109

I have not, and I don't think the govern-
ment has, taken the view that 50 per cent
or 50 points of income tax are not necessarily
equivalent or are not a trade-off for what we
presently receive under the shared-cost pro-
grammes.

We may have talked about abatements for
all the share-cost programmes. We may have
talked about 50 points of personal income
tax but we did not necessarily connect the
two at one and the same time. As a matter
of fact, we published a staff paper three
or four years ago indicating that we felt
that the government of Canada could con-
trol fiscal and monetary policy with 40 per
cent of the total income tax field. But we
have not related the two things; that is not
necessarily agreed to by the member's friends
at Ottawa. I wanted, before I leave-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Imagine that!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: —Mr. Speaker, to
correct the Leader of the Opposition on that
point. We have not necessarily related the
two things.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would think that some-
where between 50 and 60 per cent there
would be a fair amount, yes. Of course, the
problem here, Mr. Speaker, is that the ex-
pected return from these percentage points of
income tax is going to escalate very, very
fast indeed. At the present time, I would say
that the escalation of the cost of onedical
services is even more rapid than that.

On the other hand, the costs of education,
I think, are flattening out and are going to
go definitely downward now that the expen-
sive minister has been moved to other re-
sponsibilities in this government.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member had
better go back to farming, not teaching.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, that may
be so. As a matter of fact, I think I can
make a profitable living in either one. I just
don't have a hardware store; I wish I had
something like that.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): I understand
the member may be cultivating other things.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, just before
the Treasurer goes out, I would like to tell
him that if his attitude is that there cannot
be any more shared-cost programmes he is
going to be a substantial block in the de-
velopment of Canada. I believe that we are
going to onove on to more shared-cost pro-
grammes. I would hope that the government

of Canada would come up with an initiative
in the environment which would require
provinces like Ontario, which have not been
doing enough in this connection, to move
forward with new programmes. What would
the government do, in fact, if there were a
specific offer from the government of Canada
having to do with new sewage disposal facil-
ities or tertiary facilities for certain areas or
a programme for the Great Lakes, which
said: "We will pay this percentage if you
will go along with us"?

Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that the
government of Ontario of Ontario would co-
operate with enthusiasm and move forward
into yet another shared-cost field. I believe
the future of Canada is bound up vdth and
will be involved with shared-cost pro-
grammes. Once they are established, then
surely the administration should become pro-
vincial, but this doesn't imean that the govern-
ment of Canada relinquishes its responsibility
in this connection.

I wanted, Mr. Speaker, to refer briefly to
another reference from page 13 of the
Speech from the Throne, in which His
Honour talks about government programmes
referring to the environment. I feel that
policies and programmes have been down-
graded in this speech in reference to the
environment, and I quote as follows:

My government shares fully the concerns
of the people of Ontario in respect to the
protection and enhancement of our natural
environment. The Ontario Water Resources
Commission has maintained constant liaison
with officials of the federal government,
and has been involved in the discussions
with the government of the United States
on co-operative measures to clean up the
Great Lakes.

I ask you to consider that in conjunction with
the ministerial changes in the Department of
the Environment.

We now have the member for Leeds (Mr.
Auld) replacing the member for Halton West
(Mr. Kerr), the desk pounder— he has now
been elevated to academic concerns. I per-
sonally feel that this is going to relieve much
of the pressure on the management board,
on the policy makers, and the whole thrust
of the government, in their efforts to improve
the environment here.

I would go so far as to say that the change
was politically dictated and that there were
those in support of the party in one way or
another who felt that the former Minister of
the Environment was simply thrusting a littie
too hard.

110

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

I ask you to consider another change; we
have a new chairman for the OWRC. While
I have the greatest respect on a personal
basis for the member for WeHington-Dufferin,
still I feel that putting the OWRC in his
sole charge as chairman is not a way to indi-
cate that the government is maintaining or
strengthening its thrust to improve the en-
vironment.

Mr. Lewis: It is a joke. It is a joke, that
is what it is.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He has responsibilities in
this House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Has the Leader of the
Opposition read the report on what is being
done with the OWRC?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well Mr. Speaker, the
Premier is indicating that he might in fact
follow the policy of the Liberal Party and
put the OWRC in the Department of the
Environment, rather than leaving it out there
under the direction of a cattle drover from
Fergus.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I
also hope that when you finally bring in your
bill to remove the right of a member of this
House to have a job in a municipal govern-
ment, you also see that the member for
Wellington-DufFerin is fired as chairman of
the OWRC. Why isn't he here today telling
us about—

Mr. Singer: Sewage sludge.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sewage sludge! So, Mr.
Speaker, I would say that the speech and the
attitude of the government indicates that once
again the Premier, the leader of the govern-
ment, has ridden the environment as an issue
as long as he wants to. He has gone to limch
with Pollution Probe and held the chicken
leg aloft while he points to the pollution at
Cherry Beach or out on the campus of
Queen's Park, or something like that. But
now the election is over and we can bring
good old Jim Auld in and John Root and
that is supposed to clean up the environment
of the province.

Well it won'tl

Some hon. members: Shame! Shame!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wish that
the Minister of Agriculture and Food was
here. The Premier has indicated that I am
going to do some cultivating back on the
ancestral acres.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn't mean that!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, he didn't, eh? Does
he want to make a speech about something
else?

Mr. Singer: No, no; nothing like that.

Interjection by hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I want to read to you,
sir, from the brief the Federation of Agricul-
ture presented to the cabinet and were good
enough to present to the opposition caucuses
as well.

From the statistics available to them, they
list the realized net income of the farmers
in the Province of Ontario for the last few
years. In 1969, the realized net income was
$442 million. Each year since then, it has
gone down rapidly, until this year, in 1972,
the realized net income is $274 million. A
drop of $168 million in just four years.

The other surprising statistic associated
with this is that when you look at the de-
crease or change in farmers' net income in
all provinces, the drop in the Province of
Ontario is greater than any other province—
38 per cent down in four years. Those are,
in my view, dramatic and important figures.

The problem the politicians have, particu-
larly farmer politicians, is to make anybody
pay attention to the problems faced by the
farm economy. It was interesting to note that
when I raised this subject about a year ago
at the last session before the election we had
catcalls from all sides about Nixon and his
bacon-and-eggs speech once more.

Even the Minister of Agriculture and Food
was not prepared to consider seriously the
problems that are faced by the fann com-
munity.

I am not going to dwell on this. I have a
conflict of interest. I make my living to some
extent by farming and anybody who doesn't
believe it can come out there and I'll hand
him a fork and he can help me.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to
be quite specific about this. While everybody
is prepared to be jovial about the farmers and
say they are all in Florida this time of year
or they have all got support programmes and
that they are paid to take land out of culti-
vation and that sort of thing, this is simply
not so.

The investment of the farmers is well
known. The average income— and I ask you
lawyers and doctors and accountants and
other hangers-on to consider this— the average
income for the farmer is $5,600 a year. The

MARCH 6, 1972

111

average income for a doctor in 1969 was
$40,0000. For lawyers, the average income
they reported-
Mr. Singer: Not mine!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -was about $38,000. I
would ask you, Mr. Speaker, that it is time
some of the people in this House— all of the
people in this House and particularly in the
government— got their thinking caps on as to
what we can do in this regard.

When we talk about the high-priced doc-
tors and lawyers, I would also mention the
high-priced chairman of the OWRC, who I
am told gets an indemnity of $34,000.

Mr. Worton: That is salary and extras.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Salary and extras. Mr.
Speaker, let me put this to you—

Hon. Mr. Davis: How much?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: —I wish the Minister of
Agriculture were here because there are at
least two areas-
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): It should
be worth a front bench seat.

Hon. Mr. Davis: More money!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: —where action is de-
manded.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): The Premier
should apply for that job.

Hon. Mr. Davis: More money. That's what
the blue book says.

Mr. Deans: If it ever becomes open let
me know.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the member looking
for a job too?

Mr. Deans: The member never can tell.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I did a little shopping
on Friday and I bought some eggs and for
grade A large I paid 28 cents a dozen.

An hon. member: They are going to get
lower.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There are those who will
say: "Well, 28 cents, that is fine. I guess it's
time to stock up on eggs and live high."

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It is more
than double that in northern Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is fine. The member
can worry about that himself. Right now I am
worrying about the farmers. At 28 cents a

dozen it means that for every dozen a farmer
sells he is losing three cents. The cost of
production is about 31 cents a dozen. This
has been a problem for almost two years and
the Minister of Agriculture, when presented
with it and some pressure was applied during
the election, said: "I know what I'll do, we'll
have a royal commission." He established a
one-man royal commission— Judge Ross?

An hon. member: Ross?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Judge Ross; and because
the judge hasn't as yet reported, no action
can be taken.

I think you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that
my colleague, the member for Huron-Bruce,
in an address here in the short session when
we were talking about this matter, said that
the Liberal Party would be prepared to sup-
port the government if, instead of waiting for
the report of the royal, commission, they
moved on a temporary basis to bring some
order to the marketing of eggs in this
province.

You know that the federal legislation has
now been proclaimed. The other provinces
concerned with egg marketing have market-
ing boards but Ontario is still the hole in
the dike through which marketing is uncon-
trolled, and as a result the prices are below
the costs of production. Now this is a matter
of grave concern and our party has gone a
long way out on a limb in putting the imme-
diate short-term answer to the government,
but still they do nothing.

Every day the egg farmers are losing more
money. Many of them are going bankrupt.
Even those who have been vertically inte-
grated are suffering the financial pinch. We
are not worrying about them, because they
have other resources. We are talking about
the individual farmers who have been in this
particular means of livelihood for many years.
It is unconscionable that the government
should continue procrastinating, using the
royal commission as an excuse for their lack
of action.

The second point I would like to refer to
specifically has to do with beef marketing.
I still don't know the story involving the
government programme announced by the
minister, in which he said that there were
going to be funds made available as incen-
tives to extend beef production in this
province. We do know that certain organiza-
tions objected and the minister withdrew
what was a very tentative offer at best.

Once again, through lack of initiative and
leadership in the agricultural department of

112

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

this province, the farmers have come out not
only second best but 10th best because the
net income is falHng in this province faster
than in any other province. This is a figure
which should give concern to everybody,
whether they are farmers or not.

I submit that if we were concerned with
adding two minutes to the coffee break of
the steelworkers in Hamilton, we would cer-
tainly have members up here debating at
length on this subject. We are talking about
a large and important segment of the econ-
omy of this province, and while politicians—
myself included— have been talking about the
plight of farmers for a good long time and
have heard some of the figures and statistics,
why can't we at least do as well as the other
provinces in supporting this industry? This is
what we have failed to do.

Mr. Speaker, you know that the govern-
ment has proposed in the speech to bring
about regional government in two other areas,
in Waterloo county and in Sudbury, and in
spite of what you might have read in the
fine print of the Globe and Mail immediately
following the Speech from the Throne, we in
the Liberal Party are prepared to assess these
bills on their merits and not reject them
simply because they indicate a continuing
approach to regional government. This is
obviously the way they must be dealt with
here.

It is beyond the scope of my intention this
afternoon to talk about the record of regional
government already. You know, Mr. Speaker,
there have been serious disappointments?
The then Minister of Municipal Affairs had
to go down to Grimsby and St. Catharines
before the election with $1 million stuffed in
his pocket so that he would support the elec-
toral activities of his party down there.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: A million dollars?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A milhon dollars! As the
policy minister for justice almost said:
"What's a million? It was enough Mr. Speak-
er, to tide the party over in that area.

The minister went up into York with
$800,000 in order to pay the increased costs
of regional government. We know that local
government costs escalated by over 40 per
cent in the first 18 months.

But now the government has been re-
turned with a whopping majority. Only one
opposition member was returned from the
Niagara Peninsula. The people must like
regional government, even though I under-
stand we are going to be presented with a
bill for secession from St. Catharines. It will

be interesting when the member for St. Cath-
arines presents it to the private bills com-
mittee; it will be interesting indeed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How is the member going
to vote?

Mr. Bullbrook: The Premier will be the
new Abe Lincoln.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Because, Mr. Speaker, the
experience has been that these regional gov-
ernments have been accompanied by high
costs and centralization of decision. We be-
lieve certainly that the improvement of
municipal government has to be dealt with
in an effective way, but I don't believe it is
effective when, for example, the Minister for
Intergovernmental Affairs talks to the officials
from the counties of Haldimand and Norfolk
and says: "If you don't decide on your own
to go together and form a region, well we
will put you together." That is a great way
to consult the local people and to rely on
their judgement. In other words, if you don't
decide ♦^he way we want you to decide then
vou I'/ill L7ve no decision and we will impose
it upon you.

I think the approach with the ironclad
rigid criteria of population and assessment
has been found wanting where it has been
applied elsewhere and I think it is also char-
acteristic that we don't have any move to-
ward regional government in Chatham or
even in Peel—

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, we have!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: —where the local mem-
bers certainly don't seem to be urging the
municipalities to get together. At least there
is no indication in the Speech from the
Throne, even though studies are available in
the case of that little Brampton situation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can always update you
about Brampton and Peel.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Bait or debate?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No; I say I will update
you.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, we will hear from
the Premier, I am sure, in this debate some
time.

So I will look at the bills, but my predic-
tion is that before the next election rolls
around the province will be mostly region-
alized with the possible exception of Chat-
ham. I would think that even Brampton will
get it in the neck. Then we will see what
happens in that regard.

MARCH 6, 1972

113

But this approach to regionahzation seems
to have become a fixation, I don't see that
the rigid criteria that were estabHshed some
years ago by the present Minister of Munici-
pal Affairs have any application. It is charac-
teristic that he would give, let us say the
counties of Haldimand and Norfolk the right
to make their own decision and then tell them
that unless they decide in favour of region-
alization the bill will be put to the Legis-
lature anyway.

It is typical. He has said that. It is what
is wrong with the government. It is what is
wrong with its approach to the reform of
municipal administration.

Mr. Bullbrook: It sounds like the OMB.
It sounds like what the government does with
the Ontario Municipal Board— tell them what
their policy should be.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. We tell them what
ours is. There's a distinction.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I want, Mr. Speaker, to
tell you how impressed I was at the opening
of the Pickering power station to hear those
wheels humming and to realize that station
was turning out more electrical energy than
any other atomic plant in the world.

I go back in my mind to a former Minister
of Energy and Resources, Mr. Macaulay,
when he told the House about 1962 that he
was embarking on a brave new programme
involving the production of energy from
nuclear sources at Douglas Point. Then his
successor, Mr. Simonett, about 1964, I be-
lieve, said that although there had been some
disappointments at Douglas Point: "We ex-
pected it to be working in 1965, but it may
not be working in 1965, and we are going
ahead with a commitment, a large commit-
ment, to build a very large nuclear reactor-
four of them as a matter of fact— at Picker-
ing."

You know the problem that Douglas Point
suffered and still suffers. It is closed down
completely now because of the lack of heavy
water, and this is the responsibility of the
federal government. The provincial govern-
ment, the Department of Energy, and Ontario
Hydro, were always listed as partners in this
development until it ran on evil days. I was
interested to note that at the opening of
Pickering there was no doubt about who
owned and operated and had the responsi-
bility for Douglas Point. It has suddenly
become an AECL operation exclusively. Any-
way it has closed down. There may be a few
lights on, and I hope the provision of power
from outside will at least keep that place

warm. The thing is they had substantial
problems with it.

The decision, however, was made to pro-
ceed with the $760 million development at
Pickering. There is a good deal to be said
about this. You have heard what I have said
about it two or three years ago,

Ontario Hydro has the commitment to
produce power at cost— not be the arm of
public policy for the development of a sys-
tem which might or might not be marketed
elsewhere. One of the indications of the lack
of success of our programmes has been that
we haven't made an arm's length sale of this
system anywhere, anytime, except to Ontario
Hydro, It was built on a cost-plus basis with
Ontario Hydro contributing something, the
government of Ontario contributing heavily
and the government of Canada contributing
heavily, at least to all of Douglas Point and
part of Pickering.

So you know it is a tremendous break-
through indeed that that place is operating as
effectively as it did. None of the prototypes
operated to the level of efficiency that was
predicted at Pickering. It is a real credit to
the engineers concerned that this Pickering
place is operating above the speculations.

I must say that it is a credit to the min-
isters who had the nerve to continue with
that commitment even when all of the experi-
ence had been, if not disastrous at least bad,
and when this system could not stack up on
a competitive basis internationally to result in
the sale of even one reactor. The place is
working and the engineers are satisfied and
I think it is a great achievement indeed.

I am also quite interested— I should men-
tion I'll look at my notes here— $760 million
is tough to finance because part of that
was $100 million borrowed in New York at
9.6 per cent. When George Gathercole says
we are going to have an increase in hydro
rates every year for the foreseeable future-
he mentioned five or six years— and the Pre-
mier says that may or may not be so but
there is nothing he can do about it, that is
an indication that we are going to have in-
creased rates. The Premier may go on say-
ing there is nothing he can do about it so
that it will be Ontario Hydro that carries
that particular ashcan.

Frankly, I am glad that my house is not
electrically heated because I think that this
is going to be a very heavy burden indeed
to pay for about five years from now. These
problems are ones that simply were not fore-
seen as we committed ourselves to very ex-
pensive means of producing power.

114

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

There is some personal experience in this
connection. I guess I've got plenty of time
and I know you are all interested, Mr.
Speaker. Once again referring to the family
farm back in Brant county; 260 acres, it
has been there quite a while. If need be, I
think we could make a living on it.

The fellow who went there originally was
a very kind and generous chap. Charles
Nixon was his name. He went there about
1848 and the survey road that set out our
farm on the south went through some very
swampy low land indeed. It became the
custom to turn off just at the edge of our
farm and come up on the high dry land.
You know: "We'll go through Charlie's place;
his wife makes good cookies." I think there
was some attraction there according to family
stories.

That road is now King's Highway. It cuts
the farm in two and those of you who have
been driving past there on a summer after-
noon might have seen myself or some other
people driving a herd of cattle back and
forth across the highway. You can't stand in
the way of progress.

About 1860 the politicians of the day in
support of progress decided that the Grand
Trunk Railway had to have a line that
went through there. It is now the Canadian
National and it bisects the farm with a very
high embankment indeed.

Those of you who have driven by and
looked carefully will find that the Henry
government provided a tunnel for the Nixon
cows to get under the railroad track so we
didn't have to drive them up over the top.
It was very much appreciated. My dad in-
sisted that the date be etched into the ce-
ment— 1932— because he knew the government
was going to change and he didn't want
anybody to think he had had it built there
with public funds.

About 1948 Ontario Hydro came out to
the farm and said "We've got a pleasant
surprise for you. A high-tension power line
is going through your farm diagonally. You
will require seven towers for which we will
pay $75 each." That is one payment giving
them rights in perpetuity. This power line
now diagonally cuts across the farm. Im-
perial Esso pipeline had to be built there
just after the war.

Mr. BuUbrook: I am pleased the member
didn't get the airport.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: My neighbours immedi-
ately to the north told the property officers

that they didn't want the pipeline on their
property because if there was ever a war it
would be bombed and they didn't want their
farm bombed. That was the argument. The
former owner of the property said: "We
don't want to stand in the way of progress.
Just put a little bend in the pipeline back
there." The pipeline goes right through our
property! So really we have had the ad-
vantages of dealing with property officers
both public and private over a good long
time.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The member has
not been making his money from farming.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I will tell the minister, if
we were going to make the money out of the
right of way and easements associated with
Hydro and the Department of Highways, we
would be on welfare. I will tell him that.

So I was interested the other day when I
got home, when my wife said there was some
guy at the back door there who wanted to
survey the farm. I asked him what he wanted
to do and he said, "Oh, didn't you know?
There is a power line going through here."

I just want you to compare this approach
with something that you may recall, Mr.
Speaker. When we went to the opening of
that plant— I think I was the only opposition
politician. No —

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for York-
view was there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for York-
view was there as well.

We got a beautifully embossed invitation,
and I thought: "I am going to have to go
to that. No doubt about it, I have got to go
to that opening."

As we approached the front door of this
$760 million plant, there were stationed on
each side two Ontario Hydro security guards
in uniform like you wouldn't believe. They
looked like they had come right from Cade's
county. They didn't have guns but they did
have metal helmets— gold with black stripes;
no plumes, that comes next year.

As we approached the door, it was just
like going into Loblaws. The door swung
open like that, and we walked in. Just as I
went in, there was a helicopter circling over-
head. It looked like one of these Vietnam gun
ships. I mean it was big. Somebody said:
"Oh, here comes the Premier." And, if you
will pardon me, an electrification just went
through the whole place.

MARCH 6, 1972

115

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is quite right,
I am told.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I happened to be there
when the Premier himself came through those
doors which snapped open. I said: "Boy, this
is a great plane you are flying." He said: "It
is one of Hydro's. Do you want a ride?" He
is generous; he is very generous.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot afford not to be.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: When Ontario Hydro
talks about power at cost, cost is just any-
thing at all.

You remember there was a debate in this
House many years ago that the government
was establishing some sort of a secret police
force or a Gestapo. I would not suggest for
a moment; but boy have they got a lot of
private security ofiicers and guards! There
were platoons of Ontario Hydro guards. Any-
body with any status at all, like you know
who, had a metal helmet that was gold. I
believe the Premier's was white.

Mr. Bullbrook: There is an indicator.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They had a red one for

the member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was orange. Maybe
that is an indication too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was very becoming to
the hon. leader.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I was impressed. They
had the banners behind the opening cere-
mony area. It was very much like the Science
Centre for those conferences they have there.
It impresses; you really feel you are entering
the Sportsplatz back in 1937— something like
that. The guards are there; everything is
there. They have the speakers and we hear
that, and so on and so on.

But then I was talking to some of the press
people and they said: "My! Ontario Hydro has
excellent PR people." They must have had
30 public relations experts there to see that
the press was treated properly. The only thing
was that none of them could tell them much
about it. They would give them a handout
and say: "Well, I'll talk to my boss about
this or that."

But I ask you to compare that with the
way they deal with the little man, that is
the farmer on lot 1, concession 3, South
Dumfries. A knock comes on the door and
the poor little innocent surveyor says: "We
would like to survey your land".

Immediately the wife of the owner gets
all bristling and says: "What now? What are
you doing now?"

"Well, we are putting a power line in
here."

The next day I get a phone call, of course,
from my neighbour saying: "What's going
on? Somebody wanted to survey through our
land."

I had to explain to him that I didn't know
anything about it but that I surmised that
the line which was proposed two years ago
had been changed.

One of my neighbours, a plumbing con-
tractor from Hamilton, who also has race-
horse stables and white fences around a
beautiful piece of land and who also has an
excellent game preserve on his own farm,
had been successful in persuading Ontario
Hydro that it shouldn't run the line through
his property—

Hon. Mr. Davis: So they go through the
member's.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We don't have a game
preserve, and, believe me, I shall not stand
in the way of progress. The lines will be
put in there.

But I would just suggest to you, Mr.
Speaker—

An hon. member: Has he got a swimming
pool?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: —I'm talking for myself
and my neighbours and many others who
will be treated to this sort of an approach-
that surely we should have had a letter from
the chairman of Hydro, even if it was
mimeographed, saying: "These are our plans
for your area; this is needed for the provision
of power"; or whatever the explanation is.
It could say: "We have arranged for an open
forum on this subject at some convenient
spot, where our experts will be there to
explain it, and we will be glad to hear your
objections. We hope to have the property
acquired by such-and-such a date, because
it is essential that we proceed with this line."
Of course, they have expropriation powers,
and there are ways to get these decisions
changed, but essentially the line has to go
through.

I've had letters, and I'm sure many of the
members have, from people who live in Peel
North riding. They do not want a power
corridor to go through their land. They don't
want it to go through their land. It's got to
go somewhere; it will go somewhere else—
perhaps.

116

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

But it seems to me that if Ontario Hydro
has all of these resources and a chairman
who, undoubtedly, has great abilities in deal-
ing with individuals— a kind and thoughtful
gentleman indeed, who knows how to keep
the wheels turning and the lights burning-
it is elementary that he should deal in an
effective way with the people. He knows and
the government knows that the last of the
easy decisions is locating power plants and
power lines is past.

So, Mr, Speaker, with these introductory
remarks, I want to say something that's, well,
personal. You are aware, sir, that this will
probably be the last time that I will lead
off this debate as leader of the great Liberal
Party in Ontario. I have no regrets at my
decision to step down from this position of
importance and eminence.

I look back over a bit of history. I thought
1943 would be a convenient time to start,
when my father left the leadership of the
party. He was succeeded, after a litde fool-
ing around, by a good friend of us all,
Farquhar Oliver. In 1948 Oliver was suc-
ceeded by Walter Thompson. Do you remem-
ber the hospitalization man? Do you remem-
ber also that the Conservative Party said
that hospitalization was outright socialism
and that anybody who wanted a socialist
Ontario might vote Liberal. The result was
that even the leader of the Liberal Party
was defeated and the Conservatives came
back in droves because, evidently, Ontario
doesn't want socialism.

Mr. Singer: It still doesn't.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Thompson, the first,
was succeeded by Mr, Oliver again, you will
recall. Then Mr. Wintermeyer, in 1959,
stayed on for two election— 1959 and 1963.
I recall him very well and I'm sure many
of you do,

Andy Thompson; we all recall his contri-
bution to the House as leader. He's now
contributing to the nation as a senator and
I succeeded him.

If you were to look at the other side, well,
Mr. Drew lasted until 1948, and was suc-
ceeded by Mr, Kennedy— the other Mr,
Kennedy, Tom. Mr. Frost took over just
before the election of 1951— that was his first
election— to 1961, when Mr. Robarts took
over.

I well remember the day— a personal refer-
ence once again— when the Conservative con-
vention was voting for Mr. Robarts. It hap-
pened to be the day that my father was
being buried. The then Premier, Mr, Frost,

went out of his way, even under those cir-
cumstances, to come all the way up to St.
George and it was much appreciated.

Then Mr. Robarts was succeeded by Mr.
Davis, who may be here for two or three
years, they tell me.

You look at the course of these things-
there are many interesting things that have
happened. I don't know whether the course
of history is changed dramatically by oppo-
sition leader, but certainly it's an important
and consuming occupation.

The 1971 campaign— in closing I want to
make some brief references to it, I know that
the Premier would be disappointed if I did
not— was an interesting one. I was talking to
the leader of the NDP in a quiet moment
just a day or two ago, and we both agreed
that these campaigns are good ones for the
people directly involved. You travel, you
meet people. We all feel we had good candi-
dates and we had reasonable discussion of
issues and yet my feeling was that issues
certainly took a back seat to an assessment
of personality perhaps. We had our famous
Blueprint for Government— I wanted to say
quite a bit about that, particularly as it per-
tains to the form of the cabinet, but I will
have another chance to do that— and I had
the feeling that, well the Blueprint for Gov-
ernment was pitted against Thor the $2 dog—

Hon. Mr. Davis: One dollar and seventy-
five cents.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well $1.75 dog, and it
plain which the people were interested in.
But certainly, if you want to see Ontario you
should travel as the leader of a provincial
party. We had a palatial DC-3 which we
shared with the NDP on some occasions; and
we found that we could get there just about
as fast and as sure as the Conservative buses
and the pancake batter that kept dribbling
out of the back there apparently.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The batter was never on
the bus.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We had an interesting
time with politicians and with the press and
with others. I will tell you the things that
stick with me as you fly over Ontario, mile
after mile of the most productive farmland.
It really is a most marvellous sight. In the
autumn of the year it's beautiful. Then you
come back late at night and see the Metro
area and the various cities.

I remember one trip. We left from
Muskoka. I had just judged Miss Teenage
Muskoka or something like that. I recall the

MARCH 6, 1972

117

occasion. We got into a plane at Muskoka
airport because it was essential that we get
up to Rainy River for a series o£ meetings,
so we flew all night long and I remember we
looked out over the Lakehead and Sault Ste.
Marie, and we finally arrived at International
Falls and were able through very careful
work to elect one of the finest members of
the House, Mr. Reid— yes, there he is.

So Mr. Speaker, I have no regrets about
the campaign, particularly, but I think I must
quite seriously say, and repeat for a moment
what I said about some of those payments,
the payments for tax assistance arriving at
my home the Monday before the election.
Well it didn't quite change my vote, but it
really made my stomach turn over and my
heart turn cold, because that was pretty
blatant political bribery.

I remember seeing that the Premier had
made an announcement on behalf of the ofii-
cials and experts working for the Treasury
Board that the election of a Liberal govern-
ment would increase expenditure by $3.2
billion and the election of an NDP govern-
ment by $3.15 bilhon-

Hon. Mr. Davis: Less than that.

Mr. Deans: We were less.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, and it was interest-
ing for me just to look at the record between
1967 and 1971. The increase in the budget
of the Province of Ontario had been in ex-
cess of $3 billion and the Premier-
Mr. Bullbrook: How can you say those
words?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: —the Premier and those
hacks who write his election material were
not prepared, of course, even to consider the
same thing that his own Treasurer was talk-
ing about; changes in the tax base; that in
fact the cost of education had to come down
and that this would mean that the payments
would come from the provincial tax base.

I was disgusted at that particular emana-
tion from the Premier. It was unworthy of
him or any other Premier. I have no doubt
that the people who are employed by the
Treasury Board will do as they are told—
and some of them might even vote Conserva-
tive—but I have my doubts that it was in
that capacity that they undertook that parti-
cular piece of dirty work. I don't think he
does anything for the public service or for
the opinion that the people would have of
him as the first minister in that sort of chica-
nery; that he found it impossible to make the

kind of policy decisions during and imme-
diately before the campaign that had any-
thing but political meat to them.

The situation at Sturgeon Falls resulted in
his Minister of Education wringing his hands
and, finding a royal commissioner who
couldn't even speak French, to pour some
oil on the water as only he can— a very able
man indeed; a man who didn't even give his
report before the school that was the bone
of contention in Sturgeon Falls had been
granted and will be in service next Sep-
tember.

The Minister of Agriculture couldn't face
the situation on the farm with egg marketing,
had to appoint a royal commission and now,
while he is waiting for that report, the situa-
tion deteriorates and continues to plague
the farm community.

Well, you are in a bind of your own mak-
ing. You have cut taxes and you have prom-
ised you will not increase taxes. You have
promises — pardon me, commitments; the
Premier doesn't use the word promise— which
are costing us plenty. The real meat of this
session will be the decisions that come down
in the budget and not in the debate on the
Speech from the Throne, because budgetary
problems are the ones that face us now.

Still, the election is over. Certainly the
commanding majority is prepared to support
the government in the programmes put for-
ward.

We regret a good many things that have
been omitted from this speech and as much
as anything else we regret some of the atti-
tudes that have been seen and been estab-
lished by the Davis-McKeough adminis-
tration.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by Mr. Singer, the following
amendment:

That this House regrets:

The lack of effective policy to stimulate
employment, attempting instead to place all
responsibility on the federal government;

The downgrading of programmes and
policy to improve the environment;

The absence of a farm programme strength-
ening egg marketing and providing incentives
for the expansion of the beef industry;

The reorganization of government and
cabinet, seriously tangling lines of respon-
sibility and reducing efiiciency;

The cynicism of the government bringing
forward many expensive programmes in the
months immediately prior to the election,

118

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

then embarking on a policy of retrenchment
immediately following.

Mr. Bullbrook: Resign!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Tomorrow?

Mr. Bullbrook: Right nowl

Hon. Mr. Davis: Those fellows are going
to have to go a long way to get a better
leader.

Mr. Bullbrook: I agree.

Some hon. members: We all agree!

Mr. Bullbrook: Let the record show that
we all agree with that!

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough
West.

Mr. Lewis moves the adjournment of the
debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial AflFairs): Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest that we proceed with the
private members' hour now.

ONTARIO ECOLOGICAL
SANCTUARIES ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moves second reading of
Bill 4, An Act to provide for the Establish-
ment of Ecological Sanctuaries in the Prov-
ince of Ontario.

Mrs. M. Scrivener (St. David): Mr. Speaker,
I think we are all aware, although we may
not be sufficiently appreciative, of the fact
that man's advancement and technology is
pushing back the frontiers of nature at an
alarming rate.

Aside from the problems associated with
the destruction of our ecology, we must also
face the psychological depressant of noise
technology. There are now few, if any, places
in southern Ontario during the winter months
where one can appreciate the quiet enjoy-
ment of such things as snowshoeing, cross-
country skiing, bird-watching and other
forms of passive recreation without the in-
trusion, and sometimes danger, of snow-
mobiles.

The purpose of this bill is to establish in
Ontario various large areas of land which
would be set aside as ecological sanctuaries
as a winter protection for the delicate bal-
ance between plants and animals which rely

to a considerable degree upon nature's winter
blanket of snow for their survival in our
rigorous climate.

This would mean that ecological sanctu-
aries would have to be designated by the
provincial government and made unavailable
for the pleasure or recreational use of snow-
mobiles and other motorized vehicles during
the winter months. The only exception would
be for rescue or service equipment.

There are now over 200,000 snowmobiles
in Ontario. At present, about one out of
every 22 Ontarians uses a snowmobile at
some time during the cold months. This in
itself is testimony to the unique, even amaz-
ing qualities of this machine.

But in many ways, the snowmobile is also
a very dangerous mechanism; dangerous, not
only because of the number of fatal accidents
in which it is involved, but also because its
present unlimited use can result in the de-
struction of plant and animal life all across
the province. While we all recognize and
enjoy the use of snowmobiles, some rationale
must be introduced to curb the adverse
effects of snowmobiling upon the provincial
ecology.

Therefore, Mr, Speaker, I believe the time
has come for this province to declare certain
areas "off limits" to motorized vehicles which
are used for recreation and pleasure in the
winter months. Some of these areas should
include some conservation authority proper-
ties and parts of provincial parks, especially
those close to urban areas; also, Crown lands
and, as well as these, areas that can in some
measure still be considered wilderness areas.

It is not my intention in these remarks to
leave the impression that I favour an overall
ban on snowmobiling. Indeed, I fully under-
stand the interests of the thousands of own-
ers, the large number of people employed in
the industry and the importance of this vehi-
cle to our tourist trade. Yet, surely we can
all understand that the pursuit of pleasure
bears a responsibility, and that in pursuing
the pleasure of snowmobiling we must also
be aware of the need to preserve the ecology
of the province.

Pleasure and preservation are not incom-
patible. This ought not to entail a conflict
of objectives. Obviously, there may be from
time to time some inconvenience, inasmuch
as the recreationist may have to travel a
longer distance to reach an approved snow-
mobile area. But certainly this is a small price
to pay for the salvation of our plant and
wildlife.

MARCH 6, 1972

119

I bring your attention to a survey con-
ducted by the Ontario Department of Tour-
ism and Information on snowmobiling dur-
ing the winter of 1969-1970. On page 24
is a result of the question, "What type of
area do you prefer when snowmobiHng for
pleasure or recreation?" The three single
most preferred areas given by the respond-
ents were: unorganized open land and bushy
areas with no special facilities; wooded areas
with trails; hilly lands in wooded settings. The
total for these three areas is 77.4 per cent.

This survey, which points up that most
people show little interest in organized areas,
is not only significant but, indeed alarming.
Further, this study of the Department of
Tourism and Information contains a number
of comments and opinions as expressed by
the respondents which run to some seven
pages. In only one out of the many com-
ments does a single respondent mention
the problem of noise pollution or preserva-
tion. Here are some of the more interesting
comments:

"I would like to see organized trips un-
der supervision of conservation officers to
remote parts of Algonquin Park." "Snowmo-
biling has led to being able to get into places
in the winter which would otherwise be in-
accessible." "Open provincial parks and
campsites to winter camping which can
provide a wider area of serviced Crown
land." "Trails on Crown land." "Allow snow-
mobiling in Metro parks and also in parks
within a reasonable distance of Metro
Toronto." "Open the provincial parks for
snowmobiles." And, finally: "More urban
parks open for snowmobiling at no cost to
owners."

Now, Mr. Speaker, in a study on "Snow-
mobile Use and Winter Mortality of Small
Mammals," presented by two members of
the Department of Zoology, University of
Minnesota, to the 1971 Snowmobile and OfiF-
the-Road Vehicle Research Symposium at
Michigan State University, the observation is
made that:

Snow cover is considered to be important
to the survival of many animals that live
beneath it (subnivean) because of the pro-
tection it affords from stresses of direct
exposure to severe winter climate and
predation.

And there follow four supporting reference
papers.

The recent explosion in popularity of
snowmobiles for winter recreation has rais-
ed questions about ecological effects be-

cause, in adition to their noise and exhaust
fumes, snowmobiles compact the snow.
It is the last factor, mechanical compac-
tion of snowfields, that can produce a
stress upon subnivean organisms and there-
by increase winter mortality rates.

Both the reduction in snow depth and
the increase in snow density due to snow-
mobile packing operate to reduce the in-
sulative value of snow and to increase the
mechanical barrier to animal movements
beneath the snow.

Now, not only does the unlimited use of the
snowmobile for recreation and pleasure de-
stroy animal life, but also, because of com-
paction, snowmobiling may cause damage
yields per acre from forage grassfields and
vegetation density. This latter problem should
awake many farmers, particularly those who
use their snowmobile on their own property,
or who open up their fields to city snowmo-
bilers without much thought and in many
cases only for profit.

In connection with this, I might suggest
that those people who own private property
and who do not wish to have their property
used by snowmobiles or who have difficulty
keeping snowmobilers from trespassing on
their land, could ask the the Ontario govern-
ment to designate their lands as ecological
sanctuaries within the meaning of this Act.

Such areas could then be posted as
"Ontario ecological sanctuaries," and any
who violated the restrictions of this Act
would be subject to a fine of up to $1,000.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that legislation is
already available to the municipalities allow-
ing them to implement such regulations as
they see fit to curb the use of the snow-
mobile. A few have already moved in this
regard, one of the cities being Brantford.
However, more encouragement is necessary
and I am convinced that leadership by the
government of Ontario is urgently required.

In my view, the Ontario government
should immediately undertake a province-
wide survey to determine what areas in the
province cannot be used for snowmobiles
for recreation and pleasure. They could be
called "Ontario ecological sanctuaries." If
the government were to begin such a study
right now some areas could be declared off-
limits to snowmobiles for the winter of
1972-1973.

Mr. Speaker, I have not commented upon
the noise made by the snowmobile. I know
that some of the manufacturers are now
either conducting research into this noise

120

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

problem, or are preparing to introduce a
quieter machine into the market. I think that
there are some federal noise standards that
will be coming into effect. In any event,
provincial controls through noise regulations
must be brought forward immediately.

I understand that the Department of the
Environment is now drafting legislation to
combat noise pollution which would include
snowmobiles, and I hope that the Minister
of the Environment (Mr. Auld), will be able
to have this legislation ready for this session
of the Legislature so that we may have in
effect some regulations for the next year.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, you may have noted
that the bill confines itself to ecological sanc-
tuaries during the winter months. However,
I tend to take the longer view and it is my
hope that eventually much wider-ranging
legislation can be introduced to create eco-
logical sanctuaries on a year-round basis.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
it is with a certain amoimt of trepidation
that I rise to take part in this debate and to
speak in opposition really to the hon. mem-
ber's bill.

I ask for your judgement, sir, before I
begin, as to whether or not the rules and
procedures of the Legislature still apply in
respect to written speeches in the Legisla-
ture? For the benefit of the newer members,
I understand that written speeches are not
allowed. I might just say that—

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Come on!

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): What
kind of nonsense is that now?

Mr. Reid: I was about to make a point,

Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Ferrier: Pretty small point— picky,

picky.

Mr. Reid: As usual my friends to the left
don't wait to hear the point, and if they did
hear it, they wouldn't understand it anyway,
so they might as well do their barking now
rather than later.

Mr. Deans: Why wait for something we
wouldn't understand?

Mr. Reid: My point, Mr. Speaker, is that
I would like to slip in via the back door the
fact that one of the things that I think the
government opposite has been very derelict
in doing is providing new members of the

Legislature with the background information
that they require to carry on the job in this
Legislature. I well recall when I came in
1967, Mr. Speaker, that I would-

Mr. Speaker: Does this have something to
do with the bill before us?

Mr. Reid: Well, it is, perhaps, a little more
pertinent than the bill itself.

An hon. member: Out of order!

Mr. Deans: It is about as pertinent as his
normal remarks.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member really is
out of order. He may speak to this bill.

Mr. Reid: Yes, I will speak to the bill, Mr.
Speaker. As I say I find it very difficult to—

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Don't read,
for heaven's sake!

Mr. Reid: Well, I learned it from the mem-
ber for Lakeshore. I haven't become quite as
pious or sanctimonious, but I'm working on
it. Perhaps when I reach his esteemed num-
ber of years I will be able to do that.

Mr. Lawlor: I see.

Mr. Speaker: The member is out of order.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Not nearly
as eloquent either.

Mr. Reid: Before I was so rudely inter-
rupted, Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that
I cannot really support the bill as offered by
the hon. member. As she noted herself, there
are various acts and regulations that pretty
well cover exactly the intent of her bill, I
would refer the hon. member, for instance, to
the Wilderness Areas Act, chapter 498, which
you will find on page 1137 of the Revised
Statutes of Ontario, and perhaps for her edi-
fication, and for those on my left who are
not able to read, I will read them sectoin 2
of the Act:

The Lieutenant Governor in Council may
set apart any public lands as a wilderness
area for the preservation of the area as
nearly as may be in its natural state, in
which research and educational activities
may be carried on for the protection of the
flora and fauna, for the improvement of
the area, having regard to its historical,
aesthetic, scientific or recreational value,
or for such other purpose as may be pre-
scribed.

I recommend the reading of that particular
statute to the hon. member because, as I say.

MARCH 6, 1972

121

I think it is pretty amply covered in that. As
well, the hon. member may not be aware
that across the Province of Ontario there are
zoning committees, recreation land-use com-
mittees, now called advisory comimittees to
the Minister of Lands and Forests or the
district forester, who meet periodically
throughout the year, who set up zones within
the province and within the particular district
forest area, which deals with exactly these
problems.

I think, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, that
this bill is a good one in that it focuses
attention on this problem; but I don't think
the bill itself is very necessary nor do I think
it is particularly well drawn, which of course
is not the particular member's fault. The bill
itself is contradictory in spots. It lacks con-
sistency. Section D of part 1 of the bill
reads:

"Winter season" means the period of
time commencing with the 22nd day of
December in any year and ending with the
21st day of March in the following year.

I can inform the hon. member that our winter
in northern Ontario in particular lasts a great
deal longer than that.

Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): All year.

Mr. Reid: As well, section 4 of the bill
says:

No person shall hunt, take or kill or at-
tempt to hunt, take or kill any bird, fish or
animal in an ecological sanctuary.

Again I am sure the hon, member is prob-
ably not aware, but the present regulations of
the game and fish laws of Ontario pretty well
take care of that.

Mr, Speaker, there is, and will be in the
future in the Province of Ontario, a need to
have specific areas laid out for snowmobiles.
There is no doubt that they wreak a certain
amount of ecological harm on the flora and
the fauna of the province, and there is no
doubt that within a very few years the snow-
mobilers wdll be restricted to particular areas
where they can operate their machines.

In a way, it is something I don't look for-
ward to, because one of the reasons we par-
ticularly live in the north is to have the
unrestricted use of the wilderness; but if we
allow the untrammelled use of machines such
as this, and all-terrain vehicles, which weren't
mentioned in the bill, very shortly we will
not have any wilderness left.

Regarding the purpose of the bill, I think
the intent is good; to focus attention on this
problem. The Premier (Mr. Davis) himself has

gone so far as to suggest that he is going to
appoint a select committee on snowmobiles
in the Province of Ontario. Mr, Speaker, I
think it is an insult to the intelligence of the
members of this Legislature to have such a
committee even suggested to them. It is an
important problem, I am sure, both in the
urban and rural areas, but to suggest that the
members of this Legislature have nothing
better to do than to sit on a committee whose
views and aims are to study and recommend
solutions to a problem that is not really very
vital in the life of this province at the
moment is, I consider, a personal insult to
myself and every other member of this
chamber.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Shame.

Mr. Reid: Of all the things there are that
need to be done and are of a pressing and
crucial nature, for the Premier to have the
House listen to a ghost-written, if you like.
Speech from the Throne, and to suggest that
the best he can come up with to occupy the
members' attention is a committee on snow-
mobiles is also a little frustrating to take, I'm
sure, for the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, having made those few short
remarks I would say that this party cannot
support this bill for the reasons I have out-
lined. It is already covered by legislation
and regulation and we see no necessity for
the bill, particularly in the inconsistent form
in which it has been drawn up.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm
not going to be like the member for Rainy
River, hypercritical and sanctimonious. I'm
going to talk about what was obviously
intended-
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Let's not be
nasty with each other. There are so few of
us left. Let's be nice. There are 79 of the
enemy there I

Mr. Deans: Well, let's say that one of the
79 of the enemy has put forward some
ideas-
Mr. Bullbrook: I say 78 of the enemy-
Mr. Deans: —which, like the member for
Rainy River says, may be redundant to some
extent but, nevertheless, I think that—

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We serve this great
province.

122

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Deans: —there is sufiBcient concern
throughout the Province of Ontario for the
effects of the abuse of the use of motorized
snow vehicles to justify some form of debate
in this Legislature.

We all know what the private members'
hour is all about. Whether or not we support
the bill in its drafted form is really im-
material. It's simply to give an opportunity
for the expression of some personally held
views about matters which are of concern.

I want to say, first of all, that the need
to preserve wildlife would gain the support
of every member in the House. I know that
the member for St. David— am I correct?— is
on pretty safe ground in suggesting that we
need legislation which will protect wildlife
against the abuses that are created by the
use of the motorized snow vehicles in areas
where they ought not to be permitted to
travel. I think also that the numbers of
accidents that have occurred over the last
two years— deaths due to negligence; deaths
due to stupidity; and deaths due to manufac-
turing defects— justify a closer look at the
uses to which motorized snow vehicles might
be put.

I'm not sure that the government ought to
embark on setting up little areas and calling
them ecological sanctuaries. I think that per-
haps the government should approach the
problem in a little different way. They ought
to establish some kind of land-use policy for
the Province of Ontario rather than starting
at the back and working forward. Let's
establish some broader guidelines for the
Province of Ontario and the use to which
land may be put-
Mr. Bullbrook: Hear, hear!

Mr. Deans: —whether it be for recreation,
whether it be for development purposes, or
whether it be for the sanctuary and wildlife
preservation.

I think that we have to embark upon a
programme that will bring about some sen-
sible regulations that may be applied to the
use of snowmobiles in the Province of On-
tario. I think that for too long we've sat
back and we've watched while people have
used them and abused them and nothing has
been done by this government.

I feel, quite frankly, that the Premier, in
the Speech from the Throne, is simply not
dealing as forthrightly with the matter of
snowmobiles as he ought to be. The setting
up of a committee, whether it be a select
committee or otherwise, to study the use of
snowmobiles in the province of Ontario is

not necessary. I think that we all are aware,
particularly those persons in the Department
of Transportation and Communications who
deal with the matter, of the kinds of regula-
tions that we require in order to keep them
off the roads; to provide them with proper
safety precautions and procedures; to keep
them from going on private property as they
presently do on a regular basis.

I feel that we wouldn't be forced to face
the problem of ecological sanctuaries if, in
fact, we had enforced existing laws. If we
had enforced the right of the farmer to
maintain and to keep people off his property-
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): He
shouldn't have to.

Mr. Deans: Well, he shouldn't have to
except that he has to do it all the time!
That's what law is all about— if we had
drafted regulations governing the use of
snowmobiles whether it be on the King's
highway or whether it be off the King's
highway.

As far as this legislation is concerned, we
know that the legislation itself will not ac-
complish a great deal. In fact, it won't come
to anything at all as far as the actual drafting
of this bill is concerned. We do applaud,
though, the concern shown. We recognize
that, without an overall land-use policy,
anything that we might want to do in this
Legislature would be redundant. We under-
stand the need to step, and step rather hard
on the manufacturers in order to ensure that
the product that they sell can be used with
safety in the Province of Ontario.

And we recognize one final thing— that
there is a difference between north and
south in Ontario. There is a difference in the
use to which motorized snow vehicles may
be put in northern Ontario from southern
Ontario, and it may be that legislation when
drafted will have to be applied in a different
way in southern Ontario from the way it
will be applied in northern Ontario. The need
to establish ecological sanctuaries in the
north may not be a real need, since in fact
a considerable amount of the area is wilder-
ness area in any event, but rather these things
may be necessary and forthcoming for the
areas immediately adjacent to the metropoli-
tan areas that now exist.

The matter of whether a person may
hunt, take or kill, or attempt to hunt, take or
kill any birds, fish or animal, I think in fact
is something that we have to regulate
whether or not in an ecological sanctuary; it
isn't only necessary in those areas of pre-

MARCH 6, 1972

123

servation. Animals are not that bright. They
are not sure where it is safe and where it
isn't. We have to preserve them regardless.
So we might tighten up on the legislation
that now exists vidth regards to hunting and
fishing to ensure that there isn't an abuse,
that the kind of wanton killing that has gone
on particularly with the use of snowmobiles
for tracking purposes can no longer be pur-
sued by people in this province.

I don't think the bill is all that bad, and
in actual fact the idea is what's important.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York

West.

Mr. Lawlor: See how constructive the New
Democratic Party is? Surprised, aren't you!

Mr. J. P. MacBeth (York West): Mr.
Speaker, I was very pleased to lend my
name to second this bill in the preservation
of ecological sanctuaries. That is a tough
one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, yes. He says it is some-
thing excommunicable.

Mr. Deans: I have trouble with that word
too.

Mr. MacBeth: I was very pleased to see
that the member for Wentworth had some-
thing good to say about the bill; I think it
has much in its favour. I would like to reply
just for a moment to the criticism that the
hon. member for Rainy River made about
the bill. He referred to the game laws as
being presently adequate. I would suggest
to him that the game laws do not cover all
the species that we had in mind in connec-
tion with this bill. The game laws just cover
certain fish and certain animals. This bill
relates to all forms of life, Mr. Speaker, and
goes far beyond what the game laws con-
templated.

In regard to the Wilderness Areas Act, to
which he made mention, I would suggest
again that the Wilderness Areas Act has in
mind a different area and of different size.
In this Act, we could have a small area;
maybe, as the hon. member for St. David
suggested, it might even be in the middle of
Algonquin Park or in the middle of some
farmer's fields.

First of all, I would point out that this

bill in no way attempts to prohibit the use

of snowmobiles. It tries to limit them in

recreational purposes. I refer to section 5:

No person shall use or operate a motor

vehicle or motorized snow vehicle for

pleasure or recreation [those are the
limiting words] during the vdnter season
in an ecological sanctuary.

Mr. Speaker, this would not prohibit their
use for police purposes or for service pur-
poses of any kind as has been suggested. I
noticed the other day, 'in the Department of
Transportation and Communications recent
newsletter, a picture of the former Minister
of Transportation and Communications grac-
ing one of these snowmobiles, and on the
front of it it had "Police". If he can use it,
it shows that it has very good purposes and
certainly this bill has no thought to limit
that in any way.

I am a user of the snowmobile and had
some fun as recently as last Saturday riding
through the hills of Mulmur, sir, on one of
these snowmobiles. I say it is not in any way
to try to limit that. However, there is a
very fascinating study that has taken place
in the United States on the use and effect
of snowmobiles. The effect on the subnivean
Hfe is, I think, one of the main things, Mr.
Speaker, in that it is very detrimental to the
life of such things as shrews and mice. I don't
know whether anybody has ever given a
speech in this House before in support of
such things as shrews and mice, but I am
making one today.

Mr. Lawlor: Once in a while for shrews!

Mr. MacBeth: These are the basic sorts of
animal life that get affected by snowmobile
compaction. This is important because it is
the commencement of the whole life cycle.
If in these areas we lose these small mam-
mals then, Mr. Speaker, we lose the larger
ones as well. This is where the effect starts—
when the small animals are lost, the whole
life cycle is upset.

On such things as golf courses— they are
used a great deal as we all know on golf
courses— the compaction of the snow turns it
eventually into ice; the sun beating down
on the ice has a lens effect and this lens
effect can bum out the golf courses under-
neath. This is just an example of the effect
it can have on vegetation.

It has an effect on subnivean mammals;
it has a detrimental effect on vegetation; it
has a detrimental effect on human hearing.
I pay credit to the Bombardier company in
Valcourt, Quebec, who are spending many
thousands of dollars to try to lessen the noise
of these machines. In the meantime they do
have a detrimental effect on the human ear.
Also the suggestion that it has a detrimental
effect— the noise— on the animals.

124

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Speaker, I throw in this Httle bit of
information, although I am no authority on
it. It perhaps has a detrimental effect on
the mating habits of such animals as deer
and moose. As I say, I am no authority on
that but again we can see that—

Mr. Lawlor: Might even have a detri-
mental effect on the mating life of homo
sapiens

Mr. MacBeth: —this creates a need for
taking these—

Mr. Deans: We need Norris Whitney back
in the House. He was an authority on those
sorts of things.

Mr. MacBeth: That's right! To continue:
—for giving a little more attention to this
sort of thing, and to try to keep same of
these noisy machines that even pollute the
ground— this is of interest to farmers— with
their exhausts, through lead; we should take
some steps now to control these things.

I mentioned when I was speaking to the
House the other day that the younger gener-
ation were concerned with pollution; that
we in this generation represented by this
House were not quite so concerned with it
and were not ready to give up any of our
pleasures or to sacrifice anything to save our
ecology. Now here is one small place where
the House can make a start in showing that
we are ready to make some actual sacrifice
in the interest of ecology and have a little
interference with some of our freedoms in
this line of snowmobiling in remote areas.

Mr. Speaker, it has given me pleasure to
speak in favour of this bill.

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

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I regret that, for
some of the reasons already mentioned by
my colleague from Rainy River, I am not
rising to support what are very good inten-
tions that the hon. member for St. David has
in this bill.

As has been pointed out, previous legisla-
tion covers a great deal of the objectives of
the bill. But there are many points which I
am sorry she has failed to bring out in the
bill that I think could strengthen it if they
were incorporated in different types of legis-
lation or a different form of legislation.

First of all, I regret that she has not in-
cluded all motorized vehicles in this bill.
There are motorboats; there are motorcycles;
there are combination land-water vehicles
that can move about at other than just the

winter season and greatly disturb the eco-
logical conditions in an area. A type of
pollution of this sort can be equally disturb-
ing. I suggest that any legislation that we
bring in should include all types of motorized
vehicles and that type of interference with
the normal ecological balance.

I also concur wdth my colleague about
confining this control to the winter season
stated, because, as he mentioned, the winter
season is much more extensive in other parts
of Ontario than has been outlined in this bill,
and it is quite important that if we are
going to bring in suggested legislation we do
so in a way that will make it effective.

I am concerned about the lack, in this bill,
of other matters that could spoil any eco-
logical sanctuary that could be developed.
For example, there could be pollution oc-
curring through some industrial development,
or some other type of development, adjoining
an ecological sanctuary. I think that in any
planned area of this sort it should be ensured
that there is no other distraction or no other
situation developing that would destroy the
whole intent of the bill.

I am concerned about one of the clauses
where it talks about things that are ex-
cluded, and I am wondering if people are
going to be excluded. Surely it is not our
intention to do that, although people are
the greatest polluters, as my friend from
Welland South has mentioned. We have to
think about that in Algonquin Park as we
go along some of those canoe routes and we
see the mess that many of the canoe trippers
in that area leave behind them.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the best approach
would be to take a more positive approach
than just the limited manner in which we
have approached the snowmobile problem
in this bill. For example, I was very pleased
to see the programme that the province is
carrying out in co-operation with ARDA to
buy up abandoned farms and abandoned
properties. By so doing, and by making a
list of these properties available, we could
not only provide areas for snowmobile use
in the wdnter time, but also for motorcycles
in the summer time. I have a couple of lads
who are quite keen motorcyclists and they
have great difficulty in finding dirt-track
areas where they can tear around.

Dune buggies; that is another type of
motorized vehicle that would need to have
a place for operating that would not be a
nuisance to the neighbours around them.
This requires a large amount of land, land
set aside for this purpose. I would suggest

MARCH 6, 1972

125

that one of the ways of overcoming the
snowmobile problem would be definitely
ensuring that snowmobiles and other motor-
ized vehicles would have areas that they
could use and these areas be well publi-
cized and supervised.

I am concerned, with regard to the snow-
mobile problem— not only for snowmobiles
but for other motorized vehicles— about regu-
lations for the operators of these even when
they are not operating on the Queen's high-
ways. Motorboats and snowmobiles can be
operated by completely incompetent and un-
skilled people and there is nothing to con-
trol that. It is no wonder we have had a
great deal of difficulty with these vehicles
when so little regulation has been brought
into this area by the government.

I therefore regret, Mr. Speaker that I
have to join with my colleague in opposing
this bill, which I think was brought in with
the best of intent but is so sadly lacking in
its content.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr,
Speaker, I was interested the moment this
bill was introduced in one important aspect
of it, and the way it was originally presented
it appeared that we were setting apart some
sanctuaries as sanctuaries for wildlife only.
I am glad to see that in the actual printing,
in the explanatory note, it contains the words
"plant and wildlife," which to me is very
important. Although one could have taken
the word "wildlife" and expanded that in
one's imagination to include plant life, I am
very happy to see plant specifically here.

For the area I come from, at the moment
the term "winter season" is quite appropriate,
if not stretching it a bit. At the moment
we are having our crocuses and our daffodils
coming through the soil, and in the Windsor-
Essex county area we never have enough
snow cover so that any part of that county
would not be damaged by the use of snow-
mobiles. It is a critical area of interest to
me that wherever and whenever the use of
snowmobiles can be banned unless there is
a specific area set aside for them that this
be done, from the point of view of the
county from which I come.

There is one particular area of that county
which is of critical interest to all ecologists.
On the west side of Windsor there is a park
called Ojibway Park, and in one comer of
that park, interestingly enough, there is a
stand of prairie grass in its original form.

How that prairie grass happened to end up
in the Windsor area is a matter of some
interest to the archaeologists and the geolo-
gists, but nonetheless it is there.

It is one of the few, if not the only,
stands of prairie grass in its original form.
I'm not a botanist but it contains, I under-
stand, some 600 different strains and differ-
ent forms of grasses and flowers that cannot
be found anywhere else in Ontario. They
used to be found on the prairies in Canada,
but I gather are no longer found there due
to the farming which has taken place. It is
this type of area where it would be criminal
for any type of vehicle to move across and
destroy this particular stand of biologically
interesting material.

The member for St. David is a new mem-
ber in the House, not knowing whether bits
and pieces of her intended Act are covered
adequately elsewhere or not. I must admit
that I, being in the same position, knowing
the way she feels about this particular bill,
would certainly have introduced such a bill
myself. I think we can never draw too much
attention to the damage which vehicles of
any kind do to our environment and in par-
ticular the indiscriminate way in which
snowmobiles are used on our grasslands, do-
ing damage to them. I have no objection to
snowmobiles being used in areas set aside
for snowmobiling, or in the northern parts
of our country where in the winter months
it is absolutely necessary for snowmobiling
to take place in order to move from one
point to another.

I therefore, Mr. Speaker, have no hesita-
tion in supporting this bill. I do not know
whether it is covered in other Acts or not,
but paragraph 7, in which it is made an
offence to use vehicles as defined and snow-
mobiles within these ecological preserves, to
me seems appropriate and I certainly would
support this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of this bill for a
number of reasons. I would like to say for
a start that I support, four square, the previ-
ous speaker. I think in many ways he has
exemplified my attitude toward this bill. I
would also like to point out that I am also
four square behind the hon. member for
Wentworth as I think he has exemplified my
attitude too.

I think what we are coping with today
with this kind of bill is that we are trying

126

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

to reconcile the old Ontario with the new
technology. The old Ontario was a vast land
with limitless resources. I think we have all
paid lip-service to things that have gone on
in other jurisdictions. I think we have seen
the decline of forest areas elsewhere and
we have comforted ourselves here by saying
that our resources were limitless.

The fact of the matter is that we are now
faced with the intrusion of the new tech-
nology even if it is so simple and so basic
a part of the new technology that it is merely
a mechanized snow vehicle that runs on an
internal combustion engine and a form of
tread, which is hardly new or hardly revolu-
tionary in our time.

I think, furthermore, it behoves us in the
Legislature to take particular cognizance of
the fact that such a bill was brought to our
attention by something relatively new in this
age, that is, the fact that we now have in
somewhat greater numbers than before, al-
though certainly not far enough, female
members. I think the fact is particularly
appropriate that a female member would
bring such an important bill from an ecology
standpoint to our attention, because, Mr.
Speaker— and I say this in all seriousness—
we are now just about at the threshold
where we have to decide whether we are
going to enjoy the benefits of the advanced
technology or we are going to be slaves to
it. Again I stress that this is a very basic
part— this is hardly a complicated, complex
invention— of the technology, a vehicle that
runs on snow over terrain that previously no
vehicle, other than the horse-drawn sled,
and perhaps not even that, had been able
to go through.

On the one hand, the snowmobile is a great
force for good. I don't think there is any
member here, particularly any older member
or any member from the north or perhaps
from the east, who cannot but recall that
perhaps, if the snowmobile had been around,
the doctor would have been able to make
his rounds years ago and perhaps been able
to save a life that was prematurely snuffed
out.

So there is no question of the good. But,
on the other hand, we are constantly faced
with the fact that in the winter months, par-
ticularly the dormant period for nature, man
is now penetrating with the polluting vehicle
—and, be it ever so small, a polluting vehicle;
nonetheless a polluting vehicle— into areas
that heretofore were sacrosanct against the
intrusion of man.

So, on the other hand, we are faced with
the prospect that, because of the advent of
technology, however small, we are rapidly
diminishing year by year those vast wide
open spaces which to many, many hundreds
of thousands of people in this province are,
indeed, the cornerstone of the fact that we
call ourselves the "Province of Opportunity."

The one concern I have in discussing this
bill is that there seems to be an inordinate
amount of nitpicking. I think what we are
here today to stand up for— and I emphasize
"for"— is the fact that we are concerned
with what happens to our natural environ-
ment. We are concerned that the natural
environment remains as natural as possible,
not discounting the fact that we do have
population pressures, and notwithstanding
the fact that we do have that technology.

So I say to you that it does demand more
than cursory attention from this House,
because it matters not to us today and it
matters not even to our children, but it
does matter to our grandchildren and to our
great-grandchildren what becomes of the
areas of this province that heretofore were
regarded as part of a natural wilderness.

To paraphrase the words of a very noted
Jesuit saint: "What matters it to us that we
gain the whole of the Polar Bear Park from
Winisk down on Hudson Bay, if we lose
everything to it," because, indeed, it really
matters not very much.

So today I suggest the task before the
House is that we start to harness this tech-
nology. Certainly I am sure— and it is cer-
tain in the text of the bill proposed by the
hon. member for St. David— that there is no
attempt to ban the snowmobile or the motor-
ized snow vehicle. In fact, 1 am sure she
would certainly say it has proved a benefit
to a great many of us.

But incumbent upon that is the obliga-
tion upon the 117 people in this House
that this force be harnessed for the com-
mon good. And there is a wide divergence
of interest in this force being harnessed for
what I call the common good rather than
just being harnessed for the good of the
greatest number. Because, on the one hand,
if we harness it just for the good of the
greatest number, with all due respect to the
members from the north— and I have lived
in the north, I have worked there, I have
travelled there— the motorized snow vehicle
has been a great boon in the north. I will
say to the members from the north— I think
it is about time someone said it— the least
abuse of that vehicle is in the north.

MARCH 6, 1972

127

The abuse of the vehicle is in the south-
em areas, and particularly the abuse of that
vehicle is that it is used with indiscriminate
abandon. Not discounting the fact that to-
day we are not interested in the problems
of humans, it has been used with indis-
criminate abandon upon them. But in south-
em Ontario, probably for the first time in
our history, we are now faced with the
obligation of preserving animal life as part
of our heritage, and we are using these
vehicles to stamp out the land of animal life.
By "stamp out" I don't mean just killing,
but destroying the breeding habitats of such
animals as are ecologically rather diflBcult
and rather expensive to preserve in zoological
gardens. I am talking about such things as
the beaver and the otter; I am talking about
the traditional feeding grounds of a number
of other animals like the raccoon and the
fox. These surely are our heritage.

So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that on the
one hand this kind of bill may be somewhat
avant garde, because we really haven't faced
the time in our conservation areas or in our
parks or on countless numbers of farms on
byside concessions when we have seen the
absence and destruction of the traditional
homes or breeding grounds of animals which
I think, if not vital, are intrinsic to the life
style of this province— but we are on the
threshold of doing so.

The argument on the other side, of course,
is that this is a Canadian-made vehicle. It
is made in Canada; there are a great number
of people involved in doing it. I say that
is fine. In fact, I say— and I don't think there
would be any dispute in this House as to my
feelings about things that are Canadian— I
think that is tremendous. But surely we are
not a game preserve in Africa that has to be
operated for the benefit of tourists. Surely
we are not something in Minnesota where
they can shoot wolves or some other kinds
of animals as Sunday sport to see how many
pelts they can get for a prize. Surely we in
Ontario are above this?

It is true that we are the province of
opportunity but it is also very true that we
are the province of heritage. And I say to
you that if we do this to the least of our
numbers, and those are the animals, then
we are going to destroy them. Then inevit-
ably—and fortunately it is beyond the life-
span of you, Mr. Speaker, and all of the
members in this House— then we are going
to get to higher beings and we are going to
destroy them too.

So I say to you in conclusion that we have
a fundamental obligation here. We have

technology and we all talk about technology
and we all have great thoughts about tech-
nology, and yet here is a very basic, simple
part of technology and we have the oppor-
tunity, not only for this province but for the
jurisdiction of this hemisphere and for other
nations, that we can set the standard that
technology is of service to us and it does
not have to destroy our environment. And I
would put to you, that is the intent, that is
the meaning and that is the very fibre of the
bill that has been presented by the hon.
member for St. David.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Mus-
koka?

The hon. member for Peel South.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak for a few
moments on this, particularly in reference
to the Rattray Marsh, which is in Clarkson,
Mississauga, but the interest in this extends
far beyond local municipal boundaries. But
first I would like to commend the hon. mem-
ber for St. David for bringing in this very
timely bill. She's to be commended.

Mr. Deans: Why don't we vote on it?

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Let's have a vote
on it since the members opposite are all for
it.

Mr. Kennedy: I would like to make one
suggestion though, whereby it might be
strengthened— and I think the member for
York Centre spoke about this. Section 5 men-
tioned "during the winter season" and in fact
it defined the period of time during which
this would be in effect. I think it would be
strengthened and be more effective if, in
section 5, "during the winter season" was
deleted from the bill and it just said no
motorized vehicles in the areas at all.

One of the other members mentioned that
there are types of motorized vehicles other
than the snowmobile and other self-propelled
vehicles, such as swamp boats and so forth
which go in very shallow water. I am sure
the wildlife doesn't wish to be disturbed
any more in the summer than the winter.

With respect to the Rattray Marsh, I would
like to read part of a letter I received from
one of my constituents just last week with
respect to the Rattray Marsh:

I enclose herewith a copy of "The Rat-
tray Marsh. Our Vanishing Wilderness. Is
It Worth Saving? The Report of the
Meadowwood Rattray Residents* Associa-
tion." This report outlines the history of

128

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

the marsh and the attempts to save it in
the past. It goes on to outline the eco-
logical and biological values of the marsh.
A great majority of the residents of Clark-
son feel quite strongly that the preserva-
tion of the marsh as a natural wilderness
area is essential.

The enclosed report was adopted imani-
mously by the executive of our association.
In addition, the delegates of the Council
of South Mississauga Community Associa-
tions, a federation of 10 community asso-
ciations in the Clarkson-Lome Park area,
voted unanimously that they saw great
merit in the preservation of the marsh as
a conservation area for the future use of
the residents of Mississauga in general.

They mention that the brief was submitted
to the government. It continues:

As I mentioned to you on the telephone,
the Credit Valley Conservation Authority is
considering purchasing part of the marsh.
They have, I believe, an option on 22 acres
of the wetlands. Consideration is being given
by both the conservation authority and the
province as to the additional amount of land
which is necessary to make the marsh a via-
ble conservation area. I understand that the
cost of the wetlands will be approximately
$10,000 an acre and that the cost of sur-
rounding tableland would be from $30,000
to $40,000 an acre. There is a total of 97
acres left in the marsh area.

I should caution that the dollar figures just
mentioned were not given to me by any
authoritative source but are generally rumour-
ed to be based on an appraisal made by the
Credit Valley Conservation Authority.
He ends up by saying:

I feel it is important that the province
go on record as soon as possible as being
in favour of the preservation of the marsh
and that the Province of Ontario agree to
pay as much as possible.

I may remind members of the grant struc-
tures imder which conservation authorities
operate. Normally, the province gives grants
of 50 per cent of the cost of projects imder-
taken by the Credit Valley Conservation
Authority. That is applicable to all authori-
ties. In special cases, provincial grants go
as high as 75 per cent. I am convinced after
talking with members of the council that if
the province agreed to pay 75 per cent of the
purchase, the town of Mississauga would
gladly pay 95 per cent of the balance, and
the conservation authority pick up the rest
of the balance.

The report itself, to which this letter refers,
mentions the history of the marsh. During
the 1960s there was a lot of interest in this
acquisition. I shall just quote briefly from
part of the report:

By the mid-1960s, interest expressed by
the Credit Valley authority, the Ontario De-
partment of Education and the then town-
ship of Toronto suggested that the estate
would finally end up in the hands of the
public. Premier Bill Davis, then Minister
of Education, recognized the area as a
valuable education facility and o£Fered to
pay one-half of the purchase price. How-
ever, this was never followed through and
so it remains in the private domain.

Aquisition of this piece of the environ-
ment is supported by many organizations in
our municipality and beyond— as I men-
tioned, by the director of education as a
valuable teaching aid— and I would encour-
age the preservation of this marsh. I would
like to see the interested bodies renew their
interest in it.

The total cost is in the millions and you
can do some mathematics and find that 22
acres of wetland multiplied by $10,000 is
$220,000, and that acreage deducted from
97 acres is about 75 acres of high land
estimated at $30,000 or $40,000 an acre.
This, of course would be a very serious
budgetary item. But even if the marsh
portion were preserved, this would be a
great step forward. I would hope that the
government would be ready and willing to
join with other interested parties and that
this valuable asset, one of the few re-
maining along our lakeshore, would be
retained in the public domain.

Mr. Speaker: This concludes the private
members' hour.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
before the House adjourns could the House
leader tell us exactly what will occur to-
morrow afternoon?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Afairs): Exactly what v^dll
occur tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will be a
continuation on the debate before the House
today, item No. 1.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

MARCH 6, 1972

129

APPENDIX

Response tabled by Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Works) on a question by
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West).

Re: Properties purchased for the Department of Lands and Forests under Niagara
Escarpment during 1971-72 Fiscal Year.

Eifingham
Devil's Glen

Primrose

Beaver Valley

Osier Bluff
Colpoy Bay
Kolapore Uplands

Hogg's Falls

Cape Chin
Umbrella Lake

Cyprus Lake

66 acres

Twp. Louth

June 1971

90 acres

Twp. Thorold

Sept. 1971

20 acres

Nottawasaga Twp.

December 1971

10 acres

Nottawasaga Twp.

December 1971

5 acres

Nottawasaga Twp.

December 1971

34 acres

Nottawasaga Twp.

January 1972

8 acres

Nottawasaga Twp.

February 1972

49 acres

Twp. Mulmer

October 1971

60 acres

Twp. Mulmer

December 1971

100 acres

Twp. Mulmer

December 1971

50 acres

Twp. Mulmer

January 1972

10 acres

Twp. Mulmer

January 1972

5 acres

Twp. Mulmer

January 1972

1 acre

Twp. Mulmer

January 1972

90 acres

Euphrasia Twp.

April 1971

46 acres

Euphrasia Twp.

April 1971

150 acres

Euphrasia Twp.

May 1971

50 acres

Euphrasia Twp.

December 1971

48 acres

Euphrasia Twp.

December 1971

1 acre

Euphrasia Twp.

September 1971

85 acres

Osprey Twp.

December 1971

150 acres

Albermarle Twp.

September 1971

200 acres

Collingwood Twp.

September 1971

80 acres

Collingwood Twp.

October 1971

222 acres

Collingwood Twp.

October 1971

120 acres

Collingwood Twp.

October 1971

135 acres

Collingwood Twp.

November 1971

85 acres

Collingwood Twp.

November 1971

45 acres

Collingwood Twp.

November 1971

235 acres

Collingwood Twp.

December 1971

50 acres

Collingwood Twp.

January 1972

8 acres

Artemesia Twp.

May 1971

30 acres

Artemesia Twp.

February 1972

50 acres

Artemesia Twp.

April 1971

94 acres

I^indsay Twp.

November 1971

92 acres

Lindsay Twp.

March 1971

89 acres

St. Edmund Twp.

October 1971

27 acres

Lindsay Twp.

September 1971

97 acres

St. Edmunds Twp.

February 1972

144 acres

St. Edmunds Twp.

November 1971

9 acres

St. Edmunds Twp.

November 1971

10 acres

St. Edmunds Twp.

November 1971

TOTAL ACREAGE-2,950 acres

CONTENTS

Monday, Mardi 6, 1972

Plea bargaining in Ontario courts and government policy statements, questions of

Mr. A. F. Lawrence and Mr. Bales: Mr. R. F. Nixon, Mr. Singer 85

Organized crime in Ontario— measures to combat, questions of Mr. A. F. Lawrence:

Mr. R. F. Nixon 86

Government action against Dow Chemical re suit and court trial, questions of Mr. Bales:

Mr. R. F. Nixon 87

Establishment of detoxication centres throughout province, questions of Mr. Potter:

Mr. R. F. Nixon, Mr. Lewis 88

Telegram Publishing Company inquiry and appointment of Prof. Carter, questions of

Mr. Guindon: Mr. Lewis 88

Removal of sand from dunes in Prince Edward County— tabling report of negotiatitms,

questioiK of Mr. Bemier: Mr. Lewis 89

Mental health facilities re community centres and projects, questions of Mr. Potter:

Mr. Lewis 90

National park in Thunder Bay district, clarification re federal-provincial discussions,

questions of Mr. Bemier: Mr. Jessiman, Mr. Stokes 91

Improper promotion of shares and civil action procedures, questions of Mr. Winkler:

Mr. Deacon, Mr. Shulman, Mr. Lawlor 92

De Havilland labour dispute re negotiations, questions of Mr. Guindon: Mr. Young 93

Land purchase in Toronto adjoining U of T re appraisal, questions of Mr. Snow:

Mr. Singer, Mr. Bullbrook 93

Tabling report: Land purchases on the Niagara Escarpment, Mr. Snow 94

Report of committee on golf course assessment, question of Mr. McKeough: Mr. Meen .... 94

Bloor Street property use, question of Mr. Wells: Mr. Singer 94

Polar bear cubs on Indian reserve, questions of Mr. Bemier: Mr. Stokes 95

Daycare centres on Indian reservations, questions of Mr. Bnmelle: Mr. Spence,

Mr. Reid, Mr. Bounsall 95

Presenting report, committee on golf course assessment and taxation, Mr. McKeough 96

Coroners Act, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 96

Labour Relations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Drea, first reading 96

Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. R. F. Nixon 96

Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Lewis, agreed to 118

Establishment of ecological sanctuaries in the province of Ontario, bill to provide for,
on second reading, Mrs. Scrivener, Mr. Reid, Mr. Deans, Mr. MacBeth,
Mr. Deacon, Mr. Bounsall, Mr. Drea, Mr. Kennedy 118

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Winkler, agreed to 128

Appendix — Niagara Escarpment land purchases 129

No. 6

ONTARIO

Hegisilature of d^ntario

Betjates!

OFFICIAL REPORT — DAILY EDITION

Second Session of the Twenty-Ninth L^slature

Tuesday, March 7, 1972

%>eaker: Honourable Allan Edward Reuter
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, QC

THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO

1972

Price per session, $10.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

O ,itrl

CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue.)

133

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: We have visitors today; in
the west gallery students from Sheridan
College, Brampton, and from John Ross
Collegiate Institute of Guelph in the east
gallery. A little later on, at 3:30, in the west
gallery we will be favoured with the presence
of students from Georgian Bay Secondary
School of Meaford, Ontario.

Statements by the ministry.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Provincial Secre-
tary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I would like
at this time to advise the hon. members about
the review that has been undertaken by the
government with respect to oflFtrack betting
and its possible future in Ontario.

As the House is already aware, the Premier
last July established a task force of senior
civil servants to review the systems, methods
and the procedures of offtrack betting and
to advise the government on the system
most suitable for implementation in Ontario
provided, of course, that the Criminal Code
of Canada is aimended by the federal govern-
ment.

The task force has now submitted an
interim report to the government which I
am having distributed at this time to the
hon. members.

The interim report assumes that the Crim-
inal Code of Canada will be amended to
place offtrack betting under the jurisdiction
of those provinces that desire it. It strongly
recommends that the Code be amended to
prohibit offtrack betting in any form except
as may be authorized by the law of a
province.

In agreeing with this recommendation, it
does seem to this government that if the
public is properly served by a lawful pro-
vincially operated system, other forms of
offtrack betting should be prohibited.

The objectives of any offtrack betting sys-
tem should be:

1. The suppression or, at least, diminution
of illegal bookmaking.

Tuesday, March 7, 1972

2. The provision of a desired service to the
public.

3. The contribution to the financial in-
tegrity of the horse racing industry; and by
that I mean the breeders, the trainers, the
track operators and others.

4. Revenue to, and control or at least
supervision by, the government.

We certainly realize, sir, that we may
never completely eliminate bookmaking in
its illegal context. We can, however, make it
more diflBcult for the illegal bookmaker to
do business if we provide the public with an
appropriate and accessible service. At the
same time, the Criminal Code of Canada
should be amended to permit the more effec-
tive application of laws originally intended to
prohibit illegal bookmaking.

We recognize that a segment of the public
wishes to place wagers on horse races. In
providing a service to this community, we
will be able to assist the horse racing in-
dustry in the provision of a better sport.
At the same time, we will ensure that any
lawful provincial revenues are paid into the
province. As well, we will have more control
over an obviously lucrative illegal business
that has international connections.

The report recommends the establishment
of a board or commission having the majority
of its members appointed by the government,
representatives of the general public interest.
The balance of the members are to be ap-
pointed on the recommendation of the various
segments of the racing industry. The reasons
for this conception are set forth in the report
and I recommend them to your attention.

At the same time, I would direct the atten-
ion of the hon. members to the comments on
the type of system which is recommended.
In the view of the task force, this might
include a combination of a manual ticket-
selling procedure together with a computer
application in the collation of bets. It also
suggests a telephone betting system utilizing
existing telecommmiication systems between
the various components. In case anyone is
getting his hopes up too far, sir, I should
point out that nowhere is there any sugges-
tion that a credit system is envisaged. Any

134

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

government plan would have to be on a
cash basis.

This is an interim report. It has not been
possible for the task force to make revenue
projections of any proposed offtrack betting
system that might be implemented by the
province. Detailed studies have been under-
taken imder the direction of the task force
and these various reports are presently being
reviewed so that the final report may deal
with these important matters in full detail.

The government is looking forward to the
submission of the final report from the task
force in the near future. We wish to be in
the position of having these preliminary
studies available at the time of amendment
of the Criminal Code of Canada which, we
trust, will take place in the near future. We
have considered this to be most important
and it is for this reason that the task force
was established prior to the hoped-for
amendment to the Criminal Code. We have
based our present approach upon the form
of amendment that we have asked the federal
government to enact, as we wanted to be in
die position of having our plans ready to
proceed when Ottawa changes its legislation.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that while
the government, of course, can make no com-
mitment on its detailed approach to this sub-
ject until it has received the final report, we
do feel that the interim report and its views
will be of interest to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Before further ministerial
statements, I have been informed by an hon.
member that I am guilty of a gross over-
sight. I neglected to inform the House that
we also have visitors with us in the east
gallery who are students from the Burlington
Central High School.

Hon. F. Cuindon {Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, following up on my statement yester-
day concerning the closing of the Telegram,
I am now in a position to give the hon.
members the terms of reference of the one-
man inquiry, Mr. Donald D. Carter.

The Telegram payroll as of October 30,
1971, showed 1,130 people. From this group,
approximately 900 were members of the
Newspaper Guild. All of the employees, ex-
cept approximately 194, resigned their posi-
tions. As at February 12, 1972, there were
11 people still employed.

However, the main investigation will be
directed to complaints made on behalf of
former employees who were members of the
Toronto Newspaper Guild Local 87. The
local was the bargaining agent for employ-

ees in editorial, circulation, maintenance, ad-
vertising, ofiBce, and delivery departments of
the newspaper and represented all employees
except pressmen, stereotypers, electrotypers,
and those few who were not members of the
guild.

Question one asks if the offer by the pub-
lisher to pay severance pay only if an em-
ployee resigned, and not the pay required
upon termination by the Employment Stand-
ards Act, is an offer which is contrary to the
Act.

The next question, number two, raises the
problem whether the terminated employee
who is still under notice is entitled to further
termination pay if he obtains a permanent
job before the notice has expired.

Question three asks if the publisher had
a legal liability to pay severance pay and
other fringe benefit payments after he gave
notice of termination. This question arises
because of Regulation S13 which provides
that these benefits are to be stacked on
termination pay, and also section 13, sub-
section 5 of the Act which provides that the
conditions of employment cannot be changed
during the notice.

Question four arises because the publisher
treated those employees still receiving termin-
ation pay in December as taking whatever
vacation was due to them. The regulation as
stands provides that this procedure requires
agreement by the employee. If there was no
agreement then the publisher would be re-
quired to pay any vacation pay owing at
the time the notice expired.

Question five is asked and is to clear up the
cases of part-time employees who have no
normal weekly rate from which to calculate
the amount of pay for each week of notice.
Question six is asked because there are
some complaints on behalf of those former
employees who went on strike or were locked
out many years ago.

Question seven raises the technical legal
question whether the distributors who had
contracts with the publisher for certain dis-
tricts were self-employed or were employees.
Question eight deals with those members
of the mechanical trades who continued to
work in the same plant and at the same
presses for as much or more money, but for
the Toronto Star instead of the Toronto Tele-
gram when the paper closed on October 30
last.

All of the questions raise all matters of
complaint, and the investigation will, there-
fore, be complete. The answers to the ques-

MARCH 7, 1972

135

tions will require Prof. Carter to resolve all
of the issues and determine what amounts, if
any, may be due and owing.

From the information which has been
made available to me, it would appear that
the majority of the employees have been able
to locate in other employment.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

OFFTRACK BETTING

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, a question resulting from
the statement by the hon. member for St.
George on oflFtrack betting. Can he tell the
House if the committee of senior civil ser-
vants requested that he undertake some re-
search in Australia to assist them in coming
to their conclusions?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Did they request
me?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Yes.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes. They requested
my presence.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary ques-
tion: Since the policy of the government as
stated by the leader of the government said
specifically, that offtrack betting would be
operated by the government, and not by
private enterprise, what did the former At-
torney General think he could find out in
Australia, since it is privately operated in
that jurisdiction?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: What is privately
operated?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: 0£Ftrack betting.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Nonsense.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sure it is.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Nonsense. In each
case it is run by an organization called the
Totalizer Agency Board of each of the indi-
vidual states. These are technically an agency
of the non-profit track operators, but in actual
fact the boards really relate to the appoint-
ment of individual members. The real in-
terest in Australia-
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): What does
that mean? What did the minister just say?
I can't understand him.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I can't help it if
the member doesn't speak English.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): It is set up
imder legislation.

Mr. Bullbrook: Explain that again.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The real interest in
Australia, of course, was the great technical
advances they have made there in respect of
the computer compilation of the bets, both
on the track and off the track. I think it is
acknowledged throughout the world that they
have by far the best hardware for the
mechanical operation of these matters. We
wanted to see that in operation. I have not
accompanied the task force in all of their
perambulations around the western world
by any means-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Why
not?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: —but in Australia
they thought it best to have a minister of
the Crown with them, especially when the
other major representative of the then De-
partment of Justice and the Attorney General
was unable to go. In other words the chair-
man of the task force was unable to go
and they requested the minister to go.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Admirable restraint.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister was right on
their heels wasn't he, for a while?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is it
necessary that a formal request of the Min-
ister of Justice in Canada be made before
we can expect legislation, or have there been
talks that the minister would expect would
lead to an introduction of amendments by
the federal government?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I have had con-
versations with the present federal Attorney
General and Minister of Justice and his
predecessor, and there have been informal
requests and requests in writing to the fed-
eral government indicating our desires in this
field.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Any response?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, there have been
responses.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Positive, no doubt.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Sure.

Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): By way of a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
provincial secretary could tell us whether
or not the Globe and Mail was associated

136

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

in any way with his request to go to Aus-
tralia and New Zealand?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Well, I had the idea,
but I didn't know when I got back because
they were strangely silent for a couple of
weeks.

Mr. Lawlor: As a supplementary question:
I am a little bemused like the member for
Samia; that was a good piece of obfuscation,
almost on a par with the Prime Minister
(Mr. Davis). My understanding was, it was
privately run, too. Is there specific legislation
in Australia governing the parimutuels?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of sup-
plementary: Could the member for St.
George tell us whether it is contemplated
that betting will be allowed only on races
run in Ontario or on all races in North Amer-
ica? Is it contemplated that betting will only
be on horse races or will it be broadened to
include hockey games and basketball games
and all these other things that people bet on?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Leadership races.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Leadership races?
No. These are matters that are still awaiting
the advice and recommenadtions of the task
force. If the member wants a x>€rsonal
opinion I will be glad to give it to him, but
these are questions of detail on which we are
awaiting the recommendations of the task
force.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister is not usually
wrong.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: My own personal
opinion is that initially, in any event, it has
got to be horse races only. Secondly, with a
proper computerized setup it can very easily
be horse races anywhere in the western
world. That is no great mechanical problem.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister didn't go
to Sicily?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Not yet.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of a supplementary,
Mr. Speaker, if I might: What liaison has the
minister had with the other provincial at-
torneys general and did they support his re-
quest to the federal Attorney General-
Mr. MacDonald: The minister is thinking.

Mr. Bullbrook: —And I am not finished yet
—to the federal Attorney General for an

amendment to the Criminal Code? Does he
or does he not have a commitment from the
federal Attorney General?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: As to the other at-
torneys general throughout the country, I
have had informal conversations with each
of them. In respect of any conmiitment from
the federal government, the only commitment
that I was able to obtain was from the pre-
decessor to the present incumbent in that
oflBce, who undertook to present it with his
recommendation to the federal cabinet.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): They change
almost as often as this one.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is no com-
mitment, obviously, on the part of the gov-
ernment. My understanding, however, is that
they are coming around to a proper sense of
reality in this matter.

Mr. Bullbrook: One further supplementary.
Do I understand that the minister met with
no resistance from any of the other provin-
cial attorneys general?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I didn't say that!

Mr. Bullbrook: Would the minister care
to elaborate on which provinces did resist his
request?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I wouldn't care
to elaborate.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. leader would
permit me just a brief moment. I have been
requested by one of the hon. ministers to
seek the permission of the House to revert
to statements by the ministry before we pro-
ceed—

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): No!

Mr. Speaker: This, of course, can only be
done with the unanimous consent of the
House.

Mr. Shulman: No!

Mr. Speaker: I do not have that unanimous
consent.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): There
are going to be a lot of late-afternoon press
conferences in this House, from now on.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, it is true that only by permitting

MARCH 7, 1972

137

reversion to statements at this time would
we, as private members of the House, have an
opportunity to question the ministers making
the statements on what they have to say.
That is corerct?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is correct in accord-
ance with the standing orders. It was my wish
the other day to permit one or two points of
clarification on important ministerial state-
ments but, of course, it's not in accordance
with the standing orders to do that, and the
House decided that any questions on min-
isterial statements would have to be taken
up during the oral question period. This is
fine; this is in accordance with the rules of
this House. Therefore, if any ministerial
statements are not put forth on any one par-
ticular day, questions may not be asked until
the succeeding day.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Further to the point of
order: Surely, then, it would be incumbent
upon you, sir, or perhaps me speaking
through you, to draw to the government's
attention that there seems to be an individual
roadblock in the party immediately to my
left because of some imagined slight some
months ago, so that there will never be this
consent granted, and we would urge upon
the ministers to attend upon the House for
prayers, which would do them a lot of good
so that they could make their statements on
time.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. BuUbrook: Some, more than others!

Mr. Shulman: Well, Mr. Speaker, may I
speak on this point of order—

Hon. J. White (Minister of Trade and
Development, and Tourism and Information):
I am in full accord with the remarks of the
Leader of the Opposition. Erskine May made
it very clear in his definitive book on parlia-
mentary procedure that ministers of the
Crown have not only the right, but the
responsibility, to report to the members of
Parliament on matters within their jurisdic-
tion-
Mr. MacDonald: Also to be on time.

Hon. Mr. White: And while I, myself,
make it a point to come in for prayers, as the
hon. members will note, on occasion it be-
comes impossible.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The mmister
needs it more.

Hon. Mr. White: Yesterday I was a couple
of minutes late only because of the mal-
functioning of an elevator.

Mr. Lewis: Come now—

Mr. Deans: The minister could always
walk.

Mr. MacDonald: His excuses are usually
better than this.

Mr. Deans: The exercise of walking would
do him good.

Mr. Lewis: What has happened to the
minister's fantasy world?

Hon. Mr. White: And I sought, immedi-
ately on my arrival, through you, Mr. Speaker,
the privilege to revert to ministerial state-
ments. Of course, that privilege was not ex-
tended to me and, therefore, I had to make
the announcement outside the House in a
way that, quite frankly, is not appropriate
when the Legislature is sitting.

Mr. Lewis: Well—

Hon. Mr. White: Therefore— no doubt, the
member can speak later if that is his wish-
Mr. MacDonald: And will.
Mr. Lewis: Doubtless.

Hon. Mr. White: Therefore, I would ask,
and in utmost seriousness— and for the bene-
fit of the people of this province— that those
one or two members of the opposition who
now stand in the way of reverting to a previ-
ous order of business, whatever that may be,
reconsider their position. I think it is rather
important that we continue with the co-
operative approach which we've had with
such matters.

Mr. Shulman: May I speak on this point of
order? It has been the custom of this House,
in the four or five years that I've been here,
always to agree when unanimous consent
is requested— and it always was offered by
this side because the request always had
come from the government. I don't recall a
request from this side until earlier this year,
sir. In an earlier part of this session, for the
first time, a request was made from this side
for unanimous consent to revert. It was re-
fused by the government, and now they're
paying the tune.

Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Chairman, Man-
agement Board of Cabinet): No!

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No!

138

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Not this year.

Mr. Shulman: It was refused by the gov-
ernment last November.

Interjection by hon. member.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): It is a
two-way street— and the government doesn't
realize it.

Mr. MacDonald: The leader is a little self-
conscious-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a further
point of order, which actually relates to a
statement made by the member for London
South a moment ago when he, in fact, apol-
ogized to the House for not making his state-
ment—I presume, on the financial situation
at Ontario Place to the House— I think it was
a very proper apology; such a statement
should be made here. On a point of order I
would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would
hope the leader of the government would in-
struct the administration, or the members of
the administration, that what the member
for London South says is a very important
aspect of our responsibilities.

You will recall that just last week the
Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) made a
substantial announcement about school financ-
ing in a speech out of this House. When the
Legislature is in session surely policy de-
partures or important changes in administra-
tion should be announced here and not at
press conferences or elsewhere. I would hope,
sir, that the Premier would be able to state
that it is his policy that his ministers treat
the House with at least this amount of
respect.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker,
on this point of order I quite agree with the
Leader of the Opposition that matters of
significant policy when the House is sitting
should be announced in this Legislature. This
has been the practice. I regret that the mem-
ber for High Park is reluctant to bury the
hatchet and to see that the other members
of this House are accommodated because it
really is for the information of members of
this House. The opportunity is then given for
questions that would normally arise from that
statement.

I would just make this observation, Mr.
Speaker, also in reply to the Leader of the
Opposition, as it related to the statement
made by the Minister of Education. While it
was very significant in terms of total dollars-

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is a change in govern-
ment policy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect, Mr. Speaker,
I question whether there was any substantial
change, if the member is referring to the
grant regulations, in that they are just a
continuation of the government's continued
involvement in the percentage cost of the
educational bill in this province. The regula-
tions-
Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, with respect, Mr.

Speaker-
Mr. Singer: Come on, the government

made a mistake and the Premier is talking

around it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No mistake at all.

Mr. Singer: Sure it is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no mistake at all. If
the member would like, when we get into
the estimates of the Department of Educa-
tion, he shall have an opportunity to see the
differences in the regulations and, really, the
insignificant departures in total policies.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It should have been an-
nounced here.

Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, if I
may, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you,
sir, that the urgent matter which the member
for London South felt he had to announce at
the press conference, the raise in rates, could
very well have waited one more day. It could
have been done in here today.

Hon. Mr. White: In response to that, Mr.
Speaker, I learned, some time after I had
intended to make it today when the hon.
members refused me permission yesterday,
that some number of copies had been mailed
to out-of-town newspapers. I thought it would
be inappropriate to withhold the information
from members of our own press gallery and,
reluctantly and for that reason, went ahead
with a press conference of my own at 5
o'clock.

Mr. MacDonald: A simple solution— the
minister should be here on time,

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, just to satisfy a rampant curiosity.
Which minister has offended today? Which
minister is it we are talking about?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Minister of Health
(Mr. Potter).

MARCH 7, 1972

139

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Who is the minister who
wanted to make the statement?

Mr. Speaker: The request came to me from
the hon. Minister of Health.

OPERATION OF ONTARIO PLACE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we might
now have an opportunity to ask the Minister
of Trade and Development, and Tourism and
Information to elaborate to the House the
reasons why he must now annoimce that the
deficit for Ontario Place is $2.2 million when
we were assured by his predecessor that the
attendance was, in fact, surpassing expecta-
tions and that the costs had been set so that
it would be self-supporting.

Further, can he explain to the House why,
even with the increase in entrance fees which
he has announced, we will still have a sub-
stantial deficit even though the attendance
would run ahead of what we have experi-
enced already?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, there are

several very valid reasons for it.

First of all in the cost of starting up any

enterprise in the public sector or the private

sector there are non-recurring-
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): What about

janitorial services?

Hon. Mr. White: Do the members want to
hear this or don't they? There are certain
non-recurring costs when you start any new
business. I point out to members that this
was the largest new employer, I think, in
Ontario last year— with 1,400 employees,
many of them students for whom we were
anxious to find gainful employment.

Secondly, we are charging against this
accoimt, rightly or wrongly, certain sub-
sidies which I think might be borne by the
consolidated revenue fund as such, including
free admission for citizens over the age of
65. There are certain policing costs that per-
haps should not be charged entirely to the
operation.

Thirdly, we are in effect subsidizing certain
very valid public services through these
accounts, including the Toronto Symphony
Orchestra, which I think my hon. friend will
agree, deserves the support of this govern-
ment. Last year, I think I am correct in
saying, we expended $150,000; this year the
contract wotJd call for $180,000 for the
Toronto Symphony. We have sponsored youth

symphonies at a cost of $15,000 each. So for
a variety of reasons the expenditures in year
one were very high indeed.

If I may take another moment, I am in a
position to provide operating financial infor-
mation, which I undertook in the press con-
ference yesterday to provide to the members
of the gallery and which I think is of general
interest to the members of this Legislature.

Ontario Place operations as of February
29, 1972. Revenue, $2,515,000-will I break
it down, Mr. Speaker? Does time permit?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just table them.

Hon. Mr. White: All right, I'll table this, if
I may. (See appendix.) Expenditures, $4,-
460,000, for a difference of $1,945,000. Esti-
mated expenditure for March, $126,000, for
a gross deficit at March 31, 1972, of $2,-
072,000. And I vdll now table the details.

I think perhaps I will provide information
on the capital and non-recurring side. Total
capital costs were $24,157,000; non-recurring
costs, which included Cinesphere films, ex-
hibits, startup, promotion and such like,
$4,584,000.

Mr. Singer: What are "such like"?

Hon. Mr. White: And I would like to table
this, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

Now, will I take this opportunity to re-
spond to the two questions asked on Friday?

Mr. Speaker: No, I believe it would be out
of order at this time. The hon. Leader of
the Opposition.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I ask one short supple-
mentary?

Mr. Speaker: One moment, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry, sir.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op-
position had the floor for questions; he hadn't
finished with his questions. If there are sup-
plementaries, they would now be in order.

The hon. member for Samia has a supple-
mentary.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, may I direct a supple-
mentary to the minister? Now that he has
tabled those documents, would he table the
profit and loss statement of his lessee res-
taurant operators down there so that the
people of Ontario can be assured that they
also lost money and not just the government?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, I have here
an exhibit showing the balance sheet and the

140

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

profit and loss statement for the Place res-
taurants, which I will be glad to table. In
addition, the Place restaurants had a loss
of $92,000 on a volume of $936,000.

Mr. Bullbrook: I asked about the lessee
restaurants.

Hon. Mr. White: I am coming to that.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. Good.

Hon. Mr. White: The member is going to
have a chance to give all kinds of speeches
to the Liberal membership. He shouldn't be
so eager. Hell have lots of time.

Mr. MacDonald: Unfortimately, he is fol-
lowing the minister's example.

Hon, Mr. White: I have here, Mr. Speaker,
inforanation about revenue from facilities like
the Haida, boutique No. 1 and so on, and I
will be glad to make this available.

Mr. Lewis: Were there losses?

Mr. Bullbrook: Did they lose money?

Hon. Mr. White: Some were profitable and
some were not so profitable.

Mr. Lewis: Did they lose money?

Mr. Bullbrook: Some were profitable and
some were not so profitable!

Mr. Lewis: How does this government
manage to sabotage pubhc enterprise every
time? Boy, it knows all the ways to bake a
cake!

Hon. Mr. White: The member is the kind
of fellow who thought the expenditure on the
Colosseum was a waste of money, isn't he?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lake-
shore has a supplementary?

Mr. Lawlor: If you please, Mr. Speaker.
With a loss of close to $3 million and revenue
expectations on the increase of fees amount-
ing to about $650,000, and no doubt intend-
ing to continue the public concerts of music
by folk groups and the Toronto Symphony-
otherwise you won't have anybody there— the
minister is only making a dint in the armour;
he is making no headway at all against the
total position. What benefit is the increase
of fees really over against the considerable
loss?

Hon. Mr. White: My hon. friend is mis-
informed. We are indeed going to make
progress. Our loss last year on operating
account was $2 million approximately. We

anticipate a loss this year of between
$275,000 to $650,000. Now I am not going
to get himg up on this, because it is ab-
solutely impossible to divine the elasticity of
demand for a facility such as Ontario Place.
And there is no way known to man to make
these forecasts accurate.

Mr. MacDonald: Ask Stan.

Mr. Lawlor: On what basis?

Hon. Mr. White: However that is our
hope. And our hope is that in the following
year, by continuing the improvements to the
facilities, we can break even if not make a
little money.

An hon. member: It wasn't hopeful last
year.

Mr. Lawlor: That was Stanley's hope too.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of sup-
plementary, if the minister says there is no
way known to man whereby these predictions
can be made accurately, could he explain
how his predecessor was so definite-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Absolutely.

Mr. Singer: —a year ago that this was
going to at least break even, if not better,
and whether or not he had the same advisers
as the minister now has?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They were certainly
known to Stan.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, he gave
day-to-day attendance figures.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, I learned
long ago never to try to teach economics
to lawyers.

Mr. Singer: What about the cabinet
ministers?

Hon. Mr. White: When I refer now to the
elasticity of demand, I am talking about the
consequence in the number of units sold after
a change in price.

Mr. Lewis: Come on.

An hon. member: How about the elasticity
in the minister's figures?

Hon. Mr. White: What I am not talking
about is the estimation by the Hon. Stanley
Randall of two million people which was
exceeded by more than 300,000.

Mr. MacDonald: Sounds Hke a freshman
lecture.

MARCH 7, 1972

141

Hon. Mr. White: It was exceeded by
300,000.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, a further sup-
plementary, since obviously the minister
doesn't understand: Would the minister tell
me how the same advisers who advised his
predecessor and predicted a break-even point,
are now advising this minister that even with
the increase in entrance fees there will be
a deficit?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Because
it is after the election.

Mr. Singer: That's right.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Supple-
mentary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask
the minister how long the people of northern
Ontario are going to subsidize a non-profit-
able operation of this government for a
facility that isn't available to them unless
they travel several hundred miles to get to
it?

Hon. Mr. White: Just as long as the people
in southern Ontario subsidize Old Fort Wil-
liam.

Mr. Lewis: Not bad. Not bad.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary: Does the
newly appointed Minister of Trade and In-
dustry not grant that $2 bilhon of new
wealth comes out of northern Ontario every
year? Is he discounting that?

Hon. Mr. White: I have never attempted
to prove it, but I suspect that for every
dollar collected in taxes in northern Ontario
we spend two. And I am going to tell—

Mr. Stokes: Not so.

Hon. Mr. White: —the member that we are
really going to do something in the north
country notwithstanding the socialists that
they send down here.

Mr. Martel: When is that going to happen?

Hon. Mr. White: We are really going to do
something up there.

Mr. Martel: We have heard that for 28

years.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, I will permit
one more supplementary on that question.

Mr. Stokes: Would the minister care to
hazard a guess as to how long the economy
of southern Ontario would keep going if it
wasn't for the exploitation of our resources
in the north? No he wouldn't, you are dam
right he wouldn't.

Mr. Lewis: How about the elasticity of
demands in the south?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op-
position.

NURSING HOME REGULATIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the
Minister of Health, which I hope will open
up for him an opportunity to make a state-
ment to the House concerning his negotiations
with nursing homes, which appear to be put-
ting in jeopardy the April 1 date of the be-
ginning of coverage under our Medicare
programme. Is he quoted correctly when he
indicates that the nursing homes will be
forced to accept the remuneration schedule
that he has stated on pain of losing their li-
cence?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, first of all let's not use that
word "force."

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well he is going to
threaten them with licence loss?

Hon. Mr. Potter: In order to ensure that
we have enough beds available to cover
everyone who is entitled to be covered under
the programme, we have suggested that when
we start the programme we must insist that
all Hcensed nursing homes participate. And
we have also asked them to make available
to the programme 75 per cent of the beds
in the nursing homes. If they don't want to
be in the nursing home business, there are
lots of opportunities for them to be in the
business of operating retirement homes. But,
while these homes were built originally as
nursing homes, many patients in them today
— approximtaely 25 per cent— don't require the
nursing care that is available in the homes
so they are using them as retirement homes.
To start off with, we are asking them to
restrict the use for retirement homes to 25
per cent, making available to us 75 per cent
of the beds that are there now.

Does that answer the question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary. When
the minister says "ask them" to make it

142

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

available, he is saying if they don't do that,
he will not continue their licence?

Hon. Mr. Potter: That is perfectly true.
We are suggesting that as of April 1, all
nursing homes have to come up to certain
standards. I think the member will agree
that we must maintain our standard of care.
We don't want to lower it. In addition to
maintaining these standards, we must insist
that they make available a number of beds
to us. So, to start oS with, yes, we are in-
sisting that all homes to be licensed must
participate in the programme.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would
the minister not agree that he is confusing
standard of care with simply a coercion on
the part of the government, based on a
threat to remove their licences unless they
participate along the lines the government
dictates?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, let's go back
to the reason nursing homes are licensed in
the first place. It is to look after patients who
need nursing care, nursing assistance. For
many years, all of us in the Legislature have
been advocating that we institute a govern-
ment programme that will cover the cost, or
the largest percentage of the cost of patients
in these nursing homes. Unless we insist
that the nursing homes that we licensed in
the first place to look after these patients
continue to function in this manner, then we
are defeating the puipose that we started out
to do. All of us were in favour that we had to
have a programme to cover patients in nurs-
ing homes. If we are going to allow a few
nursing home operators to hold a gun at our
head and say, "Unless you pay us more
money than you are oflFering us today, we are
not going to admit patients," then, I am
afraid we haven't got any alternative, have
we?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A final supplementary,
as far as I am concerned: Can the minister
assure the House that the plan will go into
operation as promised three weeks from
today?

Hon. Mr. Potter: The plan is going in as
promised three weeks from today. Regret-
fully I was late today and, perhaps, Mr.
Speaker, if I hadn't been attempting to make
appointments to see as many people as want
to see me— and this refers to members of the
opposition as well as my own party and the
public outside— I would have been on time.
Unfortunately, I was not allowed to make

that statement today so it will have to stay
until Thursday.

Mr. Singer: The Leader of the Opposition
asked the minister a question. He did not
answer the question.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, Mr.
Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West.

Mr. Lewis: How many beds are we talking
about, effective April 1? To the Minister of
Health, how many beds?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Every bed we have in
the province. How many would we have?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I can't give the member
the number off the top of my head.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister have an ap-
proximation?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Probably 20,000 or 25,000
beds-23,000.

Mr. Lewis: Of which 75 per cent would
be eligible for coverage?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Probably. We have found
that of those patients in nursing homes, as I
said before, about 25 per cent aren't ehgible
for coverage under the programme. They are
using them as retirement homes. About
23,000 beds are available altogether in the
province. Of these beds today, yes, 75 to 80
per cent will be eligible for coverage.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
How is the minister establishing the criteria
to distinguish between those requiring nurs-
ing care and those who are in retirement?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there
is a form that is being completed by the
family physician, when he is available and,
if not, by another physician, in which they
are checking off the various types of care
that are provided in the homes and whether
or not a particular patient requires this care.
If he does, he gets it. That is all. If he
doesn't, why, he is in the retirement section.
Now the other thing, there is a nursing
home review board set up too and people
can appeal these decisions.

Mr. Lewis: A final supplementary, Mr.
Speaker: Have we, by and large, now covered
the matters in the ministerial statement or are
there are other things to which the minister
would like to refer?

MARCH 7, 1972

143

Mr. Singer: Read the statement.

Hon. Mr. Potter: First of all, perhaps I
should say, can I read the statement?

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I don't think
we can permit this. The House did not give
unanimous consent to make a ministerial
statement so the hon. minister will not make
a ministerial statement.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. I think I asked a perfectly legitimate
question— which parts of the various pro-
nouncements the minister wanted to make
have not yet been covered?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I think we should point
out, Mr. Speaker, that starting the first of
this year as it was announced by the gov-
ernment some months ago, everyone 65 years
of age and over is covered for those payments
for both OHSC and OHSIP. Starting April 1,
everyone in this age group is covered auto-
matically in nursing homes as well as in any
other institution in the province. They will
pay the first $3.50 per day and the balance
between that and $12.50 is paid through the
programme.

Members will also recall that as of the
first of the month HIRE, OHSC and OHSIP
are all amalgamated into one programme so
that there will be one premium to cover
everybody. For those with restricted in-
comes, previously, for OHSIP, if they didn't
pay any income tax they got their premiums
paid for them. If they had a restricted in-
come they paid half the premium. Now that
is extended to cover the whole programme. In
other words what we have now is an Ontario
health care programme which takes in not
only hospitalization but also the medical
portion of it. I think that covers it pretty
much.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Water-
loo North has a supplementary.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): A sup-
plementary question regarding the rate
structure: I understand from the statement
that the rate paid by the government will be
$9 and the usage charge is $3.50. Will
nursing homes that have a higher rate than
the resulting $12.50 be allowed to charge a
larger usage charge?

Hon. Mr. Potter: No, Mr. Speaker. They
won't for the basic standard of care. I think
that we all probably appreciate that in estab-

lishing nursing home care, as in establishing
any other type of hospital care in the pro-
vince, we are interested in establishing a
good high-quality basic standard of care— the
same as we do with our hospital programme
in which we are providing hpspital care in
our general hospitals, whether it be in a
chronic hospital, or whatever it is.

Until now, the rates paid by the depart-
ment for patients who could not pay their
own way in nursing homes was $11 a day.
During the past year I have visited a fair
number of nursing homes in the province. I
have talked with administrators of some of
the larger nursing homes outside of Metro
Toronto. I have talked with individuals who
operate their own nursing homes and they
have told me that they were making money
at $11 a day.

Now we are told when we have set a rate
of $12.50 a day to cover the same quality of
care and, in addition to provide drugs and
dressing, they are making a fair amount more
than they were before. When somebody who
has been operating a nursing home for the
past several years tells me that for the past
two or three years he has been losing money,
I ask him why he is still in the business.

Mr. MacDonald: Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Because quite frankly we
have a pile of applications about this deep
from individuals who are interested in getting
into the nursing home business, who know
what our rates are going to be and they are
prepared to operate. I don't think there is
any hardship on anyone, in suggesting that
at $12.50 a day they are not doing pretty
well.

I would like to see the programme admin-
istered more or less on a budget basis the
same as we do with our hospitals. At the
present time in order to get it in operation
we suggested the per diem rate. There really
wasn't any way that we could establish it on
a budget basis because there isn't a nursing
home in Ontario today that has offered to
make available to us its books to show us
what their actual costs are so that we could
work out a budget to give them a fair return
on their investments. I would be delighted if
any of them would be prepared to come to
me with a proposal that they would like to
enter into an agreement on this basis because
then we would be able to budget them the
same as we do the hospitals.

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

144

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Supple-
mentary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary.

Mr. Paterson: Yes, of the Minister of
Health. How many of the 490 nursing homes
in the province have returned these resident
applications and doctors' forms to give an
indication of how many people are going to
be covered initially under the plan?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I cannot tell you offhand,
Mr. Speaker. I haven't got that information
with me. But I can assure the members of
this Legislature that everybody who is en-
titled to it will be covered by April 1.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West has a question?

DATES OF ENACTMENT FOR
ENVIRONMENT BILL SOUGHT

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the
Minister of the Environment. When is he
promulgating the regulations on the now
memorable environment bill? When will the
regulations under the Act—

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of the En-
vironment): Would the hon. member tell me
which specific field he is concerned about?

Mr. Lewis: Well, there was reference to
the littering field and there was reference to
non-returnable bottles, and there was refer-
ence to updated regulations on noise pollu-
tion, and there was reference to some changes
in the OWRC regulations. Any of them at all.
Just when will they be coming? What dates
does he have in mind?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can't give the hon. mem-
ber specific dates, but they will be coming
out over the period of the next few months
in various regulations. Not all at once.

Mr. Reid: The government is only six
months late now.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
Does the minister intend to carry out the
pledge to ban non-returnable bottles?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the govern-
ment's policy will be armounced in due
course.

Mr. Shulman: It has been announced al-
ready. Is the minister going to carry it out?

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Just before the
election.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Mr.
Speaker, to the minister of Trade and Devel-
opment.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. member
is out of order unless he has a supplementary.

Mr. Givens: Oh, I am sorry, I thought that
was the last one.

NON-RETURNABLE BOTTLES

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
time factor. I will just ask one question of
the Provincial Secretary for Resources De-
velopment. In view of the remarks of his
cabinet confrere, has he perhaps wished to
make a policy statement on the matter of
non-returnable bottles?

Hon. A. B. R. Lawrence (Provincial Secre-
tary for Resources Development): Not today,
Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: How about tomorrow?

Mr. Martel: The minister is still thinking
about it.

Hon. A. B. R. Lawrence: No, it is under
lively debate within the policy field, and I
think that the answer given by my colleague
is the appropriate one.

Mr. Shulman: But the minister did an-
nounce it earlier.

Mr. MacDonald: How can the government
pass a law and then debate it afterwards?

Hon. A. B. R. Lawrence: We passed the
law* This is a question of the regulations,
and this is where the question was directed.

Mr. Singer: That is certainly not policy.
That is administration.

Mr. MacDonald: Exactly!

Hon. A. B. R. Lawrence: Well, it is policy
that we have regulations that—

Mr. MacDonald: That was in the statute.

Hon. A. B. R. Lawrence: No, it is a most
pertinent question because, as the questioner
will allow, it not only impinges upon the
field of the environment, but it also hinges
on the question of how many people will be
unemployed by particidar activities or how
many firms will be closed down by particular
activities. So we have a typical balance on
the kind of thing that is very much on the
platter of the policy minister in this field.

MARCH 7, 1972

145

Mr. MacDonald: So the government's law
isn't always a pious hope?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The member never
thought of that, did he?

Mr. Lewis: I don't believe it! There need
be no shutdowns and no unemployment i£
the minister brings that in. There are lots
of alternatives— and he knows it.

Mr. Reid: I thought the government was
against the ban?

Mr. MacDonald: Sounds like a pre-election
gimmick.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further supple-
mentaries? Does the hon. member for Scar-
borough West have any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but no.

Mr. Speaker: All right, there are a few
minutes remaining then. The hon. Minister
of Social and Family Services has the answer
to questions asked previously by the hon.
member for Kent (Mr. Spence) and the hon.
member for Rainy River.

DAYCARE CENTRES FOR
INDIAN BANDS

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the two hon.
members asked me questions about the oper-
ation of day nurseries as it related to Indian
bands. The member for Kent was inquiring
as to the number of applications for capital
assistance made by Indian bands. There were
20 applications, and out of that number 10
were approved. I might also say, Mr. Speaker,
that the decisions on approvals were made on
the basis of geographical locations, the needs
of each band which applied and whether or
not there were enough children to support a
nursery. With reference to geographical loca-
tions, I might add that most of the applica-
tions were approved in the north and the
northwest part of the province.

The hon. member for Rainy River raised a
question yesterday about the approval of a
nursery for the Couchiching band. The mem-
ber said that the band administrator wrote
and asked for details and that within a week
the nursery was approved without any appli-
cations being submitted.

Mr. Speaker, my department received a
letter on December 14, 1971, from Mr.
William Jourdain, band administrator, which
expressed a definite interest in obtaining
assistance to construct a nursery. Mr. Jour-

dain wrote to the department on January 11,
1972, concerning possible assistance. His
letter said in part, and I quite:

We are definitely interested in the proj-
ect and would very much like to avail our-
selves of its benefits, but since the dead-
line for submissions has passed we are
wondering if we are not too late to take
part in this project.

An hon. member: The member should
apologize.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, my de-
partment took this letter to be a formal re-
quest for approval by the band. OflBcials of
Project Daycare have contacted the band
immediately to clarify its proposals in detail.
When this was completed the band's pro-
posal to renovate an existing building was
approved by myself on February 8, 1972 and
the band was informed of this approval on
February 10, 1972.

Mr. Renwick: Thanks.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I should add, Mr.
Speaker, that the band has not received any
money as yet because no renovation work
has been undertaken to this date. As soon as
the work is under way the band will receive
a full subsidy of 100 per cent of the cost of
renovation, equipment and furnishings.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The member is go-
ing to apologize, isn't he?

Mr. Reid: Apologize?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Yes! Misinformation.

Mr. Reid: Is it the policy of the minister's
department to make a grant or to give an
okay on a programme when someone writes
and states that they are definitely interested
in the programme? And the second question:
If someone in my riding writes ODC or
NODC and says they are definitely interested
in getting a loan for a project, I would like
further information. Are those same projects
going to be okayed and will they get a nice
letter with 40,000 press releases going out
from the government saying this has been
approved? Now surely the minister doesn't
believe—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member is
making a statement. Just the question please.

Mr. Reid: —that indication of interest is an
application?

146

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, by the
tone of the hon. member's comment it
appears as if he is against this application
for a grant.

An hon. member: Hear, hear,

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This was approved in
principle and as yet, as I just indicated— if
he had been Hstening— no money has been
allocated. But we are prepared, however, to
allocate the grant if they make the necessary
renovations. I see nothing wrong. The mem-
ber comes from northwestern Ontario; surely
he must be aware that communications are
diflBcult and the mail takes a long time— but
the people acted very promptly. So, from
what the hon. member says, he leaves the
impression that he is against this grant. Is
this correct?

Mr. Breithaupt: Not at all!

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): He is
against the grant. He is against the Indians.

Mr. Reid: No! On a point of order or privi-
lege.

An hon. member: Oh, he is against it!

Mr. Reid: No. The whole point is simply
that the minister makes a mockery of what
his department does and of the whole pro-
gramme. The Indians themselves are con-
fused when they receive a letter of approval
for something they have not yet asked for.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Were there
further supplementaries?

The hon. Minister of Trade and Develop-
ment has the answer to a question asked
on Friday by the hon. member for York-
Forest Hill.

COST OF ONTARIO PLACE

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member asked:

Could the minister tell the House what the final
cost of Ontario Place is and why there is a consider-
able discrepancy now between the original forecast
and expenditures already made?

The answer is as follows: The capital cost
for Ontario Place was originally estimated
at $13 million. The final cost has been placed
at $28.7 million.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Double
or nothing!

Mr. Ruston: Thirteen to 28 million!

Mr. Stokes: What's a million here or there?

Hon. Mr. White: The original estimate
provided only for the five exhibit pods, a
domed theatre and 18.6 acres of landfill. The
final cost figure provided for the addition-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: They added a whole
lot of boutiques.

Mr. Ruston: There will be lots of work.

Hon. Mr. White: —of an outdoor amphi-
theatre with a seating capacity of 2,000 imder
canopy and 6,000 on fully landscaped sur-
roundings; also a fully serviced marina with
a capacity for 320 boats, nine major res-
taurant complexes, nine snack bars, three
land rides for public transportation, pedal
and tour boats-
Mr. Shulman: Votes not boats!

Hon. Mr. White: —and an additional 33
acres of landfill, making the facility about
three times as large as was originally planned.

Mr. Martel: We are sure peddling it today.

Mr. Reid: What about rat control?

Mr. MacDonald: It's obvious the cabinet
lost control of Stan Randall. Now it is dealing
with the consequences.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A two per cent override!

Hon. Mr. White: The second question read
as follows:

Can the minister inform the Legislature how much
of the multi-million-dollar deficit he had on Ontario
Place he expects to make up by increasing the price
of admission to Ontario Place?

To answer the question fully I would like
to give some background about the policy on
admissions to Ontario Place.

When Ontario Place was being built it
was decided to keep admissions as low as
possible to encourage family visits to this
provincial showcase.

Mr. Shulman: Up imtil election time.

Hon. Mr. White: On the other hand, it
was necessary to derive the maximum amount
of revenue from admissions to offset the costs
of the free films, exhibits and entertainment.
Last year, admissions were set at $1 for
adults, 50 cents for students, 25 cents for
children from 7 to 12. To recognize the
contributions by senior citizens of this prov-
ince and to encourage those large families
with small children, those over 65 and under
six years of age were allowed in free.

For this year with the age of majority
lowered to 18, a new admission structure has

MARCH 7, 1972

147

been drawn up as follows: Adults, $1.50;
students or juniors from 12 to 17 years of
age, 75 cents, and children on school tours
pay 25 cents each. Senior citizens are again
welcome to the site free, and the age limit
has been raised from 6 to 12 years for free
admission of children if accompanied by
adults.

As a result of these changes we expect the
revenue from paid admissions to rise by
$596,000. Last year, revenue from paid ad-
missions totalled $1,442,000; to the end of
February, including season tickets, the total
is $1,561,091. The attendance at Ontario
Place for 1971 was 2,316,000, of which 79
per cent were paid admissions. I think you
will agree that this percentage is high when
senior citizens and children under seven are
taken into account.

A breakdown of the 2,316,000 attendance
figure shows 1,230,000 adults, 386,000 stu-
dents, 225,000 children from 7 to 12, and
475,000 senior citizens and children six and
under visited Ontario Place.

For this year we have conservatively esti-
mated attendance at 2.1 million— I used the
figure two million yesterday. While there may
be some loss in attendance due to increased
prices, the lowering of the age of majority
offsets this with higher revenue in the adult
category. Of the 2.1 million attendance fore-
cast, 1.22-that is 1,220,000-will be adults;
236,000 students; 125,000 children on school
tours; 519,000 senior citizens and children
12 and under.

Mr. Reid: Are the rats included?

Hon. Mr. White: There are no rats.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has
now expired.

Mr. Bullbr-ook: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order to clarify something for the
other members of the House.

During the question period I asked the
Minister of Trade and Development if he
would file, along with the documents he had
previously filed, profit and loss statements
from the lessee restaurants. Perhaps it was
his normal dissemblance, or his lack of knowl-
edge of what he was filing, but he hasn't
filed those at all and he certainly led me to
believe he was filing them. I want to clarify
this so that Hansard will record that all he
has filed is the concession revenue from those
restaurants and the people of Ontario don't
know what profit the lessees made in those
restaurants.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, I take exception to that word "dis-
semblance"—

Mr. Bullbrook: It is a proper word.

Hon. Mr. White: —and I ask you to ask the
hon. member to retract it.

Mr. Lewis: So he should, because I don't
think it is a word.

An hon. member: I am trying to under-
stand what it means.

Mr, Bullbrook: The minister is dissembling
all the time. Either that or he is ignorant of
what he himself is claiming— and I think it
is the latter.

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The hon. mem-
ber may make it yet. By gosh, he may.

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon, minister has
asked that the hon. member withdraw certain
words; I am not at all sure I realize what
word it was he wanted withdrawn.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I can assure
you both respectfully I will not withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon, minister
would repeat to me what it was he wanted
withdrawn?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We have a new
Sergeant-at-Arms.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr, Si)eaker, this is your
first test.

Mr. Reid: First of all do you know what
the word means?

Hon. Mr. White: I gave the Clerk all of
the information-
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: I gave the Clerk all of
the information I have available, and the
standing instructions in my department are
to keep none of this information secret from
any member of this Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: Well how do you like that?
You wouldn't want them to dissemble?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Dissembling in the
assembly!

Hon. Mr. White: I think, Mr. Speaker, I
have tabled all of the information which we
have available.

Mr. MacDonald: That is not the point.

148

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. White: I will investigate the
matter and see if indeed we have complete
profit and loss figures for these concession-
aires, and if it should be that we have full
operating statements I will further explore
the propriety of making the figures for these
private enterprises public.

Mr. BuUbrook: Mr. Speaker, speaking to
the point of order, that isn't what he said
before. You heard the question directly—
"Will he file those profit and loss state-
ments?"—

Mr. Singer: Absolutely.

Mr. BuUbrook: —and in his normal smug
dissemblance he said, "Yes, I will." But he
didn't know what he was doing.

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That puts the
member way out front now.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, what did
the minister mean when he said he would
look into the propriety of further documents
when he had already said that nothing was
secret in his department?

Mr. Breithaupt: That's private enterprise.

Hon. Mr. White: Certainly none of the
figures which we ourselves are responsible
for are to be kept from any member of this
Legislature or press media, I can assure you.
There is the question of propriety concerning
confidential profit and loss information. As
the former Minister of Revenue here I can
tell you that information made available in
certain circumstances is a closely held secret
on behalf of the taxpayers and fee payers
and others. I do not know, without looking
into the matter, into which category these
concessionaires fit.

Mr. Speaker: I am not at all certain that
the word to which the hon. member took
exception is a word that actually was meant
in the manner in which he has taken it. I
am not sure of the meaning of the word. I
believe the word was "dissemblance."

Mr. Bullbrook: I don't understand it either.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to consult my
dictionary and determine whether or not
there is anything offensive. If, in fact, there
is any need to pursue this further I will
certainly rule upon it tomorrow, or rather
on Thursday.

Mr. Lewis: It is a garbled piece of ob-
scenity.

Hon. Mr. White: May I v^thdraw my
request, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: He doesn't know
either.

Hon. Mr. White: It isn't the word I find
offensive; it is the hon. member.

Mr. Bullbrook: Vindicated again!

Mr. Speaker: Is everybody happy?

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Henderson (Lambton), from the select
committee appointed to prepare the lists of
members to compose the standing committees
of the House, presented the committee's
report which was read as follows:

Your committee recommends that the lists
of standing committees ordered by the House
be composed of the following members:

1. Procedural, Affairs: Messrs. Burr,
Dymond, Eaton, Edighoffer, Ewen, Foulds,
Henderson, Hodgson ( Victoria-HaHburton ) ,
Johnston, MacDonald, Meen, Reid, Scrivener,
Smith ( Hamilton Mountain), Spence, Timbrell,
Turner, Walker-18.

2. Administration of Justice: Messrs.
Bullbrook, Carruthers, Clement, Davison,
Downer, Givens, Havrot, Irvine, Lane, Lawlor,
MacBeth, McNeil, Nixon ( Dovercourt ) , Ren-
wick, Rhodes, Singer, Taylor, Wardle- 18.

3. Social Development: Messrs. Beckett,
Belanger, Birch, Drea, Dukszta, Gisbom,
Hamilton, Handleman, Leluk, Loughren,
Mcllveen, McNie, Momingstar, Morrow, New-
man ( Windsor- Walkerville), Parrott, Pater-
son, Smith (Nipissing)— 18.

4. Resources Development: Messrs, Allan,
Bennett, Deans, Evans, Ferrier, Gaunt, Good,
Jessiman, Maeck, Miller, Newman (Ontario
South), Nuttall, Rollins, Sargent, Stokes,
Villeneuve, Wiseman, Yakabuski— 18.

5. Estimates: Messrs. Beckett, Braithwaite,
Cassidy, Drea, Eaton, Gilbertson, Haggerty,
Hamilton, Jessiman, MacBeth, Martel,
Mcllveen, Nuttall, Parrott, Scrivener (Mrs.),
Stokes, Walker, Worton-18.

6. Public Accounts: Messrs. Allan, Breit-
haupt, Cassidy, Deacon, Dymond, Germa,
Lane, Morrow, Nixon (Dovercourt), Taylor,
Wardle, Wiseman— 12.

7. Regulations: Messrs. Belanger, Boun-
sall, Havrot, Irvine, Johnston, Leluk, Maeck,
Reilly, Roy, Ruston, Turner, Young— 12.

The quorum of committees 1 to 5 and of the
private bills committee to be seven in each

MARCH 7, 1972

149

case. The quorum of committees 6 and 7 to
be five in each case.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, before the adop-
tion of the report I want to raise a matter with
you and with the House leader in regard to
the matter of substitution on committees. Dur-
ing the last session of the Legislature, it was
possible to substitute on all of the five first-
named committees for the purpose of studying
estimates. We would hope that this would
continue during this session. Although it wasn't
a part of the recommendation of the com-
mittee, it in fact is a requirement of the com-
mittee.

In regard to the other committees, with the
restructuring of government and with the
overlapping of jurisdiction, and with the fact
that the committees only permit a certain
number of members to sit on them, and that
the opposition parties are permitted only three
members each, it becomes extremely diflScult
for the critics of the opposition parties to take
part in the deliberations of the committee,
when the committee is studying legislation
which has been referred to it by this House
dealing with his department, if that member
is not named as a member of the committee.
I ask the House leader to consider permitting
substitution to take place in all of these com-
mittees when dealing with estimates and bills.

For example if the resource committee,
which overlaps a number of departments, is
dealing with the agriculture bills and I am
not a member of that committee, I should be
able to be substituted on that day in order that
I could lead the debate for this party on the
position that we might want to put forward
on the bill that was being studied.

I think it makes sense. I think that in past
years the committees were aligned in such a
way as to allow the critic to be on the com-
mittee that studied the appropriate bills re-
ferred to it by this House. This is no longer
the case. It wasn't brought about by our doing
but rather brought about by the reorganization
of government and I feel that some appropri-
ate change and substitution, to deal both with
estimates and the study of bills referred, is
necessary.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will take the hon.
member's suggestion under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the report be received
and adopted?

Report agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, can you inform the House what
arrangements have been made to organize

the committees tomorrow, which is the first
day the House does not sit to accommodate
committees.

Mr. Speaker: According to the order paper,
the standing procedural affairs committee will
meet on Wednesday, March 8,' at 11 a.m., in
committee room No. 2; and this committee
of course will deal with the matter.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No other committees will
be organized?

Mr. Speaker: Not on the order paper; no.

Mr. Lewis: On a further point of order
Mr. Speaker, it becomes clear, I think, that
given the time limit, in the rules, at which
the Throne debate must terminate before the
budget is tabled, unless we begin to meet in
the evenings, this week and next, it will
simply not be possible for all the members of
this House who wish to enter the Throne
debate, in this the first of a new session, to
do so. Has the House Leader the intention
then of meeting in the evenings— and which
evenings— to facilitate that?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think I
made a statement in this regard. If there is
a variation from that position I will report
to the leader.

Mr. Lewis: What is the position exactly?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: At the moment it is our
intention not to sit in the evenings until after
the Easter recess; but I recognize the request
and I will report back.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the House leader:
Is he aiming for a Throne Speech windup
next Friday, a week Friday, or the 27th, a
Monday?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I believe that in accord-
ance with the rules that is about it.

Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, if I
may Mr. Speaker, is it not correct that any
member of this House who wishes to speak
in this debate may do so; and if there are
members who have not yet spoken who wish
to contribute they must be allowed to do so?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, in accordance with
the rules, and I believe the rules state it very
clearly, a Throne Speech debate is concluded
before the introduction of the budget. But I
think it must be borne in mind that all mem-
bers can speak equally as freely on the
budget debate as on the Throne Speech
debate.

150

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Martel: How do we speak if the House
does not sit?

Mr. Shulman: If I may have further eluci-
dation, will the member not agree, or will
you not agree. Mr. Speaker, that on the
Throne debate each and every member may
speak if he so wishes?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, to the
best of my knowledge, I was a member of
the committee that drafted the new rules-
Mr. Shulman: It is not a matter of com-
mittee.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Now just a moment—
the gentlemen's agreements that exist be-
tween leaders and whips is acknowledged
and adhered to and I believe that that is
the way it operates.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had
an answer from you, sir. I am not asking the
government for permission on this, I am
asking you, as a Speaker, and as the guard-
ian of our privileges, to reiterate a privilege
which has been common to this House and
the House of Westminster back for hundreds
of years, that any member may speak regard-
less of what the House leader says.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is not
correct. The standing orders of this House
prevail. The Throne Speech must be com-
pleted prior to the introduction of the bud-
get. If the House leader deems that it is
necessary to hold night sittings in order to
accomphsh that fact, that will be done as I
imderstand the words of the House leader.
There is nothing in the standing orders
which, to my knowledge, covers the point
raised by the hon. member for High Park.
It's not up to me to determine whether or
not they will sit in the evenings to accomplish
the objectives.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, if I may fiu:-
ther, on this same point. I'm not referring
to the standing orders. I'm referring to the
traditions of Parliament and of this House.
The tradition has been, and I must go back
at least to the Magna Carta, that in the
Throne debate any member who wishes to
participate may do so and no standing orders
can supervene that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point
of order I don't recall any instance where
a private member of this House has not had
an opportimity to speak on the Throne
debate. I think, may be, we're getting worried
before we have to—

Mr. Martel: We are not to have any time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would say, Mr. Speaker,
we are spending a considerable amount of
time now. I am quite sure that we'll all have
a chance to speak. I don't want to speak in
defence of the House leader, but if it's up to
him to call night sessions I suppose we'll
have them. Let's get on with the business.

Mr. Shulman: Let him do it.

Mr. Martel: There is a good Tory for you!

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the party
leaders and the House leader will get to-
gether on this thing and arrange for all mem-
bers to speak who should have an opportunity
to speak before the budget date arrives.

Mr. Shulman: After it is too late.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I just
add to that that the rules were set by an
all-party committee. Certainly, the rules can
be changed by the House itself and there is
no desire on my part or the government's
part to inhibit any desire of any member to
speak. Although the hon. member himself
curtails it occasionally.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I may, in an
endeavour to clarify this, I would ask the
Speaker: Is it not true that the rules do not
contain any statement as to a particular ses-
sional day on which the budget will be intro-
duced? That all the rules, in fact, say is that
the Throne Speech must be completed before
the introduction of the budget?

Mr. Shulman: The hon. member is correct.

Mr. Renwick: Is it, therefore, not true that
the important point is that if necessary, the
government's decision to bring in the budget
would have to be delayed imtil such time as
each member of the Legislature who desired
to speak in the Throne debate had an oppor-
tunity to do so?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to that particular
point, it seems to me that the presentation
of the budget has, in some manner, some-
thing to do with the end of our fiscal period,
which is March Si-
Mr. MacDonald: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: —insofar as the government
is concerned in its efforts to introduce the
budget by a certain date. Other than that, as
far as the hon. member is concerned, he is
quite right— there is nothing in the standing

MARCH 7, 1972

151

orders, to my knowledge, which stipulates
any date upon which a budget must or should
be introduced.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, every session we
have ended up sitting into those little hours
of the morning trying to close out debate,
whether it be the Throne or whether it be
the budget debate.

An Hon. member: Or estimatesi

Mr. Deans: Or estimates for that matter.
What we're trying to avoid on this side of
the House is not bills but that hectic rush
that inevitably takes place on the day before
the House rises. We don't anticipate, with
any eagerness, the prospect of sitting on the
Friday evening or perhaps into the wee hours
of Saturday morning, trying to get in all of
the members who want to speak.

Surely it makes good sense that we should
allocate the time that is now available. There
are only six days on which the Legislature
will sit before we rise for the Easter recess.
It makes sense that we should use that time
as usefully and meaningfully as possible.
Since there are a great number of members
who anticipate speaking in the debate, we
should inaugurate evening sessions now and,
thereby, will be able to complete the business
in a reasonable time and with reasonable
hours. That is what we are asking.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): That
is for tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: It seeims to me that the
points raised by the hon. members who have
spoken on this topic are quite important
points. They are valid points and should be
given full consideration. I think the hon.
House leader has indicated to the House
that he will take these matters under con-
sideration. We would hope that he will come
back and inform the House of his decision
in connection vwth the points raised by all
the hon. members, which, as I say, in my
opinion are valid points and should be con-
sidered.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, speaking to
the point of order, would the House leader
consider having the House sit tomorrow after-
noon if committees are not meeting so that,
in fact, the Throne debate could be proceed-
ed with?

Mr. MacDonald: Hear, hear. Good idea.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, I cannot accede to
that request at this time.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, let me ask
you this. You have attempted to be very
reasonable here; the House leader may be
in a different position but he is the House
leader and, therefore, he has to face up to
the facts of it. We have only six days for
the Throne debate and if he does not decide
now that we are meeting tonight, he is
eliminating one of the four possible evenings.
This should have been done last week. In
short, to postpone the decision is, in effect,
to deny the possibility of implementing the
decision. If he is not going to truncate the
Throne debate and make it the shortest
Throne debate, certainly in a normal session,
that I have ever seen around this Legislature,
he has to make that decision immediately
before we rise at 6 o'clock. The only alter-
native or substitute for tonight, if we cannot
meet tonight, is to meet tomorrow afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I would like to inform
the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that tomor-
row the cabinet has a rather full session in
meeting the chambers of conmierce of
northern Ontario, which is well known, and
we do not intend to change that arrange-
ment. People spend money and travel a lot
of miles to come in for that particular annual
event. If I have the opportunity I shall report
before 6 o'clock this evening and if not I
shall report on Thursday.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a final
point of order, the cabinet members do not
sit in here to listen to Throne speeches; they
clear out as soon as anybody in the opposi-
tion side starts.

Mr. Stokes: Look at them now!

Mr. MacDonald: They can come in for the
question period and go out and speak to
their buddies in the chambers of commerce.
We will carry on the business of the pro-
vince here.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There are other people
involved.

Mr. BuIIbrook: We are going to be here.

Mr. Lewis: The point is we are turning up
tomorrow afternoon. We are going to pass
some legislation!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am the protector of
the members' best interests.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

152

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.

Mr. Deans moves first reading of bill in-
tituled, An Act to amend the Public Health

Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, as has been my
practice over the past three years, I am in-
troducing this Act which will make it man-
datory in the Province of Ontario that drugs
and medicines be sold only in child-proof
containers.

I received a great deal of support during
the last session from persons outside the
Legislature who deal with children and who
know the extent of the problem. Each year
we read of more and more children dying
as a result of inadvertently taking medicines
and drugs that are left in containers which
can be readily opened by them. I had antici-
pated that the Minister of Health might have
adopted this measure last year. He indicated
that he was considering it and I hope that,
if possible, prior to the opportunity for sec-
ond reading the government might consider
moving a bill of similar nature and I will be
happy to withdraw this.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.

CEMETERIES ACT

Mr. Shulman moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend the Cemeteries
Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of this bill is to try to prevent the annual
waste of some thousands of dollars which has
been taking place for many years now, in
duplicate issuing of coroner's certificates on
the same death; which the government has
been promising to clean up for some five
years.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre.

HEALTH STUDIOS

Mr. Drea moves first reading of bill in-
tituled. An Act respecting Health Studios.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): I
would say to the hon. member for Scar-

borough West, I didn't hear him on the
second exchange. Nobody is excited, because
I am quite sure he would support this as
well.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is the
same as Bill 8 which I introduced concern-
ing dancing studios. The intent is that those
who profit from emotional response to cer-
tain advertising or other types of promotions
will no longer be able to trap the unwary into
long-term binding contracts. I say to the hon.
members of the house, in case the words
"health studio" may be too all-embracing,
the intent of this bill— and I am taking dead
aim at the Vic Tanny Studios, the FigurMagic
Studios and the Hilton-StaufFer Studios. We
all know what I am talking about.

Mr. Lewis: Having not yet been to Vic
Tanny 's, I am not sure.

Mr. Drea: The member knows.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don't think the member
for Scarborough Centre has been there.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, re-
suming the adjourned debate on the amend-
ment to the motion for an address in reply
to the speech of the Honourable The
Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the
session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, I want to begin— indeed, perhaps I
should have done this yesterday, but I didn't
feel that I wanted to then, but I want to
now— by saying how much I enjoyed the
generous, typically strong speech which was
delivered by the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. R. F, Nixon) in this House; it was a
speech very much rooted in the Province of
Ontario, as those of us who have heard him
on many occasions recognize. If I may say
in a personal way, it was a privilege to have
campaigned with him in the last campaign.
Albeit one's adversaries often engender mixed
feelings during the course of the campaign,
I am pleased to have had that experience.

I am particularly impressed by the un-
self consciousness and confident way that the
hon. member for Brant speaks of his father,
Mr. Speaker. As a devotee of nepotism I was
filled with admiration for this particular
trend. I do not want to provide any obitu-
aries until retirement, because I sense there

MARCH 7, 1972

153

is much fight left in the hon. member for
Brant and that we will be on the receiving
end, so I shall reserve some pugnacity.

My only regret— and it didn't by any means
mar the speech yesterday— was the observa-
tion of the hon. member for Brant in the
wake of the election, that the election had
somehow constituted a rejection of the NDP.
I couldn't imagine such an analysis being
made.

I noted in the Ottawa Journal in the middle
of February a comment on the proposition
put forward by the hon. member for Brant.
The Ottawa Journal said:

Now wait a bit. In the October, 1971
election the Tories gained 10 seats for a
total of 78. The Liberals lost seven seats
for a total of 20, the NDP lost two seats
for a total of 19. No matter how you
equate this, that looks to us as though the
Liberals were the ones rejected last
October.

I put that in as a modest salve to our party.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
I guess we both know who won.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, we have that generally in
mind.

I want to—

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Unfortunately it included
the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. Lewis: Well I am going to deal with
the member for Lambton in a moment, if he
stays in the House. I may say, Mr. Speaker,
it will only take me a moment to deal with
him.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): I have to
leave at 4 o'clock; will the hon. member do
it before 4?

Mr. Lewis: I will do it before 4; I'll do it
within 10 minutes.

I want to compliment the Speaker, as
others have, on his appointment. A man of
greater justice, wisdom and balance cannot
be imagined. As Anthony said of Caesar:
"Will there ever be such another?" I rather
doubt it.

I want to make a speech of moderate
length, offering sweet and gentle reflections
on the politicians opposite, who govern
neither wisely nor well but endlessly. The
electoral outcome last October, Mr. Speaker,
implied to most of us a Conservative victory,
and their physical presence in the House
would seem to confirm it; rather like a pincer
movement closing in on the opposition.

As a matter of fact I think it is time to
reveal, Mr. Speaker, that there was a plot
afoot to surround our little remnant of virtue
and integrity with hordes of Tory infidels on
all sides, to achieve by intimidation what
they were unable to achieve by election. It
was only the Speaker's intervention which
saved us from that fate, and that's why I pay
him homage.

Still, it is a pleasure of sorts to be back,
back at the club where men are men and
women are women and the member for
Lambton who cherishes the difference.

When we prorogued there were 68 across
the way; now by some strange mutation
there are 77 and the provincial Treasurer
(Mr. McKeough), who is a hybrid unto him-
self. When we prorogued there were 20-odd
equal ministers; now there are 16 mortals
and six of the elect. Well, six who govern
with almost absolute authority, known by
their colleagues— in muted whispers in the
hallway— as the politburo of the Progressive
Conservative Part>'. Everyone is thankful that
they suffer democracy at all.

But alas Mr. Speaker, as the oligarchy took
shape only the fittest survived. It is always
true in this world of free enterprise where
the corridors of power are littered with those
who fell from favour. There are a great many
on the government side who fell from favour.
One need only look at all these cabinet min-
isters in front of me talking an active part in
this debate. I see the minister, the member
for Halton West (Mr. Kerr). That I suppose
was the unkindest cut of all; one day Minister
of the Environment, next day executive assist-
ant to Douglas Wright. It is one of the great
demotions in modem political history.

I am sorry, I am sorry about the member
for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman).
What a man was that, Mr. Speaker?— I say
interrogatively. He is now stripped of Trade
and Development, stripped of forgivable
loans, stripped of Ontario Place, stripped of
overall housing policy, left with the tattered
rump of Revenue, and only temporarily the
Ontario Housing Corporation. And now, Mr.
Speaker, if I understand it, they have shipped
him to China.

I believe that is true. Well I guess that is
why they call him the red Tory. I have heard
that with his little book of the chairman
tucked firmly under his arm he'll dine with
Mao and lunch with Chou and play ping-pong
with Lin Piao. I may say, so much for East-
West relations, Mr. Speaker—

An hon. member: Better call Richard
Nixon.

154

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Lewis: Well, if Richard had known
what was following he might never have
gone, as it happens. Surely, surely, Mr.
Speaker, there would have been better emis-
saries? I mean even the member for Bell-
woods (Mr. Yaremko) would have been a
finer emissary.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Now, now.

Mr. Lewis: Well now I don't know, I
don't want to understate it.

His centuries of training in this House—
at least it seems like centuries, Mr. Speaker—
his decades of intense commitment to the
aspirations of ethnic peoples around the
world.

An Hon. member: In the third world!

Mr. Lewis: For third world, sorry I
His months of nurturing the multicultural
congress, the like of which is without parallel
anywhere in the solar system, so he has
suggested to some of his colleagues.

I am truly sorry that the minister from
Bellwoods with his tact, his diplomacy, his
sensitivity, did not find it within him to make
the voyage to China.

Picture it, Mr. Speaker: The state dinner,
rounds of testimonials and speeches; the
orders of the day having ended the member
from Bellwoods rises, the hon. John Yaremko
to his feet and toasts movingly, tears stream-
ing no doubt, the 20th anniversary of the
island of Formosa.

I could well see it in the content of that
time.

Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Let Hansard record the raucous laughter on
the opposite side of the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I thought it was mostly
coming from the press gallery.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): If
the minister had only been listening he would
have known what the raucous laughter was
about.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The people of Formosa
are human beings just as much as any sup-
porter of—

An hon. member: Oh John, John!

Mr. Lewis: I knew it, I knew I would
regret it; and I did it anyway Mr. Speaker.
I knew that if the Taiwanese had a champion
he was here in this House in the presence
of the minister.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If men who want
freedom find a champion, it is on this side
of the House.

Mr. MacDonald: The aninister is a joke and
he doesn't know it.

Mr. Lewis: Well, no provocation is suflB-
cient—

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have never seen the
leader of the NDP walking down University
on behalf of freedom for men.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): You tell
him.

Mr. Lewis: Okay! Is the minister finished?
Thank you. Don't fail to intervene.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: All depends whether
the member is.

Mr. Lewis: What of the policy ministers
Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Last year I said I
outlived six opposition leaders, I will out-
live one more.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member is tempting
fate.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Is the
minister apologizing?

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: One down and one
to go.

Mr. MacDonald: Some people never get
the diflFerence between laughed at and
laughed with.

Mr. Lewis: That is all right.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The member for York
South was counted out two years ago.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is in rare form.
Had I known he was going to be in the
House I wouldn't even have ventured in.
If he will allow me to continue.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: By all means.

Mr. Lewis: Well by all means. Is the
minister leaving? What a pity.

Now as for the policy ministers, Mr.
Speaker, what strange enigma are these peo-
ple? What strange admixture of man and
beast?

The absence of any direct contribution
from the policy ministers in this House is
something that worries the House a great
deal. They are in here for a fleeting period

MARCH 7, 1972

155

of time during the question period and they
flee very quickly thereafter as is seen.

The poHcy minister for Social Develop-
ment (Mr. Welch) I don't think has offered
nary a word, well maybe a few words in the
House. I tried to find what it was that was
preoccupying him since he assumed the bur-
den of such high oflSce, and I came across
an article which explained it all. It is an
article of the Toronto Globe and Mail,
February 22 last, and I'll read members the
first paragraph germane as it is to this
debate:

Robert Welch, the Provincial Secretary

for Social Development, said last night

that Ontario must work to protect Canada

from the fate of Uruguay.

Now I know that that may arouse certain
incredulity in the minds of some.

Mr. Singer: That was particularly inclined
to the author who was chortling up there.

Mr. Lewis: To continue:

He told the Dovercourt Conservative
Association in Toronto that the mismanage-
ment that led the South American coimtry
from a prime example of a welfare state
into a stagnant slump within 20 years is
being avoided in Ontario by a Conserva-
tive government, and the lesson of Uru-
guay's slump must not be missed, said Mr.
Welch.

Well, they now have a Uruguay bureau in
the Ministry of Social Development making
pronouncements of equal depth and thought.

The Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr.
A. F. Lawrence), who likes to be known as the
minister who links and thinks, has also made
an occasional statement in this House— one
today.

The man who is emerging most quickly, let
it be said, is the hybrid to whom I referred
before, the Treasurer of Ontario, about whom
the historians will refer to as the McKeough
years in Ontario. He is, admittedly Mr.
Speaker, the most turbulent and volatile
amongst the members of the cabinet, a strong
man of the government, his cherubic grins and
loud guffaws barely containing his innermost
socialist impulses.

He is very much the centre of the stage
here. As a matter of fact, voices in the gallery
have been heard to say, "Who is that fellow
on Darcy's right?"

Many have pondered the same. Who is it
indeed? Well, according to John Slinger of
the Globe and Mail, the man on Darcy's right
is the man who renders publishers and senior

editors or 20 daily newspapers in Ontario
questionless with one speech, comatose with
two. In that peculiar liaison dangereuse which
the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) has with
the Canada's leading newspaper, an onagain,
offagain affair that allows for the tiny private
glimpses of personal life against the backdrop
of the forever public man, may I read a most
extraordinary quotation from Mr. Slinger's
article into the record:

Bill Davis played varsity quarterback at
Toronto and sometimes when no outsiders
are around you can tell. He clenches the
cigar in his teeth, unbuttons his jacket,
sticks out his gut and loops his thumbs in
his belt.

I won't tell them the Minister of Social and
Family Services (Mr. Bnmelle) was smiling.
Take that out of Hansard. I don't want the
Premier to know the duplicity in his ranks.
Standing a bit pigeon-toed, he squints
through the smoke and looks like a middle-
aged former jock who cherishes his Argo
season tickets, which he is and which he
does.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this is a man who
clearly relishes the role and has now gathered
around him a retinue of advisers, admirers and
star-struck disciples that is the envy of the
western world; together with direction from
Detroit they formed "the big blue machine."

With the help of this assorted collection of
the great and the near-great, the Throne
Speech was fashioned for this Legislature. Like
all Throne Speeches it slipped into immedi-
ately forgettable history the instant it was de-
livered; except for the part that was delivered
in French, Mr. Speaker, that will live with
me for some time. The Throne Speech slipped
into memory. Before it departs entirely, I
would like to comment on some of its aspects.
My fellow caucus members in the New Demo-
cratic Party will be covering much of the
ground specifically over the period of the next
several day and evening sessions.

The Throne Speech had a good deal of non-
sense; very few pretensions in it, of course.
There are a number of areas to which I would
like to address myself quickly and, I hope, to
the point:

First, the speech abandoned, for the first
time in any document of its kind that has come
from the government, the so-called quest for
full employment, which for the Tories signals
a maximvun of three per cent unemployment
in the Province of Ontario. There was not a
single mention of the three per cent goal.
There were muttered homilies about unaccept-
able employment levels, but not a single

156

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

obvious solution to counteract the present
accelerating miemployment trend. The prov-
ince has already thrown away a quarter of a
billion dollars, or is about to, on the so-called
tax credit to corporations; and they needn't
preach austerity to us when there have been
so many major concessions made to the cor-
porate world.

I remind you of the investment tax credit,
which is a quarter of a billion dollars over
two years; pmlution control equipment, which
will amount now to $12 million a year; retail
sales tax lifted from certain production
machinery, $7 million a year; $2.5 million a
year to the beer producers; succession duty
relaxation, which will lose us $30 million; re-
source revenue, which has not increased since
1969-1970 despite the increase in mineral and
forest wealth generated from this province. As
a result, whereas the total of corporation in-
come tax in the province in 1962-1963 repre-
sented 19 per cent of provincial revenues, in
1971-1972 it represents eight per cent, and
none of it has seriously reversed the levels of
unemployment in this province.

I am reminded of that speech on October
14 prior to election day, when the Premier
said: "We intend to pursue employment
policies and to give priority to actions de-
signed to restore employment and productivity
to appropriate levels." Where are the actions
and where are the appropriate levels?

Second, Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech
urges a re-evaluation of its role and re-
sponsibility with regard to the Ontario
housing industry. How the mighty have
collapsed.

Do the ministers opposite remember the
pretensions of the Throne Speech last year?
Half a billion dollars to create new housing.
I can't recall how many units and how many
new jobs that would have created— I think
30,000 units and 90,000 jobs. Very little has
been seen since. So the head of the Ontario
Housing Corporation can still say authorita-
tively that we are 65,000 units behind. Again,
in Canada's morning daily three or four days
ago, there was a major article on the housing
market crisis in the Metropolitan Toronto
area. The house of cards that was never
heard of again.

Third, health services. The Speech from
the Throne refers to the Grange report, to
nursing homes, to better services to isolated
parts of the province. But I ask you, Mr.
Speaker, what of the restructuring of health
services in Ontario?

What of all the amendments to the profes-
sional Acts which the Committee on the

Healing Arts indicated were a requirement in
this province in the near future? What of the
new delivery system which has been promised
by the former Minister of Health (Mr.
A. B. R. Lawrence) and now by the present
minister (Mr. Potter)? What of the move to
community models and reduced costs and the
move away from the dependence on medical
models?

What of mental health, Mr. Speaker? I
asked a question in this Legislature about a
report called "Treating the Untreatable
Adolescent," which is in the special services
branch of the mental health division of the
Department of Health. It is a report which
chronicles what amounts to a tragedy in the
wastage of adolescents in the Province of
Ontario, adolescents who are profoundly
disturbed and mentally ill; whose case
histories fill the files of Children's Aid
Societies and other agencies of a similar
nature throughout the province.

There was not a single response worthy
of the name when the minister stood in his
place on Friday. He was guilty of what some
would call dissemblance, Mr. Speaker, be-
cause he implied that some of the pro-
grammes had changed— or maybe it was just
yesterday, Monday.

I wonder if the members of the House
can be made aware of the kinds of kids we
are speaking of. I am going to table this
document for the interest of the members of
the Legislature, but let me give them the
flavour of those adolescents in Ontario who
wait desperately for some therapeutic setting
of which none is available while the govern-
ment cannot approve nine or 10 programmes
for which the Department of Health, through
its mental health division, is desperately
applying to Treasury Board.

Let me read you brief resumes of some of
the case histories, Mr. Speaker.

Willi M, Children's Aid Society-age 14;
no father and rejected by mother. On
probation for stealing. Has much potential,
high IQ but refused to go to school. Has
refused placement in group home. Runs
away from home, becomes involved in
vandalism. Private boarding placement
attempted but failed after 10 days. Only
untried resource is training school, which
seems inevitable at this time.

Rick W, (CAS)-aged 12-bright severe-
ly troubled youngster on edge of drug
community. Stealing, glue sniffing, run-
ning away, refuses to attend school. Seen
at Scarborough Mental Health Clinic.

MARCH 7, 1972

157

Recommended for residential treatment . . .
no funds available.

Susan E, (CAS)— age 14. Lives alone
with father. Incest suspected. Sexually in-
volved with male adult in community;
cannot be held in outpatient treatment;
currently on drugs; sees guidance coun-
sellor at school daily; an acting-out bright
teenager in need of residential develop-
ment.

Douglas B, (CAS)— age 14. In court for
sexually molesting younger sister. Numer-
ous court appearances. One of six illegiti-
mate children. Mother has history of re-
form institutions. A bright boy, severely
disturbed, in need of residential treatment.
All centres refuse admission.

Beverly P., (CAS)— age 16. Crown ward
with repeated foster home failures, average
intelligence. Disobedient, uncontrolled,
lying, stealing, enuretic. Repeating grade 9;
many psychosomatic symptoms. Needs
residential treatment in controlled setting.

Margaret F., (CAS)-age 16. A very
bright disturbed youngster, IQ 138. Tense,
anxious, bitter, acting-out girl with un-
resolved feelings around family and ward-
ship. Cannot be helped or held in foster
or group home care. High community risk.

Marlene G, (CAS)-age 15. A seriously
disturbed girl. Angry, disillusioned, reject-
ed, impulsive, involved with alcohol and
drugs. Refused admission by Maryvale. In
court for car theft and running away.
Responds to firm controls and treatment
but no facility available.

Just a brief glance at the Children's Aid
Society files, Mr. Speaker; 150 such cases
were ehcited. When I talked to Mr. Lloyd
Richardson, the director of the Metropolitan
Toronto Children's Aid Society last week and
asked him if a similar analysis could be made
now, precisely the same cases would show
themselves. When I was in the office of Doug
Finlay, the treatment placement director for
the special services division of the Depart-
ment of Health, he had within the last 10
days received 25 cases of a precisely similar
kind.

The Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan
Toronto is $300,000 over its institutional
budget in the last year and cannot find place-
ment for its children. I know I have never
been able to get anywhere with this govern-
ment on this subject, and I say it in a deeply
personal way Mr. Speaker. But all of us in
this House— and I assume it applies to gov-

ernment members as well as everybody else—
deeply resent the distorted sense of priorities
which allow so quickly for an announcement
that $70 million is available to acquire land
for a new airport but cannot fashion the
facilities or find a few hundred thousand
dollars necessary to salvage lives that are
going down the drain at this moment. There
is no ad hominem in that.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it
goes on far too long— for almost eight years.
Long before that people raised this question
in the House, I don't mean to be presump-
tuous.

For the eight or nine years that I have
been in this House, treating of this issue, we
make occasional progress, but how it is pos-
sible to neglect the reality of a major segment
of the adolescent community in Ontario in
this fashion is absolutely beyond me.

You can toy with Ontario Place. One can
have one's science centres. One can have
one's monolithic institutions and all the fes-
tivities that surround the opening of a nuclear
station, which the Leader of the Opposition
described so vividly yesterday; but to find
the money necessary to salvage human beings
is still beyond the capacity of this government
to resolve!

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Hear, hear!

Mr. Lewis: A fourth point I want to make
about the Throne Speech, Mr, Speaker. It
says, "My government shares fully the con-
cerns of the people of Ontario in respect of
the protection and enhancement of our nat-
ural environment."

What a single-minded piece of hypocrisy
that is, Mr. Speaker. If the government shares
concern, why was there such a deliberate
demotion— I am sorry to say it in his presence
—of the one minister who appeared capable
of coping with this particular issue? If the
government shares concern, where is the
legislation on non-returnable bottles or other
regulations which this minister promised as
far back as June 15, 1971?

If the government shares concern, why is it
still seeking whom to sue in the Dow Chemi-
cal suit a year after the issuance of the writ?

If the government shares concern, where
are the regulations for the environment bill?
If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, the
Environmental Protection Act received royal
assent on July 28, 1971, Proclamation took
place on August 11, 1971. It is now March 7,
1972, and all the innovative sections of that
Act are as yet without regulation.

158

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

I don't know if that is why the minister
was dumped, if I may use an uncharitable
phrase. I don't know what it is that prevents
the government from coming to grips with
this kind of thing. Surely in all the thinking
creativity of the policy ministers over there
it is possible with some wit and some per-
ception to draft the regulations we are still
awaiting.

If the government shares concern, why
does it permit the rapacious devastation of
the Sandbanks month by month, as one cab-
inet minister after another enters into an
unwritten agreement with Lake Ontario
Cement to destroy the dunes before the trans-
fer of title is made? They are paying a dollar
a year for that lease of Grown land. How
much more generous can a government be
expected to be?

A dollar a year! In the last several months,
Lake Ontario Gement has gone beserk in the
amount of aggregate which it has taken from
the dunes.

The Globe and Mail was kind in its de-
scription of the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Bernier) as sufiFering from a perceptual
handicap. He is physically immobilized and
administratively defunct. This one basic rec-
reational issue has single-handedly frustrated
government action for as long as that lease
has been under discussion in this Legislature,
which is well more than a year. There is no
excuse in the world for not applying a mora-
torium to the taking out of aggregate at this
point, returning to the company a dollar a
year for the imused portion of the lease and
settling them into the alternative site, when-
ever the geological festivities of the head of
the Audubon Society, or whatever his qualifi-
cations were, have been completed.

If there is concern, then where is the
legislation to amend the Beds of Navigable
Waters Act, to return to the citizens of
Ontario access to the beaches of Lake Erie?

If there is concern, then why hasn't all the
intended land acquisition on the Niagara
Escarpment been frozen by the government?
After all, as soon as the airport was an-
nounced, the surrounding acreage was frozen
in order to maintain reasonable land prices.
How much of the $30 million has been spent?
How long must we wait? How much more
will we spend by the refusal to freeze the
land?

With regard to the fifth of six points I
want to make, Mr. Speaker, page 14 of tlie
Throne Speech says:

Experiments will be undertaken to test
promising new systems and equipment in

the field of urban transit, in the anticipation
that Ontario may achieve technological
leadership which can become the basis for
new types of industries.

Who can take it seriously, Mr. Speaker? The
Highway Improvement Act was passed in
this House in the last session. To this day we
still do not have the regulations governing
that Act. All the subsidies for urban transit,
which those regulations would free, are still
not available nor, as many members know, is
the solution to the northwest quadrant of
Metropolitan Toronto.

Page 16 of the speech says:

The board of directors of the Ontario
Development Gorporation and the Northern
Ontario Development Gorporation will be
enlarged and their membership further
diversified.

Yet again for the umpteenth time, the back
of the hand to northern Ontario. Even the
government's relative repudiation in the
election hasn't humbled it a little about the
realities of northern Ontario. My colleague,
the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes),
gets to his feet to have an exchange with
the Minister of Trade and Development (Mr.
White)— God help northern Ontario if that
man is in charge of what happens to the
development of that part of the province.
Because if the Minister of Trade and Devel-
opment isn't even aware of the economics of
Ontario, isn't even aware of how much more
comes out of the north than has ever been
returned to it, then he has no right to pre-
tend to be able to plan for northern Ontario
in the context of the economic priorities of
this Legislature.

You remember the October 14 speech of
the Premier, Mr. Speaker, on the economic
strategy for Ontario? He said:

We will be introducing a fiscal and
economic policy designed to move us
toward the objective of processing more
Ontario resources in Ganada and I have
asked that a white paper on resources
policy be prepared to recommend those
policies which are best able to achieve
this goal.

You tell me, Mr. Speaker— close as you are
to the Premier, intimate with and a confidant
of the great man— where is the white paper?
Do you covet it, sir? Do you have it? Do
you know when it will be released? And
where has the increase in processing of
northern ores been given evidence in the
Throne Speech or in the deliberations of this
House? Where are the policies? Why is it

MARCH 7, 1972

159

that northern Ontario must always occupy its
desperate quest for a place in the sun?

Mr. Renwick: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lewis: It is laudatory, I suppose, to
promote projects on Youth and the Law,
and to reorganize departments, and to pro-
hibit the holding of more than one office at
a time by any individual, to bring the schools
closer to the commrmity, and to remove the
blight of automobile hulks, and to extend
the programme of annual achievement
awards. But in all the key socio-economic
areas of this government— from jobs to agri-
culture, to Canadian economic independence
—the Throne Speech is totally deficient.

So in fact we are in for a pretty combative
four years, Mr. Speaker. And starting with
this Throne Speech, the New Democratic
Party members will again outline a series of
strong critiques and alternative positions; and
I promise the government, Mr. Speaker, they
will have no respite simply because of the
size of their majority.

Mr. Renwick: Hear, hear. Hear, hear.

Mr. Lewis: The NDP will be at your
flanks every day of this and every other
session, with relevance and substance, I hope.
There are at this point certain other matters
with which I would like briefly to deal.

I want to speak of two other aspects of
the Throne Speech which strike me as ex-
tremely important. One relates to the auto
trade agreement, which is right at the heart
of Ontario's economy. The other deals with
election financing, Mr. Speaker, where I hope
to detafl some of the expenses of this last
election campaign and refer to some of the
possible reforms which are avaflable in the
field of electoral law.

But first, let me relate my remarks to the
automotive pact because it is mentioned in
the Throne Speech as a matter of discussion
between Ottawa and Ontario; a "vital con-
sideration of the auto pact between Canada
and the United States," the Throne Speech
says.

This vital concern, Mr. Speaker, is not
expressed through abject pleas to the federal
government and a series of earnest hopes
from the public platform, which is what the
Tories have engaged in for the last several
months. The issue strikes right at Ontario's
economy. There are more communities than
I care to name which can be adversely
affected by any change in the automotive
trade agreement.

It is true that the federal Liberals are
engaged in negotiations which could mean
a sellout of the safeguards and Ontario should
take as intractable a stand on this issue as
it has ever taken and jolt Ottawa out of its
complacent continentalism, with demands
which are categorical. We don't usually ask
that of the government here in relation to
the government in that other place, but on
this occasion I do.

Let me refer, if I may Mr. Speaker, to
the pact. Let me try to draw on some careful
research which the research branch of the
New Democratic caucus has done and let
me try to draw attention to some of the
particulars.

In terms of value of production, the motor
vehicle manufacturing sector is the single
most important industry in the province, and,
interestingly enough Mr. Speaker, the parts
and accessories industry ranks second. To-
gether they employ 70,000 people in this
province, nine per cent of manufacturing
employment in Ontario. One of every eight
jobs in Ontario is either directly or indirectly
related to the automobile industry. Motor
vehicle production and employment in On-
tario amount to well over 80 per cent of
the industry's Canadian total, and the com-
parable figure for the parts industry is 97
per cent.

I won't go into the background which
created the auto trade agreement in 1965,
Mr. Speaker, but let me remind the House
of the provisions of the auto pact.

The Canadian government granted duty-
free access to United States exports of new
assembled autos and original equipment parts
imported by manufacturers prepared to meet
certain production requirements in Canada.
The United States government granted duty-
free access to Canadian exports of new and
used assembled automobiles imported by
both manufacturers and individuals and per-
mitted manufacturers to import original
equipment parts duty-free.

The safeguards written into the auto pact
were: 1. That the ratio of Canadian produc-
tion to the sale of North American cars in
Canada would not fall below the base-year
(1964) level of 92 per cent; and 2. That
Canadian value added would not fall below
the base-year level of $775 million.

Let me just add this parenthetically: When
discussing the safeguards, Mr. Speaker, it is
important to keep in mind that Canadian pro-
duction and Canadian value added are not
the same thing. Production refers to the units
rolling off the assembly lines. Canadian value

160

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

added refers to the total Canadian content in
those vehicles. Thus the production safeguard
guarantees a Canadian assembly industry and
ensures that Canada does not become a mere
supplier of parts for the U.S. industry. The
Canadian value added safeguard guarantees a
base level of Canadian content. That base in
1965 was $775 million. It has risen to $1.5
billion in 1969, which is an astonishing and
gratifying jump.

Now let me point out something else about
the auto pact, Mr. Speaker. Total employment
across Canada has gone from 81,000 in 1965
to 83,000— sorry, I'll make a comparison with
1969, because 1970 was a special year as a
result of the General Motors strike— to 92,000
in 1969, which is a 13 per cent increase in em-
ployment through the auto pact. In terms of
units of production— cars, trucks and buses-
there has been an increase from 846,000 to
1,373,000, which is an increase of more than
60 per cent.

But in terms of prices, Mr. Speaker, there
has not been the same sudden benefit to the
public at large and the consumer in particular.
Let me give you some actual price differen-
tials, carefully worked out.

For a 1972 Vega, two-door, four-cylinder,
the Canadian price, less excise tax and dealer
preparation— f.o.b. factory price, Mr. Speaker,
the price that should be compared— is $2,163.
The U.S. price is $2,021. The difference is
$142 per vehicle. For a 1972 Nova, four-door,
six-cylinder, the Canadian price, less excise
tax and dealer preparation, is $2,544; the U.S.
price is $2,335— a difference of $209 per
vehicle. For a 1972 Chevelle, four-door, six-
cylinder, the Canadian price is $2,806; the
U.S. price is $2,592-a difference of $214.
For a 1972 Impala, four-door, six-cylinder, the
Canadian price is $3,613; the U.S. price is
$3,310-a difference of $303 a vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, it is the contention of the New
Democratic Party that there is no conceivable
reason why these price disparities should con-
tinue.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lewis: It is the contention of the New
Democratic Party that one of the aspects which
legitimized the auto pact was a passing onto
the consumer of major dollar savings and an
equalization of cost, given the tax differential.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lewis: In fact, that has not occurred,
although General Motors and Ford, which
have started to file balance sheets in Ontario,
show a profit for each of the two companies

ranging between $70 million and $80 million
over the last year or two. And clearly, in terms
of the return on their investment and cer-
tainly the return on their total sales, which
figures we have, they are perfectly capable of
reducing the price by the amounts which we
have indicated as constituting the present
differential.

Now we come, Mr. Speaker, to the actual
United States-Canadian trade in this period.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we had an
enormous trade deficit at the beginning of the
auto pact in 1965. The deficit, as I recall, was
$737 million in that year alone. By 1970 we
had a surplus of $195 million, and in 1971 it
was probably a surplus of $168 million. So the
pendulum has swung a considerable measure
in favour of Canada, and there is no question
whatsoever that in those terms the auto pact
has been profoundly beneficial to the Cana-
dian economy.

Overall, through the entire period from 1965
to now, we are still $1,9 billion in a trade
deficit. But in terms of the last year or two,
we have finally reached the breakeven point.

What is ominous, Mr. Speaker, is that in
1972 it looks as though we're going into a
deficit position again. Why? Because the sur-
plus position which we achieved in 1970, and
1971, was largely attributable to snowmobiles,
not to cars, trucks and buses. And as the snow-
mobile market levels off; as the degree of
American investment in the Canadian industry
depreciates; as the consumer interest in small
cars is reduced, the Canadian auto industry
faces a considerable threat.

That leads me directly to the present
dilemma and situation in the Canadian auto-
mobile industry. I suppose the basic problem
with the auto pact, ironically, has been its
rapid success in eliminating the very large
trade deficit in cars which Canada suffered in
the early 1960s. The US clearly didn't expect
such a rapid turn around in trade and wants to
alter that. But as I say, the trend in Canada's
favour is changing, and we have now become
vulnerable once again.

In the area of investment alone, Mr.
Speaker, it might interest members of the
House to know that in 1970 the four major
American automobile manufacturers invested
in the United States $1.3 billion; in Canada
just $122 million. And no new investment
decisions have been announced. Obviously
we'll lose our competitive edge as the invest-
ment in Canada dries up. So the pleasant
trend of the moment is not likely to continue,
and we therefore must preserve what we
have gained.

MARCH 7, 1972

161

And what does preservation mean, Mr.
Speaker? The Canadian goal should continue
to be, in the words of the automotive trade
agreement, "a fair and equitable share of
the market"; and what this means is that the
Canadian value added should equal the value
of the Canadian market for North American
cars. That is not now the case. When it
becomes the case— and we may only be a
year or two away from it— then we will
probably be in the best possible position
since the pact began.

We have to reject out of hand, Secretary
of the Treasury Connally's position of free
trade on automobiles, the position which he
has been putting for some considerable time.
We have to ask for iron-clad guarantees that
the Canadian industry will continue to ex-
pand, that Canadian value added will equal
the value of the Canadian market for North
American cars. We cannot contemplate doing
anything involving surrendering or abandon-
ing present safeguards, because that's all
we've got even though they were exceeded
many years ago.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we have to attempt
to diversify the industry in its operations
within Canada. By concentrating on assembly
we have become a nation involved mostly
withm nuts and bolts. We need a share of
research and design work and a greater
concentration on the high technology areas
of automobile production in order to maxi-
mize the spinoffs from the industry.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated
we must achieve parity in car prices.

There are no alternatives, other than those,
which are realistic. Those are the minimum
guarantees which must be entered into.

Now one of the things which I did not
outline, and it was delinquent of me not to
outline, Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my
remarks, were the letters of commitment
which were signed between the major manu-
facturers and the Canadian government back
in 1965.

The commitment said, first, that the indus-
try would invest an additional $260 million
in Canadian plant and equipment by 1968;
and second, that until 1968 and thereafter,
until the letters were renegotiated, the manu-
facturers would increase Canadian value
added by at least 60 per cent of any increase
in Canadian sales. Those letters of agreement
terminated in 1968 and, as part of the present
guarantees, we must renegotiate new letters
of agreement with the automobile manu-
facturers.

Obviously there will be counter measures
from the United States to which we cannot
allow ourselves to succumb. Our bargaining
power, Mr. Speaker, is immense. Our natural
resource wealth alone gives us all the
muscle we need. The most modem auto-
mobile plant in North America is located in
this country for anyone who would wish to
visit Talbotville or St. Therese and see.

We should not give an inch on the auto
pact, and more important we cannot begin
to settle for the old level. We have to de-
mand a confirmation of the present position
and an increased share of the markup and a
guarantee of increased productivity.

In order to pursue these objectives, clearly
the Canadian government will have to be on
the firing line. I suppose the Canadian gov-
ernment will have to adopt different postures
with respect to the United States government
and the automobile manufacturer because
they bargain almost independently. But I
plead with the government of Canada that
they must be tough and play for time. Until
November at least, Washington will not be
making concessions.

Now for Ontario, Mr. Speaker, there are
some very important specifics. First of all,
the Ontario government must make it clear
to Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his fellow
Liberals that we will not surrender an inch
of the ground that we have won. For what-
ever reasons— and one can only regard them
as perverse, unthinking and unbalanced— the
federal Liberals are prepared to relinquish
some of that ground. We in this caucus would
support a position which put to the federal
government the proposition that we maintain
the existing levels and improve them.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we must press for
price equalization. In that regard Ontario
should consider an independent provincial
committee of inquiry— perhaps the Minister
of Financial and Commercial Affairs (Mr.
Winkler) might be the person to constitute
it— which will inquire into price differentials
with power to recommend to government.

This is no joking matter. GM, Ford,
Chrysler and American Motors are taking the
citizens of this province for several hundred
dollars per standard model of car with no
justification whatsoever. There is no reason
in the world why the Ontario government
couldn't call the manufacturers before a
committee and indicate why those differentials
are unjustified and the government pass
legislation accordingly. In addition, Mr.
Speaker, we obviously have to plug the
loopholes—

162

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. A. E. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): A good idea!

Mr. Lewis: A good idea, is it? I will await
the minister's announcement of the commis-
sion before the House rises for the Easter
recess. I won't wait long, I know.

Mr. Singer: Don't hold your breath.

Mr, Lewis: We must ensure, Mr. Speaker,
that we plug the loopholes in the Employ-
ment Standards Act so those automobile
workers who are affected by the increasing
pattern of layoffs and shutdowns have cer-
tain protection under that Act.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, we could go
further. We could think of certain selective
incentives, tax incentives, for the parts in-
dustry in Ontario and in Canada which would
allow us to achieve a greater viability in that
sector. As matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the
parts industry is more Canadian-owned than
the assembly portion of the automotive
sector.

The New Democratic caucus feels that
if we are going to give tax incentives to the
parts industry, it should be given to Canadian-
controlled operations in the parts industry
and that would make considerable sense.
Finally—

Mr. Singer: The member doesn't think
much of Watkins' ideas?

Mr. Lewis: No, I don't think much of
other ideas which have come forward. I
think little enough of them that I don't
intend to deal with them.

Further Mr. Speaker, we would insist on
direct government dealings with the manu-
facturers themselves. There is a tremendous
frustration in this area, Mr. Speaker; and we
cannot consider anything less than the Cana-
dian value added, that I indicated earlier.

Can I make one final point, Mr. Speaker?
The automotive trade pact has improved the
efficiency of the Canadian automobile in-
dustry. It has raised employment slightly. It
has raised wages. It has, of course, made it
impossible for the Canadian section of the
industry to exercise independence, if ever
that was possible, and there are many who
deem it highly unlikely, given the nature of
the automobile industry in 1965.

But that doesn't mean that we would
approve for a moment a continental pattern
in the rationalization of other manufacturing
industry in this country, or in this province.
If we are ever going to undertake further

experiments in industrial rationalization— let
us say, for example, the appliance industry in
Canada— let's try it first on an east-west basis,
Mr. Speaker. Let's try it on a countrywide
basis, dealing with the Canadian domestic
market, and not paying the political price
that one inevitably pays wdth continentalism.

There was no alternative in the case of the
automotive trade agreement. That possibility
has been lost forever for automobiles. It
hasn't been lost in the area of appliances, or
other manufacturing industry.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like— if I
can find my notes— to move to the next sec-
tion of the Throne Speech with which I
would like to deal. It relates to a little para-
graph on page 7 which says:

As a result of the study by the commit-
tee on local election law, the government
will introduce a bill designed to reform
election procedures, which will include the
abolition of property qualifications for
voters in municipal elections.

All of us in this caucus felt, Mr. Speaker,
that the reforms should extend to provincial
election procedures.

Indeed, the last campaign alone gave good
argument for reconstituting the select com-
mittee on election reform in the Province of
Ontario.

One hardly knows where to begin. Putting
aside the electoral outcome entirely, accept-
ing it as the decisive Tory victory which it
was, it is still fair to say that the mechanics
and administration of the campaign were, in
many areas of the province, a shambles
throughout. The Election Act in Ontario, as
amended in 1971, is probably that piece of
legislation more honoured in the breach than
any other coming from this Legislature.

Politicians are, of course, very covetous of
campaigns. We don't like our electoral sorties
tampered with, Mr. Speaker. But, with all
the self-interest in the world, there is clearly
a case for reform.

1. At local riding levels, more often than
not, the returning officers were poorly in-
formed about rules and procedures. Informa-
tion was faulty. Enumeration was sometimes
poor, sometimes awful. The provision of
voters' lists was late. Names were added to
the Hsts late. Electoral appointees were
badly instructed.

Candidates and electors frequendy expe-
rienced an overriding sense of chaos. All of
us in this House— well, maybe there are some
exceptions.

MARCH 7, 1972

163

If you think there are exceptions, speak
to my Tory opponent in Scarborough West
at the time— whose name happily passes from
my mind— I would not defile Hansard in that
fashion. But speak to my Tory opponent in
Scarborough West about the nature of the
conduct of the campaign, although I think
he suffered from certain aberrations and fan-
tasies, but— well, he suffered from at least
170 votes, which is very comfortable. That's
why I am here looking at you today. One
of the great pleasures that I knew would one
day experience.

An Hon. member: A landslide!

Mr. MacDonald: It was 169 more than is
needed.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If that is a landslide
how about me?

Mr. Lewis: Well, the member scraped
through by the skin of his teeth as I recall.

I know that many of the errors in the elec-
toral process are human, Mr. Speaker, but
there is still far too loose and frivolous and
indifferent a control exerted over the actual
conduct of the campaign. I accuse no one. It
is in a permanent state of disarray from elec-
tion to election and we have come to live
with it. We, for one, would like to see it
change; we in this party. I may say to you,
Mr. Speaker, that the Election Act is violated
in so many clauses that it would be hard to
enumerate them all in the process.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, is the
election day conduct itself. It is often dis-
graceful. The irregularities and the absurdi-
ties which occur— from the handing out of
cheques in Lambton, which was chronicled
by the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman),
to the ineligible voting in Dovercourt, which
has now been chronicled publicly— cannot be
chalked up to inevitable human frailty. Not
only the New Democratic Party has the view
—.many members have the view— that election
day procedures are clearly fractious to put
it at best.

Mr. Singer: Is the NDP going to put up
the $1,000 in Dovercourt?

Mr. Lewis: We already have.

Mr. Singer: Oh they have! Good.

Mr. Lewis: The situation cries out for
direction and reform, else the law is truly
an ass. Can I remind members of that
interesting sitation in St. Andrew- St. Patrick
which was reported on at some length by

one of the members of the legislative press
gallery. He reported, and I quote:

At least 10 voters learned at the polls
that persons impersonating them had al-
ready voted in their names. Aliens and
new residents of the province were in-
cluded on the voters' lists and in some
cases voted even though Ontario's Election
Act says voters must be Canadian citizens
who have lived in the province at least
12 months. Dozens of qualified voters
were left off the voters' lists, even though
they had been enumerated, that is, their
names had been taken by door-to-door
election workers who were paid to list
eligible voters. In one of 85 polls examined,
the number of votes cast exceeded the
number of voters.

Now that takes some doing! I mean, that
takes a little invention— the nujuber of votes
cast exceeded the number of voters.

Dozens of election officials and party
workers did not sign oaths of secrecy re-
quired by the provincial Election Act. The
Clerk of the Legislature, the chief elec-
toral officer, Mr. Roderick Lewis, indicated
that it is a violation of the Criminal Code
to impersonate.

But of course never has there been a case
that one can recall. He said he cannot recall
a charge being laid in his 26 years as chief
election officer and assistant chief election
officer.

He said there is no person or section in
the government responsible for investigat-
ing reports of election irregularities. It
would be up to a private citizen to lay a
charge under the Election Act. Mary
Brand, assistant chief election officer for
the province found that paid election offi-
cials had "completely ignored some things."
"In some cases," said Roderick Lewis, "it
is at least partly the fault of the returning
officer for not instructing them properly."

Let me tell you about poll 87 at 250 Daven-
port Road in St. Andrew-St. Patrick. It had
its own strange incident.

At the end of the day there were 451
voters listed in the poll book but 459
ballots in the ballot box. That was eight
votes too many. To further confuse the
count, there were 116 unused ballots re-
maining, making a total of 575 ballots. But
the poll book says only 549 ballots had
been received from the returning officer at
the beginning of the day. [Erie Stanley
Gardner would have done well with this,
Mr. Speaker.]

164

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Nevertheless, deputy returning officer
Lucy Maddox submitted the figure of 459
votes as the final count and the source of
the extra ballots was never revealed. Later
she said she didn't want to discuss the
matter. "I can't be bothered, I'm too busy,"
she told the reporter and she shut her
apartment door.

Section 136 of the Election Act provides
a fine of up to $1,000 for any returning
officer, deputy returning officer or poll
clerk who "neglects to perform any of the
duties imposed upon him by this Act."

Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, there have
been, in the St. Andrew-St. Patrick's case, in
many other cases in the province, clear vio-
lations of section 133, section 135, section
136 and section 142. No one, obviously,
wants to seek prosecution of these things, but
why the farce of allowing the sections to
which no one pays heed?

What about section 144 which gives the
chief electoral officer the power to institute
some due process of law?

The chief election officer, in addition to
any other requirements of this Act with
respect to the tabling of the results of an
election, shall report to the assembly
whether or not in his opinion the conduct
of the election was free or otherwise of
any of the actions which are declared to
be ofiFences or corrupt practices under the
Act.

That is kind of interesting. I don't know
whether the chief electoral officer ever made
a report to the assembly. Perhaps his report
to the assembly is that orange book indi-
cating the poll results in the various ridings.

Mr. Singer: No, that is a new section;
it is the first time.

Mr. Lewis: Right. Well, certainly, he has
yet to make a report, and I suppose in cases
like St. Andrew-St. Patrick or Lambton, or in
many cases where the margins were big,
where there would be no overturning of seats
—I am not implying anything of the kind-
there were clear irregularities and distortions
which violate several aspects of the law.
Certainly section 145, subsection 3, says:
A candidate at an election or any voter
qualified to vote at an election, or the
chief electoral officer, if he considers that
it is in the public interest that an action
be commenced, may commence an action.

Well, no one commences an action. I sup-
pose I shouldn't say "no one" commences an
action— clearly it does not come from the

chief electoral officer— rarely would anyone
consider commencing an action in these areas
at all. Why then all of the definitions to these
sections? Why are they there? If we want to
have controls over election procedures, which
clearly everyone has agreed upon, let us draft
the sections that reflect the realities.

The third point I want to make, Mr.
Speaker, is that the element of unreality
persists into the declarations of income and
expenditure required by law to be filed by
official agents or candidates within a given
time. All of the parties in the Legislature are
guilty of non-filing. Usually, I think, the
practice is that people who are elected can
file quite regularly; people who are not
elected tend to file less enthusiastically or not
to file at all. I have no doubt that if a careful
check was made of all the constituencies
across Ontario there would be a great many
candidates of all three parties who in fact
had not filed a return as required under
section 139 of the Act.

The returning officer is required to file an
abstract; often the abstract is so abstract it's
incomprehensible. There is a candidate of
one of the parties in this province— I will not
mention his name— who filed an abstract
which listed his expenses as "$50 and con-
tra;" he listed his income as "$50 and con-
tra." That was the total extent of the filing.

The Speaker looks at me with some per-
plexity. He wonders whether "and contra"
means dissemblance. I am not at all certain,
Mr. Speaker; perhaps you can give it a ruling.
Maybe it means contraband. I have never
been able myself to figure out exactly what
multitude of sins that may or may not cover.
I know only that in the hands of the return-
ing officer there is no further detail than that
lucid, precise definition of what went into the
campaign.

Others of us, in the Legislature and out, file
one or two lines; citizens can pay 25 cents
for the details if the returning officer is pre-
pared to give the details. No one takes it
seriously, if I may suggest, Mr. Speaker,
primarily because the amount of money spent
and the absence of disclosure don't allow it
to be taken seriously.

That brings me to the fourth point, Mr.
Speaker. I would submit to you, sir, that it
all should be taken seriously. Most juris-
dictions in the western world, even the United
States, and now three Canadian provinces, re-
quire certain ceilings and financial disclosure
in the public interest. We would argue in this
party that that is valid, that elections can be
prof oimdly distorted and the public profoundly

MARCH 7, 1972

165

unsettled by a total absence o£ real informa-
tion about costs and sources. It seems to us to
be an elemental democratic principle, albeit
there will be tremendous variation.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, I was curious; I
had an insatiable curiosity about the expendi-
tures of the ''big blue machine". Clearly, the
individual returns filed by members would
give us little insight into those costs, unless
$50 and contra is expected to give insight,
and there are no provincial figures in such
costs.

So how do you estimate the figures that
are spent, of which there was much rumour,
ranging into the millions? Clearly, it would
require an enormous amount of research and
the availability of the figures. There were
some areas from which we were excluded,
but the New Democratic research department
at Queen's Park thought we would take a
stab at it to begin to get some sense of what
was occurring. So the NDP did a complete
survey of most of the newspapers, daily and
weekly, in the Province of Ontario. We did a
line count of every advertisement inserted
both provincially and locally by the Progres-
sive Conservative Party during the course of
the last campaign. I may say, Mr. Speaker,
that it comes to a fairly impressive tally. I
have it in front of me and I have it broken
down.

I may also say that the figure at which we
arrive, Mr. Speaker, does not include, for a
variety of reasons, the separate candidate in-
sertions in the Windsor Star; most of the
ethnic press across the province, to which
the legislative library, curiously enough, does
not subscribe; about 100 additional weekly
papers to which the legislative library does
not subscribe; university campus newspapers;
community newspapers and other handouts.
Without all of those newspapers, the total
amount that we were able to estimate— I
think on a pretty judicious assessment of all
the newspapers that I indicated— using their
given advertising rates, times the line count,
was $375,783.

We have reliably estimated that all of the
other newspapers which we were not able to
survey, because of their absence, would add
roughly another $40,000 to that total, giving
us a $415,000 minimum total for newspaper
advertising alone, provincially and locally,
across the Province of Ontario. That does not
include, Mr. Speaker, just for interest's sake,
the $40,000 to $45,000 which the automobile
insurance association in the Province of On-
tario paid to insert advertisements in the Gait
Evening Reporter and others across the prov-

mce.

It is difficult of course to do extrapolations.
They are done most hesitantly. I have spoken
with a number of public relations people who
suggest that the newspaper advertising in
that kind of a campaign would represent
something within the range of 5 to 20 per
cent of the total public relations outlay. I
suppose that means that at the top level,
giving them the benefit of the doubt as it
were, there would have been a minimum
$2 million plus campaign in the world of the
media; conceivably twice that figure or better.
We will never know.

It is a very great deal of money, Mr.
Speaker. It is not so much the total amount
of money. It is the ratio of the money in re-
spect to other moneys spent, in respect to
other concerns that have occupied the minds
of some other jurisdictions and raised the
questions that I am asking today. Little
anomalies emerged. I will mention a couple
of them just to show you.

In the case of the riding of Sault Ste.
Marie, the line count we were able to assess
would suggest an expenditure of $14,778 on
newspapers alone. And yet, under the official
return filed by the Progressive Conservative
Party in Sault Ste. Marie, the total amount
spent on advertising— which would include
newspapers, radio, television, leaflets, banners,
signs, etc.— was $14,699. In other words, con-
siderably less than what the line count would
seem to evidence.

In the case of the riding of Welland the
newspaper calculation alone, in terms of
cost, amounts to $7,979. The provincial elec-
tion file, officially returned, shows for news-
paper, radio, television and band expenses—
and I have no doubt the hon. member for
Welland (Mr. Momingstar) would use a
band— it totals $7,813. Considerably less than
the apparent cost of the newspapers alone.

Mr. Singer: Does that cost figure include
provincial party expenditures?

Mr. Lewis: No, the cost figure I have
given is for the riding only— we very scru-
pulously separated the two. The provincial
portion is in excess of the figures I gave.

Now I say "apparently." Maybe it was
given free. I rather doubt that. Maybe there
were miscalculations. Maybe it's covered in
other items, although the files are fairly
complete in these cases. Maybe there is a
world of explanations. I'm sure they can be
offered.

It does show the imbalance, in terms of
overall budget, in the context of election ex-
penditures. It leads to the elusive quarry of

166

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

what is spent on the electronic media, which
clearly commands such a tremendous per-
centage of election budgets.

Now, Mr. Speaker, may I relate to the
House an interesting little saga, because I
think it has some interest. We were trying
to ascertain what might have been spent in
terms of radio and television. So I called
Mr. Pierre Juneau of the Canadian Radio and
Television Commission and I asked him if
he would release to me the commercial logs
and expenditures of the various parties dur-
ing the election campaign. I told him that I
thought it was in the public interest.

The hon. member for York-Forest Hill (Mr.
Givens) is looking at me as with some in-
credulity; perhaps he's right. I told Mr.
Juneau I thought it was in the public inter-
est. I told him I thought it would help in a
discussion of campaign expenditures.

Mr. Pierre Juneau said, quite strongly and
quite confidently, that he had had one such
request from a newspaper and had turned it
down. I think I quote him accurately when
I say that he argued that because he was
not specifically obligated or required to do
it under the Act which governs the commis-
sion, he felt he did not need to respond to
my request.

He said to me that if we in the New
Democratic caucus disagreed, he would be
readily available to hear submissions— that he
and his counsel would meet with us. He has
been, in his dealings with me, therefore,
entirely straightforward.

Well, the New Democratic Party is pur-
suing that with Mr. Juneau. You would be
interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that we
have made a tentative appointment for
Wednesday, March 22 when, with two of my
legal colleagues in this caucus— their names
are known to all— I hope to approach the
CRTC and to make the following argument.

Section 3B of the Act states:

The Canadian broadcasting system

should be effectively owned and controlled

by Canadians so as to safeguard, enrich

and strengthen the cultural, political, social

and economic fabric of Canada.

Our own argument will be that the extent of
expenditure on the electronic media distorts
the strengthening of the political fabric of
this country. That in fact damage is done
and that is an inequity which the CRTC
should seek to correct.

It may well be that we will be unsuccess-
ful, Mr. Speaker. We, therefore, can, under
section 19 Ic of the Act, file a complaint by

a person with respect to any matter within
the powers of this commission. That we will
then do, and force a public discussion of the
question of campaign expenditures and
campaign sources.

But Mr. Juneau said something else to me.
I suggested to him that if I had the per-
mission of the radio and television stations
involved, surely he would not deny us access
to the logs. He said: "No, by all means. If
you can get permission you can see the logs."

I therefore wrote a letter, which I'd like to
put on the records, to the heads of all the
television and radio stations in the Province
of Ontario. The letter reads as follows:
Dear So-and-So:

I am writing to make a specific request
of your station. In the interests of general
public debate, I am trying to assemble
some basic facts on campaign expenditures
during the last provincial election cam-
paign.

To that end, I would appreciate it if you
would grant me, or a research oflScer of
my caucus, permission to view your com-
mercial logs during the actual period of
the election; that is, between the date the
writ was issued, September 13, and
October 21, 1971. If such permission were
granted it would not be necessary for me
to travel to your station itself; the logs can
be viewed as filed with the Canadian
Radio-Television Commission at Ottawa.

The election now having receded into
history and the advertising expenditures
being part of that history, I hope it will
be possible to satisfy my request without
prejudicing competitive advantage in any
way.

With thanks.

Yours sincerely.

The letters only went out a week to 10 days
ago, maybe even more recent in some cases.
I frankly expected an avalanche of negatives.
Some that I got did not treat the suggestion
with favour. One name that comes to mind
is Mr. John Bassett of Baton Broadcasting.
He didn't think that such information should
be vouchsafed to me.

But, Mr. Speaker, to my amazement, the
replies are nmning better liian two to one in
favour of permission to allow the logs to be
viewed. I have a number of stations now
assembled, though not enough to give one
the kind of pattern which I would feel con-
fident about using in the Legislature. Much
of the material was garnered yesterday and
today; in fact, I would like to look at it
further.

MARCH 7, 1972

167

SuflBce it to say, Mr. Speaker, that what it
shows apart from total dollars— which we will
never be able to ascertain— so far is the most
remarkable disparities in expenditures among
the politicial parties. Precisely the point
which the United States Congress in its elec-
toral reform suggested was the basis for that
reform, because there should be a far more
equal access to media and to the electorate
than these figures would seem to convey.

As soon as I have the figures compiled in
a representative way, Mr. Speaker, I hope to
release them. I do not feel competent to do
so this afternoon, because of the many, many
letters I sent out I suppose I have received
now replies covering 15 to 20 stations, which
is a goodly number. I have not yet been able
to see the records of any television stations.
They do show quite astonishing disparities.

As a matter of fact, it is very humbling
for the Liberals and sometimes for Social
Credit and occasionally for New Democrats, to
note the disparities of money invested in
various stations by the political parties. Many
of the letters I received put in a plaintive
little aside, Mr. Speaker, about the degree
to which the New Democratic Party did not
purchase commercial time on those stations.
Perhaps in a very friendly way they solicit
our future investment.

I must say on behalf of the stations which
have replied, that the great majority of them
have been astonishingly frank, very straight
and clearly combine a sense of integrity about
costs with a public sense that this is a legiti-
mate area of discussion. You know, Mr.
Speaker— I didn't know this; perhaps many
members do not know it— each radio and
television station in the Province of Ontario
has to file a separate sheet at the end of the
campaign, itemizing the number of spots and
the cost involved for each of the political
parties plus the dispensation of free time.

It isn't necessary to go through the logs
laboriously day after day. It is all there
summarized in readily available information.
It was clear from many of the letters re-
ceived from a number of the stations that
they thought that having filed it with the
CRTC it was in the public sector and they
had no selfconsciousness about it.

Mr. Speaker, I think without belabouring
it further that I shall continue to pursue this
avenue because it gives rise to a great many
interesting aspects. In the meantime, there is
surely a fair case to be made for electoral
reform, based on the simple proposition of
greater equality of opportunity in accessibility
to media and voter.

In the United States on February 7 last,
President Nixon signed a bill with three
principal thrusts, which are exactly the thrusts
I am making, Mr. Speaker: First, a restriction
on how much money a candidate can spend
on media advertising, particularly radio and
television. The United States legislation gives
a total of 10 cents per voter for all public
relations; six cents per voter for radio and
television. This in the United States— not
always thought of as the most enlightened
jurisdiction in this area. If you transfered that
six cents per voter to the Province of Ontario
it would have meant a central party alloca-
tion of between $250,000 and $300,000
roughly. I would say appreciably less, of
course, than what was spent.

The second thrust of the American legis-
lation increased disclosure of who contributed
how much to campaign expenses; and third,
much more generous levy of equal free
network time.

I know that the Conservatives have argued
for a long time that you should not know
who gives to a campaign. But that seems to
me to be invalid in that we now have a
number of basic principles to be considered
for legislation, and maybe we can reconsti-
tute the committee on election law to do so.
I suggest it would mean a far healthier poli-
tical climate, Mr. Speaker, while still main-
taining, if that is the worry, the enormous
political advantage which any government
has, purely and simply by being the govern-
ment.

May I suggest these five areas:

1. Clear expenditure ceilings on the use
of the mass media by candidates and parties.

2. A formula for much greater use of free
time, observing principles of equity.

3. Possible overall ceilings on election ex-
penditures. I say "possible" because I am not
at all sure how one polices it, looking at the
problems of Nova Scotia and Quebec. But
we should base our law on the Quebec and
Nova Scotia models with tougher enforce-
ment.

4. Full disclosure of election contributions
for public scrutiny.

5. The creation of a legislative registry
which would audit and publish all the finan-
cial reports as required, so that the chief
electoral officer would not have to assume
that particular burden, which is surely more
than the Legislature should ask of him.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Can't
you see the Tories jumping for that?

168

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Lewis: There are other more conten-
tious issues, from the question of the legal
incorporation of poHtical parties, to pubhc
service in campaigns, pubhc mailings and
so forth. I don't pretend to pronounce judge-
ment on them; they are auxiliary to the main
concern. I suspect that the "big blue ma-
chine" would survive the reform. Political
life would be much more healthy for xmder-
taking it.

I think that roughly encompasses those
reflections, Mr. Speaker. I will have a report
to the Legislature as the latest tabulations
come in; a report, because some of the
members might be interested in their various
ridings to have a sense of what was spent.
I think it is legitimate that members should
know.

I have one last observation. In the New
Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, we see the
next four years as a period of competing
social philosophies in this House, sharper
and more toughly defined as economic and
political realities emerge. We in this caucus
would be the first to concede that the Tories
have an infinite adaptability, a great flexibil-
ity, in areas of social reform. Where that
flexibility wears down, where the impasse
occurs, where the crunch comes, is in the
area of basic economic change. And when
we are dealing with economic planning,
when we are deahng with Canadian auto-
nomy, when we are dealing with tax reform,
the capacity of Tories to respond runs out.
The New Democratic Party therefore be-
comes ever more secure and relevant in its
own mind, and in the public mind Mr.
Speaker, by continuing to emphasize the
economic areas.

I think the evidence of the process that is
taking place is to be found in what I thought
to be the most important speech to emerge
since the election, a speech delivered by the
hon. treasurer to the Proprietary Association
of Canada on February 8 last. It made three
points:

First, the need for further opting out of
cost-sharing agreements with Ottawa, which
all of us on this side of the House reject, out
of hand, because it would mean the under-
mining of the fiscal basis of Confederation.

Second, the provincial Treasurer says that
the best direction for progress is to give
incentives, "to design ways to make it more
in the private interest to do public good."
And he therefore indicates special concessions
to those who pollute to clean up the en-
vironment.

We reject that line of argument, Mr.
Speaker. We do not believe that those who
despoil and profit from their despoliation
should receive new public concessions. That
has never worked. The private sector has
never been able to function in that kind of
area, whether it is pollution, housing or
regional disparities.

Third, Mr. Speaker, the provincial Treas-
urer would have the government make an
indiscriminate return to the private sector as
the long-run solution to present social pre-
dicaments. He speaks of health above all.

Again, we in the New Democratic Party
reject that out of hand, believing that the
public sector must be enlarged and must play
an ever greater role in socio-economic
planning.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, in our mind the lines
are set and our positions are again estab-
lished. And perhaps without quite the bra-
vado of a few months past, which I admit to
at the time, I want to tell the Tories opposite
that they'll know this party is around for the
next four years and they'll know we are there
in 1975— make no mistake about it.

As a first step and to that end I would
move, seconded by Mr. Deans, that the
address in reply to the speech of His Honour
the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario be fur-
ther amended as follows:

That this House regrets:

1. The lack of action by this government
to ensure housing for the citizens of Ontario
of medium and low incomes;

2. The failure to initiate programmes for
public participation in the growth of the
economy of Ontario and in particular in the
areas of the resource industries;

3. The failure to initiate programmes to
expand and develop the secondary manu-
facturing sector of the economy so that it
will be modem, efficient and able to compete
in world markets;

4. The government's refusal to guarantee
adequate no-fault automobile insurance at
the lowest possible cost to the consumer by
the introduction of a public automobile in-
surance plan;

5. The inability of this government to
effect meaningful electoral reform in the
area of campaign costs and to ensure full
disclosure of election expenditures and con-
tributions;

6. The failure to initiate procedures for
review of managed prices and marketing

MARCH 7, 1972

169

practices to maintain stability in the price
and quality of goods, services and utilities;

And urges the government to adopt, in its
discussions with the federal government about
the auto pact, that there be (a) no abandon-
ment of present safeguards, (b) no decline
w^hatsoever in the present share of production
and a guarantee from the government of the
United States and the automobile manufac-
turers that Canadian value added will equal
the value of the Canadian market for North
American cars, and (c) parity of consumer
prices.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of privilege, I would
like to point out, however inadvertently— and
I am sure it was inadvertent— the hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough West made certain
allegations about a candidate who filed an
election report of $50 and contra. I have
waited very patiently for the hon. member
to name the person. I am asking for it now,
because it casts a slur upon everybody in
the House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. I. Deans (Went worth): It is not a
point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: I don't mind, Mr. Speaker. I
did it in lightheartedness. The candidate who
filed that return is Mr. Herb Bryant, the
Conservative candidate in the riding of
Windsor West. I didn't particularly want to
supply the name, and I wouldn't have slurred
anyone in the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Next question.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think I used
the word "inadvertently" and I waited very
patiently.

Mr. Lewis: We are quite patient.

Mr. Deans: The member should have
waited—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Muskoka.

Mr. F. S. Miller (Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure today to address this House
and to ofiFer my thoughts on the contents of
the Lieutenant Governor's Throne Speech.

I am sure those of you present realize that
it is not an easy task for a person to give
his maiden speech followdng the previous
speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough
West. His facility with phrase, his articula-
tion, his enunciation, his range of vocabulary

are all commendable. But, I suppose, if one
has no meaningful thought to add to the all-
inclusive programmes proposed by our gov-
ernment, one must resort to humour, repartee
and lengthy quotations.

Interjection by hon. member. '

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Get him
into the government.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Very well handled.

Mr. Miller: I must say too, that while much
was said about the shortcomings of our gov-
ernment in the last few minutes, as one who
has just finished completing his federal in-
come tax form in the last week, it was no
small pleasure, to alleviate the otherwise
painful experience, to discover that this prov-
ince has the lowest personal income tax in
Canada and that in fact governments run by
the party he leads have as much as 50 per
cent more.

Mr. J. S. Bullbrook (Samia): Who has the
highest regressive taxes?

Interjection by hon. member.

Mr. Miller: First, I want to compliment
the Prime Minister (Mr. Davis) for his leader-
ship during the recent election campaign.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): They
put him in a bag like a bag of potatoes, and
sold him, spending millions of bucks.

Mr. Miller: There can be little doubt, even
in the minds of the few members sitting on
this side of the House who are not members
of the governing party, that the voters of
Ontario share my personal admiration of and
confidence in his abilities.

I said often during the election campaign
that the quality of government is the sum
total of the individual member's ability. I
even went so far as to admit that the Pro-
gressive Conservative Party did not have, nor
should have, a monopoly on quality candi-
dates. Men of good will, commonsense and
ability are to be foimd in all three parties.
It just happens that the most people with
these admirable traits happen to be of the
same political persuasion as the Prime Min-
ister of Ontario (Mr. Davis).

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): The
trained seals are back in action.

Mr. Martel: Throw them another fish.

Mr. Miller: I like them.

170

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Martel: Throw them another fish.

Mr. Miller: The provincial riding of
Muskoka has been well and faithfully served
for 17 years by my immediate predecessor
Robert Boyer. I would like to express my
appreciation to him before this House for his
years of service to Muskoka and to Ontario
Hydro in his role as vice-chairman.

Muskoka, I am happy to say, is a riding
familiar and dear to many members of this
House. It provides a second home for a sur-
prising number of them. Included in this
number is the Prime Minister. Its rugged
beauty, relative tranquility and friendly
people provide a sanctuary for thousands of
city dwellers who escape to it in increasing
nimibers each year. They go there to recharge
their bodies and minds; to appraise the
achievements of our technological society in
an environment little changed by time and
man.

Moreover, the resident voters of Muskoka
have shown an almost unequalled sensibility
at election time. For more than 100 years
they have scarcely ever sent anyone but a
Conservative to speak for them in Toronto.
The few exceptions occurred only when a bit
a gerrymandering temporarily associated the
relatively pure— I'm speaking politically—
district of Muskoka with somewhat less en-
lightened neighbouring areas such as Ontario
county or Parry Sound district.

Mr. Martel: Ontario county? Is that where
the member for Ontario (Mr. Dymond) is
from?

Mr. Miller: Of late, these neighbouring
ridings too have seen the light.

As a practicing professional engineer— and
one characteristic of an engineer, I hope, is
brevity— I, like many others raised and edu-
cated in Muskoka, found it necessary to leave
the district to practice my chosen profession
of chemical engineering.

Mr. R. F, Huston (Essex-Kent): Things were
that bad, were they?

Mr. Miller: After some 10 years' absence I
realized that it was more important to live in
a district I loved than to work as a pro-
fessional in the cities of the south. So I re-
turned to Muskoka in 1960 as a summer
resort owner.

Some 13 years' experience as a small, in-
dependent businessman have helped me to
appreciate the problems of a Canadian entre-
preneur, and so on this occasion I would like
to express some ideas on their behalf. My

concern that the independent businessman
could be legislated out of existence made me
decide to seek a provincial seat.

We hear much about aid to Canadian
businessmen. Yet the hospitality industry,
especially the independent motel and tourist
operator, goes largely ignored. He provides
the nucleus of an industry whose sales exceed
that of agriculture. Without wishing for less
assistance to that vital sector of our Canadian
economy, I still find myself envious of the
many forms of governmental assistance this
department has obtained while the pleas of
tourism have gone largely unheard.

Mr. Martel: Who has been in power?

Mr. Miller: Like the egg producer, of
whom much has been said, the independent
resort operators, restaurant owners, gasoline
retailers are fighting for their survival. W^ile
we designate large sections of Canada as
depressed areas eligible for grants to induce
industry to locate there, we ignore one indus-
try which is indigenous; which is almost
entirely Canadian-owned; which does not
defile the assets it uses; which is not ex-
hausting a non-renewable resource; which
creates one job for about $5,000 of capital
invested; which basically earns foreign cap-
ital and which provides a very real social
need.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): How much
does the member pay his employees?

Mr. Miller: It is true that excellent adver-
tising and promotional programmes are pro-
vided and that Ontario leads Canada in re-
creating authentic historical sites. But it is
equally true that unless tangible capital
assistance programmes geared to the realities
of the tourist business are provided to make
it possible for young, trained, energetic
people to buy into existing businesses, the
present inexorable disappearance—

An Hon. member: The Holiday Inn is doing
all right.

Mr. Miller: —of the privately-owned tour-
ist industry will continue. Like food, it is
something we cannot do without. It is much
cheaper to assist the present industry than
to create publicly- owned alternatives.

Mr. Martel: The government bragged
about the millions it gave the industry last
year.

Mr. Miller: Other embryonic nations in the
Caribbean and Africa, and older, less aJBEluent

MARCH 7, 1972

171

countries like Spain and England, have been
quick to seize upon the potential of the
tourist industry. In these countries assistance
takes many forms. In some it is a quick
write-oflF of depreciable assets. In others it
is a subsidy against commercially negotiated
loans. In still others it is the provision of
per unit cash grants to stimulate expansion
of plant.

This winter we have dramatically witnessed
the eflFectiveness of provincially-funded win-
ter works programmes. These were limited
to municipal and provincial projects. If, in
effect, the purpose of these programmes is
the creation of off-season employment as an
alternative to local welfare, does it not make
sense to extend the winter works programme
to depressed capital- and labour-intensive
sectors of the business community like the
tourist resort industry? Not only would jobs
be created immediately, but by creating badly
needed new facilities future jobs for workers
in the less skilled domains would be created
too. Then the immediate need would be met
and simultaneously, foreign income-produc-
ing, tax-generating facilities would be created.

The second and most important area of
concern to me is that of the environment.
Members of the engineering profession have
been noticed mainly by their absence in this
political field. While I scarcely feel qualified
to argue, as I hear done daily in the House,
the literal and legal implications of phrase-
ology of some of our bills, I feel by extra-
polation that members of the legal and busi-
ness profession may be inclined to avoid the
technical jargon presented by exponents of
alternative forms of pollution control mea-
sures.

While all of us are concerned about pollu-
tion, the relative position of Ontario in the
race to implement control measures should
be recognized. I think it is safe to say that
Ontario has led the way in North America.
The OWRC, viewed from a vantage point
beyond Ontario's boundaries, such as Quebec
or Ohio, is admired as a model of wise gov-
ernment intervention into this extremely com-
plex field.

For example, while we in Ontario are set-
ting deadlines for the installation of nutrient
removal systems, a neighbouring province is
just beginning to install primary sewage
treatment plants. A city of over two million
people has only recently installed its first
treatment plant. While we are insisting that
all new industry must include sophisticated
recycling and chemical waste treatment sys-
tems before they may build, neighbouring

provinces and states are begging industry to
locate within their boundaries on their own
terms.

All this is not to say that we have done
enough. We have not. We must seek solu-
tions to our current problems, only recently
recognized, like eutrophication of our lakes.
In my opinion not enough is known about
the fundamentals of sewage treatment.

In the past most of our concern has dealt
with the health aspects only and we now
recognize many other complicating factors. I
feel we must experiment, in co-operation with
manufacturers and educational institutions,
with radical new sewage disposal systems and
nutrient removal systems to determine, for
example, if presently enforced health unit
specifications for tile beds and septic tanks
are meaningful. I cannot help but feel, at
times, that instead they appear to solve prob-
lems and so placate an aroused public opin-
ion. One only need ask two or three experts
in slightly different aspects of water manage-
ment their opinion to realize how little
unanimity exists.

We must also recognize the community of
interest in solving sewage disposal pro^blems.
For example, the treatment and collection
systems being proposed for three small towns
in Muskoka— Port Carling, MaoTier and Bala
—are being demanded for the sake of all users
of the Muskoka lakes, not just the people
concentrated into the towns themselves. Thus
the cost of these facilities should be spread
across a much wider base than simply those
of the people whom they service.

At present, a 50 per cent grant is given to
reduce the average annual cost if it exceeds
$120. Even so, cost per user in MacTier, for
sewage alone, is estimated to be $220 a year
in a town where taxes average $100 for all
normal municipal services. This is an imbear-
able increase.

Because of their rocky town sites and low
per capita incomes and locations on the edge
of tourist lakes, special consideration is re-
quired. A fair subsidy would be 100 per cent
of all costs over $120 a year. But realizing
the demands for such projects, I am sure
that a 75 per cent subsidy with no increase
in the present floor of $120 would make
these systems bearable to local taxpayers.

In conclusion, I want to express my ap-
preciation to the voters of my riding, the
district of Muskoka, for their confidence in
me. With your help, Mr. Speaker, I will do
my best to deserve it. Thank you.

172

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, the time has come when this
House is to be subjected to a Deacon
speech and a speech was recendy described
by a leading member of the press gallery
as almost impossible to listen to.

An Hon. member: Don't let them tell you
that.

Mr. Deacon: Well, I regret I have earned
this reputation with him and some others
because there are some matters I want them
not only to listen to, not only to hear, but
also to thoroughly understand, because these
matters are of importance to the people of
this province.

The government feels that it has "a re-
newed responsibility to make the growing
complexity and scope of government services
more efficient and productive while, at the
same time, bringing government closer to
the people ..." If its members are to be
judged on their past performance, this
means two things.

First, they will talk in generalities for most
of the session about the bills they are going
to introduce and then, as they did in the
last session, they will introduce about 65
bills in the final two weeks. They will at-
tempt to force these bills through tfie House,
without sufficient debate and study, by sit-
ting extended hours, long into the night and
into the morning, and having overlapping
sittings of the House and the committees of
the House.

Second, this government will continue to
remove responsibility from local mtmicipal
elected representatives and they will con-
centrate that power in the tortuous caverns
of Queen's Park bureaucracy by creating
regional government structures that can be
easily manipulated. This is called "bringing
government closer to the people."

Poor Sudbury. Poor Kitchener-Waterloo.
You are going to get regional government.
You are going to be sacrificed on the twin
altars of so-called greater government effi-
ciency and productivity. It is simply another
name for greater control from Queen's
Park.

Take, for example, regional government
York style, April, 1969. April Fool Day, I
believe it was, tiiat the local leaders, who
had been requesting reform of local govern-
ment for some time, were called to Queen's
Park to have a meeting with Lord Darcy
McKeough himself. These leaders had under-
standably, after 100 years of no change in
their government structure, wanted to have

a review of the local government structure
and have it reformed to meet the distortions
and the pressures of development.

I personally was delighted when the then
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Mc-
Keough) said that he would organize an
intermunicipal committee to study the needs
of reform of local government and that,
based on that committee's recommendations,
regional government would be brought into
force in the county of York. But here is
what actually happened after that.

On May 17, or about that time, he had
the first meeting of that intermimicipal com-
mittee, a matter of over six weeks later. At
that time there was opportunity for each of
the municipal leaders on the committee to
express their views as to what they felt was
needed. Whether they thought that welfare
should continue to be a regional matter, or
put on some other level. Whether police
should be brought under the control of a
regional police force, instead of being on a
local basis.

All these various matters of local respon-
sibility and county responsibility were dis-
cussed, not on the basis of facts presented
to them as to their costs or the various
levels of quality of performance that could
be expected, but rather on what their off-
the-cuff feelings would be. That was the
first intermunicipal meeting.

During the next several months, the min-
ister had private meetings with each of the
heads of councils, so that they would have
an opportunity to review with him his views
as to how this reform of government in the
county of York should be carried out. These
meetings, again, were without the benefit
of facts and figures — of information that
would help them understand what any
change in boundary would result in in the
way of change of costs. Or on the effect of
changing the levels of responsibility from
local level to a more senior level. There
wasn't any basis of fact to go on, but it was
just really to get the off-the-cuff impressions
that these people would have, to be sure
they understood what the minister wanted.

Then, after many sessions of this type, the
1970, in Bayview Secondary School in Rich-
ond Hill. It was a beautiful setup, with flags
and wih television cameras, with all types of
PR people there and all the leaders of the
municipalities, all the council members,
members of the various boards and commis-
sions within the county. And then Lord
Darcy himself brought in his speech, with the
spotlights on him, and read for the next 15

MARCH 7, 1972

173

or 20 minutes exactly what regional govern-
ment would be in the region of York. That
was the next meeting of the inter-municipal
council where consultation on what form
regional government would take was held.

In other words, the edict was given.
Regional government in York was not the
result of a co-operative work carried out over
a period of a year between the Department
of Municipal Affairs and the leaders of these
municipalities, but rather something that was
worked out piecemeal so that it could reflect
the views of the minister and members of his
staff at Queen's Park.

At the same time, during this same period
of one year, there was a major effort made by
councillors in the south part of the county
to get facts and figures together so that they
could objectively review what might be the
most advantageous changes in local govern-
ment. There were many ideas presented. But
it was important to have an idea, if we were
to change local boundaries, about what
impact those changes would have on taxation,
what impact they would have on the operat-
ing procedures within the local municipali-
ties. We had the benefit of some professional
advice, which indicated that at a cost of
appraximately $75,000— an amount which
could have been raised to the extent of one-
third by the local municipalities, or the
municipalities within the county, and two-
thirds by the provincial government— we
could have had all the facts and figures
necessary on which we could base a sound,
planned reform of the government within the
county of York.

But, no; the minister had made his decision.
Regional government legislation was intro-
duced in the House a few weeks later. The
bill was given no consideration before the
standing conmiittee, only before the com-
mittee of the whole House, so there was no
opportunity for those who had many concerns
about the plan to express their views.

It is interesting that many of the predic-
tion that were made at that time have borne
true. First of all, Mr. Speaker— and you
yourself are well informed on this matter— the
costs were much higher than had been esti-
mated, even though the province was pre-
pared to add some $2 million of extra grants
to take care of the higher costs of the
regional government in York.

It was necessary for the Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs, holding that ofiBce since last
June, to make a trip to the regional council
and to advise them of grants of approximately
$860,000 which were necessary, combined

with a cut in their budget which he instructed
them to make to keep the taxes in line,
and keep them in line with what had been
predicted a year before by his predecessor.
It showed how, because of the lack of study,
because of the lack of opportunity for the local
people who were concerned with the change
in the form of govenmient to examine what
was being done, these costs incurred were far
higher than had been estimated.

Of course, it does not have an immediate
effect on the local taxpayers because they
see their taxes in the form of their property
taxes. When they look at the total provincial
deficits and the contribution which these high
costs of regional government are adding to
our provincial expenditures— not until he
sees that will the local taxpayer realize this
new inefficient, centralized bureaucracy is
hurting us in this province. That is wiiat we
are likely to see coming into Kitchener-
Waterloo and Sudbury. As I mentioned, poor
pity them that they face this destiny.

Then there is the Toronto-centred region
plan. I see that according to this speech
action is to be taken to further its implemen-
tation. This plan is a disaster. It is a dis-
aster because it will restrict all development
in the area to a 15-mile band along Lake On-
tario. The people of Toronto and of the de-
velopments either side of Toronto will be
forced to drive miles before they reach the
first fringes of green belt. It is a disaster
because the whole concept of a megalo-
polis is wrong.

The essential item that makes the com-
munity is local involvement. The area should
be decentralized, not centralized. It should
be in the form of a star type of development
connected by efficient, public transit. And
an artfficial city like the proposed Cedarwood
of 200,000 is not the answer. I am talking
about similar units.

Recall the difference between the type of
development we are proposing here and the
type of development we see around that great
city of London, England. They have literally
scores of wonderful little communities vvdth
green belt around them where they can go
for their walks or for their recreation just
outside their ovm communities of 10,000 to
15,000 people. They have ready access to the
city of London by means of excellent public
transportation. The people can live in a
commimity where they are known to their
neighbours; they can be involved with their
neighbours in £he betterment of their com-
mrniity and they are not lost in a sprawl like

174

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

we are creating from one end of this Toronto-
centred region to the other.

Mosriy the Toronto-centred region plan is
a disaster because it exhibits once again the
Ontario government's total inability to grasp
the simplest economics related to land and
services. The government seems to fail to
understand that by its actions in the field of
housing, it is actually forcing up the mini-
mum cost of a home. Even now, the govern-
ment planners are blunting their pencils to
work on the new Cedarwood project. Behind
them, they have the awful example of Mal-
vern.

Remember Malvern? Malvern was the
1,700 acres of Scarborough farmland acqmred
by the provincial government in 1953 with
the help of the Central Mortgage and Hous-
ing Corp. Malvern was supposed to break the
back of land speculation on prices. That was
1953. In 1968, 15 weary years later, Central
Mortgage and Housing said that costs to date
—land, taxes, survey, maintenance, killing
weeds plus interest— was $3.5 million for that
1,700 acres. That works out to about $2,000
per acre. But at that time the president of
the Toronto Real Estate Board valued the
raw land on the market at $10,000 an acre.
In 1971, the Ontario government purchased
a further 56 acres at an average price— are
you ready?— at an average price of $22,768
an acre—

An Hon. member: Holy mackerel!

Mr. Deacon: —compared with $2,000 an
acre in 1953.

An hon. member: That's imserviced land.

Mr. Deacon: And that is imserviced land.
This is while the provincial government sat
on its beam end and talked about building
houses— and talked, and talked, and talked.

Because of its inaction the government did
exactly the opposite of what it said it set out
to do. It forced up the price of land; it didn't
provide a surplus of places where people
could build so that land prices could be kept
at a reasonable level.

It is the provincial government's policy to
sell land at market value. It is also the gov-
ernment's policy to place the burden of
supplying schools, water and other people's
services on the municipal property taxpayer.
These two aspects of government policy force
developers into paying exorbitant prices for
serviced lots. In Malvern, a single family lot
could cost $15,000. Even the government
should understand the simple economics that

one cannot build a home on a $15,000 lot
and sell it for $25,000.

And now, here comes Cedarwood.

The Minister of Economics (Mr. Mc-
Keough) has said that the provincial govern-
ment will acquire the land and resell it to
private developers. In another 19 years is
Pickering to be "Malvemized" like Scar-
borough? Is Cedarwood's land to lie fallow
waiting for the government to act? Is this
government sincere in its desire to reduce
home prices? If so, I have a suggestion.

An average of 75,000 lots a year are needed
in Ontario. The supply barely meets the de-
mand. The result: high land prices. It should
be the policy of this government to ensure
that the supply of lots always exceeds the
demand. Prices of homes for the people of
Ontario would be forced back to affordable
levels. The Minister of Economics may say
that he has no control over the law of supply
and demand. I say the government has it in
its power, if it wishes, to repeal that. Where
are these lower-cost lots to be found? Out-
side the cities? Outside the suburbs? In and
aroimd the small communities of Ontario,
that is where they are.

We must decentralize our population. We
have heard a number of complaints from the
Ontario government that it wants more free-
dom to control its own destiny. It wants less
interference from the federal government.
But apparently that is a one-way street. Why
not let the municipalities control their des-
tiny? Give them the imconditional revenues
to cover the major portion of schools and
ther needed local services. Let them set their
own priorities. Remove their dependency on
property taxes and conditional provincial
handouts.

If we examine the grants that were handed
out to the regional government in York last
June, we will find every single grant had a
condition attached to it. Incidentally, we have
been concerned in York about when the gov-
ernment was going to complete Highway 404,
and if the traflBc betwen Newmarket, the
base of that regional government, and
Queen's Park continues to increase at the
present pace, we are going to need a four-
lane highway to handle the traflBc between
the regional government and Queen's Park as
these people go down to Queen's Park to
get their orders as to what they have got to
do to get the grants.

Remove the dependence of municipal gov-
ernments on property taxes and conditional
provincial handouts. The job of the Ontario
government should be to co-ordinate. It
should make it possible for the people of

MARCH 7, 1972

175

Ontario to live in these smaller communities;
not large 200,000 soulless conglomerates, but
real communities.

The government must make it possible
for the people to move rapidly from where
they live to where they work by public
transit— public transit planned with people
in mind. I note the government plans experi-
ments with new systems in the field of urban
transit. More pie in the sky. The problems
of urban transit are here with us now. And,
Mr. Speaker, we have the facilities here and
now. The research and information on the
need for public transit is here now. If the
government doesn't have it, I do. But don't
tell us that Ottawa is holding up develop-
ment of these new transit facilities. That
statement won't hold water.

Because of the apathy of this government,
a group of interested, public-spirited citizens,
the Go North Group as they are called,
applied for a federal grant for $97,000. It
was needed to operate a trial, three-month
commuter rail service between Toronto and
Barrie. This would have established, at no
cost to the Province of Ontario, whether such
a commuter service was needed. It would
have shown whether the service would attract
a sufficient number of passengers to make it
worthwhile. But, unfortunately, it might also
have interfered to some extent with the
operation of the GO bus service.

The applicants were advised that because
of the objections raised by the Ontario gov-
ernment—the Ontario Department of Trans-
portation and Communications— the federal
government could not advance the proposed
$97,000 grant. The provincial authorities
threatened to cut oflF the GO bus service if
it was granted. How cynical can you get?
On the one hand, the Speech from the
Throne refers to the testing of promising
new systems and equipment; with the other
hand the government turns down the oppor-
tunity to find out whether a commuter ser-
vice between Toronto and Barrie is needed.
It wouldn't even have cost the government
of Ontario a penny.

I can only imagine that the government
of Ontario feared that the need for a GO
North commuter service would be demon-
strated for once and for all. And that doesn't
fit in with their plans. No, they'd like us to
think that their shuttle bus service, jammed
in rush-hour traffic, is filling the basic com-
muter need of citizens living north of Metro.
They would like to continue adding to the
atmospheric pollution with their buses. But
of course they don't say that. What they
say is, and I quote again, "the government

shares fully the concerns of the people of
Ontario in respect to the protection and
enhancement of our natural environment."

They want to clean up the Great Lakes,
apparently by emptying all the sewage efflu-
ent from the Toronto centred ,region into
Lake Ontario. Of course, they don't say that
in this speech. They talk about the United
States and what the federal goveniment
should do to get the United States to clean
up the lakes.

They're also going to implement a pro-
gramme to remove the blight of abandoned
automobile hulks and automobile graveyards
from our landscape. Now we know the
reason for the rise in the civil service from
45,000 to 69,000 in the last four years. Each
government employee is to be given one
abandoned used car to bury in his backyard.

If this government is as interested in
pollution as it says it is, where are the
plans for research into finding a better way
of disposing of our own wastes? They've
made no advances in the field of sewage
treatment. Their only solution is to pollute
our lakes instead of our rivers. In other
countries sewage effluent performs a valu-
able function as an organic fertilizer, bring-
ing overworked land back to life. Where
are the studies which relate to this? Is the
Ontario Water Resources Commission con-
tent with its penny-ante research operation
in Alliston, or has it not heard of the work
being done outside of Canada in this field?

So far though the former Minister of the
Environment (Mr. Kerr) has come up with
two helpful suggestions in pollution control,
for the handling of our garbage. First, a plan
to transport trainloads of Metro's garbage
into less than grateful municipalities perched
on Metro's boundaries, or even to Muskoka.
And here is a coincidence. The tracks for
the Ontario garbage express just happen to
pass by a veritable Mount Everest of garbage
owned by that friend of the government, Mr.
Norman Goodhead, at Maple. We are also
told that garbage will now be dumped in
adjoining mined-out gravel pits, because Mr.
Goodhead has some of these under option,
I understand. Another coincidence?

Secondly, the former minister has decreed
that Metro Toronto must shut down all its
incinerators over the next three years because
they are antiquated and inefficient. I agree
with him that they are. Is this the best sug-
gestion, though, that can be made— to shut
down incinerators? Cannot the government
assist the municipalities in solving this most
serious problem affecting our lives? The most

176

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

recent technology suggests that incinerators
can be very effective and need not pollute
our air, or anything else. In fact, incinerators
can recycle garbage.

Modern incinerators can even be used to
produce steam for fuel, and a good example
is the new Hamilton incinerator which is
just starting up. Unfortunately, the Hamilton
authorities have received no assistance from
Ontario Hydro in their wish to sell the steam
produced in this very modern incinerator.
The revenues from that steam, if sold at com-
mercial values, could more than ojffset all the
operating costs of that unit. I guess Hydro
would like to keep the steam-heating market
all to itself. "If the citizens of Hamilton want
eflBcient garbage disposal, let them pay for
it," says the government. This appears to be
their attitude.

I have a suggestion for this government
and for the ministers. Recycling waste can be
profitable and government action to ensure
modem plants are developed need not be
expensive. As I have mentioned before, if the
Hamilton plant's steam were sold at com-
mercial rates, it would cover the whole cost
of operation of that plant and its debt service
charges as well.

The minister should remember that his
duties include control of the sale of vast
quantities of steam for heating purposes. The
Hamilton incinerator demonstrates that such
steam can be produced cleanly and efficiently
from garbage. The air management branch
requires a stack of only 150 feet on that
incinerator, because when steam is produced
from an incinerator, one reduces the stack

temperature to a point at which the precipi-
tators can be extremely effective, and it is
almost impossible to see any smoke coming
out from that huge incinerator.

I suggest to the minister that he should
attempt to bring together the steam con-
sumers and the waste disposers. That, Mr.
Speaker, is efficiency.

This government talks of continuing past
progress. A Toronto-centred region plan that
separates the city people from the country-
side? A land-price control policy that actually
causes land prices to go up? A rapid transit
plan that is anything but rapid? And a waste
control plan that bears little evidence of
modem research or planning? This is
progress?

The government wants to be more efficient
and bring people closer to the government,
at least, that is what it says. We on this
side of the House, Mr. Speaker, have seen
many times that what this government says
and what is does are two totally different
things.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr.
Speaker, because of the hour, I move the
adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Drea moves the adjournment of the
debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjourrmient
of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.45 o'clock, p.m.

MARCH 7, 1972 177

APPENDIX

ONTARIO PLACE OPERATIONS AS AT FEBRUARY 29, 1972
Revenue

Admissions $1,561,091

Facilities 833,788

Winter operations 72,464

Miscellaneous 47,827 $2,515,170

Expenditures

Salaries $1,622,815

Benefits 29,963

Transportation and communication 118,814

Services 1,037,443

Supplies and equipment 672,164

Intergovemment charges:

General maintenance-DPW $699,000

Security services-DPP 143,159

Miscellaneous 45,502 887,661

The Place restaurants-
deficit to February 28, 1972 92,034 4,460,894

Deficit at February 29, 1972 1,945,724

Estimated expenditure for March 126,502

Deficit at March 31, 1972 $2,072,226

ONTARIO PLACE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

A. Capital Costs

1. General construction including buildings, landscaping,

services, marina and restaurants $16,789,000

-Less federal sales tax rebate 745,000 $16,044,000

2. Land creation 3,350,000

3. Licences /permits 5,000

4. Ginesphere equipment ..jr.C... 456,800

5. Pod 2 restaurant equipment 237,900

6. Architects /consultants fees 1,625,000

8. Exhibits 2,064,800

9. Site equipment 374,000

Total capital costs $24,157,500

B. Non-capital costs-$4,584,500: y^^^ ■,

1. DPW construction administration $ 611,000

7. Ginesphere films 654,600

8. Exhibits— Initial year concept development costs $ 211,000

—Exhibit and film design 765,000

-Exhibit film production 630,000 1,606,000

9. Site equipment— paddle boats $ 35,000

-land ride 36,000

-canal boats 55,000 126,000

10. Administration and promotion 1,586,900

Total non-capital costs $ 4,584,500

Total capital costs $24,157,500

Total non-capital costs 4,584,500 $28,742,000

178 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

THE PLACE RESTAURANTS

Balance Sheet as at February 28, 1972

Assets
Currents assets

Cash $24,723

Accounts receivables 21,749

Food and liquor inventory 27,724

Prepaid expenses 7,974 $ 82,170

Fixed assets

Silverware $ 8,197

Accumulated depreciation (4,918)

$ 3,279

Equipment 24,090 27,369

Deficit from operations 92,034

Total $201,573

Liabilities
Current

Accounts payables $81,584

Accruals 1,454

Accrued payable 7,245

Employers income tax and payroll 4,358 $ 94,641

Others

Banquet deposits $ 1,104

Sales tax payable 40,352

George Brown College 17,180

Department of Trade and Development 8,296

Advance from Department of Trade and Development 40,000 106,932

Total $201,573

Income Statement for Period Ending February 29, 1972
Sales

Food sales $662,215

Liquor sales 171,313

Wine and sundry sales 43,934

Beer sales 58,569 $936,031

Cost of sales

Cost of food $293,100

Cost of liquor 46,562

Cost of wine and sundries 19,566

Cost of beer 16,724 375,952

Gross profit on sales $560,079

Operating expenses

Wages $481,590

Kitchen and bar supplies 31,588

Uniforms and laundry 27,784

Equipment and equipment rental 12,339

Fringe benefits 31,275

Repairs and maintenance 853

Advertising and promotion 40,287

Credit card expense 6,264

Postage and printing 17,603

MARCH 7, 1972 179

Bank charges 4,735

Security 1,613

Telephone 516

Depreciation 4,918

Miscellaneous 5,957 667,322

Profit or (loss) after expenses $(107,243)

Other income 15,209

Net profit or (loss) $( 92,034)

ONTARIO PLACE
Revenue for period ending February 29, 1972

Fiscal year 1971/1972

Admissions:

General $1,442,063

Day pass books (10s) 6,050

Day pass books (25s) 33,344

Season passes 51,384

Bus tours 28,250

$1,561,091

Facilities:

Haida $ 88,650

Marina 61,473

Boats 82,058

Boutiques 298,722

Concessions 302,885

$ 833,788

Miscellaneous:

Coin machines $ 6,086

Parking 17,994

Land rides 21,769

Other 1,978

"$ 47,827

Winter operations:

Cinesphere $ 61,453

Snack bar 11,011

"$ 72,464

Final total $2,515,170

Boat revenue
For the period ending February 1-29, 1972

Paddle boats $54,967

Canal boats 24,448

Ferries 2,643

Totals $82,058

180 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Boutique revenue
For the period ending February 1-29, 1972

Boutique I (east island) $ 35,662

Boutique II (east island) 82,886

Boutique III (kiosk-east island) 68,532

Boutique IV (8 push carts) 106,083

Boutique V (kiosk-quayside) 5,490

Boutique VI (kiosk-west island) 69

Totals $298,722

Concession revenue 1971/1972
For the period ending February 29, 1972

Dennis restaurants— snack bar $ 14,709

Lakeshore pubs— English pub 58,299

-snack bar 21,856

Laura Secord— snack bar 11,125

Lonlaw— beer garden and lounge 58,711

Points East— Chinese restaurant 17,202

—snack bar 20,024

Ruhanyi— coffee house 18,238

—snack bar 3,440

Stoodleigh— restaurant and Sailor pub 51,604

—snack bar 12,726

Rivertown— snack bar 11,519

R.M. Hall Portraits 3,432

Totals ' $302,885

Winter operations 1971/1972

For the period ending February 29, 1972
Cinesphere:

Adults $56,606

Students 18,612

Children 1,210

Snack bar 11^011

$87,439
Less:

Film distributor's cost (14,975)

$72,464

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 7, 1972

Tabling report, task force interim review of off track betting, Mr. A. F. Lawrence 133

Telegram Publishing Company inquiry by Prof. Donald Carter, statement by Mr. Guindon 134

Offtrack betting re research of Australian system, questions of Mr. A. F. Lawrence:

Mr. R. F, Nixon, Mr. Renwick, Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Singer, Mr. Bullbrook 135

Operation of Ontario Place— revenue estimates and entrance fees, questions of Mr. White:

Mr. R. F. Nixon, Mr. Bullbrook, Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Singer, Mr. Stokes 139

Tabling reports, Ontario Place fiscal operations, Mr. White 140

Nursing home regulations and rate structure, questions of Mr. Potter: Mr. R. F. Nixon,

Mr. Lewis, Mr. Good, Mr. Paterson 141

Dates of enactment for environment bill sought, questions of Mr. Auld: Mr. Lewis 144

Non-returnable bottles and future policy statement, questions of Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence:

Mr. Lewis 144

Daycare centres for Indian bands, questions of Mr. Bnmelle: Mr. Spence, Mr. Reid 145

Cost of Ontario Place, questions of Mr. White: Mr. Givens 146

Presenting report re select committee on standing committees, Mr. Henderson, agreed to 148

Public Health Act, bill to amend, Mr. Deans, first reading 152

Cemeteries Act, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 152

Health studios, bill respecting, Mr. Drea, first reading 152

Resmnption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Miller,

Mr. Deacon 152

Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Drea, agreed to 176

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Winkler, agreed to 176

Appendix, Ontario Place fiscal operations 177

No. 7

ONTARIO

Im^imxt of Ontario

Betiateg

OFFICIAL REPORT — DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Ninth L^islature

Thursday, March 9, 1972

Speaker: Honourahle Allan Edward Renter
Oerk: Roderick Lewis, QC

THE QUEEN'S PRINTER

TORONTO

1972

Price per session, $10.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

t.m

CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue.)

185

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

The House met at 2 o'clock p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to have visi-
tors with us today, in the east gallery, from
Courtland Avenue Senior School of Kitchener.
Also in the east gallery from John Calvin
Christian School, of Guelph, and from George-
town High School, of Georgetown. Students
from Georgetown High School of George-
town are also in the west gallery. And in
the west gallery, the Public Service Com-
mission, the Bicultural Development Pro-
gramme, and persons from the Hamilton
Mountain and Hamilton East Progressive
Conservative Association.

Some of the guests from the Hamilton
Mountain and Hamilton East Progressive
Conservative Association are also in the
Speaker's gallery.

Statements by the ministry.

Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Chairman, Man-
agement Board of Cabinet); Mr. Speaker, 1
can outline today the award of the civil
service arbitration board on employee bene-
fits for the Ontario public service covering
a two-year period beginning October 1,
1971.

The question of fringe benefits was refer-
red to the board late in 1971 following
periods of negotiation and mediation. The
board consisted of His Honour Judge J. C.
Anderson, chairman; K. W. Preston, repre-
senting the oflBcial side of the Ontario Joint
Council, and Professor S. Ehipre, represent-
ing the staff side.

The highlights of the award are as fol-
lows:

Health insurance: the government's contri-
bution to Ontario Health Insurance premiums
will be increased from the current 59 per
cent to 75 per cent of premium, ejBFective
April 1, 1972, and to 90 per cent of premium,
effective October 1, 1972.

Long term income protection: From Octo-
ber 1, 1972, the government's contribution

Thursday, March 9, 1972

will be increased from 50 per cent to 66%
per cent of premium.

Basic life insurance: From April 1, 1972,
the present compulsory basic life insurance
of $2,000 will be increased to 75 per cent
of annual salary with the government con-
tinuing to contribute 75 per cent of premium.

Effective April 1, 1972, the present acci-
dental death and dismemberment benefit of
$2,000 will be cancelled.

Sick or attendance credits: No change is
made in the number of credits. However,
each employee will be credited with 15 days
at the beginning of each attendance year,
as defined in section 14(l)(a) of the regula-
tions under the Public Service Act, 1970.

Separation allowance:

(a) No change is recommended for those
employees appointed prior to October 1,
1965, or after January 1, 1970.

(b) Employees appointed between October
1, 1965, and January 1, 1970, who involun-
tarily cease to be public servants after April
1, 1972, shall be entitled to severance pay
equal to one-half a week's salary for each
year of service from and after October 1,
1965, and prior to January 1, 1970, and for
each year of service after January 1, 1970,
shall be entitled to one week's salary.

Vacations: Employees with 30 or more
years of completed service are granted five
weeks of vacation commencing with vaca-
tions for 1972.

Pre-retirement leave: For employees who
have completed 25 or more years of service,
six-week vacations are granted in the final
year of service before compulsory retire-
ment, which will include their vacation
entitlement for that year.

Compassionate leave: In the event of the
death of a member of his immediate family,
an employee is entitled to three days leave
of absence with pay, which will not be
charged against attendance credits.

Mr. Speaker: Satements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

186

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

HAMILTON HARBOUR LANDFILL

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minis-
ter of the Environment: Has he received
formal notification from the council of the
city of Hamilton requesting that the Hamil-
ton harbour be exempted from the jurisdiction
of the Hamilton conservation authority re-
garding landfill operations that Dofasco and
Stelco propose to carry out?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of the En-
vironment): No, Mr. Speaker, I haven't had
formal notification, although I understand
it's on the way.

I understand that the council, by a 12-8
vote on early Wednesday morning, voted to
ask that the regulations which were passed
by cabinet a week ago— amendments to the
fill regulations which the conservation author-
ity has had, and which extended their dump
and fill control over three other areas, one
of which was Hamilton harbour— be varied
so that they would not apply to the two
steel companies, Stelco and Dofasco.

As a matter of fact, I issued a release this
morning, saying— I won't read it all— that the
amendment to the dump and fill regulations
of the Hamilton Region Conservation
Authority passed by cabinet on March 1
would be gazetted as of March 25, that is,
for the next issue of the Gazette. I empha-
sized it in my recent meeting with the groups
involved, which included the Hamilton Har-
bour Commission, the mayor and one con-
troller of the city of Hamilton, the chairman
and general manager of the Hamilton con-
servation authority and people from OWRC
and this department. At that time, Mr.
Powell, the chairman of the Hamilton Region
Conservation Authority stated that his organ-
ization recognized that there may be areas
where landfill operations would continue
without any adverse effect on the harbour.

I might say to the hon. Leader of the
Opposition that there are three fill operations
going on there which are separate, in that
one is by the Hamilton Harbour Commission,
and two are by Dofasco and Stelco. Another
one is being carried out by a developer, I
believe, who proposes to biiild an apartment
building once he gets his fill done.

I have said this morning in this state-
ment that I felt there couldn't be any exemp-
tion to the dump and fill regulations as it
would lead to further fragmentation of the
authority's regulatory power. I also said that
I imderstand Mr. Powell, the chairman of the

conservation authority, is getting in touch
with the two steel companies to work out
details of what it is specifically they want to
do and whether some or all of this may be
possible.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Per-
haps the minister would explain what he
means when he says there will be no exemp-
tions to the regulation, but that the chairman
of the conservation authority is going to con-
tact the two steel companies to see if what
they want to do might be permissible. Surely
there is an area where it doesn't jibe?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No. Perhaps, I wasn't clear,
Mr. Speaker. I don't feel that we should
exempt any property or person from the
application of the regulations, but this does
not mean that the authority may not issue a
permit to do certain things which would fit
in with the plan.

I may say that I also said we have under-
taken to do a model of the Hamilton harbour
by OWRC to see just what the requirements
for water supply, waste and so on are, and
that we would expedite this. In the mean-
time, the harbour commission has indicated
that it will carry out only about half of their
filling, the half which it has to do to deepen
the harbour for shipping and which has been
approved by OWRC as far as the health
aspects are concerned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A final supplementary, as
far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker: Are we
to understand then that the minister will not
approve of any regidation giving special
exemption, but that if the conservation
authority permits it it is okay with him?

Hon. Mr. Auld: That's correct.

MEDICARE COVERAGE OF
NURSING HOMES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a question
of the Minister of Health: Can he explain to
the House the outcome, or can he tell the
House the outcome of his negotiations with
the nursing home owners and operators which
took place yesterday? According to press re-
ports, he now believes that there will be no
hitch in full nursing home coverage as of
April 1.

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Health): I
would be delighted to, Mr. Speaker. When I
met with the executive of the nursing home
association yesterday they assured me that
any members who had spoken the day before.

MARCH 9, 1972

187

suggesting they were going to opt out of the
programme, were not speaking on behalf of
the majority of the nursing home operators.

I found them to be most co-operative, as
I had expected them to be in the first place.
They have assured me that they as a group,
as far as they are concerned, vi'ill go along
with our programme, that the beds will be
made available to us as of April 1, as we
planned. At the same time, I have arranged
to meet on a regular basis with the execu-
tive of the nursing home association as I
have done with the Ontario Medical Associ-
ation, the College of Physicians and Surgeons,
the Ontario Dental Association, and every-
body else involved in the health field in
order that we can keep our lines of com-
munication open.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might reply
to the hon. Leader of the Opposition to a
question he asked the other day concerning
the detoxification centres programme in the
province.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Why, sure,
go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I have to make damn
sure I get permission, you understand, or
1*11 get slapped down again.

Interjections by hon. members.

ESTABLISHMENT OF
DETOXIFICATION CENTRES

Hon. Mr. Potter: There are three function-
ing detoxification units in Toronto at the
present time. Two are operated by the
Addiction Research Foundation and one
operated by the Salvation Army.

The Seaton House unit is operated by the
Addiction Research Foundation in association
with the city of Toronto welfare department
and St. Michael's Hospital. It has a capacity
of 14 beds and will receive approximately
1,300 patients during a 12-month period. St.
Michael's Hospital provides the backup
facilities for those patients requiring more
intensive care.

The West Central Detoxification Centre is
located on Ossington Avenue and is operated
by the Addiction Research Foundation in
association with Toronto Western Hospital.
This unit has the capacity of 18 beds and
will receive approximately 2,500 patients in
a 12-month period. The Toronto Western
Hospital provides the backup service for those
patients requiring more intensive care.

The Salvation Army Harbour Light has a
12-'bed detoxification unit and will receive
approximately 520 patients in a 12-month
period.

The overall plans for the detoxification
centres calls for the establishment of special
centres with special facilities in the judicial
districts of Ontario where the arrests for
public intoxication exceed 1,000 per year.
The cities included in this plan are Metro-
pohtan Toronto, London, Hamilton, Thunder
Bay-
Mr. Sargent: That's no yardstick.

Hon. Mr. Potter: — Kenora, Sudbury, St.
Catharines, Windsor, Ottawa, Renfrew and
Kitchener. The plan calls for these units to
be phased-in over a three-year period. Six
units are planned for Metropolitan Toronto
and one for each of the other cities.

During 1972-1973 one additional unit is
planned for Metropolitan Toronto, plus one
each for Kenora, London and Hamilton. In
1973-1974, two more imits are planned for
Metropolitan Toronto, plus one each in
Thunder Bay, Sudbury and St. Catharines.
In 1974-1975 an additional imit is planned
for Metropolitan Toronto, plus one each in
Windsor, Ottawa, Renfrew and Waterloo.

The approximate operating cost for an
18-20 bed detoxification centre is $100,000
per year. A network of backup rehabilitation
facilities designed for various kinds of
patients' needs are planned to complement
the detoxification units-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: How many pages has the
minister got there?

Hon. M. Potter: —and to provide the thrust
towards recovery. Is that enough?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That's enough.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Good.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-
Bruce has a supplementary?

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary to the de-
toxification story. Does this mean that if a
man is picked up ia Owen Sound he goes
to jail, but if he is picked up in Toronto
he goes to a detoxification centre?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): There
is a difiFerence.

Mr. Sargent: What kind of fair treatment
is this for the outlying parts of the province,
Mr. Speaker? I would like an answer.

188

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, there is no
way we are going to set up 150 detoxifica-
tion centres across the province all at one
time. They are going to be set up on a need
basis.

I am sure that the hon. member is aware
that with the new federal laws that have
been instituted there is no need for a man
being picked up on a drunk charge to be
thrown into jail. He can be remanded with-
out bail, and they are even escorted home
on occasion by officers of the law. So that—

Mr. Sargent: That is not the way it works,
though.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I would think that the
.member would be happy that his municipal-
ity doesn't fall into this category where in
excess of 1,000 drunks are picked up every
year.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Maybe it has just been
overlooked!

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): A supple-
mentary question of the minister: Is the—

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the mem-
ber for High Park have a supplementary?

Mr. Shulman: Yes, please.

/ Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): May I ask
of the minister, of the 44 beds that he has
outlined that are available in Toronto, how
many are available for women, if any?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I never asked that one!
To be perfectly honest, I don't see that there
would be any difference.

Mr. Shulman: Well, is the minister rni-
aware—

Hon. Mr. Potter: I mean, we have uni-
versities now where they have-
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Co-educational
DTs!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: How does Hansard get that
recorded?

Mr. Shulman: Is the minister unaware—

Hon. Mr. Potter: As a matter of fact, Mr.
Speaker, I would think there would be less

danger under these circumstances than there
would be in some of our universities.

Mr. Shulman: In view of the minister's
comments, will he issue instructions then to
the detoxification centres that they should
admit women who require such treatment
but who, at the present time, will not be
admitted.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I would be delighted to
do that, Mr. Speaker.

An hon. member: I am sure the minister
would.

Mr. Breithaupt: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if
the order in which the minister listed the
construction of those facilities is going to be
the order as he has set them out in his
statement?

Hon. Mr. Potter: The order in which I
listed them is going to be the order-
Mr. Breithaupt: Is that going to be the
order in which they are to be put into effect?

Hon. Mr. Potter: That's right, Mr. Speaker.
I have listed here what we are doing in
1972-1973, 1973-1974 and so forth.

Mr. Sargent: An equal opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I would

like to ask of the minister-
Mr. Sargent: The minister knows it is not

fair.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stokes: I would like to ask of the
minister how long it will be before such
facilities are made available to native peo-
ple, particularly in northern Ontario, who
are presently being jailed for the same
offence for which people are being rehabili-
tated in southern Ontario?

Mr. Deans: Good point.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I would be delighted
to look into that Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the
hon. member is aware that at the present
time we're a bit hog-tied in trying to come
to some kind of an arrangement with the
federal authorities as to where they end and
where we take over. I'm sure he is aware
that the health of the Indians in the northern
part of of the province, or in any part of the
province, is a federal responsibility. We have
offered assistance—

MARCH 9, 1972

189

Mr. Stokes: Not in all cases; just those
living on reserves.

Hon. Mr. Potter: We have oflFered assist-
ance in some areas and so far we have found
that the Indians themselves are reluctant to
receive our assistance because they say if
they do they might be cutting themselves
off from Ottawa and allowing the people in
Ottawa to shirk the responsibility which is
truly theirs.

I can only assure the member that we
would be delighted to speak with him or
with anybody else who is in a position to
work with us to help develop facilities
wherever they're needed.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): I wonder
if the minister is aware that the special
medical services unit of St. Joseph's Hospital
in Thimder Bay, which handles this kind of
problem, is threatened with closure on May
1, and that they have submitted a brief to
his department for assistance to tide them
over the coming year, so that the detoxifica-
tion centre which the minister indicates is
planned, can work into the whole plan?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm
sure the hon. member is unaware that I was
in Port Arthur and Fort William about a
year ago at the request of the then Minister
of Health (Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence), and
looked into the problems that are up there.
I might also assure him that the member
for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) has been
after me and we're arranging, through my
department, to spend a day or two in Fort
William in the very near future to try and
solve some of the problems that have been
facing them for so long.

One of the problems, of course— and per-
haps there's somebody here who could ad-
vise me how we handle this— is that we had
one heck of a time trying to get the people
in Port Arthur and the people in Fort Wil-
liam to get together in some of these pro-
grammes. Once we have that settled we'll
be well on the way.

Mr. Stokes: If the minister would start call-
ing them by their right name he might get
them well on the way to cooperating with
one another,

Mr. Foulds: I raised my question for the
city of Thunder Bay, Mr. Minister.

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

EDUCATION EXPENDITURES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a question
of the Minister of Education:

Can he explain to the House how he is
negotiating with the Metropolitan Toronto
School Board and the Ontario Secondary
School Teachers Federation regarding the
ceilings on expenditures for education in
this jurisdiction, particularly in view of the
possibility of a rotating strike affecting the
schools here?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, first I think we should get it
very clear that we are not negotiating with
anybody on this particular matter.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I thought the minister
was taking another look at it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We are sitting down, as
we do with many groups all the time, to take
a look at anything that happens to present
a problem.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As the hon. Leader of
the Opposition knows, educational expendi-
ture ceilings were brought in and made
public to the boards last November. They
were devised, after much thought and study
and review of budget. They weren't figures
pulled out of the air. They were felt to
provide enough financing for an adequate,
high quality educational programme. They
were also geared so that no lesser amount
would be spent per pupil in this year than
was spent last year. In other words, they
provide for an increase in the amount spent
per pupil for every board in Ontario, ex-
cept for two boards in the northern section
of the province.

The boards themselves have worked out
their ovm particular budgets, and the setting
of priorities within these fiscal ceilings is the
prerogative of the boards. They work these
out.

They have indicated to me that they have
certain difficulties. The Metro Toronto board
has indicated it has difficulties. Until last
Tuesday, when I had a meeting with them,
we didn't really know what the difficulties
were. All we knew was what we had read in
the paper and what, I'm sure, the hon. Leader
of the Opposition has also read in the paper.

They came in and presented some figures
and some statistics to us. I suggested our
officials should work with their officials to
see if, in fact, what they presented really

190

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

does present problems. I'm not so sure that
they present some of the severe problems that
they have indicated they do, but this was the
first time we'd had a cnance to really take a
look at them.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): They only
have to look.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We are now taking a look
at these and we're having another meeting
next Tuesday. As far the secondary school
teachers, as I understand it, some of the more
extreme pronouncements that we've read in
the paper were just not the majority opinion
of the teachers in this area.

I certainly think that, as in all these
matters, we'll be able to work them out in
goodwill and still keep an adequate ceiling
on the costs of education, which I think is
our job and the job that we've been given to
do.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But to work it out in
goodwill, of course, is commendable and
supported on all sides.

Has the minister met with either the pro-
vincial executive or the Toronto district
executive of the secondary school teachers,
so that they are aware of the justification that
he, as the responsible minister, attempts to
put on this programme?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I haven't
met oflBcially with them in an across-the-
table meeting to discuss this specifically, but
I was invited to speak at their professional
development day a couple of weeks ago. At
this time, I spoke and answered questions
about this matter and then had lunch with
the Toronto secondary school teachers, where
we had informal discussions about this whole
matter.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Has the
minister any comment on the threat that
there may be disruptive rotating strikes?
Surely we are concerned about the continuing
education of the kids in the system. The min-
ister has indicated he will not negotiate— he
doesn't like to use that word and I can
understand why not— but surely there must
have been a breakdown in communications
if he feels the position is so readily justified?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, of course,
we certainly all are primarily concerned about
the children in the classroom and the educa-
tional process for them, but the teachers*
position to work within theguidelines set by
their local school boards. This is what they
are doing, as I say.

We have set broad financial guidelines and
given these to the boards. It is within their
prerogative and their power— and, indeed
many of them very jealously guard this— to
set the priorities that go on within their own
educational jurisdiction. What we have sug-
gested—and the boards have said that they
support this— is that the teachers and the
boards should all be working together in
concert to plan how they can come within
these ceilings and still keep a viable educa-
tional programme. This they are doing, and
the process is going on. As I say, I think that
we still have a spirit of goodwill, notwith-
standing some of the screaming headlines
that we have read over the last few days. I
think that this can all be worked out in this
spirit.

Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): A
supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask of
the minister when grant regulations will be
made available to various boards so that they
can strike their budgets?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sorry, did the hon.
member say when will grant regulations-
Mr. B. Newman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Grant regulations, Mr.
Speaker, were mailed to the boards last
Friday.

Mr. Cassidy: I had hoped to have seen
more than goodwill from the government.

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the
minister made an assessment of the reduction
in quality of education which will be imposed
by the grant ceilings which he is proposing?
What does he propose to do with the ex-
perienced teachers who will become un-
employed as a result of the government's
spending freeze?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, at this point
in time I have seen no concrete evidence that
the ceilings that we have imposed will in-
deed bring about a lessening in the quality of
education in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: I can give him evidence in
Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have talk-
ed with the Ottawa board. I think that we
are in general agreement and that we know
their problem. I don't think that the hon.
member can support his assumption.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speak-
er: In view of the government's declared in-
tention to encourage greater community use ^

MARCH 9, 1972

191

of schools, could the minister explain how
the spending freeze is going to help that,
given that boards are naturally cutting dowoa
on non-educational expenses first before they
try to cut back on teachers?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): It is not a
freeze.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as I indi-
cated, and as the Premier has also just said,
this isn't a freeze, it is a deceleration in the
expenditure increase that has been going on.
We are not reducing any costs now—

Mr. Shulman: What is he going to do
when the Premier is not here to help him?

Mr. Cassidy: Just a dollar a student more
in the Ottawa area.

Hon. Mr. Wells: —and it is laying right
on the boards of education the opportunity
to live within these ceilings which, I think,
they can do. In the whole area of commun-
ity use of schools we are going to have
some changes in legislation that will per-
haps allow a greater sharing of the costs here
by the total community which, I think, will
add impetus to this programme. Indeed com-
munity use of schools won't be hampered
under the kind of ceilings that we have
entered.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister prepared to
provide any compensation or make any new
arrangements for school boards which are
being hit by declining enrolments at the
elementary level and which, therefore, are
being hit in a double fashion by the freeze,
or whatever it is the government cares to
call the one or two dollar increase on spend-
ing in some jurisdictions, such as Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have in-
dicated to several boards who have come in
that it will not be possible this year for us
to make any adjustments in weighting factors
to take this into consideration, but we are
certainly going to look at it for next year.
We have had certain statistics put before
us that there could be a problem in this par-
ticular area— decreasing enrolments in ele-
mentary schools— and this will be given ac-
tive study for the studying of weighting
factors for next year's budgets.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
Is it the thinking within the department now
then, that the increase in class size which
will result because of the fiats, in fact leads
to a better learning situation for the children
involved?

Mr. Cassidy: Explain that one away.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Of course, the hon. mem-
ber wants to start into what could be a
three-day seminar on what is the ideal class
size, and I haven't—

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It is a ques-
tion.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I haven't seen any indi-
cation anywhere of what is the ideal size.
All I know is that I can tell you the public-
teacher ratio in this province has been de-
creasing—decreasing for the last eight years
in both elementary and secondary schools.

I've been at several meetings where a
Columbia University study has been quoted
to me. I have some information on this study
and while it does make certain subjective
assumptions about class size and so forth, it
also says that there are many more important
things than class size, and they are the type
of teacher and the dedication of the teacher
and the quality of the teacher. So we are
really trying to debate something which no
one has any answers to, and I do not pretend
to have the answers.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Has the department defined
the optimum class size in various areas,
whether that be motor mechanics, academic
class, science class, elementary school class?
Are there optimum class sizes? If the depart-
ment has not defined that, are they working
on defining that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I could not tell the hon.
member, Mr. Speaker. There may be people
in our department working on that. I cer-
tainly am not aware of any optimum class
sizes because, as I say, I think is is very
difficult to set figures like that and I am not
sure that we ever can.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker,
just to clarify—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I said the last
question was the last supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: I beg your pardon.

Mr. Speaker: I think it might be well to
take a few moments at this point for the
benefit, particularly of some of the new
members, to explain just how this question
period does proceed. I notice that some of
them are attempting to gain the floor before
it is properly their turn.

192

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

The Leader of the Opposition, of course,
has the first opportunity to ask questions.
Supplementaries may arise to a reasonable
degree from those questions asked by the
hon. Leader of the Opposition. Then it is the
turn of the leader of the New Democratic
Party to do exactly the same thing. We then
adopt the process of alternating from the
three parties.

I do have a large number of notes from
members, many of whom are new members,
who want to get in on the question period
before either of the leaders of the two
opposition parties has had his opportunity.
I simply point this out to the new members
that as soon as the two leaders of the two
opposition parties have finished their ques-
tion period then I will call upon the other
members in turn.

Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition
have further questions?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Just
one point on clarification. One must send
you a note to be heard then, for a question?

Mr. Speaker: I'd prefer that members
wouldn't, but I am glad to accept them from
the new members, temporarily.

The hon. leader of the New Democratic
Party.

An hon. member: Does that mean you
won't take notes from an old member?

Mr. Speaker: No.

POLICE PROTECTION AT GULL BAY

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
of the Minister of Justice. Can the minister
explain why the Ontario Provincial Police
have refused to provide adequate police pro-
tection for the Gull Bay area of northern
Ontario on the west shore of Lake Nipigon,
in spite of the request being made by the
chief of the band and by the member for
Thunder Bay?

Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Justice): Mr.
Speaker, this question should really be di-
rected to the Provincial Secretary, the Solic-
itor General-designate (Mr. Yaremko). I have
information and I'd be glad to deal with this
question. On the other hand, the Solicitor
General-designate is here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The policy minister.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister answer the
question please?

Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to take
the question as notice and report back.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, since the Solicitor
General-designate doesn't have the answer
and since the Minister of Justice indicates that
he does have some information, could we
perhaps hear the information the Minister of
Justice has?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, that is policy.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, if I may
answer that question-
Mr. Deans: How can he answer?
Mr. Cassidy: He said he can't.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say this, having
taken questions through the years from mem-
bers of the opposition, the NDP and espe-
cially in many cases from the member for
Thunder Bay, I will invariably take them as
notice in order to find out exactly what the
matter is and not take any preambles from
the two hon. members at all.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer of On-
tario, Minister of Economics and Minister of
Municipal AfFairs): The member doesn't know
what is going on.

Mr. Stokes: What does the minister mean
by that?

Mr. Shulman: He means he is not going to
answer any of the member's questions.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: The minister would be the last
one I would direct a question to if there
were any alternative.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Ignoring the editorial com-
ment, could I then ask the Minister of Justice
whether he might be able to tell us what
it is he knows, since the Solicitor General
is reluctant to enter the debate?

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I have some
information but it only came to me in the
space of the 10 minutes or so before the ^
question period began. I am sure that my
colleague would want to look into it and
have all of the information for the hon.
member opposite.

MARCH 9, 1972

193

Mr. Cassidy: I hope the minister does
better next time.

An. hon. member: Is this a standing joke?

Mr. Deans: May I ask the next question?

Mr. Singer: How about the Provincial
Secretary— shouldn't he get into the act?

SAVINGS IN HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS

Mr. Deans: Can I ask the Minister of Edu-
cation—does he feel inclined to answer ques-
tions? Can I ask the minister whether he
iQtends to make the necessary amendments
to the Schools Administration Act to allow
those persons employed by the boards of
education to enjoy the same benefits from
the changes in the OHSIP and Ontario Hos-
pital regulations which permit any savings
in premium to be passed on to the em-
ployees?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is asking me to comment on the
kind of legislation that we might bring in
here in the near future, as amendments to
the various educational acts. The hon. mem-
ber will see what the government's policy is
in this regard when we introduce that legis-
lation.

Mr. Deans: May I ask the Minister of
Health whether he considers that the muni-
cipal school board employees are somewhat
lower citizens than those other citizens in
the province, since he doesn't see fit to intro-
duce companion legislation to ensure their
rights?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, they are
certainly equal with all citizens in this prov-
ince. As I indicated-
Mr. Deans: Not according to the minister's
legislation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: —to the hon. member, let
him wait and see. When I introduce the
amendments to the Schools Administration
Act he will see what is in them.

BOOKBINDERS DISPUTE WITH
QUEEN'S PRINTER

Mr. Deans: They are not equal according
to the legislation.

Can I ask the Minister of Public Works
a question? Has the Minister of Public
Works had representation made to him by

local 28 of the International Brotherhood of
Bookbinders in regard to their dispute with
the Queen's Printer over the use of non-
union help?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister- of Public
Works): No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no
representation made to me.

An hon. member: They are at the front
door.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister not aware that
there was a demonstration this morning at
the front door dealing with this very matter,
and that they were seeking to bring this to
his attention and to the attention of the
Minister of Labour?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I was
not aware of any demonstration. I was in my
oflBce and the adjoining boardroom in meet-
ings with my staff all morning and I heard
nothing of it.

Mr. Cassidy: What do the ministers do in
there?

Mr. Deans: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Provincial Secretary
for Justice): Work! The member doesn't know
what that means.

Mr. Cassidy: Work includes listening to
the public.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A sup-
plementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister
therefore not aware— and the office of the
Queen's Printer not aware— that the binding
of some 200,000 copies of the accommoda-
tion guide publication of the Department of
Tourism and Information is being done by
strike breakers at Brooker Trade Bindery, the
company where the International Brother-
hood of Bookbinders is legally on strike?
Now that he is aware, will he take steps to
ensure that this binding ceases until the
legal strike is settled?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all; no, Mr.

Speaker-
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Take it

as notice.

Hon. Mr. Snow: —I was not aware. I will
not say that I will take steps, but I will
look into the matter and famiharize myself
with the situation.

194

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

CIVIL SERVICE BARGAINING

Mr. Deans: A question for the— just ex-
actly what is he?

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That will get me
on my feet.

Mr. Deans: I am trying to remember what
he is. He is the Chairman of the Manage-
ment Board. Is this the right name? Fine.
In regard to his statement about—

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member
please indicate to the House the minister to
whom his question is being directed?

Mr. Deans: Yes, I think I am asking the—

Mr. Stokes: The Chairman of the Board.

Mr. Deans: The Chairman of the Manage-
ment Board, but I am not absolutely sure.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Why doesn't the
member read the book?

Mr. Deans: It is the minister who made
the statement today before the question
period in regard to the Civil Service award.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Oh, the member
means our Charlie.

Mr. Deans: Our Charhe— that's the guy!
I could have told the minister who I wanted,
but I couldn't remember his name.

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I have trouble
with the member's name some days.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The member should
hear what the minister calls him.

Mr. Deans: I wonder if the minister might
be able to tell me whether, as a result of this
award, those employees who fall into the cate-
gories higher than the categories to which
the award is apphcable will be receiving
similar kinds of benefit increases, or whether
the government intends to follow the pohcy
that it has in the past of reducing the dif-
ference between the highest association classi-
fication and those others who fall into the
category of the supervisory persormel?

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well Mr. Speak-
er, I say to the hon. leader— wasn't he de-
scribed a few moments ago the new— the
leader.

Well yes. I know who he is now, you see,
and he doesn't know who I am. I know who
he is.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: We do our home-
work.

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If the hon. mem-
ber wants to find out, I will give him a simple
expedient. Turn his desk chart over and he
will see it on the back.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the matter with
the minister this session?

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am having fun.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I never look as
unhappy as the Leader of the Opposition
does anyway.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just wait until the Pre-
mier cancels the MacNaughton expressway,
then we will see.

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Now to get back
to the member's question. I don't know that
I imderstand his question from the point of
view of the division. What division is he
talking about there? Is he talking about the
so-called senior list, the management levels;
or would he like to try that again please?

Mr. Deans: I would be pleased to.

Mr. Renwick: Ask somebody else.

Mr. Deans: Perhaps I should ask somebody
else. My understanding of the classifications
is that above classification number four, I
believe— five, six and beyond— that those classi-
fications are considered supervisory classifica-
tions and do not fall within the bargaining
powers of the association.

An hon. member: Exactly!

Mr. Deans: It has been the practice of the
government not to grant increases similar to
those granted to the employees within the
association at the time that awards are
handed down, and I am asking whether the
minister is going to continue to allow the
erosion of the economic position which dras-
tically affects the pensions of those people
who are nearing retirement age.

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Oh no Mr. Speak-
er; just the opposite really. This fringe
benefit award covers all the bargaining
groups, all those groups that bargain within
the public service-
Mr. Deans: How about non-bargaining
groups?

MARCH 9, 1972

195

Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I was coming to
that.

There are certain management classes that
are excluded, but this type of benefit applies
and accrues to them in the same way that
it does to other levels.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have
further questions?

WCB DEFINITION OF LIGHT WORK

Mr. Deans: One final question: I would
like to ask the Minister of Labour if he
would be in a position to define for the
House what light work is as applied by the
Workmen's Compensation Board?

Hon. F. Cuindon (Minister of Labour): Well
Mr. Speaker, the definition of light work?

Mr. Ferrier: It is what members do over
there in the mornings?

Hon. Mr. Snow: NDP members.

Mr. Renwick: Maybe the policy Minister
for Justice could tell the member about those
things.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Well I suppose I could
give the member a definition, but it certainly
perhaps won't be according to the Act. I
would sooner look at the Act first if there is
a definition there.

Mr. Deans: There is no such thing.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Well, it is a very grey
area, I would think.

Mr. Deans: The minister just isn't able to
give the definition at the moment.

Would he be able to give the definition;
and perhaps indicate to the House where
one might find light work in order that some
of these people who are seeking it can get
to work?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Well Mr. Speaker,
there are a number of areas where people are
able to get light work, particularly in the
case of maintenance for many industries-
Mr. Ferrier: What about the mining in-
dustry?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Elevator operators I
think could be considered as performing light
work, and there are many more.

Mr. Renwick: Can we refer constituents to
the minister?

ESTABLISHMENT OF DETOXIFICATION
CENTRE

Mr. Deans: I have one final question; I am
sorry.

Might I ask the Minister of Health, since
the detoxification legislation has not yet been
proclaimed and since there are no regulations
for it since it has not been proclaimed, how
then does the minister outline the programme
that he intends to follow?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Did the member want
me to sit back, Mr. Speaker? I wonder if the
hon. member felt I should sit back for a
couple of years and wait until we get some
legislation through? We want to get the thing
on the road; and we are getting our plans
on the road. We are prepared to get them
on the road.

We'll bring in the legislation. Don't worry
about it, it will be coming.

Mr. Deans: Can the minister then explain
why, since the far-reaching programme he
has outlined is so necessary, it has not yet
been proclaimed?

Mr. Renwick: There was an Act passed in
the last session.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, there really
isn't very much— I don't see the problem.

Mr. Deans: Not very much has been done.
I think that is pretty much the problem.

Hon. Mr. Potter: You know, we can't win.
We try to do it and they are not happy. If
we don't do it, they are not happy. We have
the programme on the way. We're going to
have the detoxification centres set up; they're
going to be in operation. We'll have the legis-
lation; we'll have the regulations. Now, is
there anything else they would like to have?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public
Works has answers to previous questions.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): They are
not batting very good today.

LAND PURCHASE IN TORONTO

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have
answers to questions placed on Monday by
the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer)
and which I took as notice.

The hon. member inquired as to the
directors of the company from whom the
government leased the OISE building and

196

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

also the directors of the company from whom
we purchased the property next door.

The directors of Swiss-Granada Holdings
Ltd., which is the owner of the OISE build-
ing, are Mr. W. G. Moog, president; Mr.
J. A. Broadshaw, secretary; and Mr. J. A.
Wright as a director. Those were the same
oflBcers during 1970 and 1971 and are still in
existence, as far as I know.

The directors of 246 Bloor Street West Ltd.
are, Mr. Sam Orenstein, president; Mr. Jacob
Hendelas, secretary-treasurer; Mr. Walter
Zwig, director; Mr. Benson Orenstein,
director. The name of this company was
changed on June 30, 1970, to All Toronto
Investments Ltd., but the principals remain
the same.

A further question, Mr. Speaker, asked to
what use the site could be put, considering
the zoning. It can be used for the construc-
tion of commercial, imiversity, governmental
or institutional buildings, or other university
or governmental or quasi-imiversity or quasi-
governmental use, and I believe the zoning
allows for a density of seven times the area
of the property.

To the question, "Is the University of
Toronto easement for parking in perpetidty?"
the answer is yes. "Does it inhibit the use of
the property?" The answer is yes. This was
taken into consideration in the valuation of
the land.

Mr. Shulman: No, it wasn't.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Arrangements can be made
with the city which would give relief from
this requirement upon payment. In this in-
stance, the spaces have been allocated in the
252 Bloor Street basement parking lot.

The hon. member asked for a copy of the
appraisal report and the title search docu-
ments, and mat these be tabled; I now woxild
like to table these docimients.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, by way of supplementary, the min-
ister stated that the easement is in perpetuity
and limits the use of the property. Could he
then explain why, by instrument No. 82599
EM, the easement was apparently given up
by 246 Bloor Street West Ltd. to the gov-
ernors of the University of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is
my understanding that the easement is in
existence and that this was taken into con-
sideration, as I stated.

Mr. Shulman: Why buy useless property
then?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I refuse to answer that
question. It is not relevant.

Mr. Singer: I would ask the minister, if he
would, to get an opinion on the effect of
instrument No. 82599 EM, which as I am
advised abandons or gives up or releases that
right of way for the parking of 31 cars.

Let me ask the minister a second supple-
mentary. Is the minister aware that in 1969
the legal firm of Amup Foulds applied to
the Toronto Planning Board for permission to
pay cash in lieu of providing the parking
spaces and that the recommendation of the
Toronto Planning Board be that that applica-
tion be refused; and if, in fact, the minister
is aware of that, how can he now tell us
that cash could be put up in lieu of the
easement?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not familiar with
that case, of course, Mr. Speaker, but the
oflScials in my department tell me that the
easement can be setded with a cash settle-
ment as, I tlunk, any easement can. Or, the
requirements of the easement, as I stated a
few days ago in this House, can be met by
supplying the 31 parking spaces within a
building or a basement parking area of a
building to be erected on the site.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the
minister if he would refer to a report of the
Toronto Planning Board herein the recom-
mendation was made that the easement not
be given up, and, in view of that, if he would
reconsider the answers that he gave us today?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will certainly look into
that report.

Mr. Singer: Yes, the minister had better
because his information is quite wrong.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don't believe it is.

Mr. Singer: Well, he is going to hear
about it at great length.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: How great?

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has
expired.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, I want your guidance. I take the
strongest possible exception to a remark that
was made by the Solicitor General-designate
a few moments ago during the question
period, when he imputed motives, or he
indicated that he wouldn't even take into
consideration answering a question from
either the member for Wentworth or myself

MARCH 9, 1972

197

unless he fully investigated to see whether
the facts were as we have stated them.

Mr. Deans: Maybe the minister should keep
up with his department.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is right.

Mr. Stokes: In the particular instance, I
would like to call to the attention of the
members of this House and to you, Mr.
Speaker, the information that I have about
the subject matter. I have been dealing vdth
it for the past five weeks with the Ontario
Provincial Police and, as a result of this
matter, a school in my riding closed for lack
of police protection today.

I phoned the OPP today— the minister is
supposed to be responsible for it— and I
phoned the Attorney General's office and
made him aware of it. And I think that in
view of the statement made by the Solicitor
General-designate he should either apologize,
back up his statement, or resign from the
position he is holding.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

An hon. member: Preferably the latter.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In speaking to the
point of order, Mr. Speaker, you will recall
that what I have said is that my experience
vwth questions from the members of the
NDP in general-
Mr. Deans: The minister said "these two
members."

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —and from the mem-
ber for Thunder Bay in particular, have led
me to believe—

Mr. Deans: Nonsense!

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —that often— I do not
say in this particular case— I said they have
often been based on hearsay.

Mr. Ferrier: That is nonsense.

Mr. Shulman: Substantiate that.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That
is imputing motives.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member says
it is nonsense. I disagree with him.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The
minister will wreck this.

Mr. Deans: The minister is a scrupulous
member in terms of providing backup mate-
rial.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member and
I differ on that point. I would say that I
have no intention of apologizing and I have
no intention of resigning a post that I have
yet to attain in full.

Mr. Deans: And if the minister carries on
the way he is doing he may not get it.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The one thing that
the hon. member for Thunder Bay does know
is that I have always checked out very
thoroughly every single matter that he has
ever brought to my attention, and very often
with very satisfactory results, and I intend
to do so now. But I still take the question
as notice, which is my prerogative, in order
that I may be able to give an intelligent
answer based on the facts.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on the point
of order, would the Speaker draw to the
attention of the Solicitor General-designate
that a blanket refusal to accept oral questions
from any member of the House is a contra-
vention of not only the explicit wording of
standing order 27, but certainly its intent
and meaning.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The minister said
he would take it as notice.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, I did
not make a blanket refusal and the hon.
member knows that.

Mr. Deans: The minister did.

Mr. MacDonald: We will look at the
record.

Mr. Stokes: In speaking further to the
point of order, I think that the minister, if
he was doing his job, would know that this
question was before his department for the
last five weeks, and he is incompetent if it
hadn't been brought to his attention before
now. My second alternative is—

Mr. Martel: Give it to him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member may speak
only once to a point of order if, in fact, it
is a point of order.

Mr. Deans: He was interrupted by the
minister.

Hon. A. F. Laverence: Mr. Speaker, that is
what is known as light work.

Mr. Deans: The minister should know. He
has done a lot of it.

198

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. Renwick: May I ask the Speaker if
he would advise the House, and the Solicitor
General-designate, on the question that I
raised with respect to standing order 27, be-
cause the intent of that is that oral questions,
if placed to the ministry, provide an oppor-
tunity for the ministry to take a certain,
specific course of action on any question, but
not in advance of the question to state that
it will take all questions of a particular
member as notice. It is a matter that should
be cleared up because the statement of the
Solicitor General, if that is his designated
title, was impertinent, to say the least.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, speaking
to the hon. member's point of order, I again
reiterate that no such blanket statement was
made by me.

Mr. Deans: The minister is being repeti-
tive. He did.

Mr. Speaker: Standing order 27 states
quite clearly that a minister may, in his
discretion, decline to answer any question.

Mr. Renwick: Not in advance.

Mr. Speaker: He need not answer any
question at any time. How can he answer
a question in advance, before the question is
given or placed before the minister? It's per-
fectly within the rights of the hon. minister
to decline to answer any question.

Hon. A. F. Lawrence: That is any question.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on the point
of order again, I may say that I will try
to state the problem much more clearly than
I have succeeded in doing so far. The ques-
tion, specifically, is that the Solicitor General-
designate indicated quite clearly that under
no circumstances would he answer orally a
question put to him by the hon. member
for Wentworth or the hon. member for
Thunder Bay, and that he would take all
such questions as notice. I suggest that that is
a decision made by that minister in advance
of the particular question being put to him
and is a contravention of the intent and
meaning and clear phraseology of standing
order 27.

Mr. Speaker: Without referring to the ac-
tual transcript of the proceedings I cannot,
of course, recall whether or not the hon.
minister did, in fact, say the words as pur-
ported by the hon. member for Riverdale.
I shall examine the transcript and determine
just what the hon. minister did say, discuss

it with him and if, in fact, there is a mis-
understanding or any need for any with-
drawal, I'm sure it will be taken care of.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Petitions.
Mr. Germa: Further to the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The point of order has been
disposed of at the moment.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Henderson from the standing pro-
cedural affairs cormnittee presented the com-
mittee's report which was read as follows
and adopted: Your committee has carefully
examined the following applications for Pri-
vate Acts and finds the notices as published
in each case sufficient.

The city of Waterloo.

The county of Simcoe.

St. Peter's Seminary Corp. of London.

University of Waterloo.

Esbeco Ltd.

Sue-Carib Industries Ltd.

The City of St. Catharines (No. 2).

Your committee recommends the applica-
tion of the city of St. Catharines (No. 1) be
not reported and that the filing fees be
remitted.

Your committee further recommends that
copies of the "Canadian Parliamentary Guide"
be purchased for distribution to the members
of the assembly and that the stationery and
publications allowance to members for the
current session of the assembly be fixed at
$600.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

SURROGATE COURTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend the Surrogate
Courts Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, the amend-
ment permits the surrogate court judges to
perform their duties in other counties without
the express order of the chief judge.

MARCH 9, 1972

199

EDIBLE OIL PRODUCTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to amend the Edible
Oil Products Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
the bill is to permit the blending of certain
dairy products with edible oil products and
also enlarges the authority of the Act to
make certain regulations having to do with
places where the product is manufactured
and processed.

DOG TAX AND LIVESTOCK AND
POULTRY PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend the Dog Tax
and Livestock and Poultry Protection Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the bill
removes the obligation of a local municipality
to collect a dog tax but retains the power in
the municipality to pass a bylaw providing
for the collection of licence fees on dogs.
That is really what the Act does.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN
TORONTO ACT

Mr. Givens moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend the Municipality
of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change
the title of the chairman of the metropoHtan
council to mayor of Metropolitan Toronto
and to provide that the holder of that oflfice
shall be elected at large by the voters of
Metropolitan Toronto.

An hon. member: Is the member for York-
Forest Hill going to run?

Mr. Givens: I'm going to be around here
for a long time.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): The in-
tent, Mr. Speaker, is obvious. I would draw
to the attention of you, Mr. Speaker, that the
hon. member who was to introduce it is un-
fortunately away from the chamber-
Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I must point
out this is not necessary on the introduction
of private bills.

The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

Mr. Burr moves first reading of bill in-
tittded, An Act to amend the Highway TraflBc
Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, this amendment extends the defini-
tion of the word "highway" to include pri-
vately owned parking lots where no fee is
charged for parking, such as shopping centres.

SUE-CARIB INDUSTRIES LTD.

Mr. Timbrell moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act respecting Sue-Carib In-
dustries Ltd.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF WATERLOO

Mr. E. R. Good moves first reading of bill
intituled, an Act respecting the City of
Waterloo.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Good: This bill, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Explanations

are not given on introduction of private

bills.

ESBECO LIMITED

Mr. Edighoffer moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act respecting Esbeco Limited.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the
bill.

COUNTY OF SIMCOE

Mr. Drea, in the absence of Mr. Evans,
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
respecting the County of Simcoe.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

PUBLIC LANDS ACT

Mr. Haggerty moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend the Public Lands
Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

200

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of this biU—

Mr. Speaker: No explanation is necessary.
Was this a private bill?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes.

Clerk of the House: No, it is a public bill.

Mr. Speaker: If it is a public bill, proceed.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you. The purpose
of this bill is to limit the leases of public
lands to 10-year terms; prevent leasing of
public lands that will interfere with water-
front usage of public lands by the immedi-
ate community; and prevent the leasing of
public lands to persons who are not Cana-
dian citizens or corporations which are not
Canadian controlled.

An hon. member: Very good.

ST. PETER'S SEMINARY CORPORATION
OF LONDON, ONTARIO.

Mr. Wiseman, in the absence of Mr.
Walker, moves first reading of bill intituled.
An Act respecting St. Peter's Seminary Cor-
poration of London, Ontario.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

BEDS OF NAVIGABLE WATER ACT

Mr. Haggerty moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend the Beds of Navi-
gable Waters Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: The purpose of this bill is
to provide a uniform interpretation of deeds
of property bounded by navigable waters so
that high-water marks shall be deemed to
be the boundary of such property.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the amendment
to the amendment to the motion for an
address in reply to the speech of the Honour-
able the Lieutenant Governor at the opening
of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr.
Speaker, even on a technicality, I hate to
invoke the courtesy twice. I was very grate-

ful the other day that even though all the
members knew precisely what I was going
to say, they extended me that courtesy, so
I thank them for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you upon
your election, if for no other reason than I
can assure you that you will have many
more grey hairs from my lack of procedural
ability. In fact I think I gave you some today.

Mr. Speaker: I don't want any more.

An hon. member: I don't think that's
possible.

Mr. Drea: Oh, It's possible, but I would
hope that in the ensuing time that at least
I will not cost you too many of those hairs,
because I would hate that at the end of a
parhament I might be accountable for both,
and so I extend my sympathy to you. I, un-
fortunately, know what you are up against;
you may not.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: Well, if you are going to say it,
say it a little bit louder so I can hear it.
You've been complaining about me.

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing to
me, and I am sure it is incumbent upon the
brow of everyone in the House, is that today
we face a very distinct challenge. We face a
challenge because not only in this country
but in other jurisdictions we are in a period
of turmoil and a period of change.

An hon. member: Brought on by the Con-
servative government.

Mr. Drea: Are you through?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Yes.

Mr. Drea: If it was brought on by a Con-
servative government then you are obviously
being misled by certain figures.

But, indeed, we are in a period of turmoil
and a period of change. We are in a period
of time when I think that we have to decide
between two very fundamental objectives:
Either we are going to be as fools, and I
underline "fools," and we are going to at-
tempt to run government as business; or we
are going to be realists and we are going to
try to operate government, at least the seg-
ment of government that we are in, as it
should be run, and that is as a service.

I for one am very proud to be on this side
of the House where the very first words
uttered by the government leader, the Pre-

MARCH 9, 1972

201

mier (Mr. Davis), were on behalf of people
because I think that is the fundamental objec-
tive. We are either going to have a govern-
ment for people or we are going to have a
government for programmes, and there is a
mile of difference between the two. I think
it is extremely significant that not only were
the first words uttered after the mandate of
October 21 on behalf of people, but those
very words were echoed over and over again
in the Speech from the Throne delivered by
the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor. If
there is anything certain in the Speech from
the Throne it is that we have embarked upon
a course that is for the benefit of people,
and not for that awesome thing mentioned so
often by the academics, the pundits and the
others— p r o grammes .

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe
in programmes; I don't believe in them at all.
A programme isn't worth anything unless it
means something to an individual. I am sure
that the hon. members of this House believe
with me that the fundamental objective of
the work that we do here, the deliberations
that we do here, and finally the decision-
making process that we do here, has to be
on behalf of people.

Therefore, I am very pleased, as I said a
moment ago, that the very first utterances,
and carried on through such a significant
document as the speech by the Lieutenant
Governor, were for people.

However, I may say to the hon. members
that I am somewhat disturbed by the very
many criticisms of that very document; that
it was too brief; it was carried on in such a
short period of time; that surely if we are
going to do things for people, then we must
make the documents and whatever mechan-
isms, simple. It hardly behoves us as mem-
bers of this House to stride upon the plat-
form every four years, or indeed sooner or
later whatever the case may be, and say to
people: "I promise you over and over again
that I will make government simple. I will
make it meaningful to you." It disturbs me
a very great deal that when there are at-
temps to make government simple the reac-
tion instead of desk thumping is catcalls.

And now, I would like to move into a par-
ticular area in this province that is of great
concern to me and I am sure it is of great
concern to members of this House. I think
incumbent upon all of us is— and regardless
of where we sit— I think incumbent upon us
is the realization that indeed, in this province
and in this House, we are the cornerstone of
Confederation. We may disagree in degree.

we may disagree in programming, but I think
all of us know this. And I say to you that I
welcome particularly the particular section
of the Speech from the Throne that dealt
with the fact that we are going to extend
bilingual services into areas that have not
been serviced before.

I say to you, in all candor, je me rejouis
tout particulierement de la decision qui per-
mettra I'accroissement des services bilingues
dans cette province. J'espere que nous ser-
virons d'exemple a la realisation d'un "Can-
ada Reve"— toutefois, en realite, pour les
franco-ontariens, il ne s'agit surement pas
d'un "Moncton."

And I would ask everybody in this House
to join me in ensuring that in this province
and for the franco-ontariens there will never
be a Moncton; and I think we can agree on
that without partisan belief.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: About what?

Mr. Drea: Moncton! Do you want me to
explain it?

An hon. member: You are talking about
my home province.

Mr. Drea: Would the Leader of the Oppo-
sition like me to explain it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. Drea: It would seem in this particular
country that when bilingual services are avail-
able to people who deserve bilingual ser-
vices, by a simple vote of somebody on a
municipal council they are denied, and I
would hate to see that in this province and
I am sure he would too.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But you said in this
country.

Mr. Drea: I said in this province. Are you

satisfied?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, please proceed.

Mr. Drea: Thank you. Now, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to go on to a particular area of
the Speech from the Throne that I think
affects all of us in this province, and that is
the particular area— and I am very glad to see
it— where we have begun to cope with the
problem of recycling. The particular aspect
that I would like to deal with is that we have
adopted a financing method for a particular
piece of technology that will take the aban-
doned automobile hulk off the roads or oflF
the side roads, or most particularly— and most
peculiarly to me— from the more scenic parts

202

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

of this province, because for many years the
auto wrecker's yard has 'been a blight on the
landscape.

For many years too, I think we have all
been somewhat apprehensive about some
impacts of technology. After all, it was tech-
nology in the basic steel mills that put the
abandoned automobile hulk on our highways
or in the wrecker's yard. The simple fact is
that prior to the introduction of the oxygen
lance into the open hearth furnace, the scrap
from abandoned automobiles was economi-
cally viable and therefore they were all
collected. We didn't need the introduction of
the oxygen lance. The particular things that
came into the flux of the steel flow, and
therefore more and more these hulks, these
wrecks, whatever you want to call them, were
left— an economic piece of obsolescence, but
far more, a deliberate blight on the country-
side.

The fact that this government has decided
to do something about it— to compact them
by machine— serves indication upon two
things. One, we are very serious about com-
ing to the long-term impact of something
that I think we have to realize will be with
us for the rest of our lives, and certainly on
to our grandchildren, and that is the problem
of solid wastes. They are going to be com-
pacted. Probably most of them will be
exported where the technology in the basic
steel mills is not of the degree whereby they
are not needed.

That leads me into something else, and the
something else is that all of us— and I em-
phasize all of us— are probably guilty of the
same thing: We are very emotional about the
question of pollution. Because of our emotion
I think we try to seize upon instant ideas,
instant cures, without looking at the long-
term affects. I say to you— and I probably
will say to you more than once today— this
problem is going to be with us as long as
we are here. And so when we get a com-
modity that appears to be some form of
disaster upon our society, or even something
as relatively slight as a brief disfigurement
upon the landscape, we seize upon these
instant solutions without thought to the
future.

We have a litter problem in this province;
and whether the litter is paper, or whether
the litter is metal, or whether the litter is
glass, we have that problem. But it is not
something just found on the highways and
byways; it is something that is found indeed
very close to our homes, because it is found
within the municipal garbage system. How

many of us this year, since this appears to
be a year of rising mill rates in municipal-
ities, are going to complain about those rising
costs, even though we know deep down that
those costs are based upon the removal of
solid waste from our very aflBuent house-
holds? How many times in the next few
months are all of us going to seize upon the
kind of instant solution about ban this, ban
that, charge this, charge that?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it plain
to you that I am always in favour of instant
solutions. But I think that we have to take
a long look ahead. We have to decide what
we are eventually or inevitably going to do
with those solutions.

Another jurisdiction, far out to the west
in British Columbia, seized upon emotions
and passed certain legislation. The legislation
was to clean up the countryside; it was to
eliminate litter; it was to stop pollution; it
was to do a lot of things. For those inten-
tions, I give that Legislature great credit.
But— and I would like to state it for the
record— the reality is that those intentions
just did not suffice, because the culmination
of all that instant legislation— and it was very
well-meaning, and I would hope that nobody
gets me wrong— the culmination was a $2
million payroll lost in British Columbia.

If that was all, then, maybe a $2 million
payroll is worthwhile. But it's not all. In
effect, for plunging into an instant decision,
an emotional reaction to what has to be a
long-term problem, the Province of British
Columbia is now faced with the fact that
it has lost that $2 million payroll. Their solid
waste is as much as ever. T^eir solid waste
is costing them more to dispose of. Their
solid waste is going nowhere, which is the
real threat—and I will come to that in a
moment. They have already been forced to
change that kind of legislation to set up
another kind of recycling depot, and it is
going to cost them more money.

Again, I say to you, since I see some
snickers from across the floor, I am not
arguing the fact that they acted in very good
intent. But I am saying to you that time is
of some meaning, and some thought has to be
given to a great many of these things.

First of all, were we to move into the
area of metal cans, what would we be accom-
plishing? I think that we should have to keep
in onind that in this province— and this prov-
ince is the very heartland and the very
capital of the packaging industry in this
country, regardless of the particular product
that is being packaged, whether it is metal

MARCH 9, 1972

203

or whether it is paper— we are talking in
term of $1 billion a year.

I don't particularly care about $1 billion a
year. I care about jobs and I care about the
people who work at those jobs. Were we to
listen to some of the frantic pleas and were
we to ban the metal can for soft drinks to-
morrow, we would be talking in terms of
eliminating 1,100 jobs. Mr. Speaker, I am
very glad, in regard to some of my past per-
formances or my past career, that those 1,100
jobs in the can industry are the highest paid
in this country. We would be talking about
eliminating $50 million worth of capital
investment.

If it would serve a purpose, then I am not
against $1 million or $50 million. But, I sug-
gest to you, the purpose here is that we are
not even getting down to the reality, because
the reality of the situation is that by banning
or prohibiting, we are back in the Middle
Ages where the Pope said not to use the
crossbow because it was too dangerous. I
suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the crossbow
went on and developed into infinitely more
dangerous arrangements. What I would sug-
gest to you is, based upon the Speech from
the Throne, this government has moved into
the very vital area of making a very great
distinction— and it is a very great distinction.
On the one hand, we have in this province
the most aflfluent society that has yet been
known to man. On the other hand, we have
this enormous waste problem which, as I
mentioned the other day, is even destroying
the Ontario dream that we could go on
forever with fresh new lands.

What this government is doing is rational-
izing and bringing the two together to the
point where we will use the very aflfluent
waste— if you will pardon me— from a very
aflfluent society and recycle and rechannel
it back into the very processes of production
to make an even more aflfluent society and
even more jobs.

And I say, based upon the British Colum-
bia experiment, after all was said and done
with all of this legislation, what did it matter
in terms of the solid waste disposal— less than
one per cent, or 0.8 per cent to be exact.

There is a survey— and before anybody asks
me, it was done by a Canadian company, a
100 per cent all-Canadian company— which
shows that prior to the legislation which
banned a number of these commodities and
following the legislation there was no im-
provement in the litter.

Again I come back to what I said five
minutes ago: there was $2 million in lost

payroll at a time in this country when
600,000 people were unemployed. I suggest
this is not the kind of pilot project or other
experiment that I, for one, would want to get
mixed up in at this time.

On the other hand, I suggest that while
recycling may be as old as man— and indeed
the recycling of waste products is as old as
man, because up until the last century or so
the growing of the food that kept the popula-
tion alive was based upon the utilization of
waste from animals— we are now upon a
new threshhold. We are also upon some-
thing new in this province. We have the
opportunity to be the glowing example, not
only for this province but for the rest of
Canada, but we are indeed in the fortunate
position where we can introduce the kind
of technology that can take the very worst
out of our existence, which is our waste, and
channel it back into what should be the very
best of our existence, which are new products
that will raise not only the material standard
of living, but the personal dignity of all the
residents of this province and, indeed, this
country.

For instance, we hear some criticism now
about the fact that in the future we are
going to have to harness more and more
artificial sources to produce electricity. It
may be of interest to the House that to
produce one ton of aluminum from its natural
state— from bauxite right on up into the ladle
that pours it out— takes 17,000 kilowatts of
hydro power. To recycle aluminum— that is
the tear-top tin, that little lever on a beer
can or on a soft drink can— takes but 186
kilowatts. And here we are in this province
talking about the fact that in the year 2000
we may be getting short of electricity.

Again in terms of basic steel production—
and basic steel is tin cans— we are talking
in terms of 2,700 kilowatts to produce a ton
of plate steel. To recycle it— that is, to pluck
a tin can out of the garbage and put it
through again— only costs us 700 kilowatts.

I think these are the things that this
government, by the fact that we are going
into areas that are perhaps not the most
obnoxious, perhaps not the most dangerous
—because an old hulk and an old road never
really poisoned or killed anybody— but we
are going into an area to show it can be
done and this is a measure of intention.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to
another area which I find most significant.
That particular area is the fact that some-
time within the near future we are going to
have oflFtrack betting. I will not attempt to

204

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

mislead the House. I like to play the horses
provided I pay my admission. I like to see
them run. But I must say that I have some
very, very serious misgivings about govern-
ment going into the gambling business as
such. I have some very, very, very serious
misgivings.

If government is going in solely as a regu-
latory body that is one thing; but I would
hate to see the day when the government of
Ontario is so far into the gambling business,
especially with the thing on credit, that
when we drink our morning cofiFee we see a
nice little headline, "Government garnishees
wage; no milk for kids." I think that is some-
think that we all have to think about.

When we went into another area of so-
called social enlightenment— and that was the
fundamental question of how we would dis-
tribute liquor— we made one very firm com-
mitment. You didn't buy the liquor on credit.
We weren't telling you what to drink or how
much to drink but you had to have it in your
back pocket to do it. We still have that to-
day despite our permissive society. I would
very much hate to see the day when some-
body could make a very routine phone call
and say, "Give me an if come and reverse in
a nine-horse parlay and a double quinella."

Five or six months later, we go down be-
fore the division court referee— and remember
when government does down there so do all
of us because we passed it. I would very
much hate to have my name associated with
the fact we were going to garnishee some-
one's wages because of a moment of social
weakness— especially so since we have already
in this province regardless of the area in
■which we're in more than adequate private
mechanisms to record and take bets.

I am not talking about the glorified book-
makers who have masqueraded for more than
two years because of the ineptitude of the
federal government with this little sign out-
side—the neon sign saying, "Oiftrack betting."
I am disregarding them totally. We have
already in this province more than enough
mechanisms to take bets, to record bets, to
set up a pool.

Our function, I say to you— and I sincerely
wash the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr.
A. F. Lawrence) was here because I would
say to him— our function should only be to
regulate and our function should only be to
redistribute the particular tax on the tote
board. That should be the function of the
government of Ontario. I say to you, woe
unto us if we ever get into running imder
"government of Ontario" a place to bet. I am
a betting man and I say that in all sincerity.

One last thing. Ever since I have entered
the House— and it has been very brief— I
know my presence here has been the cause
of much derision by some. It has concerned
me a very great deal that this government is
constantly accused on this side of the House
with trying to run government as business.

I have already said, and probably far too
long ago, I don't believe the business of
government is "business". The "business" of
government is servicel The "business" of gov-
ernment is peoplel And I am very proud to
see in the Speech from the Throne that we
are going to continue on in that function.

For, despite the pious academics— and I
take it by now that everybody has a pretty
good insight that I have very little use for
academics, with all due respect; and I have
equally less use for pundits— it is about time
that some government in this country of ours
restructured itself so people could under-
stand it. This is the first time that anybody
has ever tried it, because we have gone back
to the time of Confederation and we have put
basics where they belong; we are right back
to the basics. We are right back to point
number one, to personal health and welfare.
That was something very important in 1867.
We are right back to personal liberty, or
justice; and that was very important then.
We are right back to developing the re-
sources of this province; and that was very
important then. And, finally, we are right
back to trying to administer the things that
we do for people in the most eflBcient way
possible.

And I suggest to you that the reorganiza-
tion of government in this province is far
more than the little bit of jest between us.
Maybe it is fuimy to us here, as to whom the
question is asked, but I suggest to you, out
in the riding, the question to whom the ques-
tion is asked is not very meaningful. In the
riding they want some action. In the riding
they want to know where they have to go
when they have a particular problem.

In the past my career has been devoted to
the particular thing of finding out where
people had to go. And I can tell you that in
governments previous to this it was very
difficult. In governments previous to this I
didn't know.

I am very glad to say now that there are
only three general spheres. If you do have
a problem, if you are interested in the partic-
ular kinds of legislation that are going to
be adopted, if you have ideas, if you have
inquiries, we have transmitted, on this side
of the House, what has been the election

MARCH 9, 1972

205

promise of every single party that has run in
this country since 1935— and I looked it up
last night— and that is to make government
simple. And we have made government very
simple. There are only four places to go.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: We have made government very
simple; does that satisfy the members? There
are only four places to go.

Over the past we have built up artificial
barriers; not through any fault of anybody in
this House. And, to the members of the
opposition, they have had governments in
this province, they have established those
artificial barriers too. We have tried to for-
mulate departments of government that met
with the needs of the day.

Now that we are in the 1970s, and we are
planning for the 1980s, those artificial things,
those artificial barriers are no longer mean-
ingful, because, as fast as they are erected,
they are torn down by progress in our soci-
ety. So this reorganization of government has
been done, rather than being something that
has just been considered. I think I have seen
the thing about somebody from General
Motors, but General Motors couldn't do this.

In the reorganization of government I say
to you on this side of the House, and with all
due deference to the Provincial Secretary
for Justice who loaned me these words, many
of us have been too busy attempting to solve
yesterday's problems instead of planning to
avert tomorrow's. We are averting tomorrow's
problems by planning for tomorrow. On that
note I conclude my speech.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
we came in today expecting great things from
the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr.
Drea). In fact his reputation had preceded
him with such ferocity that we were all
warned before his speech began that we
mustn't criticize him because it was his
maiden speech and as a courtesy, we mustn't
heckle, no matter how we were provoked.

But that warning was unnecessary, Mr.
Speaker. For the first time in this House I
have seen a phenomenon which I didn't
think was possible. Sitting up behind me in
the gallery, there were some 100 members
of the Conservative association from one of
the ridings, and in the middle of the speech
they walked out. Never have I known a Con-
servative group to get bored so easily before.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): They are
walking out now. They knew the member for
High Park was coming.

Mr. Shulman: Apparendy I have the same
effect on Conservatives as the* previous
speaker.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): They are
all leaving now.

Mr. Shulman: Don't go away, the fun is
just beginning.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I enter this de-
bate with some regret that you are not in
your chair and are listening to the loud-
speaker somewhere in the bowels of this
building, because you and I must have words.
Everyone else has congratulated you on your
elevation, and I give you my personal con-
gratulations. You are a very fine, kindly
gentleman. However, I am not completely
satisfied with your conduct since you have
been in the chair.

This is a matter that is really terribly
important to me and, I am sure, to every
member of the House. It relates first of all
to the speech which I am beginning in this
Throne debate.

Some indication has been given by the
government that we must all be finished
within some six sessions, by the end of next
week. I reject that, sir. As I suggested to you
yesterday, there is an absolute right for
every member of this House who wishes to
participate in this debate, to do so and
to bring up the matters he will.

At the present time there are only two
occasions on which a private member of
this House can bring up any matter of im-
portance to himself or his constituency. It is
this debate and the budget debate.

We used to have a question period. Re-
member the question period? The private
members used to be able to come in here
and ask ministers of the Crown questions.
They had to submit them ahead of time
because the ministers of the Crown are not
too bright and they like to submit them to
their deputies to get the answers. We didn't
mind that too much. At least we got a
chance to get our questions in and get an
answer.

That is no more. They have changed the
name of the question period. Now they call
it the leaders' period.

206

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Every day we have a lovely debate be-
tween the cabinet ministers on the one side,
and the two leaders on the other; which is
very, very nice for them but not so nice
for the members who sit behind them.

I say to you, sir, that part of the responsi-
bility is yours. If the leaders have pre-
empted all this time, it is up to you as the
guardian of our rights to set up two question
periods. We'll have the leaders' period and
they can have their daily debate. Then we
should have the private members' question
hour which is what the original idea of the
question period was.

I have a list of the questions that have
been asked here since we began sitting.

Each day, on average, there have been
five minutes of the 45 given to all the priv-
ate members of this House, from all three
parties. It works out so that we all get one
minute a month, one question a month, if
we keep it nice and short.

That is not the purpose of the question
period. That is why my speech today— and
in coming weeks because it may take some
time— is going to take some of your patience,
sir, because I haven't been able to bring up
many of the questions which should have
been settled in the question period. We are
going to have to look after it here. I am
sure this applies to many of the other
members.

I strongly suggest to you, sir, that it is time
something was done. Let's go back, if we
must, to the other system. It had its in-
equities. The ministers had an advantage,
they were given notice ahead of time. All
well and good, at least we had our chance
and we don't have it now.

I've been trying since the beginning of this
week to ask a question which I felt to be of
urgent public importance. I was only third
or fourth on the list and it was impossible to
get in.

Today was typical. Not one of our mem-
bers got a chance. Not one of the Conserva-
tives got a chance; not one of the Liberals
got a chance. We didn't get a single question
in today from the private members. The
purpose of the private members' hour is not
a debate, it's a private members' hour. It
is a question period, supposed to be. Let's
get back to it.

I think I would like to begin my comments
that I would like to make in this debate by
giving some passing reference to the Con-
servative Party and to the Edmund Burke
Society. I have a letter here from J. Paul

Fromm, president of the Edmund Burke
Society. I think that might be words worth
reading to the members of this House because
of those members who are not aware of the
political stand of the Edmund Burke Society.
A lot of people think they are mixed up with
Social Credit and Mr. Fromm wants to set
that straight. I would like to read his quota-
tion into the record so we will all know.

The Edmund Burke Society does not
dominate Ontario Social Credit. Perhaps
only 20 per cent of our party has mem-
bership in the Edmund Burke Society. As
a person who holds membership in both
organizations I can say that many members
of the Edmund Burke Society are not sup-
porters of Social Credit and in fact prefer
the Progressive Conservative Party.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): It is their privilege.

Mr. Shulman: This is from J. F. Paul
Fromm, the president of the Edmund Burke
Society. I have always had my suspicions of
where this great support comes from, but
it is nice to see that the right people are
supporting the Conservatives.

Mr. J. A. Ren wick (Riverdale): The right
people on the right.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: A few others too, I
might add.

Mr. Shulman: And a few others we note to
our dismay. Perhaps I shouldn't go into that!

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is right.

Mr. Shulman: Mr, Speaker, I would like
to make comments about some of the new
members of the House and perhaps some of
the ministers. The minister I worry about
most is our former minister in charge of the
environment.

There have been various comments made
here about his demotion; how he was sort
of kicked upstairs to the universities. There
have been snarky comments from the opposi-
tion. We can understand the opposition mak-
ing snarky comments. It is always interesting
for me, sir, to read the hometown newspapers
that come from the various cabinet ministers'
areas, to see what is being thought back at
the grass roots; what they think their boys
are doing. It was with some-
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): This is
good old George?

MARCH 9, 1972

207

Mr. Shulman: This is good old George.

With some interest, I noticed an editorial
that came from his hometown which ex-
plained why he had been kicked upstairs.
I have been wondering about it. You know
there have been rude accusations made that
this had been done to him because he had
started taking his job seriously— he really
believed the environment was to be cleaned
up and the polluters had to be treated in the
way polluters should be— and that the Pre-
mier (Mr. Davis) was a little upset that he
took his job seriously. That was one of
them, but I didn't believe that because I
didn't think the minister would allow him-
self to be kicked upstairs if that were the
situation.

I was glad to find the real reason as it ap-
peared on February 3 of this year in his
hometown newspaper. I would like to quote
it, it is very brief.

George Kerr was put down by Bill Davis
because the Premier considers the Halton
West MPP one of his more serious threats
as a future candidate for the Premier's
job. Kerr was a John Robarts appointment
and his entry to the cabinet came at a
time when the Tories of Queen's Park
were in bad need of new blood and more
life to perk up the deadwood on the front
benches.

If I may digress for a moment. The dead-
wood on the front benches has died; we
don't seem to have anybody on the front
benches at all. But this is par for the course.
The House leader has to stay here; he is
trapped. I am glad, because I will be
getting to him in due course. But the
others have all fled.

Anyway to continue with the quotations.

Mr. Renwick: The leader and the whip,
that is all.

Mr. Shulman: To continue.

Robarts turned Kerr loose to build him-
self a political future as the cabinet's chief
newsmaker. As the Minister of Energy
and Resources Kerr established himself as
Ontario's Mr. Clean, as he talked up tough
legislation to fight pollution and clean up
the environment.

Remember those early days? Kerr was
front page material, top newsmaker, and
he was developing an army of followers
around the province; people who hked
his style, his candid manner and his easy-
going nature.

During the last leadership campaign,
Kerr was mentioned as a dark horse to
succeed Robarts. He wasn't a Davis fan.
He remained Robarts' boy wonder. He
continued to rate headlines.

It all added up to less than a senior
cabinet post. SuflFer the war against pollu-
tion; nuts on the environment; politics first.
So Kerr is sent to a job where he will
be less visible and probably less affective
in terms of pubhc service to Ontario.

Of course, replacing Kerr with Jimmy
Auld may tell us something about what
rating the environment is going to receive
by the new, new Davis government. Auld
is more tabby than tiger- Mr. Invisible,
not an aggressive Conservative.

And that's the end of the quote.

Well, I thought perhaps the members of
this House would like to know what happened
to good old George; and there we have it
straight from the horse's mouth. I hope
all members will be kind to him in the
question period, because he is suffering, he
really is.

He really got hepped on this whole pollu-
tion thing and he really wanted to do some-
thing about it. And he's so upset to see the
minister who is taking his place— Mr. Do-
Nothing there— because now he knows as
well as we know— but we won't discuss it.
Goodbye pollution, up you know what!

Well, we have some backbenchers here,
and I'd like to welcome them all. I'm sorry
they're all from the wrong party. There are
a few, a very few, who came into the oppo-
sition, but something went wrong in our
campaign. We haven't quite figured out
what it was. We hope to get it figured out
before the next election.

Practically all of the backbenchers— they're
enveloping us— are from the wrong area. I sat
over there a few moments earlier today and
I looked across at the opposition benches.
Mr. Speaker, I must tell you I was shocked.
I didn't realize there were so few of us. It
seems like a very tiny group. And so I have
to make up with volubiHty what we lack
in numbers.

Well I was delighted to see that in today's
Toronto Star one of the Conservative back-
benchers has made a speech and he's really
got big publicity. It's the member for Humber
(Mr. Leluk), and he's got a great spread in
the Star; I was very impressed by it. He
was discussing the drug problem, and that's
a very serious problem.

208

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

He was explaining how you can spot some-
one who's taking drugs if he happens to
work in your firm. The points were out-
hned there and I read them with great
interest.

The first point was watch out for someone
who's wearing sunglasses inside. That was
very interesting, and I was wondering why,
you know, people wearing sunglasses inside
might be taking drugs.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: He went on to explain that
they're wearing them so that you can't see
their pupils.

An hon. member: I see one member over
there!

Mr. Shulman: Well, I looked around the
House today and the only person wearing
sunglasses, unfortunately, was on the Con-
servative side. I went over very close to him
and I pretended to ask him a question. I
studied his pupils very carefully. They look
hke the same pupils as everyone else, but
perhaps the member for Humber knows
something that we don't.

The other thing he said, the second point,
was look out for someone who's getting
people visiting him from other departments.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: I thought that was rather
strange. But I presume he's an expert in the
field, he must know what he's doing. So I
went down and I stood in the Conservative
corridors this morning. I watched— people
were rushing in and out— and I found that
the man who was getting the most visitors
was the former Minister of Labour, he's now
the Minister of Transportation and Com-
munications (Mr. Carton).

I went and studied his pupils too. I'm
afraid I didn't learn anything from that
either. I'm not sure what you're supposed to
look for in the pupils.

But the third point, and this is the one,
this is the one that I really like, this is the
tipofiF. Watch out for people in your ojBBce
who are making a lot of phone calls! The
reason they're making a lot of phone calls,
they're setting up connections to pick up the
stuff.

Well, I alerted my caucus and we went
down and we watched carefully. And of
course we found that all the secretaries were
making a lot of phone calls. So now we know

who the pushers are and who the takers are
in this building— it's the secretaries.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that the new
member for Humber— I'm sorry he has just
left— has got his eye on the ball, he's thinking
straight and he's obviously cabinet material.
I'm looking forward to seeing him move up
in the cabinet because he will obviously be
excellent front bench material.

An hon. member: Especially in his dark
glasses!

Mr. Shulman: Well I have something more
to say about the hon. member for Humber,
but perhaps I'll wait and hope he returns.
I'd like to say this to his face.

I have another editorial here which I am
not going to read— it is rather lengthy— but it
rather intrigues me, because you all remember
that leak that appeared in the Toronto Sun a
few weeks ago where our great Prime Minis-
ter sent out a letter to all of his backbenchers
saying: "For goodness sake, don't get caught
if you are having any conflict of interest. We
don't want to have any embarrassing situa-
tions.

And so on February 10 the Journal-Record,
which is out in Oakville, somewhere near
where our Prime Minister comes from, wrote
an editorial which is headed: "If Bill Davis
is serious, let him reveal the bagmen."

What they are saying is: "Come on, old
Bill, the trouble isn't with your backbenchers
who may be voting on things on which they
have a little interest, that isn't going to
matter, it is going to pass regardless. The
trouble is, who is giving you all that money?
We really want to know who is giving you
all that money to finance the party."

I mention this with some interest, because
I have a rather intriguing story to tell you
about the financing that took place in High
Park. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you wall find
it of some interest and I will come to it very
shortly.

So I am just going to put this editorial
aside for a moment. We may have to come
back to it, because it is of some interest as
to who puts up the money to finance the
candidates.

It is of special interest to me because of
the situation that developed in High Park,
but I will tell you about that. In fact, since
we have come to that, I thiak you might be
interested ia hearing of some of the things
that happened during my election campaign.
The others may not be interested, Mr.
Speaker, but I know you'd be interested so
I'll tell you.

MARCH 9, 1972

209

You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the
insurance companies took some minor interest
in the campaign that just went by; they felt
that they had something to lose if the wrong
party got in.

They did all sorts of things. They set up
organizations and pumped in money, but they
did one great thing for which I want to thank
them publicly today, because I don't think
anyone really has thanked them publicly. I
know a lot of people over there have thanked
them privately, but I want to thank them
publicly.

They told all of their employees that they
could have all the free time off they wanted
to work for the candidate of their choice to
make sure that democracy prevailed in this
province and socialism was beaten back. Now
one of those insurance companies is Shaw
and Begg Ltd. of this city, at 350 Bloor St.
East, and they sent a letter to all their em-
ployees saying:

"Look, it is important you know, that the
right party gets in here. We want you to
get out and work and we are going to give
you time off. You are still going to get your
pay and the supervisor ^vill do everything
possible to let you have the necessary time
away from your work. If you have got a
company car in your possession, you can use
it on behalf of your candidate on election
day, and if you want to use your own car
we will pay you 10 cents a mile."

At any rate, some of the employees
didn't quite understand the message and
they went in and said: "Gee, that's great.
We are going to go out to work for Shulman."
The president of Shaw and Begg swallowed
hard— I haven't got the letter here— and to
his credit he didn't disallow me. He said:
"Well, we have got 8,443 going out for
those other guys; I guess you four can't do
any harm." He sent them out and he paid
them the 10 cents a mile.

So for my help in being re-elected I want
to thank the insurance companies, because I
do appreciate it. It helped. I am sure it
helped. It was a narrow vote.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Things are
tough all over!

Mr. Shulman: Well it was an interesting
election campaign, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal
candidate was especially interesting. She was
a beautiful young lady. Her name was Laima
Svegzda.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): When I saw her, I thought you were
in trouble.

Mr. Shulman: Well when I saw her I knew
I was not in trouble, because it was going
to be a delightful campaign and it was. And
I will campaign with her, for her or against
her at any time.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Would
the member say it was a bust?

Mr. Shulman: She was a delight, let me
say. This is the way politics should be.

In a way I was hoping she would be
elected so I could converse with her across
the floor, but there were difficulties in
arranging that. It was a pleasure campaigning
with Miss Svegzda.

I am afraid the Liberals didn't take her
campaign quite as seriously as I did unfor-
tunately. They gave her only $1,000 for the
campaign, and when they gave her this sum
they said: "Miss Svegzda, we have great
news for you. We have got $1,000 for you,
and not only that we have got a promise
from the Toronto Star of a full front-page
spread with your picture on it, which is
good for thousands of votes." And they de-
livered on both their promises. They got the
full front-page spread; they gave her the
$1,000. When that was gone, on the second
day, she called them up and said: "What do
I do now?" And they said: "Well, that's it.
You spent all there is. That's your problem."

So her campaign didn't go too well, al-
though it was of some advantage, let's say.

Mr. Givens: Would the member say it was
a bust?

Mr. Shulman: I thank the member for
York-Forest Hill. Her campaign was a mag-
nificent bust. It didn't go too well, but it got
great crowds out for our all-candidate meet-
ings.

There were two other candidates. One was
a gentleman named Geza Matrai from the
Edmund Burke Society; he based his cam-
paign on attacking Mr. Kosygin when he
arrived— he threw his arms around him— but
unfortunately that didn't quite go well be-
cause he ended up in jail and spent the whole
campaign period in jail, including election
day. He couldn't even get to vote for himself
—which is why he missed that vote but he
got three others.

Anyway, there was another candidate. The
Conservatives also nominated a candidate.
The Conservatives, let me say, were in some
difficulty. They have been in some difficulty
in west Toronto in recent years— not just in
High Park but in Parkdale, Dovercourt and

210

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Humber. They lost their base of support
there as the 1960s rolled along, and they felt
this time they had to make a massive effort
to re-elect Conservative members from the
west end.

They did all sorts of interesting things. In
Dovercourt they chose a member they felt
would get traditional support plus a little
extra support. His name was Nixon, and he
did very well in that traditionally Liberal
area. There might have been some slight
confusion there, but we are glad to see him
here. It shortens the debate and makes it a
little less excitable with that particular
change.

The same thing happened in Humber. With
the greatest of regret, I am sorry to see that
George Ben has gone because we always sort
of sat here watching the Leader of the
Opposition in trepidation and sympathy won-
dering, "What is that guy going to do to him
next?"

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: The leader would get up
and make his speech and then George would
get up and say: "That's not where the Lib-
erals stand." One day I said: *'Bob, you
should carry a dart gun; when that guy gets
up, you should give it to him." And I hope
he won't mind me repeating his comments;
he said: "I need a scatter gun."

Anyway, I am very sorry we lost George
Ben because he added a little touch of uncer-
tainty to this House. Everything is so pre-
dictable here. We know what everybody is
going to do. We know the Lieutenant Gov-
ernor is going to get up and give his great
speech, saying that everything is wonderful
in the province. The Leader of the Opposition
and the members of the other parties get up
and say everything is awful— "How can you
give such an awful speech?" It is so predict-
able.

But George was great, because whatever
you expected him to say he said the opposite.
If you got up and said something outrageous
on this side, he would get up and support
you. Then you would say something that was
really quite common sense and he would
say, '^How can you say such a horrible
thing?" There would be a great hour's dia-
tribe on the terrible things that you had said.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We miss him too.

Mr. Shulman: I really miss him, I really
do. While I am speaking of the Leader of
the Opposition, I must pay him a tribute, and
I mean this from my heart, I really do.

Mr. Givens: What heart?

Mr. Shulman: I really think the Leader of
the Opposition would have made a great
Prime Minister of this province-
Interjections by hon, members.

Mr. Shulman: —and it is with some mixed
regret that I am sorry he never had that
opportunity. Unfortunately, as Leader of the
Opposition, he had something lacking, some-
thing—we are not even sure what it is.

Mr. F. S. Miller (Muskoka): Fifty members!

Mr. Shulman: Yes, perhaps it's 50 members.

But I was sorry to see him go-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: What was it the member

said at Guelph about me being "that"

farmer"?

Mr. Shulman: I'm getting to that,

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He can repeat what he
said about his leader if he cares to.

Mr. Shulman: I was asked what the results
of the two leaders had been during the elec-
tion, and I said they both had rather disas-
trous results. I said: "On one hand, one was
too much from the city and other was too
much from the farm," But since the Leader
of the Opposition has reminded me of that—

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): As a
matter of fact, one of the editorial writers
said the member for High Park might join
the Liberal Party as leader.

Mr. Shulman: The Liberal Party? As
leader?

Mr. Worton: Yes.

Mr. Shulman: Well, I think I might have
the same problem their present leader has.
However, to come back to High Park-
Mr. J. E. BuUbrook (Samia): Too bad about

his problem.

Mr. Shulman: There was a Conservative
candidate running in High Park. He didn't
have the financial problems that the Liberals
had. His name was Yuri Shymko. He was a
very personable young man. He was a high
school teacher.

He had lots of money. He had lots of
supporters helping him and had a great deal
of help from various ethnic groups. He did
something which all of us try to do, but not
nearly as successfully. He attempted to be
all things to all men in High Park.

MARCH 9, 1972

211

Now there are various issues in High Park,
but I suppose one of the issues, or one of
the problems, is that there are many ethnic
groups in High Park— and if you can run as
the favourite son of one or more of those
ethnic groups you presumably have some
advantage.

And I think quite legitimately he decided
he should exploit whatever chance he had
there. So he appealed to the various Ukrain-
ian organizations in the riding, saying: "It is
unfortunate that the one person who is of
Ukrainian extraction in the House has been
of great disappointment to us— the hon. mem-
ber for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko)— and we
really should have someone there with a
modicum of intelligence. And so if you will
support me we will have someone of our
extraction there whom we don't have to be
embarrassed about."

I think this is a legitimate comment and a
legitimate plea for help. And as a result, these
organizations did pledge help and sent him a
lot of supporters.

This is fine, but there are other ethnic
groups in the area and he didn't want to
neglect them either. So I was a little sur-
prised to when over the Polish radio, which
we listen to, there came early in the cam-
paign: "Vote Polish, vote for your Polish
representative, your Polish candidate. Yuri
Shymko's father was a Polish miner."

Let me say the Polish miners— those are the
real tough guys in the mines in Poland— they
are not like our miners here. They don't have
ministers of northern affairs looking after the
miners there. Now when you say someone is
a Polish miner, he is really tough. I thought
maybe there was a mistake, you know, the
areas are fairly close there might have been
a misunderstanding.

However, I did get a little upset when his
Maltese pamphlet came out. Now, there are a
lot of Maltese in my riding and his Maltese
pamphlet, which is printed in Maltese, was
exactly the same as the pamphlet that was
printed in English— with one little exception.
Where it came down to his nationality that
was left out. And when it came to his
language, it said: "Only candidate who speaks
Maltese." Now it didn't actually say he was
Maltese, so I couldn't get too upset about
that.

However, the very same day the German
paper came out— and I have the German
paper here and it is called the Courier. And
here is this very great ad— and he is a very
handsome man; I really must show you, Mr.
Speaker. He is such a young, handsome boy,

and I think maybe he got bad advice. And
this ad translates: "Vote for your German
candidate. Yuri Shymko is a German uni-
versity professor."

Well he is not German; he is not- a univer-
sity professor. And I finally became a little
upset. After all, how could he be so many
things at once. I knew he was very talented,
but I did not realize he had all these talents.
So we had a public meeting and I brought
this paper to the meeting and it came my
turn to speak. And I said-
Mr. Sargent: Are you paid $18,000 for a
speech like this?

Mr. Shulman: Well, it should be more,
but what can we do? We have to take it.
They give everybody the same. If things were
equal the hon. member would get $8,000 and
I would get $28,000; but they average it out
regardless of ability.

Anyway, to continue—

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member would win
the modesty prize, too.

Mr. Shulman: I said to the candidate as
he stood there: "Is it true you're really a
German university professor?" I brought this
paper out and I said: "Could you say some-
thing in German just for the benefit of all the
German people in the audience?" And he
became very upset with me, and quite rightly
so. And he said: "It is a plot." And he said:
"I did not put that ad in the paper." And
he pointed at me: "I know who put that ad
in the paper." He didn't say who it was but
he said: "I know who put that ad in the
paper, and it is a plot against me, to dis-
credit me. Of course I am not German, of
course I am not a university professor, and
it is a plot and we are going to find out who
put it in."

"Well, I thought that if someone is plotting
against him we should expose that person.
So the next day I went down with my
campaign manager to the Courier to find
out who was this dastardly person that had
placed the ad and we found out it was a
certain Dr. B. Brown of the George Brown
College who, by coincidence, was the Con-
servative candidate's official agent.

So when I found that his own agent was
plotting against him I was worried for him.
You laiow campaigns can't go well when
your agent is against you.

Well, the campaign went along, but we
had problems. I must tell you we had a
problem out in High Park. The major issue

212

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

as it turned out was aid to separate schools,
and the riding is divided exacdy 50-50 be-
tween Roman Catholics and Protestants. So
this became a very burning issue as to what
stand you were going to take.

The Liberal candidate came out forth-
rightly and said: "I am for aid to separate
schools." And with some trepidation I came
out forthrightly and said: "I am for aid to
separate schools"; but I said it as quietly
as I could.

The Conservative candidate showed imagi-
nation. Now I must admit we weren't very
bright, the Liberal and myself. The Con-
servative showed imagination, he came to
the various audiences— and first of all we had
to speak at St. Joseph's Hospital, in front
of all the nurses, and it is a very large
Catholic group. The Liberal said: "I am for
aid to separate schools"; and there was a
great cheer. And then I said: "I am for aid
to separate schools"; and there was a great
cheer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A little louder that time!

Mr. Shulman: A little louder!

And then the Conservative got up and
said— and there was a little booing when he
stood up, because this was a solid Roman
Catholic audience— and he said:

"Elect me! They have chosen the wrong
programme; but I am a Roman Catholic, I
have gone to a Roman Catholic separate
school, my children go to the separate school,
let me be your voice.

"Elect me; let me go in there and change
their minds. The opposition can't change
their minds but I can work from within, I
can change their minds."

And he got a very big hand. Well that
was very nice.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): J. W.
Spooner did the same thing.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): It was done in
Yorkview too.

Mr. Shulman: Ah, but there was a little
difference here.

The next night we went to the Baptist
church; and the Baptists weren't exactly in
favour of aid to separate schools, let us say
they weren't enthusiastic for aid to separate
schools. And something had made me suspect
that perhaps the Conservative wasn't going
to say exactly the same thing; so we brought
along a tape recorder and we put it in the
back of the pews, for which I was very

severely criticized by the Conservatives after-
wards, for secretly taping this speech.

But anyway, I confess I did it secretly,
and I apologize; it was a terrible thing to go
into a church with a tape recorder. But let
me read it; it is very brief but it speaks
from the heart, and we know how Conser-
vatives speak from the heart. And I quote:
We must remember that 75 per cent of
all the Catholic students from grade 8
go to public high schools. Only 25 per
cent go to separate schools. If the other 75
per cent receive aid and move to a separate
system, you will have to build schools for
the separate system.

A separate system. The next thing they
will ask for is a separate curriculum, a
separate teachers' college, even a separate
Department of Education.

They won't be content wdth up to grade
13; they wdll want it from kindergarten
until you get your BA.

End of quote.

Now this is the way to be a politician. All
these amateurs sitting around here not know-
ing how to talk to the people. No wonder we
don't get elected, no wonder we can't form a
majority, you have to tell people the right
thing.

Mr. Worton: At the right time!

Mr. Shulman: At the right time!

Now obviously, by the hosts of Conserva-
tives surroimding us, they have learned their
lesson.

Now, I did something very unsporting, and
I apologize to the candidate and to the Con-
servative Party for doing this, it really was
very mean of me and I should not have.

The day after that we were due to speak
at St. Michael's College, I went down and
I spoke first, then the Liberal spoke; and
then Mr. Shymko made his "I am a Catholic"
speech. I had brought along my little tape
recorder, and I couldn't resist— the devil had
hold of me—

Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Where
was the member's camera?

Mr. Deans: Is the (member's name Flip
Wilson?

Mr. Shulman: I couldn't resist— and I apol-
ogize, I really do— I played his speech back.
And the riotous scene that ensued— you
should have seen it, Mr. Speaker, because it
would have warmed your heart.

MARCH 9, 1972

213

Before the candidate fled from the venge-
ful students who were converging on him
he accused me of being— well I can't remem-
ber all the great adjectives; unethical, im-
proper, unfair, dishonest— for deigning to
take, in a sacred place of worship, a speech
that was just meant for that sacred place of
worship.

Well he didn't just appeal to all people, he
had a platform; and I was glad, he had an
interesting platform. He had a platform
which in some cases I found unanswerable.

We went to Humberside School and there
were 1,000 people in the audience and we
all had to present our platform. When the
Conservative got up to speak he said: "Elect
an independent group. We Conservatives
don't depend on receiving money from any-
one. We speak for the people. Now the
socialist candidate— some people call him
sociahst; some have a worse word— now the
socialist candidate in this riding is a tool of
the labour union. Did you know that the
AFL-CIO sent $194 million up to the NDP
in 1969?"

You know, if $194 million was sent up, I
sure didn't see it! I didn't get my piece. I
was paying for my own election campaign
and I was a little upset to realize that some-
where hidden away we had $194 million.
We could have used a little of it for the
election.

Mr. Bullbrook: Where is the member's
leader today?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Spending
the $194 million.

Mr. Shulman: He is a little worried be-
cause I am speaking so he is speaking to a
university student group!

In any case, I was a little upset, so I asked
him: "What is this $194 million. Where did
you get that information." He said: "It was
in all the newspapers." I said, "Well, can I
see that newspaper?" He said, "Well, it was
back in 1969 and I didn't save it, but every-
body knows; it is in the congressional records,
they sent $194 milhon!"

As I sit here this past week, I only v^dsh
that Mr. Shymko, the Conservative in High
Park, would let the member for Scarborough
Centre know about that $194 million because
the member for Scarborough Centre has a
bill to stop us sending money to the unions in
the States. Apparently, the member for Scar-
borough Centre thinks that the unions in the
States are living on our funds, on the funds
of the unions here in Canada. Apparently,

the Conservatives in west Toronto think we
are living on the funds from the unions in
the United States.

I am not sure which one is right, but I
do wish the two would get together and in-
form me which is correct so I would know
which position I have to defend. It is very
confusing. On one hand, I was standing up
there defending our receiving $194 million;
now I have to say it is perfectly proper for
us to send money down to the unions in the
States. You know something? They are both
full of— something or other. Anyway, I don't
really think that $194 million figure was quite
accurate.

Actually, after I got back, I got in touch
with the headquarters in Saskatchewan— the
money was supposed to have been sent to
Saskatchewan— and there had been a cheque
received as it turned out. I had said there
was no money received; it turned out I was
wrong and the Conservative was right or at
least partially right. A cheque had come up
during the campaign. Unfortunately it was
for $194, not $194 million! It had grown a
little as the news had been transmitted from
Saskatchewan.

There were other intriguing things that
happened during the campaign. The major
point on which the Conservative based his
campaign to be elected was that they had a
non-active member, someone who didn't do
anything, who was never in the House. He
based this on an article written by that
terrible reporter from that terrible paper,
the Toronto Telegram. The reporter is Eric
Dowd; he had written an article saying I
was never here.

By the way, that terrible reporter is now
that wonderful reporter, Eric Dowd, who
works for that wonderful paper, the Toronto
Sun. My colleague! Things change; politics
change; people, situations.

In any case, he had this little piece of
paper which he copied— I think he had made
40,000 copies— about how I am never in the
riding. "Do you want a member who is never
there? Elect an active full-time Conservative."

As we look across at the active full-time
Conservatives, we can see what he meant.
He knew what he was talking about!

There are one, two, three, four, five— there
is almost a 10th of the seats filled. So he
knew. I compliment him. He knew what he
was doing.

I had one embarrassing situation occur. I
must confess, Mr. Speaker, I am still em-
barrassed about it. I was having some prob-
lems with the ethnics. My ethnic background.

214

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

unfortunately, is not the same as 99.99 per
cent of the people in the riding which elected
me, and the Conservative candidate who was
running against me was basing his appeal on
his ethnic background. He appealed to the
20,000 persons of his own ethm'c background
living in the riding to support him, which is
quite legititmate; I don't criticize that at all.
However, what bothered me in the middle
of all this excitement was I received a letter
from the Canadian Jewish Congress and they
said: "We demand that you not use your
Jewish background to solidify the Jewish
vote." There are only two Jewish voters in
High Park and I didn't answer that letter. I
think I became a little apoplectic. I didn't
know quite what to say.

However, after the campaign was over, I
got another letter from them. It was a very
nice letter. It is very brief and I would like
to read it to you. I am glad the member for
Downs view is here; he will enjoy this letter
especially. I am not familiar with the name
but it is a Jewish organization which appar-
ently represents the Jewish people, or some
of them in this city. They congratulated me
on being elected and said:

We are indeed most mindful of the fine
contribution you are making on the Ontario
scene and we are very proud to claim you
as one of our own. May you go on to even
greater heights.

Yours sincerely.

I was very proud and very pleased until I
happened to notice the salutation and it said
"Dear Mr. Singer"!

Mr. BuUbrook: Now you are sending it to
him!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. I. Deans (Went worth): Will you send
Shulman his now?

Mr. Shulman: Well, that was the lighter
side of the campaign, Mr. Speaker. Unfor-
tunately there was a more serious side to the
campaign, and it is something I have hesi-
tated for some lengthy time before bringing
to this House, but I think it is important and
serious enough that I should bring it here.
Some of the people who sit here are aware
of it already.

It was a dirty, unprincipled campaign run
by the Conservative Party, the facts of
which I wish to present to you today, be-
cause I hope they— or some of them— will
dissociate themselves from the things that
occurred in High Park during the last provin-

cial election. I would be ashamed to be a
member of a party that did the things that
your party did, and I am going to detail it,
date by date.

On Wednesday, September 15, one of the
Conservative workers came to my o£Bce and
said he was very upset at what was happen-
ing at Conservative headquarters. Instructions
were being given to all the campaign workers
that in their work in going door to door they
were to stress my Communist background
and my racial background. Quite frankly, I
did not believe it. But I felt the man— I have
known him for some years; he is a patient-
was reliable enough that we should check
this out. So I hired a detective agency and
we sent in two volunteers to Conservative
headquarters to see what, in fact, they were
saying.

On Wednesday, September 22, the two
volunteers were instructed to come to a
briefing session which took place at Con-
servative headquarters. There were some 20
persons sitting about the room. The campaign
manager said: "You are now going to get
your campaign instructions. They will be
given to you by Miss Irma Patterson who is
going to handle this aspect of the campaign."
Miss Patterson was introduced. She then
said: "We are going to win this campaign.
We are going to beat Shulman. By the time
this campaign is over, no one will vote for
him. We are going to pin the Commie label
on him,"

She went on to tell them things they were
to say door to door. She started off with why
I was fired as chief coroner. Her explanation
was that there had been a fire at the Work-
men's Compensation Hospital and there
were bodies lying everywhere. I was called
on a Saturday but didn't show up. They
called me again on the Sunday; I didn't show
up. I finally appeared on the Monday with
my family and, with the bodies lying all
about, held a press conference with my pic-
ture being taken for the use of the Toronto
papers.

She went on to say: "He is dishonest. He
bought stock and didn't pay for it. The
police are still trying to get the proof so
that they can send him to jail, because they
haven't been able to tag him yet. He is a
terrible doctor; he is incompetent; he doesn't
know what he is doing. He is a bad Jew.
He puts up Christmas lights,"

It does sound ludicrous, doesn't it?

Mr. Johnston: That dame is about as weird
as the member is.

MARCH 9, 1972

215

Mr. Shulman: If it had stopped there it
would not have been so bad. Unfortunately,
this type of instruction was given to people,
many of whom are not Canadians; as it
turned out many of whom come from a
Middle Eastern background where this type
of hate campaign can whip up. They became
whipped up, and within days we began to
run into very serious difiBculties.

The first thing that happened was on
Thursday, September 30, when Mr. James
Nugent and Mrs. Lillian Miller were going
door to door in the north end of the riding
on Maria Street. A call came in— and let me
say at this time we cannot prove who made
this call, but you will see it fitting in with
other evidence later on, where we do know
who did it— and we were told that unless
they were taken off Maria Street and taken
off the ethnic homes there they would be
killed. They were quite frightened. Every-
body gets crank calls and we did not pay
much attention to that We reassured them
and sent them back out.

That was on the Thursday. On the Satur-
day, I was campaigning personally on Bloor
Street West. I parked my car on Dorval Road
and when I came back an hour later a brick
had been thrown through the window, the
car had been filled with mud and there was
a Conservative sign under the brick. That was
Saturday, October 2. We complained to the
police, but of course there was nothing they
could do.

On Wednesday, October 6, a pamphlet was

distributed through the riding, supposedly by

the NDP. Let me read you— it's a phoney, of

course— some of the things in this pamphlet:

We recommend the provision to relevant

nations, such as some in the Caribbean, of

financial aid to enable them to expropriate

private Canadian property on their soil.
Universities— We recommend the tuition

fees be abolished to free the student from

dependence on his family.

We recommend the cessation of sales of

strategic resources, such as nickel and

uranium, to the USA and governmental

allies of the USA, whether in Europe, Asia

or Latin America.

And it goes on— reportedly an NDP pamphlet
but completely phoney. It was distributed in
a blitz. They went to the apartment houses,
starting on the top floor, A group of men
quickly descended to the bottom, ran out into
cars and disappeared. We couldn't prove who
did it. But by this time I was suflBciently dis-
turbed.

This was Wednesday, October 6. On Thurs-
day, October 7, I phoned the Prime Minister
of this province and I told him what was
happening in High Park riding and he was
upset. He said he was upset. He said to me:
"I hope you realize I have nothing to do with
this and would not, in any way, condone
such actions." Then he went on: "I give you
my word, it will be stopped within the hour."

I couldn't have asked for anything more,
because I had the word of a man whom I
trust, whom I believe in and who, I believe,
is a sincere, honest human being. But unfor-
tunately, whatever he did had no effect what-
soever.

In fact the campaign immediately quick-
ened. The next day, Friday, October 8, a man
was going door to door saying that I had to
be beaten because, if I wasn't beaten, the
Communists were going to come into power.
Fortunately, one of the people was so upset,
when he heard this, that he followed the
man, and we got his name. They followed
him back to Conservative headquarters. His
name is Danich Ziokovic. He lives at 165
Maria Street. He had been given these in-
structions at Conservative headquarters. He
was doing what he had been told to do.

The very next day, Saturday, October 9,
occurred one of the most unpleasant and
distasteful episodes in this election campaign.
The day before, Mr. Ray Zarbelny, who Hves
a 440 Willard Avenue— he is the personnel
manager of the separate school board— had
come to my oflBce and volunteered to help.
He said: "What can I do?" I said: "Great,
take a poll and go door to door in your own
neighbourhood and put up a sign in front of
your house. It'll help convince the people in
your area."

The next day, Saturday, October 9, a man
whom he recognized, came to his door, called
him a traitor because of the "Communist"
sign in front, ordered him to take the sign
down immediately and stop working for me
or he would come back with a gang to "fix
him." I'm quoting. The man was recognized
as one of the Conservative workers.

I can't blame Mr. Zarebelny. He phoned
me up; he said: "I have a family; I can't
afford to take a chance." He took down the
sign. He stopped working for us. He said: "I
can't go door to door for you. They won't
know how I vote, I'll still vote for you but
I'm afraid to work for you.

So we lost that worker. We called the
police, PC Schroeder investigated, but, again,
he said: 'What can we do? There were no

216

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

witnesses. It was one man saying it to an-
other. How do we prove it?"

That was Saturday, October 9. On Mon-
day, October 11, we received a complaint
from Colbeck Street that a man was going
door to door distributing Conservative litera-
ture saying: "We have to beat Shulman, the
Communist Jew. They took the licence nmn-
ber of his car. It was a blue Rambler,
licence number 522-588. We followed him
back to Conservative headquarters. His name
is Peter Sanavyn. He had been given instruc-
tions at Conservative headquarters what he
was to say going door to door.

That very same day I received a complaint
that the Ivan Franco Home, which is an old
persons' home on High Park Gardens, had
refused entry to NDP canvassers. You may
recall there is also an Ivan Franco Home out
on Royal York Road, which is in Humber
riding, and at that particular establishment
you may recall that the Leader of the Oppo-
sition, the member for Brant, and the then
sitting member for Humber, were refused
admission, as was the NDP candidate. They
would only allow admission of the Conser-
vative candidate in the riding.

That was out of my area and I wasn't too
worried about that, but when I received
information that my people had been refused
admission to the home on High Park Gar-
dens, I phoned up and said I personally
wanted to come. I spoke to the woman in
charge, a Mrs. Pasternak, and she said: "Well,
we are very busy here. The only time that's
free would be at 10:30 Thanksgiving morn-
ing." I said: "Fine, I'll be there at 10:30
Thanksgiving morning."

Because most of the people in the home
are very elderly and do not speak English,
I took two interpreters with me, two of my
workers of Ukrainian and Polish extraction
who speak those languages fluently. And we
were welcomed— or at least we were allowed
in. The old persons were brought down from
their rooms into the central area and I began
by saying: "My name is Morton Shulman.
I am the NDP candidate in this area, and I
am asking that you vote for me for re-
election."

Mrs. Pasternak, the lady in charge, said:
"I will translate for you." She then spoke to
them in Ukrainian and said: "I have just
translated what you said." The gentleman
who was with me, the one of Ukrainian
origin, said: "That isn't exactly what she said.
What she said, was. There are three
parties in this province. There is the Con-
servative Party, which helps us and gives us
money for this home; there is the Liberal

party, which does nothing for us; and there
is the NDP, which hates all ethnics."

I didn't think this was too literal a trans-
lation of what I had said, so when my inter-
preter told me I remonstrated with Mrs.
Pasternak and I said: "If you don't mind, I
will have my own interpreter translate for
me from here on in." She said: "You cer-
tainly will not. You are only here through
my courtesy and you will do as we say."
I was a little upset about that and I said:
"Well, we are going to try to talk to them."

I said: "Is there anything I can do for
any of you? Can I assist you in any way?
Do you have any complaints?" My inter-
preter translated that, whereupon Mrs.
Pasternak became very upset and said: "If
anyone has any complaints, they can leave
here immediately. We are not going to have
anyone with complaints here. If they have
complaints, they will be thrown out."

And I said: "Don't be frightened. If you
have any complaints, you can tell us. If you
are afraid to say anything now, have your
relatives write me. And if there are any com-
plaints, I'll see that an inspector comes from
the Department of Social and Family Services
and things will be rectified here."

She said: "Oh no they won't." And I said:
"Oh yes, this is a public nursing home and
if there are any complaints that are legiti-
mate, she'll have to rectify the things that
are wrong here or else the place will be
closed." She said: "Don't you dare say that;"
whereupon we were thrown out bodily and
that was the end of the interview.

That was Monday, October 11. Next day,
which was the 12th, the two Ukrainian news-
papers appeared on the streets and there
was a letter purporting— I use the word "pur-
porting"— to appear from one of the elderly
residents of the home, saying: "Dr. Shulman
came to the Ivan Franco Home on High
Park Gardens and if the NDP is elected, the
home will be closed and all the old people
will be thrown out in the streets."

I have a little more to say about that home
and the then Minister of Social and Family
Services (Mr. Wells), but we will come to
that a little later.

The next day, Tuesday, October 12, a
Conservative caonpaign worker came to 35
Marmaduke Street, which happened to be the
address of a patient of mine, and said— and
I quote— "Shulman is not only a Communist
but also a member of the Mafia." I must
admit that one threw me a bit, because I
have never been given credit for that par-
ticular allegiance.

MARCH 9, 1972

217

But, more seriously, on the very same day
a large black swastika was painted on the
side of my ofBce on Roncesvalles Avenue.

At 7:40 that night there was a public
meeting of all the candidates, and I had
spoken to Mr. Roman Melnyk, who is the
president of the Ukrainian Heritage Associa-
tion. He is a very fine gentleman, a lawyer,
and he is completely bilingual; although
he is a Conservative, he is a thinking Con-
servative—a rarity, I must admit. I told him
of the terrible things that were happening
and he said: "I can't believe that Shymko
knows this is going on. It must be some of
the people who are working there who are
doing this. Please let me get you together
and tell him what is happening and I am
sure this can be stopped. So 20 minutes
before this meeting I met with the Conserva-
tive candidate. He asked for the details; I
gave him all the details. He said he would
investigate it and would let me know.

When the meeting began 20 minutes later,
by the luck of the draw he was the first
speaker. Let me say I was a little surprised
when he got up and said: "There have been
serious accusations made about some of the
workers in my campaign. Let me say I have
made a thorough investigation and there is
no basis to any of them." Obviously his in-
vestigations are similar to the type of in-
vestigations we see from the right side of the
House, and I use the word "right" ad-
visedly. That was Tuesday, October 12.

Wednesday, October 13, the Syrena Stamp
Store at 2049 Dundas Street West made the
mistake of putting my picture in the window
with a "Vote for Shulman" sign underneath.
Three men entered the store at 8:45 p.m.
that night and told the owner that he would
lose all his customers if he didn't remove
the picture. He refused. One of them
knocked over his chocolate bar display. An
argument developed with a customer who
was in the store, and the customer was
knocked in the nose. There was blood every-
where and the customer was taken to the
hospital.

The next day, October 14, one of my
workers went to 33 Parkway Avenue where
she was driven from the door by the cries of,
"Dirty Communist." Well, it was a private
home and you can say what you wish in a
private home. But I want to tell you the
name of the person who said this because
this woman happens to have some significance
as we go along. Her name is Mrs. Julia
Sanocka and she lives at 33 Parkway Avenue.

I am mentioning her name because she is
guilty of personation, which I will tell you
about shortly. She was a Conservative scruti-
neer; she voted, and I will tell you about that
very shortly.

October 15: another Conservative worker
on Marmaduke Street and this is a new one,
said: "Shulman, because he is bad medicine,
has been taken oflF the medical rolls."

October 16, and this was a new switch,
Mr. Roman Melnyk called me and said: "I
am very upset with you, Dr. Shulman. I just
received a phone call from Irma Patterson."
Remember Irma Patterson? She was the lady
that was giving all the instructions at Con-
servative headquarters. She informed him;
she called Melnyk and said: "You know what
that Shulman did now? He sent me a note
today asking how I could work for a stupid
honk." Well, I don't use terms like "honk,"
and I have never written a note to Irma
Patterson ever. When Mr. Melnyk told me
this, I said: "It is just a lie. Ask her to pro-
duce the note, because I didn't send any such
note." He phoned her back and said: "May
I see the note?" But she had misplaced it; she
couldn't find it.

Another problem was that our signs had
been disappearing. We wanted to find out
who had been doing it, so we put out people
watching. That day we caught a 14-year-old
boy, the son of one of the Conservative
campaign workers, at 373 Armadale ripping
down the signs. We didn't lay any charges
because of his age.

The next day, October 17, one of my
workers who had gone with me to the
Ivan Franco Home has his aunt as a patient
in that home, so he went to visit her. This
was not a political visit; he was just going as
a visitor. He was not allowed in to see her.
He was driven away with the cries of: "We
don't allow Communists in here."

The next day, October 18, in front of the
Brighton Theatre on Roncesvalles Avenue,
signs were painted, "Dr. Shulman and Zion-
ists out." The same signs appeared up on
Bloor Street. Swastikas also appeared in front
of the Polish church where the minister had
suggested that I was worthy of some support.

The same day Karen's Boutique, which is
a little store on Roncesvalles Avenue, had the
awning torn because they put a sign up, and
the people ripping the sign ripped the awn-
ing down. More serious— the store next door,
the barber's supply shop, which had put a
picture of mine in the window, had a brick
thrown through the window and a phone call

218

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

immediately after saying, "If you put a Con-
servative sign up, you will have no more
bricks."

The next day a letter was delivered to
every Maltese home in the riding in Maltese
— an anonymous letter — saying: "Don't vote
for Laima Svegzda; she can't help you, she
has no support. Don't vote for Shuhnan, he
only helps his own people. The only person
who looks after all the people and is fair and
honest is the Conservative. Vote for the Con-
servative."

Finally we came to election night. On
election night a man phoned me who had
been working throughout for the Conserva-
tive candidate and he said: "I have worked
for him throughout all this but something has
finally happened that I can't tolerate. They
have 200 ringers who are going to vote to-
morrow who are either not citizens, or are
from out of the riding, or are going to vote
more than once. One of the polls you should
watch specifically is number— I have it here
—189, because they have about 20 ringers
they are going to vote there."

We made a special point the next morning
of watching that particular poll. The first
person to vote was the Conservative
scrutineer, a woman by the name of Julia
Sanocka. I may have mentioned her earlier.
She is not a Canadian citizen. She has only
lived in Canada two years. She is a citizen
of, I believe, the Soviet Union, or of Poland;
I am not sure which. My scrutineer phoned
me as soon as she had voted and said: "We
caught the first one." And I immediately
called the police and ran over there myself.

As my car came up, I parked in front and
ran in and went up to the deputy returning
officer, and her name is Donata Rogocki, and
I said: "This woman is guilty of personation
and I demand that you follow the regulations
which you have in front of you on the desk";
and I have a copy of them here. The regula-
tions read as follows:

It is your duty to take the raformation
of the person making the charge of per-
sonation on oath when requested to do so
by a candidate or scrutineer. You may
either on your own or at the request of
anyone proposing to lay such a charge, de-
tain or direct the detention of the person
against whom the charge is being made
until an information is laid and a warrant
for his arrest issued.

And then the definition is given:

Every person who votes when not quali-
fied to do so is guilty of personation.

There is no question she was guilty of per-
sonation. Well Mrs. Rogocki said: "Well, I
have to get instructions from the returning
officer," and she went to phone. Five minutes
passed and a car screeched to a stop in front
of the building. I had moved back into the
kitchen and the person getting out of the car
couldn't see me. Guess who it was? It was
Miss Irma Patterson.

Remember Miss Patterson, in charge of
Conservative headquarters? And she came
running in and she ran up to Miss Sanocka.
"You must leave immediately. We have got
certain information. You have to get out of
here. We need you somewhere else."

And I said: "Oh, no, she doesn't," and I
came out from the back of the building.
"Oh, no, she's not going anywhere." And
just at that moment, fortunately, the police car
came up and a policeman came in and I gave
them the evidence. He said: "Well, it is very
clear here; it is very clear she is guilty of
personation. It is very clear here the deputy
returning oflficer, having heard the instruc-
tions, must hold that person and lay the
charge."

But the deputy returning officer came back
from the phone and said, "I have received
instructions from the returning oflficer in the
riding that I am not to lay the charge."

And the returning oflficer of the riding,
when I phoned her at that point and said,
"How can you give these instructions," re-
plied: "I didn't know what to do so I phoned
the chief electoral oflficer, Mr. Lewis, and he
said the charge was not to be laid."

What proof do you need of personation
when you catch them red-handed; and he
said the charge was not to be laid. So I said
to the policeman: "Don't you dare let that
woman go." And I called the Crown attorney
for Metropolitan Toronto and he said: "All
right, give me all the information. I don't see
any reason to arrest her. We will summons
her later. Let her go."

They let her go and guess what happened.
I get a phone call two weeks later: "We are
not going to lay any charges because there
was no intent. She said she didn't know she
wasn't allowed to vote, and chief electoral
oflficer. Rod Lewis, agrees with our decision."

So now ignorance of the law is an excuse?
If you say you didn't know you weren't
allowed to vote, you can go in and do it?

Can the Conservatives get away with ballot
stuffing? They have got one guy on the front
bench ballot-stuflFed in here and I'll bet they
are sorry they did.

MARCH 9, 1972

219

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Those
guys were pretty desperate in the last election
after blowing $6 million.

Mr. Shulman: Well that isn't the end of
this sorry story, I am sorry to say.

All right, they got away with every dirty
trick in the book and it didn't really help
them any. They couldn't win that riding any-
way. It was an exercise in building up
people's passions and building up hate, which
will serve them ill in other parts of the
province and is serving them ill right now in
High Park because people aren't stupid.
Every ethnic group reacted against this.

The result was I got a bigger majority
than before. I got 58 per cent of the vote
instead of 49 per cent of the vote. It didn't
help the Conservatives but they done a lot
of damage to inter-racial relations out there
and everywhere else and they sihould be
ashamed and someone from that side should
disown it; nobody has. And someone from
that side should disown Yuri Shymko.

Let me tell what has happened now.
Yesterday I got a letter— the final, final sad
thing in this horrible story— I get a letter
from one Kurt Jeppesen, owner of Kurt Signs
Limited, and he says: "Can you do some-
thing so I can collect my money, owing to
me by the Conservatives?"

I will just read a copy of the letter which
he sent to the Conservative:

Dear Mr. Shymko:

During the last provincial election my
company was engaged to supply campaign
material for you as a Conservative candi-
date in the High Park riding. The charges
for this material were as follows—

He goes on and lays out the charges. Then
it says:

Balance due and outstanding— $1,637.40.
I have consistently been promised payment
on this long overdue account, but to date
have not received full amount. Being a
small manufacturer I am unable to carry
such a large amount for five months.

The work was undertaken in good faith
and under a very small profit margin,
barely enough to cover my overhead for the
time involved. I am sure that the party, the
candidate and the candidate's agent would
not want this made public. Please pay me.

Yours sincerely,
Kurt Jeppesen.

Mr. Renwick: The big blue machine.

Mr. Shulman: So I phoned Mr. Jeppesen
and I said: "Is there some misunderstanding?
Maybe the candidate doesn't know that you
haven't been paid." He said: "I spoke to him
just yesterday. He said the Conservatives
promised to give him the money for the
campaign but never came across."

I knew that the government opposite did
lots of dirty things; but 1 didn't know it
doublecrossed its own candidates.

He is not the nicest candidate in the
world, he is not the best candidate in the
world, but at least pay his bills. You are not
doing him a favour; you are doing a favour
to the small people who are victimized by
the Conservative party.

We read the statement of receipts and
expenditures and I understand why he is in
some difficulties. His receipts were only
$18,369.28-enough to run four of our
campaigns— his expenditures went somewhat
over $24,209.88. So he decided not to pay
the small printer.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sorry story and if I
were a member of the Conservative party
today I would be ashamed. I am ashamed
even though I haven't been a member of that
party for 10 years. It is an embarrassing
thing. I am embarrassed that it could happen
with any political party today. The Social
Credit wouldn't do anything like that; the
Birchers wouldn't do anything like that; the
Edmund Burke Society wouldn't do anything
like that. It had to be the Conservative party.
I am ashamed for all of you.

Mr. W. Hodgson: The member is sorry for
himself.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): We never thought
they were that bad.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): The member
is all right, though.

Mr. Ferrier: Is that the way they do things
up in Algoma?

Mr. Shulman: Unfortunately this wasn't the
only riding here the Conservative party got
a little desperate. I could spend two days talk-
ing about what went on in St. Andrew-St.
Patrick, and there they were really desperate.
If there is one man who should not be sitting
in the House, it is the man who purports to
represent the people of St. Andrew-St. Patrick
(Mr. Grossman). They did things in other
ridings which were not as flagrant, although
there is one in Humber I must tell you about.
I think you will find that amusing.

220

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

That reminds me, I must come back to the
Ivan Franco Home. Remember the Ivan
Franco Home? They had an interesting ex-
perience on election day. We were smart
enough in High Park to put scrutineers in
that particular area, but in Humber they
must have been short of scrutineers because
neither the Liberals nor the NDP put a
scrutineer into—

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): We won didn't
we?

Mr. Shulman: Yes, the member won all
right— put a scrutineer into poll 62B. That is
the poll at the Ivan Franco Home. There
were 86 votes cast and the vote was as
follows: Leluk— 85; Cummings— 1; Ben— 0.

I was rather intrigued — hear them clap;
I wonder if they will clap in a minute.

Mr. Leluk: Let's hear it.

Mr. Shulman: The persons in that home
are elderly people, most of whom do not
speak English. The morning of the vote they
were told: "We will have someone mark
your ballots for you." Only four of the
people objected. One of them insisted on vot-
ing himself. I wonder who she voted for?
That one person went under such severe
pressure that she had to leave the home.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Is that
what you Conservatives clapped for?

Mr. Shulman: That is how the Conserva-
tives get votes and they have the gall to
stand there and clap for it.

Mr. Leluk: Claptrap, claptrap.

Mr. R. Cisbom (Hamilton East): Shame on
them.

Mr. Martel: The epitome of society.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, there was an
aftermath of this situation in the Ivan Franco
Home. I received letters from relatives of
the residents complaining that the patients
were being mistreated. I waited until the
election was over and the heat of all this
passion had dissipated somewhat.

At that time I was debating what to do
when several of the employees of the home
came to my oflBce and said: "The patients
are being very badly treated in that home.
In some cases they are not receiving their
proper medication. In some cases they are
being actually mistreated by the woman in
charge, Mrs. Pasternak." What could I do
about it? I said: "There is not much I can do.

We lost the election but I'll get in touch with
the minister in charge-
Unfortunately, it was the member for
Scarborough North (Mr. Wells)— and see
what can be done. We don't expect much
from the member for Scarborough North but
we think he can understand a simple little
think like this." So I wrote him a letter-
Mr. Martel: That is stretching it.

Mr. Shulman: It was expecting too much,
as it turned out.

Mr. Martel: That is still stretching it.

Mr. Shulman: I wrote him a letter on
November 18 and I told him about the com-
plaints that had been received from patients
and from staff. I sent him a copy of one of
the letters I had received from the mother of
one of the patients and I asked— and I'll read
the last line— "I hope you will see that the in-
mates of the home are visited by a Ukrainian-
speaking inspector who has the opportunity
to speak to them individually and privately.
Yours sincerely."

I didn't hear back from the minister but I
did get a visit some three weeks later from
three employees of the home who said: "What
kind of help are you giving us? Someone
came to the home to investigate and the
employees and the residents were all ques-
tioned in front of Mrs. Pasternak. What did
you expect us to do, lose our jobs and tell the
truth? Of course, we couldn't tell the truth,
we were afraid of our jobs. The residents
were afraid of being mistreated after the in-
spectors left. No one was willing to speak
up.

That is typical of the minister, as we recall
what he has been like in his previous port-
folios. Thank God he is in education. Maybe
some of it will rub off now.

In any care, I wrote him again on Decem-
ber 15:

Dear Mr. Minister:

You may recall I wrote to you of the
Ivan Franco, a home for the aged, on
November 25. Subsequent to my letter, an
investigation was held by three members
of your department, including one who
spoke Ukrainian. Yesterday, I was visited
by a delegation of three employees of the
home who informed me all the interviews
took place in the presence of Mrs. Paster-
nak, the administrator, and the persons
interviewed were afraid to answer truth-
fully for fear that they would be ejected
from the home.

MARCH 9, 1972

221

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that the Indian Road
home?

Mr. Shulman: No, it is on High Park
Gardens. It is at the comer of Indian Road.
No, it's not. It's at the corner of—

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The one I went to?

Mr. Shulman: No, the Leader of the Op-
position went to the one out on Royal York—
that is the same management. I'll finish the
quotation:

I then phoned the head of the team that
did the investigation for you— a Mr. Penny
—who responded to my complaint by say-
ing that he would call Mrs. Pasternak to
check if the investigations were done
properly This really is a farcical form of an
investigation. I once again request that a
proper investigation take place.

Yours sincerely,

Morton Shulman.

Well, that was December 15. Nothing hap-
pened. Weeks went by and on January 25 I
received another complaint from other people
who had been in the home so I wrote again
to the minister.

Dear Mr. Minister:

When can I expect a reply to my letters
to you of November 25 and December 15
concerning the Ivan Franco Home. This
matter is extremely urgent as the welfare
of many people is involved. I hope you can
find time to take care of your correspond-
ence.

Your sincerely.

That seemed to do it. I finally got a reply
dated January 27— a very lengthy reply which,
in effect, said: "Everything is fine. Of course
we interviewed all the people in the presence
of Mrs. Pasternak. After all, she is the admin-
istrator and we should interview them in her
presence, and there is no reason why anybody
should be afraid to answer in her presence."
Well, the mind boggles at the man's in-
competence. The only good thing is that
there is a ceiling on the expenditures in the
department in which he is now in, because,
otherwise, I am sure he would bankrupt us
all. Of all the incompetent members on that
side— and there are many— he wdthout doubt
ranks first.

He is incompetent; he is unfeeling; he is
unaware and he is imfit to carry out his job.
Here we have people in a home for the aged
where there have been a series of serious
complaints that people are being mistreated,
and he won't even look. He won't give a
proper look.

Well, I phoned. I thought let's see what
really happened when these people went
there. So I phoned the Ukrainian interpreter,
who had gone along with the inspector, who
had gone to do the interviewing^ I don't
want to get this gentleman into any diflS-
culty. I wont quote his name here. He was
just the interpreter. He said to me— off the
record and over the phone: "There is some-
thing funny going on there, but what can I
do? I was just called as the interpreter and
Mrs. Pasternak was present while the ques-
tions were asked." But, by coincidence, tiiree
more employees came in who are willing to
have their names used, because they have
now given up and left the home and I am
going to give their names.

First, there is the cook. She worked there
for three years, leaving in 1971. Her name is
Mrs. Zoia Hrachko. She lives at 141 Beres-
ford Avenue. Her phone number is R03-1671.
She has now left, so she said: "You may use
my name." She came to me and she said:
"Most patients in that home are afraid. The
patients fear Mrs. Pasternak because of her
irrational actions and the staff fear her and
they are afraid to speak out. She should not
be in charge of elderly or sick people."

The second person — bear with me for a
moment, Mr. Speaker, while I get my list-
Mr. Johnston: The old scandal sheet!

Mr. Shulman: Doesn't the member care
about elderly people? We expect little from
the member for St. Catharines.

Mr. Johnston: I certainly do.

Mr. Shulman: The member is also front-
bench material. We keep praying that he can
get in the cabinet and raise their intellectual
level.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Ferrier: Is that the member for St.
Catharines' maiden speech?

Mr. Shulman: The second person is a
nurse-
Mr. Martel: Bullet Bob JohnstonI

Mr. Shulman: —Mrs. Rose Bojvczak.

I have to digress just for a moment. The
strangest thing happened during the last
campaign. In St. Catharines all of the opposi-
tion were hoping that the member would be
re-elected, and all of the Conservatives were
hoping that he would be defeated— for ob-
vious reasons.

222

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

To come back, the nurse, Mrs. Rose
Bojvczak, 69 Fullwell Crescent, phone num-
ber 635-1589, said in her statement:

The patients are treated badly. They are
punished capriciously witli no reason
whatsoever. Mrs. Pasternak has no respect
for them. She will treat them very pecul-
iarly, depending on her mood. One day
she will come in, and there will be food
left by a patient's relative and she will
say nothing, if she likes the patient. If
she dislikes the patient, she will scream
and rant and rave and take the food and
throw it on the floor.

This is from the nurse.

The people in there are scared. I would
have told when the inspector came, but
what could I do? Where will we go?

That is what one patient said to her.

The third ex-employee is one, Mr. Zenin
Wijtenko, and he was the accountant for the
Ivan Franco Home. He lives at 72 Indian
Grove. He said:

The patients are treated badly and with
favouritism, depending on whether they
fawn on Mrs. Pasternak or not. Medications
are cut off at her whim and the doctor is
afraid to say anything, because he has a
limited licence and much of his work
comes from these two homes. There is no
use asking the doctor for what is happen-
ing there. Mrs. Pasternak is the boss.

There we have three employees who are not
afraid for their jobs. They have given up in
disgust. They are willing to be spoken for.
We also have the interpreter from the de-
partment.

Thank God we have got a human being
in as the Minister of Social and Family Serv-
ices (Mr. Brunelle) now. Yesterday, I called
him, and to him I give a tip of the hat
because he is one of the better ministers—
and thank God there are a few of them over
there— and I showed him all this. He said:
"Obviously what we have to do is have an
inspector go in with an interpreter and inter-
view the patients privately and see if some-
thing is wrong, because, let's face it, it is
possible that things have been exaggerated.
It is possible that the employees there don't
like an authoritative boss. It is possible that
a few of the patients are senile and are
misunderstanding."

All this is possible and I don't deny this
possibility, but how can we be sure if the
minister who's responsible for the welfare of
those elderly people won't even look? Thank

God that man has gone off to a relatively
harmless spot in Education. I can't imagine
what great harm he can do there. He's not in
charge of the innocent and the helpless! We
have a man now for whom I have the greatest
of respect and I'm hopeful that something
will be done for these people. At least a
proper investigation will take place.

Enough of that, Mr. Speaker. Let's turn to
lighter subjects for a while. I would now like
to look at the government ministries, some of
the government boards, because some of
them are worth looking at. It's interesting to
see how these ministries work and it's edu-
cational for the new members to know how
their government looks after everything. We
know how proud they are over there of the
ministries and the boards they administer.

I want to tell you what some of the boards
have been doing recently to help things. In
today's Star I noticed an article that the
Liquor Licence Board has struck again. You
know the Liquor Licence Board? That's that
wonderful board which comes under the Pro-
vincial Secretary (Mr. Yaremko), unfortu-
nately; that's another of the front bench
material they have.

The Liquor Licence Board is supposed to
license, as I understand it. They are sup-
posed to go around and supervise the places
that sell liquor; to make sure they're clean
and that they don't cheat their customers;
and that the gang doesn't move in and that
nobody gets beaten up there. In other words,
to make sure that the Liquor Licence places
are run with proper health and safety rules.

However, somewhere a while back, a little
misunderstanding took place. The head of the
Liquor Licence Board, is an ex-policeman.
He was a good policeman. Chief of Police
Mackey. The best policeman I've ever known,
but as the head of the Liquor Licence Board
he should have stayed a policeman.

He has decided that what is important is
not so much: Is it clean? Is it proper? Are
they cheating the customers? What is impor-
tant is: What is the entertainment that is
going on in these places? Are the people
sitting or standing at the time they have the
entertainment?

Remember the great crisis last year when
he said the people in Julie's may not stand
and drink, they must sit down? Then he went
to other places and said people may not sit
and drink, they must stand up. Apparently
there was different terminology in those
places. He struck, as you'll recall— I like this
one— at Honest Ed and said people in Honest
Ed's, if they order drinks, may not order hot

MARCH 9, 1972

223

dogs. The hot dog is the symbol of dissolu-
tion. That still stands, you know. At Honest
Ed's, by rule of Chief Mackey, you may not
order a hot dog, because if you order a hot
dog they can't give you a drink.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain):
Honest Ed even makes you wear a coat.

Mr. Shulman: We can't blame that on
Chief Mackey, but we can blame the lack of
hot dogs on Chief Mackey. Let's say there
is not much common sense shown by this
particular official and by this particular
board. I was intrigued by today's paper— they
have struck again. Let me just read what it
says:

Regular Sunday floor shows at the
Neraida Club, a Greek night spot on the
Danforth, are being halted by the Liquor
Licence Board of Ontario.

Mr. Worton: I am all for that.

Mr. Shulman: To continue:

We will permit only recorded back-
ground music or live dinner dancing. No
cabarets. We read an article in the Star
last Monday which said that several per-
formers occasionally danced on the tables
and this cannot be allowed.

Dancing on the tables is verboten for enter-
tainment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is this on Sunday?

Mr. Shulman: Only on Sunday.

Mr. J. F. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Never on
Sundayl

Mr. Shulman: Now Chief Mackey with his
brilliance, his clear insight as to what the
Conservative government wants him to do,
has said "We must not allow dancing on
tables on Sunday. If you have anybody
dance on the table on Sunday, we'll take your
licence away."

Mr. Worton: Not if they're sober anyway.

Mr. Shulman: Perhaps that was it! Perhaps
they thought if people were dancing on the
tables, if the entertainers were dancing on
the tables, the people who were sitting
around would get carried away and they
might dance on the tables and Conservatism
would collapse in Ontario! That might be
the explanation.

There's another one here that puzzles me.
That must be the explanation. There's one
here that I hope someone on the Conserva-

tive said will enlighten me on because this
one— really I don't understand it. It says here:
"The Liquor Licence Board of Ontario has
now enforced a ban on dart throwing in the
Starting Game Room of the Heritage Inn,
east of New Woodbine."

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Even against
sports.

Mr. Shulman: I quote:

What had started to become a most
appreciated social gathering of the feath-
ered arrow fans in an appropriate setting,
has now ended. Said one bitterly upset
dart-playing addict: "Since my favourite
game is now no longer permitted here, I
suppose I'll have to settle for Liquor
Licence Board- approved nude entertain-
ment. Oh well, I suppose our peers know
it is better to stare with glazed eyes at
bare boobs instead of shooting for double
tops."

This is Conservatism today— conservatism in
action! This is not a staid government. They
know they are moving forward. This is a
province today; is there anywhere you'd
rather be?

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: The member should be
on the stage.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): The people
of Ontario said so.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: It isn't just the Liquor
Licence Board, mind you, who are, if I may
say so, slightly off their rocker. They have
to be ofiF their rocker to enforce rules like
this. It is just beyond all comprehension.

I think the explanation, Mr. Speaker, is
simple. Someone up there— that's in the
Liquor Licence Board; there is an oflBce
somewhere up there— received a message
from someone down here. Our great tminister,
the Provincial Secretary, who is in charge of
liquor, said: "Here is the book of regulations.
This is what is allowed and this is what is
not allowed." Somewhere in there I think
they mispelled the word as "darting" in pubs.
As a result he has gone out and he has
carried out the rules very, very carefully;
and through his misunderstanding we are no
longer allowed to have darts.

Anyway that is a suggestion that has come
from someone to the right. We will never
know what the true reason is.

224

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

There are sounds of levity about me, Mr.
Speaker.

It isn't just the Liquor Licence Board—
we also have the Liquor Control Board. I
want to tell you about the Liquor Control
Board because I had a wonderfiil experience
with them last week.

I bought some liquor. I confess to all
concerned!

Some hon. members: Shame!

Mr. Shulman: I represent one of the two
dry areas left in the province. I think Owen
Sound is still dry. And the member for
Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) and I have decreed
that we are going to fight to keep our two
areas dry as long as we can— and certainly I
am fighting it a little harder than he is— but
in all fairness and all honesty my area is
dry and I hope it remains dry. It is one of
the few oases in the city that is like that.
But despite the fact that I don't like them
selling it out there I like bringing some home
occasionally to drink.

I made the mistake of buying some brandy.
I made the mistake of not buying it through
the Liquor Control Board. I saw an ad for
some brandy over in England and I bought
24 bottles.

There is a law in this province that you
may not import any liquor or any wine
unless you do it through the Liquor Control
Board. That's reasonable. They want to get
their cut too. So I phoned up the Liquor
Control Board and said: "What do I do?"
The man said: "Well, just have them send
it to us and we'll look after it and when
we get it, you can have it— once you pay a
little squeeze."

So fine, I sent a letter to the firm in
London and they sent me a letter saying
they were shipping the stufiF airmail, lliree
months went by and I received a lovely
letter from the Liquor Control Board saying:
"If you will come down and pay us"— and
the sum was a little more than I paid for the
original brandy— "you can have it." I thought,
that is great. After all, they have to live too.

So I made out my cheque and said: "I
was wondering, if it is all right if I bring
a cheque?" They said: "Yes."

I said: "Okay, I'll be dovm shortly after
12."

"Oh, don't come then."

I said: "Why?"

"Well, it's siesta hour."

"What do you mean, siesta hour?"

"We all take lunch together."

I said: "You've got to be kidding."
"No, we close at 12 every day. From 12
to 1, that's siesta time."

So, I don't know; they have that in Mexico.
I thought maybe the Ontario goverimient had
decided this was the way we should live-
that we should bring it here, to Ontario. It's
not a bad idea.

So I phoned the Premier's ofiRce— I was
curious about this— and I said: "Are you
bringing in the siesta? Is this the new thing?
We are now going to work from 9 to 12
and we'll siesta from 12 to 3 or something,
and then we'll work from 3 to 8? It works
fairly well in the hot countries, I am told.
If he want to bring it here I am not going
to fight it hard, I just like to get the rules
straight."

The girl in the office said: "No, I wasn't
aware of this." I said: "Well, one govern-
ment department is, the Liquor Control
Board." She said: "No, I don't think so."

So I phoned back to the Liquor Control
Board. I said "Are you sure this is the policy
because the Premier's ofiBce doesn't know
about it?" He said: "Well, that's the policy
here. We all like to take our lunch together."
So I said: "All right, if that's the policy, I'll
be down at a quarter to 12." He said: "Oh,
you'd better come before that." I said: "Well,
why should I come before that?" He said:
"Well, you see we all like to be out at 12
sharp, and if you only arrive at a quarter to
12, somebody might have to stay behind and
we all like to take our lunch together." So
I went down, and I had a rather interesting
experience there. Perhaps I should tell the
House about it; it was enlightening.

It was on Friedland Street and I got there
at 11:30 as I didn't want to be late. There
was a huge parking lot but it was all filled.
I thought: "My God, they must be busy in
there." Actually I was the only customer. They
have this big parking lot for the employees,
but they don't leave any space for the
customers because, well, what the heck, we
know who's important in Conservative On-
tario—the employees.

I looked, I went around the block a couple
of times and there was nowhere to park.
There was a public parking lot two blocks
away, but there were two cases of brandy I
didn't see how I could carry two cases of
brandy so far.

Finally, there was a tiny spot right beside
the entrance, so I squeezed in there and
got out of my car.

MARCH 9, 1972

225

I went into the front office and said: "I
would like to pick up my brandy. Here is the
receipt for it." He said; "Is that your car?"
I said: "Yes." He said: "Well, you'll have to
move your car first." I said: "Okay, where
shall I move it to?" He said: "I don't care
where you move it, just move it anywhere."
I said: "But there is nowhere to move it to;
you have all the spots filled with your em-
ployees' cars." "That's your problem."

I thought about that for a minute, then I
said: "Well, what if I don't move it?" He
said: "We will have the police tow it
away." I said: "Okay, you have the poHce
tow it away. I just want to pick up my case,
and I'll be gone before the police arrive
anyway." Where do I pick up the liquor?"
He said: "I'm not telling you."

On the wall a sign shows where the various
offices are; and I got in the elevator to push
the button to go up to the third floor, which
I presumed was where I was to pick it up.
Another fellow came running out and said:
"You can't use the elevator vmtil you've
moved your car." I said: "There is nowhere
to move the car to."

I pushed the button on the elevator, and
he said: "Oh, no you don't," and put his
foot in the door to make sure the elevator
couldn't go up. I thought this was a little
strange, but I guess this is normal govem-
*ment civility. I said: "Okay, if I can't use
the elevator, I'm willing to abide by the
rules." So I walked up the three flights. I
didn't want to get mad because they have
rules— if you park in the wrong place you
can't use the elevator.

I went up to the third floor and I said to
the girl on duty: "Where do I pick up my
brandy?" She said: "Oh, that's down on the
first floor. Leave the money here." So I gave
her the money, and said: "Well, where do I
get it?" "You go into the shipping depart-
ment." So I said: "Where is the shipping
department?" "Well, when you go down to
the first floor, ask that fellow by the elevator
where it is."

I said: "What if he won't tell me?" She
said: "Of course he'll tell you— don't be
ridiculous."

So down I went. I said: "Where's the ship-
ping department?" "I won't tell you." Honest!

I didn't know what to do. I thought there
was no use perpetuating this. I went outside,
and there was a fellow walking by. I said:
"Do you know where the shipping depart-
ment is?" He said: "Oh yes, right in there."
So I got in my car and drove over. I said:

"Where do you pick up liquor?" And he said:
"That ramp."

I backed the car up to the ramp, got out
of my car and said: "Here's my receipt; I
paid for it. Can I have my brandy?" Another
official appeared and said: "Oh, no, you can't
put your car there. Move it back to where it
was before, and you have to enter the ship-
ping department through the lobby." I said:
"I don't know ii they will let me." He said:
"Sure they'll let you. You move your car
back right where it was before beside the
door and come in through the lobby."

So I moved the car back to where it was
before, went into the lobby and said: "Where
is the shipping department?" There were two
of them now standing shoulder to shoulder.
"Oh, no you don't! You're not going into
the shipping department until the police
arrive." At mis point I thought I'd better go
up and speak to whomever is in charge of
this establishment. I couldn't use the ele-
vator, so I climbed up the three floors again.

There are all sorts of offices all aroimd the
outside, and I wasn't sure which person to
speak to, so I stood in the middle of the
floor and, at the top of my voice, I yelled:
"Who runs this madhouse?" They all ran out
—and several of them claimed credit for it!
They took me back downstairs again, and a
whole bunch of them escorted me bodfly into
the shipping department and gave me my
brandy— all except three bottles which appar-
ently had got lost between the time it arrived
at the Liquor Control Board and the time I
had gone to pick it up. They told me at the
time that they had been broken on arrival. I
opened the original cases but there are no
liquor stains or broken glass; I guess they
must have evaporated.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Glass and
all!

Mr. Shulman: Glass and all! There is only
one thing that really bothers me about this,
Mr. Speaker, and perhaps you can enlighten
me: Why do they all have to have their lunch
together?

Oh well, I guess I'm not going to get an
answer there.

Someone has just handed me a poem
which they've asked me to put in the record,
and for the sake of completeness I will, be-
fore I leave the subject of the liquor Licence
Board:

Ontario is such a respectable place.
Drinking is no crime but it is still a disgrace.

226

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

That is courtesy of one of the Liberals to
my right and I thank him.

I want to go on to a more serious matter,
Mr. Speaker. I really have very little hope of
any reform in the liquor field until a par-
ticular minister, the Solicitor General— desig-
nate (Mr. Yaremko), goes to his just reward.
Let's hope the Conservatives win the next
federal election so that they can put him in
the Senate because that is the only hope we
have of getting sane liquor laws in this prov-
ince.

I want to turn to the Securities Commis-
sion and the Toronto Stock Exchange, be-
cause something very unfortunate has hap-
pened there, which to my mind is extremely
discriminatory and about which something
should be done.

Interjection by an hon, member.

Mr. Shulman: I beg your pardon, was that
a question?

Mr. Speaker, last year there was a very
flamboyant securities collapse by a company
of the name of Malone Lynch. This company
went bankrupt, as a result of which it appear-
ed as though a number of clients would lose
their money. Fortunately, the exchange step-
ped in and used its contingency fund to
make up the losses and there was no dif-
ficulty there. But I am speaking now on
behalf of the employees of Malone Lynch,
many of whom were completely innocent of
the situation that led to this collapse, yet
some of whom have been punished most
unfairly.

After the collapse took place the Securi-
ties Commission and the Toronto Stock Ex-
change stepped in and said that they were
very concerned that the particular stock—
which I believe was called Security Free-
hold—had been sold in the manner that it had
and so had caused the collapse that occurred.
As a result of that they intended to prosecute
any crimes that occurred and they intended
to re-examine all of the customer's men who
worked for Malone Lynch.

Well, they were certainly correct to prose-
cute any crimes, and they were certainly
correct to re-examine or closely examine any
of the customer's men who were involved in
any way with the selling of this crooked
stock. But they did not stop at that. They
also said: "We are going to re-examine the
customer's men who are innoncent."

This is rather interesting. In what way
were they going to re-examine? "We are
going to cancel the licences of the customer's

men who are innocent. However, we want
to be fair, and if they are innocent we will
let them write an exam. If they pass their
exam they can get their licence back."

It seemed odd to me that they would
cancel the licences of the innocent as well as
the guilty, and I contacted Mr. Kimber to
ask him about this. He explained— I have his
letter here, perhaps I should be fair to him.
He said:

There is no thought that sales staff, be-
cause of employment with a bankrupt, is
automatically involved with the bankruptcy
but rather has been exposed to a lack of
supervision. Accordingly, in an effort to
ensure that these salesmen are qualified to
give financial counsel to members of the
public, and are familiar with the proce-
dures to be followed in handling clients'
accounts, the board of governors has ruled
in the Malone Lynch case that the trans-
fers to other companies will be permitted
only where the registered representative
has first displayed his knowledge of com-
pliance rules.

That seems very reasonable, but if you are
going to follow this type of reasoning, surely
the same reasoning should apply to all
transfers across the exchange? If a man
works for Merrill- Lynch and puts in a trans-
fer and he wants to go to another firm, you
do not say to him: "Fine, you have to try'
your security exam again." Because if they
did, many of them would fail, the same as
if you took a doctor who has been out in
practice for 20 years and put him back to
write his final exams. You forget the theory.
You remember the practical aspect of it but
you forget the theory and you cannot pass
the exams 20 years later.

So I said to them: "This is unfair. You are
taking elderly men, some of whom have been
in the business their whole lives— some are 65,
some are older— and through no fault of their
own you are asking them to write an exam
which you are not asking other people in
exactly the same situation in other firms to
write."

One of the men involved was a Mr.
Austin Sime. He was told that if he wanted
to continue in the business with another
firm he had to write the exam, and he went
in to write the exam but became so excited
that he just could not write it and failed.
He went in a second time and the same thing
happened. And when I remonstrated with
Mr. Kimber, he said: "Well, we will give
him a third chance, a third and final chance,
to write an exam."

MARCH 9, 1972

227

His doctor says his temperament is such
that he can't write an exam. He is a type of
man who gets under pressure when one is
there in front of him saying do this and do
that and he cannot do it. His business before
was largely consultative. He was not involved
in this crooked stock at all. He advised
persons, under no pressure, how to invest
their money, how to put their money into
bonds, stocks, and thing of this nature. The
questions they were asking him, all of which
are very interesting questions— many of which
are very practical— are things which he
wouldn't meet in the sort of business he was
carrying on. He is too elderly to learn.

Suddenly, here's a guy who through no
fault of his own is thrown out of business.
He has no money. He didn't get a cent out
of this whole swindle and he is the victim
who is taken.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is
unfair. It is something where the designate
Minister of Public Protection (Mr. Winkler)
should move, should take some action. He
is here. And thank goodness we have a min-
ister in the House. He should personally take
some action.

It is unfair to penalize a man for doing
nothing wrong, merely because he happened
to be in the same street as an accident
occurred. It is like taking a witness to an
accident and then lock him up and saying,
"We'll keep you here until the accident trial
is over." It is just not fair, and if the security
commission or the Toronto Stock Exchange
doesn't realize it, the minister should realize
it and should do something about it. I will
leave that for the moment to the minister.
I trust he will do something.

Now I want to turn to the Minister of
Health for a moment, and I am delighted
that we have the new Minister of Health
(Mr. Potter). His predecessor (Mr. A. B. R.
Lawrence) did a magnificent job; or actually
he appeared to do a magnificent job. He only
appeared so great in comparison with his
predecessors; but he tried. I have no com-
plaints about the member from Carleton. He
did his very best, but the member for
Quinte is now there. I give him my con-
gratulations too.

We on this side of the House have pro-
moted his being promoted for many years,
away back in the old Robarts' days, and I
am glad he has finally made it. I am glad he
has got the energy and he is starting off and
he is doing the right thing and I think we are
going to see great things from him.

However, there is one problem that I think
he has to do something about. It has got to
be done now imless we are all going to go
bankrupt. I am going to become very un-
popular with my profession, but this has to
be said.

The amount of money that is being paid
to OHSIP is astronomical and it is growing
astronomically and the doctors, as a profes-
sion, still haven't seen the light.

Now that we, as physicians, are being
paid by the public, we can't charge what we
want. We can't charge what the traflfic will
bear. We now have to be the same as any
other group paid through the public purse; be
they nurses, be they teachers, be they MPPs
—well, perhaps I shouldn't use MPPs as an
example, they are not the most responsible.
But be it any group of public servants, we
have to be responsible.

Two instances have just came to hand now
and have upset me so much that I am going
to mention them, because they indicate a
complete lack of responsibihty. Admittedly,
again, we are picking rotten apples out of
the barrel, but this type of thing so turns
the public off.

I received a letter just a few weeks ago
from a Mr. Roy Oheam, who lives at 394
Merton Street in Toronto. I'll just find the
original letter. I will just read one paragraph,
which sums it all up. He had been to a
doctor, let me say, before this letter. He
wrote complaining to the Ontario Medical
Association and subsequently to my party.
My letter of September 23 to the On-
tario Medical Association explained the
problem thoroughly. In substance, on my
attorney's suggestion, while in Dr. — yes,
I will mention his name — Dr. Wright's
office, I asked whether or not my back
problem could be a result of an automobile
accident of December, 1969. A simple
*'yes" or "no" was all that was neces-
sary. Dr. Wright refused to give me an
answer and asked that my attorney con-
tact him. Dr. Wright thereby created his
own reason for the correspondence. He
wrote his first letter on April 28, including
his invoice for $25, but failed to answer
the question directly. On the second
request from my attorney. Dr. Wright
once again wrote a lengthier reply and
enclosed his charge of $100 for the letter.

Well, Mr. Oheam felt that it was a somewhat
excessive charge. He got in touch with the
Ontario Medical Association to complain that

228

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

he thought that they were— you know, that
the doctors were being a little greedy— and
asked that they do something about it. I
would like to read their reply, because it
speaks much for the association which still,
apparently, are asleep. This is dated Decem-
ber 13, 1971.

Dear Mr. Oheam:

The College of Physicians and Surgeons
has completed its inquiry into the complaint
you registered relating to professional
fees submitted by Dr. Thomas Wright for
two medical-legal reports.

Then there is a great deal about the investi-
gation, which is not relevant. It continues:

With respect to the professional fees
which have been submitted by Dr. Wright
for medical-legal report, the investigation
confirms that it is his practice to submit
an account in the amount of $100 for his
initial medical-legal report and $25 for
subsequent reports. Dr. Wright fully ad-
mits that an error did occur in his billing
practices and that his regular procedure
was reversed in the situation in question.

The college respectfully advises that the
supply of medical-legal reports by physi-
cians is not a scheduled item in the Ontario
Medical Association schedule of fees. The
supply of such communications for medical-
legal purposes is established by the indivi-
dual physician supplying the report and
the amount submitted to you by Dr.
Wright appear in line with the present
practice used by many specialists in On-
tario at this time.

The college confirms that its investiga-
tion indicates, however, that a billing error
did occur in your case in that the initial
billing and subsequent report practices of
Dr. Wright were reversed in your case.

Therefore— stopping my quotation— the initial
bill of $25 should be paid as the second bill.
You should pay $100 for the first bill and $25
for the second bill, so that your total bill will
be $125 instead of $125.

That is from the College of Physicians and
Surgeons— pardon me, that is from the On-
tario Medical Association. I don't expect
much from the ruling body of that particular
association. But what bothers me mostly in
that particular letter is their line, "This is
common practice."

How can anyone justify taking out the
records of a case and dictating a letter and
charging $100 for it? You could have, liter-
ally in any profession, a man work half a

day or a day— or far more outside the pro-
fessions; a week— for this kind of money. The
letter is dictated by the doctor. It takes, at
the most, 15 minutes, although from my own
experience it is probably closer to five or 10,
or two or three, depending on the letter. A
reasonable charge is reasonable, but $100?
And this is what they say is common.

Here's another one, also very recent. I am
not going to mention this particular doctor's
name because, apparently, this is standard
practice. Here is a patient who goes to the
Sick Children's hospital and doesn't see any
staff doctor because it is a very simple case.
The patient's name is George Mayol, 330
Hopewell Avenue, Apartment 409. He
brought his daughter, Nadia, there and— let's
just see what the trouble was— it was a sprain.
The intern saw and looked after him. He
never saw a staff doctor— interns of course
cannot charge— -but he, subsequently, received
a bill for $15 from Pediatrics Surgical Associ-
ates with the name of a certain doctor on
here whom he never saw.

This patient, with some reason, complained
to the doctor. The doctor said: "Don't worr>';
your OHSIP will pay it. What do you care?
It isn't anything out of your pocket."

The patient said: "Well, what does that
matter? OHSIP is being paid for out of my
taxes. I don't want OHSIP to pay, because
I don't think you should be paid for some-
thing you didn't do." The reply came back:
"It is the practice that, if an intern who is
under our supervision sees someone, we
charge for it."

Sometimes I worry about my profession,
Mr. Speaker. It consists of a vast majority of
highly dedicated men but, every now and
then, we have a few like this who are hun-
gry for money. When it happens in a place
like the Sick Children's hospital, the rot is
pretty deep.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is plain pad-
ding. The government shouldn't allow it.
They shouldn't allow any payments under
any circumstances to a physician when he
hasn't carried out the treatment. Apparently,
it is now becoming the practice throughout
this city because, just yesterday, when I was
querying one of the doctors on staff at the
Toronto General Hospital, saying: "How can
they do this sort of thing?" He said: "We
do the same thing at the Toronto General.
Our feeling is, if the intern sees the patient,
we have Ae responsibility and, if we have
the responsibility, even if we have not done
anything, we should charge for it."

This is sheer, utter nonsense.

MARCH 9, 1972

229

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Hear,
hear!

Mr. Shulman: You are going to get a ter-
rible shock, Mr. Speaker, when the expenses
for OHSIP come down this year. We got a
httle inkling last year when some of the
printouts came from the computer, but that
was just a half of it, because half of the
money wasn't going through the computer.
Starting April 1, all the money is going to go
through the computer, and you are going to
have the shock of your lives when you see
how much is being spent and where it is
going.

Now there are rackets. One of them thank
goodness is finally being stopped; the one of
referring patients to yourself for laboratory
tests, where someone coones in for an oflSce
call for five bucks and gets referred to your-
self for $100 worth of tests. They are finally
doing something about that.

But this is another one; this is a major
one in the teaching hospitals. It used to be
understood— it was understood for 100 years
in the teaching hospitals— that one of the
privileges of being on the staff of the teach-
ing hospital was looking after the staff
patients. In return for that privilege you were
given beds in the hospital.

If I phone up the Toronto Hospital and
say I've got a patient with a coronary, I
won't get a bed; they won't give me a bed
for my patient. I have to refer it to one of
the inner circle who will get the bed and
then this is his cream. In return for this,
what they always did was work on the public
side and this is their return. They supervised
the interns and they did free work for peo-
ple who couldn't afford it.

But those days are gone. Nobody does
anything free any more. There is still a
public ward, the interns still do the work,
the staff men still supervise them— but guess
what? They bill OHSIP-and OHSIP shouldn't
pay it. The doctors had no way of collecting
these fees before. These cases are on the
public wards and shouldn't be paid. Hun-
dreds of thousands— perhaps millions— of dol-
lars a year are being paid improperly, and
I hope the Minister of Health, wherever he
is, hears these words and does something
about it.

I want to turn to a related subject which
also comes under health, and this is the
matter of prescriptions for persons under
welfare and family benefit plans. This is a
very serious hardship for the persons who
are under such plans. At the present time, if
you are on welfare in the City of Toronto

you are given an orange welfare card and
your medical fees are paid by OHSIP. When
you are given a prescription you may take
that card to the druggist and he fills your
prescription without charge and he is reim-
bursed through the Department of Welfare.

This is working very well. There are drug-
gists in the House who I am sure will cor-
roborate what I am saying is true, and it is
a fine system. Unfortunately, this system
does not apply in the welfare schemes that
are run by the province. For some reason
they are a little bit behind the city. And
what happens if you are on mother's allow-
ance or any of the family benefit plans? You
must go out and buy those prescriptions and
then you have to apply to the government at
the end of the month to get your money
refunded, and sometimes it is and some-
times it isn't. They allow a certain amount
a month, and in any case you have to wait a
fairly lengthy time.

People who are drawing down $25 a week
can't wait that lengthy time, and as a result
a group has been formed called Operation
Family Rights. This group is centred at 310
Danforth Avenue, here in Toronto. The
chairman is a Mrs. T. Scriber. And what
they are trying to do, with some difficulty,
is get through to the minister responsible—
I am not sure whether it is Social and
Family Services or Health. In any case,
their problem when they were trying to get
through to the former Minister of Social and
Family Services was, as they put it: "He
couldn't seem to understand what we were
saying." Well, that's understandable. We
now have a better Minister of Social and
Family Services, who has a little compre-
hension; we have a better Minister of Health,
so perhaps they'll listen. But this is so im-
portant, it is so important that I am going
to put it on the record, because this involves
thousands of people. They are in very serious
financial trouble and the result of this rule
is that many of these people do not get the
medicines that they essentially need and
which their doctors prescribed for them. I'm
not going to read all of it. I will just quote
one brief bit so that the substance will be
available to the ministers if they happen to
read Hansard.

Operation Family Rights is presenting a
proposal for the change in the present
method used to cover the costs of prescrip-
tion drugs for recipients of general welfare
and family benefits. Along with many other
groups and citizens of Ontario, Operation
Family Rights supports the idea of a pro-

230

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

vindal plan for total health coverage, in-
cluding the cost of prescription drugs.

However, since the present method is
so completely inadequate— particularly for
those on family benefits— that a total health
plan cannot be foreseen in the immediate
future, OFR requests that this proposal be
given immediate consideration. It may be
well to point out the municipality of To-
ronto provides drug coverage for reci-
pients of general welfare. An orange card
is given to a recipient upon request. This
method is effective inasmuch as all pres-
criptions are covered and the recipient
does not need to keep a record or receipt
of prescriptions. It is no use, however, at
night time if a person must receive imme-
diate medication. Unless a hospital emer-
gency department is willing to give the
patient the necessary medication to last
until the prescription can be filled during
normal business hours, a person must re-
turn home without it. This is particularly
dangerous for a child. If a child cannot be
taken out to a hospital emergency thereby
requiring a home visit by a family doctor,
there are no means provided for filling a
prescription.

Anyway, that is not too essential. The im-
portant thing comes under family benefits.

It should be noted that this particular
plan does not include recipients of other
govertiment allowances who might be
eligible to supplementary aid or a special
assistance allowance to aid in the purchase
of prescribed drugs. The GWA Act pro-
vides for special assistance for those re-
ceiving family benefits for the cost of
prescription drugs. The recipient of family
benefits must purchase the prescribed
drugs, obtain receipts and submit them to
the family benefit branch at the end of
each month. Reimbursement is made after
the branch has forwarded the receipts to
the municipal welfare department. Many
recipients are not aware that drugs under
$5 are not reimbursed and there is a limit
of $20 per month for each person.

It goes on at some length but I shan't read it
in. I think this is the kernel of it. I just want
to read the final proposal which is very brief.

Operation Family Rights therefore pro-
poses a method whereby each recipient,
both of welfare and family benefits, would
receive an identification card with a nirni-
ber similar to that of OHSIP or OMSIP.
This card would be presented to the phar-
macist who would then be able to issue the

prescription and submit the client's num-
ber to the department for reimbursement.
This card could be carried by the recipient
and conveniently used at any pharmacy
including those which are open after reg-
ular business hours and on holidays.

I take great pleasure in endorsing Operation
Family Rights. It is a reform which is long
overdue and is something which really is
going to cost nothing because the little extra
that the government is going to pay for the
few extra prescriptions that are filled, it will
save by not having this tremendous paper
work and all these civil servants, who must
be paid, to check them when they first bring
them in; send them up to family benefits
branch; send them down to the family bene-
fits branch of the municipal welfare depart-
ment; send back the ones that are allowed
to the municipal welfare department or
family benefits branch, then send out the
cheque to the recipient.

All red tape— all can be disposed of in one
swoop. I'm certain that not only would this
plan not cost money, it would save money
and besides it would save a lot of hardship.
As a general practitioner in this city, I am
aware that time after time, patients have
said to me, "There is no way I can fill that
prescription because I would have to wait a
month until the family benefits branch pays
me back and I don't have the money to eat."

This is not a political thing. I hope it can
be accepted by the government despite the
despicable place it has come from — the
suggestion and manner in which it is given.
I am not giving it to the government in any
critical way. It is something that should
have been done in the past. I hope it will
do it now because it is going to cost nothing.
It is a simple thing it can do quickly in
weeks, and it will save a lot of hardship. It
will even get the government votes in the
next election. All those people will be grate-
ful and they won't know that I gave the
speech and they will think that the govern-
ment did it out of the kindness of its heart.

Okay. I want to go on to another matter.

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): That will
be the day.

Mr. Shulman: The government doesn't
have to worry. I am not running again so I
won't be publicizing it.

I want to go on to the way the government
treats civil servants and it is pretty shabby
on occasion. On January 15 of this year a
notice was posted up in the Department of

MARCH 9, 1972

231

Public Works which hterally destroyed the
financial security of some hundreds of em-
ployees. What the notice said was that staflF
who had been working for as long as 20
years were having their salaries drastically
cut.

The notice was brought to me by one of
the employees and I was quite shocked be-
cause the same thing had been attempted by
the former Minister of Public Works, the
late unlamented John Simonett, last year.
There was such an outcry in this House as
a result of it that he abandoned the plan.

There was an outcry in the House. There
was an outcry in the press. There was an
outcry among the civil service. There was
an election coming up then and after giving
an ultimatum saying that everybody must
join the Civil Service Association, must come
under the civil service plan, must become
permanent, must have their salaries cut in
half, we raised so much hell here, the Lib-
erals and ourselves— and, to their credit, some
of the Conservatives — that the plan was
abandoned. I was shocked, therefore, to find
that the new Minister of Public Works— he is
now the old Minister of Public Works; (Mr.
Auld) he is now in charge of Environment,
which makes us all shudder a little — had
instituted a new plan: We must save money.

Mr. Martel: The House was not in session.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, he did this while the
House was not in session so there wouldn't
be an outcry in here. Who was going to
complain? Just those few employees? They
don't get a chance to vote for five more years
anyway. So quietly they post this notice —
and I must say I am disappointed in the
Prime Minister of this province, who up
until now I have always found to be a
kindly and responsive human being. When
this information was brought to me I didn't
call a press conference, I didn't make it
public; I wrote him a personal and confi-
dential letter in the hope that he would do
something. I wrote the letter on January 27;
I've phoned his oflBce twice since then, asking
if and when I was going to get a reply— and
it is still coming; it hasn't come yet.

I will read the letter I wrote to him
because it sums up the situation so well:

Dear Mr. Premier:

I am writing to you about a tragic
situation that is developing in your Depart-
ment of Public Works. You will recall
that last year the previous Minister of
Public Works attempted to reclassify his
employees which would have resulted in

massive cuts in their take-home pay. At
the time there was such an outcry both
from employees and from within the Legis-
lature that the plan was abandoned.

Now the staff of the Department of
Public Works has received a notice that
all of the temporary employees are to be
reclassified as a part of the civil service
with cuts in pay ranging up to 40 per
cent. I wish to stress that these tempo-
rary employees are temporary only in
name. Most of them have worked steadily
for the department for over 10 years with
no layoffs. Some have worked as long as
20 years for the provincial government.

Equally bad, the men feel very bitter at
the arbitrary way in which their salaries
are being cut. For example, electricians'
helpers who were earning $5.60 an hour
are to be paid only $3.06 an hour, while
labourers who were earning $4.60 an hour
are to be paid $3.73 an hour.

I am well aware of the province's need
to economize, but surely the place to start
is not with employees of long service who
are earning such moderate rates of pay.

There was no answer to that letter, Mr.
Speaker, I phoned his office —

Mr. Cassidy: There never is.

Mr. Shulman: That is not true. He usually
answers his letters; that's why I was sinprised
he didn't. I presume he was so embarrassed
he didn't know what to say. He should well
be embarrassed.

Several of the employees went up to the
officials in the Department of Public Works
and said: "We can't keep up the payments
on our houses. We won't be able to keep
up our rent. How can you expect us when
we have been earning" — Here is a man 60
years of age who had been earning $5.56 an
hour who is told from now on he has to
manage on $3.06 an hour.

This particular man said in front of four
witnesses: "How can I manage? I have five
children." And this particular official in the
Department of Public Works, in front of
witnesses, replied: "Who told you to have
five children? You shouldn't have had so
many."

Well, this is the way the Conservative gov-
ernment treats its employees, the kindly old
Conservative government. They don't do that
before an election, mind you — only after an
election. "There is lots of time. Some will
move, some will die off — they'll forget. We'll
bring in some goodies before the next elec-
tion."

232

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Seeing the way your party has behaved,
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that you, as one
of the few men of integrity in this House,
have not crossed the floor. It really surprises
me to see you still sitting there under those
auspices. I am glad you are, mind you; I am
glad you are. It is nice to have some touch
of fairness in here.

But I am embarrassed for you, sir, having
to sit with that label upon you, because you
know what they are like and you know how
they treat people— and it is a shame. I make
this appeal now, really having given up, be-
cause I know now it has reached the papers-
it wasn't through me; the Toronto Star pub-
lished it, finally, because a nmnber of em-
ployees became so upset— and now that the
government has already had the bad pub-
licity, what the heck, there is no point in
changing it anyway; it might as well go
through with the play. I know it is going to
do this to these employees and there is
nothing we can do about it except point the
finger of shame and hope that some day— and
I am sorry I won't be here to see it, because
this is my last shot at this madhouse. Let me
say this is my last shot, but I intend to make
your lives miserable for the four years I am
going to be here!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: But I hope I will be able to
sit up in that public gallery— preferably in
the members' gallery over there- after the
next election and look down at the fine group
of Liberals and NDP over on that side and
the httle rump over here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gilbertson: That is what the member
said the last time.

Mr. Carruthers: We have heard that before.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, I said it the last time
and I was wrong and I am disappointed. It
proves you can fool the public lots of the time
but somebody said you can't fool them all
the time.

And you know what those people opposite
are doing? With these things that they are
doing to human beings, the word is getting
out and more and more people know.

Mr. Gilbertson: They don't believe the hon.
member.

Mr. Shulman: And one of these days there
is going to be a house-cleaning in here and
none of those members is going to be left.

I hope the corporal's guard is left. I hope
the hon. member for Algoma is left. I want
him to see what good government can do
here.

It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, when you see
a good man come in here occasionally and
get corrupted. You see, now he has taken an
official post. He has taken an oificial post with
those evil men.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am just about to start
a rather lengthy topic. I really want to talk
about the insurance companies. I have not
got through my introduction yet.

Perhaps this might be a good moment to
adjourn the debate and we will continue at
some time that is mutually convenient to us.

Mr. Shulman moves the adjournment of the
debate.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
More of the same tomorrow?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
before the adjournment of the House, the
House leader indicated to us on Tuesday that
he would be able to tell us something about
the night sittings, hopefully before Tuesday
evening. Would he be able to tell us now
what the plan is?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately neither the hon. member nor
his leader was in the House to ask me that
question at 6 o'clock on Tuesday when I was
ready to reply. I wasn't asked.

Mr. Deans: He could have replied without
a question.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: However, I would in-
form him that tomorrow we will continue
with the debate, and on Monday we will
have an evening sitting as we will some
other evenings of the week.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6 o'clock, p.m.

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 9, 1972

Civil service arhitration board award on employee benefits, statement by

Mr. MacNaughton 185

Hamilton Harbour landfill regulations re steel mills, questions of Mr. Auld:

Mr. R. F. Nixon 186

Medicare coverage of nursing homes, question of Mr. Potter: Mr. R. F. Nixon 186

Establishment of detoxification centres throughout province, questions of Mr. Potter:

Mr. R. F. Nixon, Mr. Sargent, Mr. Shulman, Mr. Breithaupt, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Foulds 187

Education expenditures re teacher negotiations, questions of Mr. Wells and Mr. Davis:

Mr. R. F. Nixon, Mr. B. Newman, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Foulds 190

Police protection at Gull Bay, questions of Mr. Bales and Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Deans 192

Savings in health insurance premiums re school board employees, questions of Mr. Wells:

Mr. Deans 193

Bookbinders dispute with Queen's Printer, questions of Mr. Snow: Mr. Deans,

Mr. Bounsall 193

Civil service bargaining, questions of Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Deans 194

WCB definition of light work, question of Mr. Guindon: Mr. Deans 195

Establishment of detoxification centres, question of Mr. Potter: Mr. Deans 195

Land purchase in Toronto adjoining U of T, questions of Mr. Snow: Mr. Singer 195

Presenting report, standing procedural affairs committee, Mr. Henderson 198

Surrogate Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 198

Edible Oil Products Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 199

Dog Tax and Livestock and Poultry Protection Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart,

first reading 199

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, bill to amend, Mr. Givens, first reading 199

County of Simcoe, bill respecting, Mr. Evans, first reading 199

Highway Traffic Act, bill to amend, Mr. Burr, first reading 199

Sue-Carib Industries Ltd., bill respecting, Mr. Timbrell, first reading 199

City of Waterloo, bill respecting, Mr. Good, first reading 199

Esbeco Limited, bill respecting, Mr. Edigoffer, first reading 199

Public Lands Act, bill to amend, Mr. Haggerty, first reading 199

St. Peter's Seminary Corporation of London, Ontario, bill respecting, Mr. Walker,

first reading 200

Beds of Navigable Waters Act, bill to amend, Mr. Haggerty, first reading 200

Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Drea, Mr. Shulman 200

Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Shulman, agreed to 232

Motion to adjourn, Mr. Winkler, agreed to 232

No. 8

ONTARIO

Eegisilature of Ontario

Mthatts

OFFICIAL REPORT — DAILY EDITION

Second Session of the Twenty-Ninth Legislature

Friday, March 10, 1972

Speaker: Honourahle Allan Edward Renter
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.

THE QUEEN'S PRINTER

TORONTO

1972

Price per session, $10.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto

CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceeding's appears at back of this issue.)

237

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

The House met at 10 o'clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to have
guests with us today, in the west gallery,
students from the George Brown College of
Toronto and students from the Givens Public
School of Toronto. In the east gallery, stu-
dents from C. B. Parson's Junior High School
and from York Humber High School.

Statements by the ministry.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker,
just a brief statement with respect to the
summer employment programme for this
year.

The government of Ontario is now in the
process of implementing a supplementary
programme to provide additional opportuni-
ties for the employment of about 6,000
young people during the coming summer
months. This programme is designed to
broaden the existing regular summer youth
employment programmes for which $15 mil-
lion has already been made available.

This allocation itself generates approxi-
mately 12,500 job openings With the $6.4
million to be spent on Summer 72, the title
of the Ontario government's new special
summer employment programme, a total of
$21.4 million will be invested by the prov-
vincial government this year to provide in-
teresting and purposeful activity for ap-
proximately 18,500 students over the summer
period.

This further stimulus by the Ontario gov-
ernment to summer youth employment was
mentioned in the Speech from the Throne
at the opening of the session. As was stated
then, our own extensive programme of con-
structive summer activities is designed to
complement the Opportunities for Youth
Programme of the federal government.

Ontario's Summer 72 oflFers young people
the chance to serve and test themselves in
a variety of fields. Youth in Action, the pro-
gramme organized by the Department of
Education, will directly employ a number
of secondary and postsecondary school stu-
dents on projects such as Summersound,

Friday, March 10, 1972

track and field clinics, the Ontario Youth
Theatre which in turn will indirectly in-
volve about another 100,000 young people in
alternatives to employment programmes.

Youth and the Law will bring university
students into direct contact with the working
of police departments across the province
for three months. The Summer Volunteer
Programme 72 will offer outlets for second-
ary and postsecondary students interested
in social activity projects with institutions
under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Social and Family Services. Project SWEEP
will engage a rather large group of students
in a variety of environmental activities
which will be co-ordinated through the 37
conservation authorities in the province.

A further large group of secondary
school students will work in the urban-
rural exchange programme. The Retardation
Student Volunteer Programme operated in
co-operation with the Ontario Association for
the Mentally Retarded will be open to sec-
ondary school volunteers. Ontario Youth
Summer Enterprises will provide a chance
for secondary students to show their prowess
as aspiring businessmen in miniature com-
panies which they will be able to run during
the summer. In the true entrepreneur fash-
ion they will be paid according to the success
of their company ventures.

Project SNAP, Student Nursing Activity
Programme, will present opportunities to
students to help with recreational and other
social activity programmes for residents of
nursing homes and homes for special care.
Project CRISP, Correctional Rehabilitation
Involving Student Participation, will offer
means for postsecondary students to develop
positive relationships with children and
young adults in training schools in our
centres.

As I have stressed many times, Mr. Speak-
er, the government of Ontario will continue
to make every effort to help our young peo-
ple direct their energies into channels of
service to others and so combine new ex-
periences with learning. It is therefore a
very particular pleasure for me to make this
general announcement concerning Summer

238

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

72. Detailed announcements concerning in-
dividual programmes and covering rates of
pay will be issued very shortly by depart-
ments directly associated with the pro-
grammes concerned.

Those who are interested in a brief review
of the separate opportunities in the Summer
72 programme can obtain a copy of the
brochure under that title or further informa-
tion from the ofBce of the Minister of Edu-
cation (Mr. Wells). Copies of the brochure
are being distributed to the media along with
this statement.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

SUMMER 72 PROGRAMME

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell us
how the young people apply for these jobs?
I may have missed that in his statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it will be
explained in the brochure— well, I am sure
some obviously find their way to the mem-
bers—but the applications will go, by and
large, to those departments which will have
jurisdiction over the particular programmes.

SPADINA RAPID TRANSIT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Pre-
mier, Mr. Speaker:

Can he explain to the House the pro-
cedures which led up to the order-in-council
designating the Spadina cut for the location
of the rapid transit system? What is the
rationale that could leave this decision ex-
clusively in the hands of the cabinet, probably
in the hands of the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don't think
it does.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The order-in-council
says it is there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think perhaps the At-
torney General (Mr. Bales) might explain
this legal term. The application to the OMB,
as I recall it, had a combined application for
the rapid transit and for the expressway.
The cabinet, in its determination, said no to
the expressway portion but not to the rapid
transit portion. I am assuming the order-in-
council is worded in this fashion to make it
very clear that the government was not say-
ing no to the rapid transit section of the
Spadina.

I think it is also quite clear, Mr. Speaker,
that the technical committee has recommend-
ed, I think five alternatives. This is basically
the decision for Metro and the TTC and
while, for technical reasons, the order-in-
council may say it is to go in such and such
a place— and incidentally all five recommenda-
tions said that it was to go along the right of
way from Lawrence to Eglinton— the decision
as to the exact location is basically that of
Metro.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, by way of supplementary, could the
Premier explain the significance, or perhaps
even the incorrectness, of the newspaper
account this morning which indicated there
was a new order-in-oouncil in February of
this year as yet unpublished? And what
really does the government hope to achieve
by this new order-in-council if in fact there
is such an order-in-council?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I say, I
would have to check this with the Attorney
General.

If there is a new order-in-council, if there
is some question as to the wording of the
previous order, it would be to clarify that.

There is no alteration in government policy.
The decision as to the precise location of the
rapid transit line, as I say, is basically that
of Metro and that really is the only deter-
mination involved.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of sup-
plementary, when the Premier last June made
his announcement about the government
decision stopping Spadina, his indication was
that within a few months— if my memory
serves me correctly, it was within three
months— a decision would be made on the
location and the commencement of work on
the rapid transit. We are eight months past
and apparently, if I understand the Premier
correctly this morning, still no decision is
apparent and still no decision is looked for.
Can we expect any rapid transit in that area
in the next year or 15 months or 18 months
or what?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, at the time
the announcement was made I don't think
any specific time limit was set as to when it
would be possible to determine the exact
location of the rapid transit portion. The
joint technical committee came in with its
report— I am only going by memory— about a
month and a half ago. I think it is some-
where in that neighbourhood. It is now being
assessed by Metro and the TTC. I under-

MARCH 10, 1972

239

stand they are actually very close to making
a decision.

Apparently, from the report, the decision
as to the location from Lawrence to Eglinton
really has been made, because that portion
is consistent with all five recommendations.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): By way
of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I have the
order-in-council. It is dated February 2. It
indicates that the project wdll be designated
as a subway, I presume for purposes of
grants, under the Public Transportation and
Highway Improvement Act. The government
has, therefore, made its decision and directed
the outcome. I am not going to quibble with
the outcome for a moment, but I take it the
choice is implicit in this order-in-council?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the choice
is not implicit in the order-in-council as to
the exact location. As I was explaining to the
hon. member for Downsview, the exact loca-
tion really hasn't been determined. It is the
basic responsibility of Metro and the TTC.

However, I don't think there is any doubt
that the location from Lawrence to Eglinton
has been determined, because that particular
area was consistent with all five recommenda-
tions.

Mr. Lewis: A last supplementary: What
then prompted the need for an unpublished
order-in-council, dated February 2, about
which the Legislature was not inforaied and
upon which the press stumbled, almost by
accident I think?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I was
explaining, I think the question would more
appropriately be asked of the Attorney Gen-
eral. I assume that it is to put it in a legal
sense, if there was any discrepancy or prob-
lems with the initial order-in-council, and
probably to designate it for grant purposes.
But it doesn't alter the basic order-in-council
or the policy as of last June.

SALARY OF AGENT GENERAL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, can the
Premier tell the House what the salary off^er
was that enabled him to pursuade his friend
Ward Cornell to act as agent general for us
in London for the next three years?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I can-
not tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition
the amount of the salary offer. I would
assume it was consistent with that which was
already being paid. I am sure the Minister

of Industry and Tourism (Mr. White) could
give the hon. Leader of the Opposition that
information.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would think he is the
one that would know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will try to find out in
case the minister is not here this morning,
but I may not have that information until
after lunch.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr.
Speaker: I wonder if the Premier can tell us
ir that appointment was made in lieu of the
decision to go ahead with the more elaborate
information oflBce under the direction of the
government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don't know
to what oflBce to hon. Leader of the Oppo-
sition is referring. In that there hasn't been
any decision to establish an elaborate infor-
mation oflBce, this appointment could hardly
be in lieu of that appointment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He must have been
pretty disappointed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In what?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A further supplementaiy:
Is it not true that Mr. Cornell, or people em-
ployed through and by him, prepared recom-
mendations for the administration, or for the
Premier, or for the Minister of Trade and
Development more likely, recommending such
an expansion of information services?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No Mr. Speaker, I thought
that the hon. Leader of the Opposition-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: I think recommendation
No. 1 was that Mr. Cornell himself would
head it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think, while I recognize
the desire of the hon. Leader of the Opposi-
tion to be somewhat facetious in this regard-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: I want just to get infor-
mation about what the Premier is doing for
liis friends.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): How they
are spending the taxpayers' money!

Mr. Singer: Campaign managers!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader
of the Opposition would read the Throne
Speech very carefully, which I assume he had
done prior to his constructive presentation to
the House with his multitude of amendments,
he would have read the specific reference to

240

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

the communications committee, which is a
sub-committee of the Committee on Govern-
ment Productivity; its report will be made
available to the government fairly soon. What
those recommendations contain I can't tell
the hon. Leader of the Opposition-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Looks like Ward Cornell
is not going to be made director of "Infor-
mation Ontario."

Hon. Mr. Davis: —except I sense that they
are not suggesting any large information
structure whatsoever. So, to get back to the
former question, in that the report has not
been made available, it is quite obvious that
Mr. Cornell's appointment as agent general
in London cannot be in lieu of a recom-
mendation that may or may not exist, and I
would say-
Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don't think that is
obvious at all.

Mr. Singer: And one should have sensed,
as the Premier said—

Hon. Mr. Davis: And one should have
sensed—

Mr. Singer: —and not discouraged it, be-
cause—

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, reference was made
in the Throne Speech that the report would
be coming. I can't tell the member which
paragraph it is, but it is there.

Mr. Singer: Yes, and one should have
sensed what it was going to say.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A further question of the
Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
As I recall the Throne Speech, it also made
reference to plans for an oJBBce in Washing-
ton. I take it there will be a designate from
Ontario to that office as well. Will he have a
title, and is it true that Alan Eagleson is the
Premier's first choice?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It

would be the first time Washington has been

designated as Siberia.

Hon. Mr. Davis: —but I would suggest that
Mr. Eagleson could discharge that respon-
sibility with great ability.

Mr. Lewis: Oh I am sure he can. He can
justify almost any responsibility.

Mr. MacDonald: He'll organize the
Premier's backbenchers and then the Premier
will really be in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is a man of very great
talent; he would do it very well. However, I
think it is safe to assume that Mr. Eagleson
will not be appointed, in that I don't think
he would be remotely interested in it; at
least I don't believe Washington— is it going
to be part of any expansion of the World
Hockey Association or get a hockey franchise?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier needs him
right here.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I don't
think they are ready for him.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): All amateurs
therel

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don't think Alan will be
the one designated. What the title will be I
can't tell the leader of the New Democratic
Party at this moment.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supple-
mentary: While the Minister of Revenue
(Hon. Mr. Grossman) is in China, wouldn't
the government be able to save substantial
money if they kept him there and established
a new office for him?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, not being
familiar with the conditions or the environ-
ment in China, I can't really say whether the
Minister of Revenue would be anxious to re-
main in that jurisdiction. But in that he, by
quite a substantial majority, succeeded in de-
feating representatives of the party repre-
sented by the member for Downsview and
the leader of the New Democratic Party, I
think it is quite obvious that he will wish to
return here to very adequately represent
those people-
Mr. Lewis: Oh, he is adaptable all right;
he is adaptable.

Mr. Singer: By quite a substantial majority?

Mr. MacDonald: Not too substantial.

Mr. Lewis: Not what they call a substan-
tial majority.

Hon. Mr. Davis: —from his constituency
and to give me the benefit of his very real
experience and advice in the administration
of the afiFairs of this province.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He knows how rotten-
Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

MARCH 10, 1972

241

An hon. member: No.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore); A supple-
mentary, Mr. Speaker: I beg your direction
on an issue. Since the Minister of Trade and
Development is not here and since his parlia-
mentary assistant is, is it proper to direct
the same question to the parliamentary
assistant?

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes, of course.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am
acting minister of that department.

Mr. Singer: Oh, that will get the member
a lot of information!

Mr. Lawlor: What has the—

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Lawlor: It is a supplementary question
to the question asked of the Premier, Mr.
Speaker,

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary? Very good.

Mr. Lawlor: What has the new blossoming
and erstwhile parliamentary assistant got to
say about the appointment of Ward Cornell?
What is the word up in the inner ofiBce?

Hon. Mr. Davis: They are obviously de-
lighted.

Mr. Lewis: Well, just by way of further
supplementary, since it all has to do with
the Department of Trade and Industry and
Tourism, I gather that the major advertising
account was shifted from one firm to a firm
whose name is relatively well known in the
world of politics in Ontario. Is this a sort
of gradual progression which the government
will not follow in terms of the awarding of
contracts and positions of agent general and
posts in Washington and so on?

Mr. MacDonald: Are there any of the
Premier's friends whose needs have not been
met?

Mr. Lewis: Does the Premier tender for
some of his public officers? Or does he just
choose?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, we don't
really tender for those areas of important
departments.

Mr. Lewis: How does he arrive at his
choices then?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We arrive at the choice—
and it's a very simple determination— by seek-

ing out men and women of great qualifica-
tions, a talent and ability who can ably
represent the people of this province in posi-
tions like the agent general. And, with
respect, Ward Cornell can do just that. I am
sure the members opposite will find, over a
period of time, just how able a person he is
and how well he will represent our province
in London.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He was chosen in the
same way as the people of Ontario made
their choice.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Is the
government planning to supply Mr. Cornell
with a gondola above Trafalgar Square?

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, I guess it's a sup-
plementary under these circumstances. Have
they found a title for Arthur Harnett; and
what are they paying him down at Ontario
Place?

An hon. member: The hon. member will
need one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don't know
the title that Mr. Harnett has been given nor
what salary he is being paid. I shall en-
deavour to find out. I believe the minister
will be here, probably on Monday. He will
have that information. If I see the Leader of
the Opposition after lunch, I may have it for
him.

But, once again, Mr. Harnett being a man
of very substantial talent, I think it is quite
obvious he will do a very comanendable job
at Ontario Place.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Are any of those jobs
of interest to the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Lewis: He says he needs an applica-
tion form.

Mr. Speaker: Since there have been a rea-
sonable number of supplementaries—

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: This is what you call the
DIP programme— the Tory equivalent of the
LIP programme.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the
Opposition have further questions? If not,
the hon. leader of the New Democratic
Party.

242

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. Davis: Would the member for
York South have liked to have gone to Lon-
don? Maybe Washington? If the member
wants to go to Washington, I'll think about
it.

Mr. MacDonald: London, I would have
preferred.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Would he?

Mr. MacDonald: It is rough here too, as it
was in Ottawa.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): It is
ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Solicitor General,
Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Singer: There is no Solicitor General.

DE HAVILLAND LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question first
of the Minister of Labour: Can he table for
the House the actual contacts between his
department and the de Havilland plant and
the UAW local 112 during the period of the
strike?

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, this matter is still under very active
review by our department and I doubt that
there would be any merit in tabling them at
this time. I would be glad to talk with my
oflBcials first, because I gave them instructions
yesterday to look into this matter very
closely.

Mr. Lewis: I may ask, by way of supple-
mentary, is the minister aware that the union
doesn't feel that it has been in quite the
degree of contact which apparently was con-
veyed to the minister and that it would do his
department well to pursue the negotiations
at this point?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes Mr. Speaker, I
think perhaps I misled the hon. member from
Yorkview (Mr. Young) in my reply the other
day. I perhaps left the wrong impression, but
we are actively working on it.

HARBOUR CITY COST

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier
about Harbour City: How much did all the
Harbour City preparation cost, prior to its
abandonment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well Mr. Speaker, I
can't give the hon leader of the New Demo-
cratic Party that figure. I shall endeavour
to get it for him.

There has been a minimum amount of work
on Harbour City, I would think, in the last
year or year and a half, but I will certainly
try to get those totals for him.

Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General has the
answer to a question asked previously by
the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans).

POLICE PROTECTION AT GULL BAY

Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Wentworth
asked a question yesterday as follows:

Can the Minister of Justice explain why
the Ontario Provincial Police have refused
to provide adequate police protection for
the Gull Bay area of northern Ontario on
the west shore of Lake Nipigon, in spite
of the request being made by the chief
of the band and by the member for
Thunder Bay?

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Provincial Police
have been providing police protection to this
reserve, as well as to the many other com-
munities in the area, from the Armstrong
detachment.

I understand that in addition to normal
patrols from the Armstrong detachment, the
OPP is also providing continuing patrols into
this particular reserve from the Thunder
Bay detachment. Two men— usually on the
afternoon shift, on a daily basis, weather per-
mitting—are at the reserve.

This is a matter that has been the subject
of discussion and consultation between the
OPP and the Gull Bay reserve for several
years.

As recently as February 1, Assistant Com-
missioner Bird, in a letter to the hon. member
for Thunder Bay, offered to provide full
recruit training courses at the Ontario Police
College for any suitable person chosen by
the Gull Bay band who could then serve
as a full-time constable on the reserve. The
full cost of this training would be borne by
the provincial government.

At the same time. Assistant Commissioner
Bird offered the assistance of the superin-
tendent of No. 16 district in Thunder Bay
to facilitate the matter. Immediately fol-
lowing this letter the superintendent wrote
to Chief Ronald King and personally offered
his help in selecting and training an Indian
constable. In addition, the superintendent
has sent a corporal from the detachment to
consult with the chief.

MARCH 10, 1972

243

Mr. Speaker, I of course am greatly con-
cerned about the closing of the school, and
as of yesterday a meeting has been arranged
for Tuesday next at the Gull Bay reserve
with representatives from the Department of
Indian Affairs, the band council and mem-
bers of the OPP, to discuss the matter.

Mr. Stokes: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
EHd the minister take it upon himself to find
out why the Department of Indian Affairs
found it necessary to close the school? Does
the minister not think that the situation de-
mands immediate action, rather than sug-
gesting to the Indian band that they pick
someone who they feel would be competent
to act as a constable and send him all the
way down here to Aylmer for a three to six
month course? What are they going to do for
police protection and the administration of
justice in the meantime?

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, the clos-
ing of the school is related to the conditions
on the reserve, as touched upon by the hon.
member.

There is, of course, the short-term neces-
sity; there is also the long^:erm solution. This
matter, as the hon. member knows, has been
a matter that, as I said, has been going on
for a matter of some years, so that—

Mr. MacDonald: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —I think there is the
short-term solution, the short-term require-
ment, and what I would hope to be the
long-term solution.

Of course, as the hon. member knows,
there are expressions of opinion that the
policing on reserves should be done by In-
dian constables. I am not leaving the matter
as it is; I will be following closely the results
of the meeting on Tuesday next, and ff
necessary the whole matter will be taken
under review.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,

a supplementary: Does the minister agree
that the recent incidents— and incidents which
occurred prior to the last week— indicate that
there has in fact been a lack of adequate
police protection?

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, I have
read the file and I have noted the instances
which have occurred over the past two years
and the number of convictions that have taken
place. It was the considered judgement of
the OPP that the situation did not warrant
the location of a detachment specifically for

the reserve, which I think is the position
that the chief has taken. As I say Mr. Speaker,
after Tuesday the whole matter will be taken
under review if necessary.

Mr. Stokes: One final supplementary: As a
result of the minister informing himself of
the details in this case, vdll he now concede
that the question was based on real facts
rather than the figment of someone's imagina-
tion?

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, I review
for you the question and I need not concede
the matter. This is the question, and I read
it for the hon. member: "Can the minister
explain why the Ontario Provincial Police
have refused to provide adequate police pro-
tection . . ."

Mr. Deans: They have refused to provide
adequate police protection. They had to close
the school.

Mr. Lewis: Putting the minister in charge
of the police will bring this government
down in six months.

Mr. Speaker: Orderl

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Putting that man in
charge of the NDP will ruin the ND Party.

Mr. Reid: It is already done.

Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It came within 100
votes!

Mr. Speaker, the wording of that question
is a typical NDP question, a loaded thing,
shifting responsibility to the OPP. And I may
say that I was pleased when the Globe and
Mail didn't pick up that point of view but
stated the significant part.

The hon. member was trying to shift the
responsibility of the OPP and they have dis-
charged their responsibility.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests has a reply to a question asked
yesterday.

REMOVAL OF SAND FROM DUNES
IN PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

Hon. L. Bemier (Minister of Mines and
Northern Affairs; and Lands and Forests):
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP inquired,
in a supplementary question, regarding the
removal of trees from land under lease from

244

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

my department by the Lake Ontario Cement
Co. I have this reply for him.

Article 8 of the agreement states that the
lessee may not remove any tree or timber
standing from the leased area without the
permission of the district forester. It was
drawn to our attention that cutting was taking
place and the matter was investigated im-
mediately. I have been advised that 10 to
12 trees, two to four inches in diameter, have
been cut apparently with an axe or a hatchet
on the leased land remote from where the
sand is being excavated.

There is no evidence that indicates that the
Lake Ontario Cement Co. was responsible
for the cutting. These trees were recently,
or still are, lying where they fell. Three other
trees, slightly larger, were apparently up-
rooted by the wind near the excavation. The
company's operations may have contributed
to this result.

Mr. Lewis: It certainly did. There's a pic-
ture of a bulldozer—

Hon. Mr. Bemier: We can find no evi-
dence, sir, to indicate that the company has
violated any conditions of the lease.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-
Forest Hill has been trying to gain the floor.

ARTIFACTS STOLEN FROM MEMORIAL

Mr. Givens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
would like to direct a question, through you
sir, to the Attorney General.

He will appreciate the urgency of this, sir.
Would he consider posting a reward for the
recovery of certain very irreplaceable histor-
ical artifacts which were stolen from a show-
case in the Sir Casmir Gzowsld memorial on
the lakefront on the night of February 21,
when the memorial was vandalized? Since
then the trail has grown very cold.

I'm sure that if the Attorney General con-
sults with the Minister of Citizenship, he
will appreciate the significance of this
memorial to one of Upper Canada's most
energetic and prominent pioneers. Would he
consider posting such a reward because the
trail has grown cold?

Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Justice): Mr.
Speaker, I believe this gentleman may have
been a former Lieutenant Governor of this
province. I will certainly look into the matter
and see what can be done. I'll have a report
on it next week.

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

PROTECTION FOR CLEANED BUILDING

Mrs. M. Scrivener (St. David): Mr. Speak-
er, I have a question of the Minister of
Public Works.

Like so many others I have observed with
interest the cleaning of the exterior stone of
this building. My question is: Is it planned
to follow up this exterior cleaning with a
coating of silica or other protective material?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Pubhc
Works): Mr. Speaker, I know, as the cleaning
is taking place the stonework is being re-
furbished and tuckpointed. I'm not sure
whether or not a silicone spray will be
added, but I will inquire and get the in-
formation.

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

COMPANY'S MOVE FROM
ONTARIO TO QUEBEC

Mr. MacDonald: In the continued absence
of the Minister of Trade and Development
I have a question of the Premier.

Has this government ascertained whether
the federal government did or did not make
a grant to Belanger-Tappan which permitted
that company to move the Findlay operation
out of Carleton Place to Quebec? If it is the
minister's view that the government did assist
in the financing of this rationalization of that
company, what does the government plan to
do to replace a 100-year-old industry which
is basic to that eastern Ontario town?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I believe the minister is
finding out from the federal authorities
whether there was any federal money allo-
cated. I personally don't know but I shall
endeavour to find out for the hon. member.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): A supple-
mentary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact
that the company had never complained
about financial problems, and in fact was
paying rather low wage rates, would the
Premier consider having the company open
its books so that the comumnity and the
workers involved can in fact see whether or
not the moving was justified? Would the
Premier also consider seeking other pur-
chasers for the plant to maintain it as a going
concern?

MARCH 10, 1972

245

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of course
obviously we would be interested in a pros-
pective purchaser of the plant. It is not
possible for us just to produce purchasers
of the plant. I am not suflBciently familiar
with the actual economics of it or the
rationale for their move. The minister is, and
I am sure he would be prepared to inform
the hon. member udth as much detail as he
can.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. meanber for Ottawa
East.

SUMMER 72 PROGRAMME

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question of the Premier in relation
to the statement this morning on the summer
youth programme.

Is the Premier aware of a commission
report which was published in the Ottawa
Citizen indicating that the summer youth
programme, at least the federal youth pro-
gramme, was of questionable value to the
students, the youth involved and to society
at large? I would ask the Premier whether
he considered the recommendations of the
leaks, at least in the paper, of that report,
and whether this had had any effect on
this Ontario summer youth programme?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven't seen the report.
I just heard about it very recently. I believe
it was an analysis of one of the federal
progranmies in the city of Ottawa that has
no bearing on what we are doing with our
own summer youth programme. We think the
programmes are constructive, and helpful to
the students and to the public generally and
we will be proceeding with them.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
Is it expected when the government is pay-
ing youths to participate in one of these
programmes that they can put aside suflBcient
moneys to pay their education costs, or at
least part of their tuition? Is there a savings,
for instance, expected for the student in one
of these programmes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The degree of savings
depends on how much money the student
spends during the summer months. I can't
predict this accurately for the hon. member.

I would say that in a number of pro-
grammes the salaries or the weekly incomes
that are paid compare with many other sum-
mer job opportunities. It has been tradi-
tionally possible for a number of students
to save suflBcient to pay at least a portion

of their tuition or their room and board at
post-secondary institutions. But really, I think
the hon. member would recognize it would
be impossible for me to tell him accurately
just what percentage of the money earned
they will, in fact, be able to set aside.

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

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT IN
SUDBURY DISTRICT

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
in the absence of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. McKeough), could I direct a
question to the Premier? When could we in
Sudbury expect the government to break up
the tax haven presently enjoyed by the
International Nickel Company in the town
of Copper Cliff by the introduction of a
regional form of government in that area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recognize the member
for Sudbury is concerned, and quite obviously
is in complete support of regional govern-
ment in that area; otherwise he would not
have raised the question in the way he has.
If he will recall, the Throne Speech said that
in this session the government would be in-
troducing legislation to create a regional
government in the Sudbury district. So I
think the question is itself answered in the
iTirone Speech on February 29.

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

Mr. Lawlor: The government is taking an
awful long time.

Mr. E. W. Mattel (Sudbury East): The
government has been saying we were going
to get it in since 1969. It is still coming.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
Centre, not Sudbury East.

LOCATION OF NEW AIRPORT

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, two questions of the Premier: Does
this government favour the new Pickering
airport site over all other alternatives?

The second question: Is the site a com-
promise between the preference of the fed-
eral government and those of this govern-
ment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, quite ob-
viously, the statement that was made last
week— a joint statement by the Treasurer (Mr.

246

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

McKeough) and by the Minister of Trans-
port of the federal government— indicated the
federal government's acceptance in selection
of the site, which is, after all, its basic re-
sponsibility for the transportation facility
itself.

As to what other sites were considered, I
have read many stories, about 59 sites, four
sites. I can't inform the hon. member just
what particular locations may or may not
have been considered, but obviously there
was a degree of consensus as it related to the
Pickering site.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, as a supple-
mentary, would the Premier have preferred a
site farther east or in some other direction
from this particular site?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really can't
say that I have any personal preference. I
don't purport to be knowledgeable as to the
climatic, geographic and other reasons for
the locations of specific sites.

Mr. Deacon: I am asking what the govern-
ment would have preferred.

Mr. MacDonald: As far east as St. Scholas-
tique, for example?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is
fair to state that we would not have sup-
ported an Ontario airport in Quebec. I think
it is quite obvious that that would not have
been acceptable.

Mr. Deacon: The Premier still hasn't
answered the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In spite of the observa-
tions in the Globe and Mail this morning, as
made by a former Prime Minister of this
country, that St. Scholastique was, in fact,
to be serving Ontario, I really think the new
Pickering international airport will go a long
way to resolving our problems.

Mr. Deacon: The Premier still hasn't
answered the question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question
of the designated Minister of Public Pro-
tection (Mr. Winkler), Mr. Speaker!

Mr. Cassidy: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: I beg your pardon.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary? I am sorry.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary of the
Premier: Was the government influenced in

its choice of the airport location by the in-
terests of its friends in Revenue Properties
who were having a tough time in the stock
market and who have extensive holdings in
the area?

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It's an improper ques-
tion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great
respect to the member for Ottawa Centre,
who I think still has a great deal to learn
about this House and the members in it, I
would say to him that the selection of the
site in Pickering was made on a very statisti-
cal, professional basis and did not relate to
owners of property either there or anywhere
else; and I would like to think that the
member for Ottawa Centre would understand
that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.

MISLEADING ADVERTISING
BY INSURANCE COMPANIES

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister
of Financial and Commercial Afi^airs, Mr.
Speaker:

Has the minister taken note of the mislead-
ing advertising campaign currently being in-
dulged in by the Allstate Insurance Co.; and
if he has, what is he doing about it?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): We are aware of a
nimiber of such advertising progranmies. We
have already acted in some instances. We will
act in all of them in the same fashion, and
the companies have been communicated with.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr.
Speaker: Has the Allstate co. specifically been
communicated with, and if they have, why
are they still running that programme on the
air every half hour?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I don't know the pro-
gramme the hon. member refers to, but I
shall take the question as notice and act in
that case the same as we have in the others.

Mr. Shulman: The same supplementary,
Mr. Speaker: Has the Allstate co. specifically
been communicated with?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has.

MARCH 10, 1972

247

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, what
does the minister mean by action with the
others? Exactly what action has his depart-
ment taken?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I was referring more
specifically to newspaper advertising, where
we have communicated with them and asked
them to desist where we felt the advertising
was of a misleading nature.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary,
whom has the minister asked to desist— which
companies, for which advertisements, in which
fields?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I don't have that infor-
mation with me, but I could supply it to the
hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister saying that some
of them were insurance companies?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Lewis: Will the minister file that in-
formation on Monday?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes I will.

Mr. Lewis: Does Laurier Life live in the
minister's mind as one of those companies
with whom he communicated?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The name is somewhat
familiar to me, and if the situation applies I
will certainly give the member that infor-
mation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa

East.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The
minister stated he was aware of the mislead-
ing advertising. As the minister knows, this is
under the purview of the federal Department
of Consumer and Corporate AfiFairs. Has he
contacted that department?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Pardon me? Have I
contacted them?

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I certainly have.

Mr. Roy: When?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I can't tell the member
the date, but it was since I was transferred
to that ministry; that's not too many days ago.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wel-
lington South.

DISPOSITION OF CATTLE AT
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): I have
a question of the Minister of Correctional
Services.

Can he inform me as to the state of the
disposition of the dairy and beef herds con-
nected with correctional institutions? And
what steps are being taken to protect the
historic part that they have played in the
dairy and beef herds of Ontario?

Hon. C. J. S. Apps (Minister of Correc-
tional Services): Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the
member knows, the Department of Correc-
tional Services is going out of the farming
business. The herds are being dispersed on
the advice of the Department of Agriculture
and Food, I understand the department is
taking over some of them, some are being
made available to the federal Department of
Agriculture, if they so wish, for their experi-
mental purposes; and the balance is being
sold at auction in the various areas where the
herds are now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr.
Speaker: Will there be no continuation of
farm training at any of these institutions? Is
it being abandoned completely?

Hon. Mr. Apps: Yes, for the most part. In
some of the correctional centres and training
schools there will still be some market gar-
dening done, but the overall farming opera-
tions are being discontinued.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As a supplementary, was
this done on the advice of the Department
of Agriculture and Food or did the minister
take their advice only on how to disperse the
herds?

Hon. Mr. Apps: I got their advice on how
the herds should be dispersed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon, member for Sand-
wich-Riverside.

DPW NEWS RELEASES ON
CONTRACT AWARDS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich- Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Public Works concerning the news releases
announcing contract awards by his depart-
ment.

Why do most of these annoimcements be-
gin with the statement that the Hon. John

248

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

White or the Hon Robert Welch has been
advised by the Hon. James W. Snow . . .?"

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I think it is
self-explanatory that I have advised them of
diese works.

Mr. Burr: Why does the minister never
advise the members of the opposition ridings
in this way?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, Mr. Speaker, I only
advise the members who have inquired about
particular jobs in their ridings.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr.
Speaker.

Mr. Martel: That's just a courteous service.

Mr. Shulman: Will the minister accept a
blanket request from the members of this
party that they would like to be advised of
anything happening in their riding?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, if any mem-
ber of this House inquires of me or my
oflBce regarding a project, or the status of it,
in their riding, I will be pleased to advise
them of that particular project-
Mr. Martel: But with the Tories it goes
unrequested.

Hon. Mr. Snow: —even the hon. member
for High Park.

Mr. Martel: The minister grinds them out
in the basement.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions? The hon.
member for Renfrew South.

ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): A
question of the Minister of the Environment:
On December 14 last the minister's predeces-
sor stated in this House that he would shortly
be announcing a new formula on assistance
to small municipalities for installation of
water and sewage. To date we have not had
that announcement. I am wondering when
the minister will be making that announce-
ment?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of the Environ-
ment): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot tell
the hon. member specifically. There are a
number of complications. There have been
several formulas worked out, which I am not

yet satisfied will solve a number of the
problems in the very small municipalities. I
know they are pressing problems. We have a
group working on this at the moment and I
hope I will be able to tell the hon. member,
and a number of other hon. members who
are concerned about this problem, what our
changes will be in the near future.

Mr. Yakabuski: Supplementary, Mr. Speak-
er: Is the minister aware that the change in
the formula is very, very vital to a number
of small mimicipalities in this province? It is
a matter of life and death really. These
municipalities will really be in grave trouble
if this new formula isn't put into operation
shordy.

Mr. Speaker: Question please, the ques-
tion?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am aware of it, Mr.
Speaker.

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

INCOME SUPPLEMENT PROGRAMME

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Minister of
Social and Family Services, Mr. Speaker: I
would like to ask the minister, in view of the
decision by the regional municipality of
Ottawa-Carleton to undertake a pilot pro-
gramme for income supplementation— the
first such project in the province— whether
the province would now reconsider its appar-
ent refusal to share in any costs of that
income supplementation?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Social and
Family Services): The hon. member will
realize that this is a very complex subject.
Our planning and research branch is doing
research in this area. I would be pleased to
look further into it and into the specifics as
it concerns the Ottawa municipality.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker:
In view of the fact that three ministers on
the government side have given promises that
the government would come up with an early
answer in response to requests from the
Ottawa area for assistance with an income
supplementation project, could he not stop
researching and take some action?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, our peo-
ple have been working on this for some time
and they will continue to work, and some
time in the future I will have more definite

MARCH 10, 1972

249

information on this very important and com-
plex subject.

Mr Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speak-
er: In view of the federal goverimient's very
great interest in the first pilot project in
income supplementation in Canada, would
the minister at the very least turn on the tap
so that federal money, which is eagerly being
offered under the Canada Assistance Plan,
could flow in order to help the Ottawa
scheme rather than blocking it, as is the case
at present?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well Mr. Speaker,
there are federal funds, as the member has
indicated. I believe it is on a 50-50 sharing
basis. We intend to make use of the Canada
Assistance Plan and this subject is being
actively pursued.

Mr. Cassidy: Is that a yes answer or a no
answer, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I have just indicated
our people are working on this.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has
expired.

Mr. Cassidy: It doesn't cost the province
a God-damn nickel.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member is sound-
ing like Pierre Trudeau.

Mr. Speaker: Order please!
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: Let the record show-
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member wish
the remark to remain on the record? The
hon. member will please be seated.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will please
be seated. I directed a question to him. Does
he wish the remark to remain on the record?
Is he going to correct it or withdraw?

Mr. Cassidy: I think I had better withdraw.
Although the sentiment was well founded, I
will withdraw the word.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Come on, it is in the finest
parliamentary tradition.

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for
Ottawa Centre indicated he had a point of
order. Does he still have a point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.

CITY OF ST. CATHARINES

Mr. Eaton, in the absence of Mr. Johnston,
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
respecting the City of St. Catharines.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, re-
suming the adjourned debate on the amend-
ment to the amendment to the motion for an
address in reply to the speech of the Honour-
able the Lieutenant Governor at the opening
of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday you will recall I made a few
preliminary remarks before beginning my ad-
dress in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I would like to begin today, sir, by accusing
one of the hon. members— I hope he doesn't
leave— the Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Shaw), of misleading the House.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shulman: I have just been informed
by the Clerk 1 am not allowed to accuse a
member of deliberately misleading the House.
I will let everyone draw their own conclusions
after the evidence is presented.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale):
back!

Come on

Mr. Shulman: Just a few moments ago, sir,
a question was asked by the hon. member
for Sandwich- Riverside (Mr. Burr) which
sounded frivolous at first— but it's a small
matter of rather serious import— as to why
press releases from this particular minister's
department—

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Public
Works): It is so interesting I will come back.

Mr. Shulman: -begin, "The Hoii. Allaxi F.
Lawrence has been advised . . ." or "Mr.
Ronald K. McNeil has been advised. . . ."

250

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

The minister replied that he is always happy
to give information to any member of the
House. Sir, that is not the answer to the
question. It is not the fact.

I have two sets of news releases here,
both from the minister's department. There
are two types; there is the type that comes
from Conservative ridings and there's the
type about developments that occur in non-
Conservative ridings. We've broken them
down and here's how they read— and instruc-
tions have been given to his department that
this is the way they are to be released. If
it's a Conservative riding it reads as follows:
"Mr. Ronald K. McNeil, MPP for Elgin has
been advised [has been advised; he didn't
ask] that the Hon. James W. Snow, Minister
of Public Works, has awarded a $45,236
contract" to so and so. I have a pile of them;
there's no use reading them all.

Here is another group. This is when it's in
an opposition riding. Instead it starts out
quite differently. "The Hon. James W. Snow,
Minister of Public Works, has awarded a
$27,300 contract to"— and there's no mention
of the opposition member. Well, I don't think
it's that important. It's a little bit of cheap
politicking which we expect from this par-
ticular minister. But what I find more im-
portant is that—

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): How can
the minister possibly smile?

Mr. Renwick: And this government.

Mr. Shulman: —he has come in here and
misled the House. There is a proper word
for this which I'm not allowed to use, but
he knows what it is and I know what it is
and you know what it is. And he shouldn't
be allowed to sit in that seat.

Mr. Renwick: Resign!

Mr. Shulman: I wish the Premier were here
because I would like to think that with their
85 members over there, they've got enough
of a majority that they don't have to play
these cheap, little political tricks. If the
minister wants to do his politicking, fine, but
at least be man enough to own up to it. And
don't come in here and lie to us.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, I stated, I think— I will check the
Hansard— a few moments ago in reply to
the question, that I would be happy to in-
clude any member's name in the press re-
lease on a project if that member had made

inquiries of my office or my department re-
garding the project in his riding.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That
is not the point.

Hon. Mr. Snow: And I will continue to do
so.

Mr. Renwick: The minister does it auto-
matically for the Tories.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is not correct, Mr.
Speaker. In these cases these members have
made contact with me regarding these pro-
jects.

An hon. member: Oh, come, come!

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Shulman: On the same point of order,
if I may, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand correctly
that I heard the hon. member for High Park
accuse the hon. minister of lying?

Mr. Renwick: No!

Mr. Shulman: No, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Right! Point of order.

Mr. Shulman: My point of order is, sir,
there is absolutely no way, and the minister
knows it is nonsense to suggest there is a
way, that we can know in advance that he is
going to award a project. So how can we ask
about it?

Now, there is no suggestion in these state-
ments that any asking was made. In fact I
happen to know for a fact, and I challenge
you to bring your deputy in here and say it
isn't a fact, that there is no question in the
case of the member for Elgin— here is the
one, and there are several others here— they
didn't know about it either, and they did not
inquire. And the minister has given blanket
instructions in his department that in Con-
servative ridings the Conservative member is
to be mentioned in the release. Now deny it
if you dare!

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, it is now very obvious, then, that the
minister misled the House. Have you any
particular action that you think would be
appropriate?

Mr. Renwick: Call him before the bar of
the House.

MARCH 10, 1972

251

Mr. Speaker: The only thing I would say
at this point is that there has been no real
accusation that the hon. minister deliberately
misled the House.

Mr. Shulman: Well, I am about to make it.

Mr. Speaker: He may have inadvertently
misled the House.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, no, the facts are
there. We now have the facts.

Mr. Speaker: I do not undertake to judge
on whether he inadvertently misled the House.

Mr. Ren wick: What is the procedure for
judging?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member has
information that he has presented the House.
It is up to the hon. minister to refute the
information if he can. As far as I am con-
cerned, I don't think anything has been indi-
cated that the minister deliberately misled
the House and therefore I see nothing wrong
with the discussion.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, speak-
ing to this point of order, the minister knows
that this procedure went on in his depart-
ment. It isn't inadvertent that he got up and
said, "Every member is treated the same."
It's been going on for years and it has cer-
tainly been continued under him. Now if he
knows it happened and he got up and made
that statement, how could it be inadvertent?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Further
on the point of order, why do you allow
yourself to play these games? Why do you
allow yourself to do this with the opposite
speaker? You know the minister deliberately
misled the House so dress him down the way
you do the opposition so willingly.

It was quite clear and calculated. It's a
pork barrel portfolio and he is once again
giving it that description by his own con-
duct. Why is it necessary for him to play
these preposterous games with his depart-
ment? If he is putting out a press release, he
should mention the members of the opposi-
tion as willingly as he mentions the mem-
bers of the government and not mislead the
House.

Mr. Renwick: Or drop all of them.

Mr. Lewis: And smile in self -gratification
afterwards.

Mr. MacDonald: A cynical smile. He is
sitting on the pork barrel and he knows it.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you don't have to
reinforce that kind of behaviour in the
House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me on
a point of order, I hope that you are not
going to allow yourself to be established as
some sort of a judge between allegations
and reputations.

Mr. Renwick: What is the procedure?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is not your respon-
sibility. The last thing I want to do, Mr.
Speaker, is come to the defence of this par-
ticular minister, because he is simply carrying
on the old Tory traditions of trying to get
political mileage out of the dough that they
spent. I don't believe it does them any good.
It makes them look ridiculous but, please, sir,
do not allow yourself to be drawn into a
position where you have to act as judge
simply because of the points raised by the
people to my left.

I would continue with the point of order,
Mr. Speaker. Obviously the member for High
Park is making a formal presentation and a
speech. If the minister is silly enough to in-
volve himself in it then of course it is for
you to decide who is in order.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on the point
of order, the Leader of the Opposition has
really confused the issue in his inimitable
way.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The mem-
ber is not the leader any more! He had better
sit down.

Mr. MacDonald: That raucous noise! Un-
fortunately, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Martel: The Liberals don't have a
leader! Which one of the 20 over there is
leader today?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. mem-
ber for York South has the floor.

Mr. Ruston: He is not saying anything.

Mr. MacDonald: Unfortunately, Mr.
Speaker, in spite of what the Leader of the
Opposition has said, you are in the painful
position where you have to involve yourself.
You are the person who enforces the rules of
this House. Therefore, if we have clear evi-
dence—not only not disputed; even more, it
can't be disputed— that this is the procedure
and if we have clear evidence on the record
that the minister came in and mislead the
House you are in the painful position as the

252

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

impartial arbiter on the rules of this House
of expressing a view; indeed, of involving
yourself. Otherwise—

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The committee on privi-
lege can hear this sort of thing.

Mr. MacDonald: Pardon?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The committee can hear
this sort of thing.

Mr. MacDonald: A committee to hear this
thing? If there are rules in dispute in the
House, the Speaker is the arbiter of the
rules. This is the traditional place! Unfor-
tunately what we should have is a Speaker
who is appointed with complete independ-
ence so that he can act and doesn't have to
suflFer the consequences if he happens to take
an action that some member in the govern-
ment thinks is not in the government's favour.

Mr. Lewis: We will support you if you
are not in government favour any longer.

Mr. Speaker: I must say to the hon. mem-
bers of the House that I listened to the
remarks made by the hon. member for High
Park. In fact he stated that he was not
accusing the hon. minister of deliberately
misleading the House.

Mr. Shulman: No, I didn't! On a point of
order, I did not say I was not accusing the
minister-
Mr. Speaker: Because the Clerk-
Mr. Shulman: I had not got to that yet!

Mr. Speaker: Because the Clerk had in-
dicated to him that he was not allowed to
do this.

Mr. MacDonald: He now has the evidence
so he can make the accusation. The minister
confirmed it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park submitted to the House during his com-
ments what he deemed to be evidence that
the hon. minister had deliberately misled the
House. The hon. minister has denied that he
has deliberately misled the House. I did
suggest to the hon. members that perhaps
there might be some degree of inadvertence.

I am not certain one way or the other,
nor will I attempt to rule whether or not
there was any deliberation whatsoever in the
words of the hon minister when he replied
to the question. If the House wishes me to

examine the evidence, to review it com-
pletely and to attempt to make a ruling on
it, I will do so. I assure the hon. members
I will not rule on the basis of what has
been submitted at this moment.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, if I may con-
tinue. I am not at all disturbed by the
minor pork barrelling that is shown by this
particular minister. I think the member for
Brant, the Leader of the Opposition, is quite
correct. It does the Conservatives no good
whatsoever. It doesn't bring in a single vote.

What I am disturbed by is the fact that
this minister would come in here, make a
fool of himself and all of us by deliberately
and foolishly and blatantly attempting, with
a big smile on his face, saying "We treat you
all the same. You know that we don't; I know
that we don't. Everybody knows I don't but
I am going to play this big joke." He came
in here and he dehberately— and I say it now
—he deliberately misled the House. The
evidence is first of all the new releases. The
further evidence is— and I challenge him to
appear before a committee on ethics to sub-
stantiate this— further evidence can be pro-
duced by secretaries within his department
where instructions have been given. Further-
more, I ask—

Mr Speaker: Order, please! The standing
rules of this House specifically state that a
member may not accuse another member of
deliberately misleading the House.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Even
if he does?

Mr. Speaker: I state this to the hon. mem-
ber for High Park. He may not accuse, in
this chamber, another member of dehberately
misleading the House. It is against the stand-
ing rules and I would ask him to withdraw
that remark.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, in that case
may I withdraw the remark? I accuse the
minister of deliberately dissembling the
House.

Mr. Speaker: In that case I am again go-
ing to have to reserve an opinion rnitil I con-
sult my dictionary to see if, in fact, there is
such a word.

An hon. member: They have no original
ideas.

Mr. MacDonald: Better take a look at that
rule! When you have the facts, look at the
rules.

MARCH 10, 1972

253

Mr. Shulman: Dissembling to the House, it
should have been; deliberately dissembling
to the House.

Mr. Speaker, we can laugh about this but
it is serious. It indicates a certain mentality
within the cabinet which I find frightening
and I am sure I can see by the expression of
at least one of the members of the cabinet
that he, too, is upset by it and he should be,
quite rightly so. We expect more of this
cabinet. It is the most powerful cabinet in
this country. We are the most powerful prov-
ince. We expect a little more than the
childish behaviour that is displayed by the
Minister of Public Works.

Mr. Speaker, to go back to the speech
which I was provoked out of by this dis-
play.

Yesterday, as you recall, I was chastising
you gently about what has happened to our
question period and how the private members
have more or less disappeared from the ques-
tion period. It has now become a sort of
debate between the two leaders and the
cabinet. It is very interesting to listen to but
rather frustrating for the backbenchers who
do occasionally have questions they would
like to ask. We can't do much about the
leaders unfortunately but we can do some-
thing about—

Mr. Ruston: The member can take over as
leader.

Mr. Shulman: We can't stop them asking
as many questions as they wish-
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Yes, we can.

Mr. MacDonald: No, the member can't,
because we tried to change it and the mem-
ber's leader wouldn't play ball.

Mr. Shulman: But there is one thing that
you can do. In defence of my own leader,
let me say this, sir. It is very di£Bcult after
the Leader of the Opposition has taken 20
minutes, for the leader of the NDP to get up
and ask one question because it gives too
great a political advantage to the Liberal
Party. I say this to defend the member for
Scarborough West.

Mr. MacDonald: The Liberal leader wants
to-

Mr. Shulman: He is trapped into this situa-
tion. The situation now is that every day the
Leader of the Opposition gets up and asks
questions for 20 minutes, the NDP leader, in
defence, feels he must do something similar
and the backbenchers have no opportunity to

ask questions. Let me suggest to you, sir,
that-

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Are there
not supplementaries to those questions?

Mr. Shulman: Yes, it is very true, we are
allowed to go in on their coat tails and ask
supplementaries, but a few of us— the Liberal
backbenchers may not understand this— have
other matters of our own that are of interest
to our constituents which we would like to
bring up. I can understand why the Liberals
do not understand it.

Mr. Reid: Does the member ever think
that is why his leader asks so many ques-
tions so he does not get the chance?

Mr. Shulman: No, certainly not.

Mr. Reid: It is something to think about.

Mr. Shulman: That is a point, although
since the pattern is set by the leader of the
Liberal Party, one must wonder whether
that applies to my right!

Mr. MacDonald: We have tried to change
that pattern.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: However, sir, I would like
to suggest to you that there is one thing you
can do. You will recall when we were ruled
by the sergeant major who came before you,
that he had certain characteristics that didn't
exactly endear him to us. On the other hand
he did one or two things which perhaps were
for the better.

He did not allow debates to develop in
the question period. He would not allow
imore than two or three supplementaries. He
would not allow 10 minutes to be spent on
one subject. I must say in mild criticism
that perhaps this was better because it
allowed many more people to participate in
the debates. I suggest to you most humbly,
sir, that perhaps you should consider being
just a little bit tougher. It is not as easy
a route but I think for the benefit of all and
for the sake of the backbenchers of all three
parties, you should do this.

I would like to add one other word about
the subject which I was discussing yesterday,
the campaign in High Park, in relation to
my Liberal opponent, that dehghtful lady we
were discussing, Laima Svegzda. I was in-
formed that the very difficult time that we in
the NDP had from the opposition during that
campaign was also shared by the Liberal

254

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

candidate: Mr. William Clements, who I be-
lieve was the Liberal campaign manager in
St. George, came to me and said that he v/as
carrying some function in attempting to help
Miss Svegzda. He said that she was incred-
ibly harassed night and day, particularly at
night, by obscene and upsetting phone calls
to herself and her mother, trying to force
her to withdraw from the race and suggest-
ing that she was splitting the anti-socialist
vote. It wasn't just the NDP who are subject
to this type of campaign when the Conser-
vatives get worried.

Sir, I am going to turn to a rather un-
pleasant subject now and it is diflBcult for
me as a member of the NDP to bring this
up, but there is a little difference between
our party and the other two parties. When
we see something is wrong we don't hesitate
to expose it, regardless of where it hits.

In this case I am about to talk with some
reluctance about a trade union. I feel that
my position is similar to that if I were a
Tory backbencher and I found that there was
something wrong at International Nickel. In
that case I wouldn't be allowed to discuss
it, of course. But there is a difference in this
party.

We believe in democracy and we believe
that if something is wrong, regardless of
where it is it should be exposed. There is a
flaw in the law in relation to trade unions
which has been brought to my attention and
which involves a very serious matter of, in
effect, a crooked trade union. I wish to go
into it in some detail.

The union I am referring to is the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, Local 128.

A few months ago, sir, a delegation from
that union came to my oflBce extremely upset
by what was happening wdthin the union.
They asked me to look at certain docu-
mentary evidence which they had with them
and which they left with me, and which I
have here now to present to you.

I was quite upset by what I saw at that
time, and I wasn't quite sure how to pro-
ceed because, quite frankly, my party re-
ceives considerable help from unions— not this
particular union— but from unions, and I
didn't want to attack them until I was ab-
solutely certain that every other private
means of clearing up this mess could be
found.

I went to this union's headquarters with
Mr. Terry Meagher of the Ontario Federation
of Labour and with the approval of Mr.

David Archer, from the Ontario Federation
of Labour, and Mr. Louis Lenkinski of the
Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto, all
of whom I believe were as upset as I was
by the things that came out. But the meet-
ing was quite fruitless. In a rather polite
way we went through the motions but ab-
solutely nothing took place.

I will start at he beginning. The very first
complaint that the members of the union had
was that they are not allowed to vote on
collective agreements. They are told "You
will take the collective agreement; we have
come to this conclusion." If there be any
questions that this is true I have here the
minutes of the regular monthly meeting of
this union held at 258 Church Street, To-
ronto. They are dated August 25, 1971. I
quote from the minutes:

Brother Petronski read out the new con-
tract and explained changes. Brother J.
Carroll gave his interpretation of some of
the wording in the contract. Brother Backer
asked Brother Carroll if a vote would be
taken to accept or reject the contract and
Brother Carroll replied that no vote would
be taken.

Some of the members of the union felt this
was wrong and that they should have some
kind of a democratic say in what was taking
place there and they pressed at a meeting
that a vote should be taken, but they were
overruled by the people who rule that union.
They say, "No, we don't take votes on col-
lective agreements."

I found this a little peculiar, so I got in
touch with Mr. J. Carroll, the international
vice-president of this union for Canada. I
called him up and he told me— to quote him—
over the phone that this was a matter of
internal union affairs and was none of my
business. That was the end of the conversa-
tion.

It isn't just on matters of collective agree-
ments where the membership is not allowed
to speak out. The union decided they wanted
to have a health plan. A certain company
was chosen by the leadership of the union
and the members wanted to know if they
could approve this particular plan. Again
they were told, "No," I have here the min-
utes of the executive board's meeting with
Brother J. Carroll, international vice-presi-
dent, held at 221 Victoria Street on Decem-
ber 1, 1969. I quote from those minutes:
Brother Carroll was asked if any pro-
gress had been made concerning the health
and welfare plan. Brother Carroll informed

MARCH 10, 1972

255

the meeting that the plan would start on
Jan. 1. On being asked if the plan
would come before the members for ap-
proval, brother Carroll said no. He was
asked why not. Brother Carroll said that
the plan was too complicated for the mem-
bers to understand. Meeting closed.

That is almost the way our Conservative
government runs things. They are not quite
that bold or bald, but that is the way leader-
ship of this union works.

In this particular union, as in many other
unions, trustees are elected to watch over
the finances. This, like so many other things,
is window-dressing. There are trustees, it is
very, very true, but if they don't approve of
something that is going on, or if they find
something wrong, just look out.

The trustees in this particular union were
an honest group and they did discover that
there was something going on with the
finances, which I shall come to by and by,
and they refused to sign the quarterly finan-
cial report. What happened then was very
interesting. I have here the minutes of the
meeting held on December 1, 1969, and I
quote:

Brother Carroll asked why the trustees
had not signed the quarterly financial re-
port. He then went on to inform the
trustees that it didn't matter whether they
signed it or not because he would sign it
himself if they didn't.

And, in e£Fect, that is exactly what happened.
The trustees are there to look over the
finances but when they find that people in-
side are stealing money, look out. If they
won't sign the report, "Too bad, we will get
somebody else to sign it."

Well, it is a funny union. They don't like
to keep financial records there. For many
years they found it was simpler to keep all
the money in cash— for reasons we will come
to by and by.

But in 1970 the trustees, who unquestion-
ably were honest, became very upset by the
fact that money was disappearing out of
union coffers and they called in a chartered
accountant. His name is Sydney J. Posner;
his ofiice is at 215 Victoria Street. They ask-
ed him to look over the books of the union.

On March 23, 1970, he issued a report
to the trustees on what he had discovered.
It is very brief and I would like to read it
in full, because it is of some importance.

To THE Trustees,

International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders, Black-
smiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local
128,

221 Victoria Street,
Toronto 2.

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to your request, I attended the
offices of the above named for the purpose
of performing an audit of the books and
records for the year ended December 31,
1969, and a perusal of the books and
records for the five years ended December
31, 1968, and I am pleased to submit this
preliminary report.

Because I was unable to obtain sufficient
information and supporting data for the
years ended December 31, 1964, to De-
cember 31, 1969, inclusive, I am unable
to perform an audit of the receipts and
disbursements for the year ended Decem-
ber 31, 1969, nor make any comment with
regard to the period from January 1,
1964 to December 31, 1968, and I am
unable, at the present time, to confirm the
assets which were on hand as of Decem-
ber 31, 1969.

During the course of my inspection of
the books and records which were made
available to me, I was able to ascertain
that the gross wages, as filed on the 1969
T4 summary, were understated for certain
employees with respect to the amount these
employees were entitled to receive as
authorized by the membership. With re-
spect to the above, I recommend that an
amended 1969 T4 summary be prepared
and filed with the Department of Internal
Revenue.

Well, what does that mean? It means that
for some reason these union officers were
being told they were to be paid a certain
amount of money. But, at least on paper,
they were drawing considerably less— in fact,
about half of what they were supposed to be
drawing. This indicates at first full blush
that they were working for less, but unfor-
tunately that is not the situation.

It started off, apparently, as a simple in-
come tax svmidle. They decided they would
take half their money in a pay cheque and
the other half they would take in cash. There
is no question about that. Unfortunately, it
grew beyond that to deciding they would
take a little more than their pay cheques
and what was due to them on top.

256

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

In any case, when this report was issued
and it was obvious that something was very
wrong with the books— what was left of them,
because there were very few there to be
examined— the trustees of the union became
very upset and on April 28, 1970, they de-
cided they had better have a full-time audi-
tor to see what was going on in this union.
So on that date, April 28, they wrote a letter
to Mr. R. K. Burr, the International Presi-
dent of the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Black-
smiths, Forgers and Helpers, at Eight State
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas, which reads as
follows:

Dear Sir and Brother:
At a meeting held on April 9, 1970, in
the presence of International Vice-Presi-
dent J. P. Carroll, assistant to International
Secretary-Treasurer R. Legler, the trustees
of Local Lodge 128 and the undersigned,
a decision to engage a full-time auditor
was made. I respectfully submit for your
approval the name of Sidney J. Posner,
chartered accountant, 215 Victoria Street,
Room 301, Toronto 205, Ontario.

Trusting this will meet with your ap-
proval.

With best wishes and regards,
I remain,
Fraternally yours,
President, Lodge 128.

Copy to Mr. J. D. Carroll, international
vice-president.

We needn't be too surprised that four weeks
later when the international answered— in
fact, strangely enough the man whom this
was sent to down in the States— and I am
coming to American control— I am sorry the
member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea)
isn't here because I have something to say
to him— the letter was not answered by Mr.
Berg, the international president. Instead,
guess who answers it? The answer came back
from John D. Carroll, one of the people who
is into this to his ears. He wrote back on May
21, a lengthy letter, but, in effect, he said:
"We don't approve of your hiring this fellow
Posner. If you want to have an accountant,
send me the names of two other people and
we'll pick one of those, but we are not having
this guy, because look at what he has already
discovered."

At this point the trustees and the honest
members of this union became quite upset
because, obviously, here they are writing a
letter to their international about something

that is crooked up here and the international
doesn't even answer the letter. They referred
it back to the people who are being com-
plained about, who answered them by saying,
"Carry on, boys."

So they thought at this time maybe they
should send someone down to the United
States to explain what the problem was. In
the meanwhile, they started going into the
books to see just what was happening to the
money. It was a really difiBcult job, because
the books were practically non-existent. The
practice had been in this particular union to
take the money in in cash and disperse it in
cash whenever possible for reasons which
will become quite obvious.

I have here a statement from a Mr. J.
Quesnei. This particular union has an initia-
tion. They charge $150 for initiation, but the
initiation money doesn't always get to where
it is supposed to go. I'll read you Mr.
Quesnei's statement:

I worked as a probationary member from
October, 1966, to March 21, 1969, when
I was asked to pay $150 for initiation. I
paid this to Mr. Mickey White.

Mr. Quesnei continued:

I worked until June of this year. The
week of August 25 I came to the union
oflSce and wanted to have my name put on
the out-of-work sheet. I was asked if I
was a member of Local 128 and I said
yes. But I didn't have any proof of it— no
card of any kind— so my name wasn't put
on the out-of-work sheet.

I had a receipt for the $150 that I gave
to Mr. White in March. I brought this back
again to the office, but they still couldn't
find any record of my being on the list or
of the money ever coming in.

I was told to come back on Tuesday,
September 2 when the office manager, Mrs.
Halaban, would be there. All she could
find was a probationary card. She phoned
Sudbury three times that day but wasn't
able to find out from Mr. White what
happened to the $150.

This goes on at some length. The man was a
little upset— not so much at having paid the
$150 as he understands that the rules require
that a probationary member pay initiation
fees, but at the fact that the $150 had just
disappeared; that it hadn't reached the union
headquarters, and more important than that,
that now he was out of work he was unable
to draw any of the benefits that he should
have been entitled to as a member of the
union, because, as far as the books of that

MARCH 10, 1972

257

union went, he wasn't a member. It wasn't
just initiation fees that were disappearing.

I have another statement here from a Mr.
Clinton Mitchell, which reads as follows. It
is dated, Monday, March 9, 1970:

I was sent to work as a probationary
member on November 5, 1968 for Com-
bustion Engineering at Lambton generating
station. I worked until November 11, 1969.
Each month I had $12 deducted from my
cheque for union dues. As yet I have not
received any receipts whatsoever.
(Signed),
Clinton Mitchell.

One of the trustees attempted to check into
the oflBce. There was no record of this man's
union dues ever arriving at the office.

There is also a certain matter of some
bonds that were supposed to have been
owned by the union. The executive trustees
were told at one time that the local had over
$50,000 invested in bonds. However, when
they went to look for those bonds they
couldn't find them In fact, when they went
to the Bank of Nova Scotia where the bonds
were supposed to be placed, all that was
there was some $27,000 worth of bonds, with
their numbers listed here. They were a little
upset about this, so, after a union meeting
held in April, 1970, they asked, "What hap-
pened to our bonds?" and I quote:

Brother Duchesnay asked Brother Petron-
ski how much savings the local had in
bonds. There was a discussion over this
issue, because at an earlier meeting the
executive board had been led to believe
that the local had over $50,000 invested in
bonds. However, at the meeting with
Brother Carroll last week, the trustees were
informed that we have never had $50,000
in bonds at any time and that we had been
mistaken.

Well, something funny happened then. The
membership started complaining rather bit-
terly and informed the executive that they
were getting in touch with me. A few weeks
later— no, it wasn't, it was just a few days
later—they received a letter addressed to the
trustees from the Bank of Nova Scotia with
a list of bonds, saying that "the above-men-
tioned government of Canada bonds were
deposited in this branch on"— and no'e the
date— "May 11, 1970, by Messrs. Petronski
and Carroll. On these bonds were $2,001.15
in undipped coupons. Where those bonds
were all this time and why they didn't clip
the coupons might be something worth look-
ing into.

How much money was disappearing from
the union? It is very hard to tell. We do
know that from the time when all this heat
was generated, in May, 1970, until the next
year. May, 1971, during which period of time
there was a very, very careful look kept by
the trustees on everything that was coming
in and out, the assets of the union doubled.
They went from $25,000 to $55,000 in one
year. The assets went up about $30,000 in
one year! One wonders what was happening
in the time before that.

Well, what was happening in the office? It
is rather interesting to look at the payroll and
see just what was occurring— to see what one
could learn from the payroll.

The office manager was a Mrs. Carmen
Halaban and she had a daughter by the name
of Gloria. Gloria came to work there for six
weeks in the summer and I got in touch per-
sonally with Gloria Halaban to ask if she had
worked more than the six weeks. She said
no, she had just worked there the six weeks
in the summer.

But, for some reason, her pay just came right
on rolling through on the books. They started
paying her in the summer and they paid her
for the six weeks, and then they kept paying
her. There are cheques here up as late as
Dec. 12. But she, by her own statement, was
nowhere near the office and did no work for
them.

What about the office manager herself? Her
name is Carmen Halaban. Her salary is sup-
posed to be $134 a week. Well, she started
off drawing $71.19 a week. I am not sure
how she arrived at that particular figure, and
that is the figure she shows on her income
tax, but by going through the petty cash re-
ceipts, one finds that she took out another $65
a week in cash, which she didn't bother re-
porting to anyone.

What about Brother Petronski, the business
manager of the union? Well, he is an interest-
ing case because I have got his cancelled
cheques here. Now, this fellow is a crook.
That is the only way to describe him. He is
a plain, ordinary crook.

He was entitled to certain pay, which he
drew part in cash and part in salary— the
cash part he didn't bother declaring— in addi-
tion to which, he was entitled to $30 a week
in general expenses and $30 a week in car
expenses, which seem fairly liberal; he didn't
have that much car work to do. But this was
not enough for Mr. Petronski.

I have been going through all the can-
celled cheques from the union, and they

258

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

didn't bother paying cash. This pile of
cheques, if you can beheve it, was paid from
the union for parking tickets that Petronski
picked up over a period of two years. This
inch and a half thick pile is parking tickets.
After all, I guess he figures, "I can park any-
where. I don't have to pay for it anyway."

Let me say quite clearly and quite flatly
that I have been in touch with the union
officials and there is nothing whatsoever in
the union bylaws, or in the union laws that
allow such payments to be made. There is a
flat allowance of $30 a week car expenses,
out of which he is supposed to pay all his
car expenses.

He didn't stop there, however, he had
other little expenses which I have here some-
where. Another little interesting trick is that
he would deduct $34 weekly from his salary
cheque and add it to the expense cheque so
no income tax had to be paid on that. But
that is between him and the income tax
department. But what is more important, he
was drawing money out of the imion, not
just to pay for tags, but also to pay for all
sorts of interesting things.

I have a cheque here for Thomcrest Motors
for $134, another to Elgin Motors for $171,
and I checked with these people to see what
it was for and he was renting a car. We don't
know what he was renting the car for. I
have another cheque here for $199 and one
for $293 and one for $417 which he was pay-
ing to H. H. Ingle and Associates. He was
paying his insurance to them through the
union.

Well that is all very interesting. In other
words, the union was being looted, and there
was no one who could do anything about it.
When the trustees came in and found some-
thing wrong and refused to sign the state-
ment, the international vice-president, his
name is J. D. Carroll, said: "If you don't
want to sign it, that's just too bad; I'll sign
it for you." And, in eff^ect, that is exactly
what happened. We have no idea how much
money was taken out from this imion
treasury. I have a number of statements here
from various members saying where money
went, but as I am unable to prove those, I
don't wish to put them on the record. But
its a fairly wild group of places.

Well, I called the accountant, Mr. Posner,
and said what in the world went wrong there?
How could that happen? Why was there no
supervision, from the international union, or
from the government, or from the Depart-
ment of Labour, or from somebody? And I
quote him; re replied:

The problem is control in this union
rests in the United States and the trustees
made complaints to the central head oflBce
but the US persons in charge refused to do
anything about it because they backed up
the local management who, in my opinion,
should have been removed.

Well, the trustees were trusting people and
they decided they had better go down to the
international head office, way down there in
Kansas City, and have them look into this
mess up here because all their money was
being stolen by these people in charge of
the union.

And the trustees had a meeting, and
according to the rules of the constitution of
this particular union, if you have a complaint
you don't go first to the international head
oflSce, first you have to go through— like the
army— you have to go through channels. So
they followed the channels and on May 5,
1970, they wrote a letter, as they were sup-
posed to do, to the business manager and
the secretary-treasurer of the union, Mr. Stan
Petronski, the gentleman I referred to earlier,
and I will quote you that letter:

Dear Sir and Brother:

We the undersigned, on behalf of the
membership of Local 128 hereby charge
you with the following violation of the
international constitution of Local 128 by-
laws.

Under article 17, section 17, subsection
(a) of the international constitution, we
charge you with failing to keep a proper
record and account of all financial trans-
actions of Local Lodge 128 from May 5,
1969, to December 31, 1969, inclusive, as
specified in article 23, section 7, subsection
(a) of the international constitution.

Also under subsection (a), section 1,
article 17 of the international constitution,
we charge that you failed to retain such
records and accounts for the period of time
as required in article 23, section 7, sub-
section (d) of the international constitution
from May 5, 1969, to December 31, 1969,
inclusive.

Under subsection (a) and subsection (g)
of the international constitution, we charge
that you Brother Petronski did use the
funds of Local 128 for the payment of
personal bills incurred by you, which is
contrary to article 34, section 1, of the
international constitution, article 16, section
1 of Local Lodge 128 bylaws.

The alleged violations (payment of such
bills), occurred on the following dates:

MARCH 10, 1972

259

May 12, 1969; June 9, 1969; July 29,
1969; September 30, 1969; October 24,
1969; November 5, 1969.

Under article 17, section 1, subsection
(f) of the international constitution, we
charge that you brought discredit and dis-
honour to your position as an oflBcer of
Local 128 by allowing Mrs. C. Halaban,
the former office secretary of Local 128,
too much latitude in the performance of
her employment with the union. You con-
doned and approved many hours of over-
time work, supposedly worked at her home
after office hours for the purpose of doing
the monthly statement and quarterly audit.

Mrs. Halaban averaged 85 to 90 hours
a month overtime, which we were told was
necessary to keep up the records of Local
128. Since Mrs. Halaban terminated her
position with the union, a new office secre-
tary has been hired. It has not been neces-
sary for her to work any overtime in order
for her to maintain the records and ac-
counts of the local.

For the purpose of clarification all
above charges are made to go back one
year immediately prior to the post date of
this letter. The above charges are made
without prejudice and to the best of our
knowledge are deemed to be tn.xe. For the
members of Local 128, we remain,

Fraternally yours, The Trustees.

With copies to R. K. Berg, the international
president, J. D. Carroll, the international
vice-president, and A. J. Cormier, the presi-
dent of Local 128.

They might just as well have not bothered,
because they were just wasting their time.
Let me read you the reply— they finally got
a reply from the international. This is dated
May 14, 1970. It didn't take them too long;
it came back within a week. It is signed by
Mr. Harold J. Buoy, the acting international
president, and he replied:

Gentlemen and Brothers:

I am in receipt of a communication dated
May 5, 1970, in reference to charges filed
by you against Stan Petronski, which has
been directed to my attention. President
Berg is at present convalescing from a
recent illness and for the period of the
convalescence has designated me as acting
international president.

Be advised charges must be specific, with
constitutional references, and must state
clearly and in detail the actual occurrence
or action, including the time and place
allegedly constituting the violation or

offence. Therefore, in filing charges it is
mandatory that you do not deviate from
the outline put forth under article 17 of
the international brotherhood constitution.

Be further advised the aforesaid -charges
in their entirety are herewith ruled as not
being timely, in accordance with article
17, section 2(a) of the international brother-
hood constitution, and are declared invalid.
By means of this communication the lodge
is herewith instructed not to proceed in
any way with the processing of these
alleged charges.

Trusting you will be guided accordingly.

Fraternally yours,

Harold J. Buoy,

Acting International President

Well, what were the trustees to do? What
was the membership to do? They find the
leadership is crooked They appeal to the
international, and also, incidentally, to the
Department of Labour— nothing came of that
either— and the international writes back:
"Your charges aren't timely and we instruct
you not to do anything about them." What
does it mean "not timely"? I looked up "not
timely" in the constitution, and for a charge
to be brought it must be brought at the
time it occurs or as soon as you learn of it.
These men brought the charge as soon as
they learned of it, so it was timely. But
they still hadn't learned that you don't get
justice from this international and they tried
again. On June 12, 1970, they wrote back to
the international as follows— and let me point
out they are still trying to work through the
constitution.

Gentlemen and Brothers:

Re File L12870-6.

Please be advised that pursuant to
article 5, section 2, of the international
constitution we are lodging an appeal
against the May 14, 1970, letter from Act-
ing International President Harold J. Bouy,
which set aside our charges against Brother
Stan Petronski dated May 5, 1970. We con-
sider that in accordance with article 17,
section 2(a) of the international constitu-
tion the time limit of 60 days does not
apply, because the basic facts and evidence
pertaining thereto could not be accumulat-
ed or made known within that period of
time. We were unable to properly check
the expenditures of the local from the
time of our appointment to March 16,
1970, for the following reasons:

260

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

1. Denial of access to the safe by
Brother Petronski where the cancelled
cheques and the other data of the local
were lodged.

2. Deficiency in bookkeeping system and
maintenance of records.

Due to the above, we authorized the
recently appointed auditor, Mr. Posner, to
attend at the oflBces of the local to perform
an audit on the books and records for the
year ended December 31, 1969, and a
perusal of the books and records from
January 1, 1964, to December 31, 1968,
as per out letter dated March 13, 1970,
and copy of which is enclosed. Please find
enclosed copies of other letters with
respect thereto, dated March 17, 1970 and
March 18, 1970.

Therefore, March 17, 1970, was the first date
at which time anyone had access to the
evidence of the cancelled cheques. The audi-
tor's preliminary and final report independ-
ently confirmed number two above.

In order for the charges to be considered
specific, we hereby enclose a letter from
Mr. Posner, outlining in detail the status
of the books and records of the local and
photostats of cancelled cheques and paid
insurance invoice with respect to the pay-
ment of Brother Stan Petronski's personal
bills out of union funds, these photostats
being too numerous to list.

We trust the above information will be
satisfactory to proceed with charges against
Brother Petronski. If it is decided not to
proceed with any charge against Brother
Petronski, we will consider that we have
exhausted all internal remedies, as per
article 17, section l(r), of the international
constitution.

( Signed )

The Trustees

They got an answer back very quickly on
June 17 from the international president:

Dear Sir and Brother:

Receipt is acknowledged of your appeal
to the international executive council from
Acting International President Harold
Buoy's letter, dated May 14, setting aside
the charges filed against Stan Petronski,
business manager of Lodge 128, as not
being timely and declared invalid.

Be advised that the appeal has been
docketed for the consideration of the in-
ternational executive council at their next
regular meeting.

—which took place four months later. The
four months passed and the international con-
sidered this. Guess what they said. Here is
the letter which they wrote on October 26,
1970, to Mr. A. J. Cormier, the president of
Local 128:

Dear Sir and Brother:

You are advised that the international
executive council, during their meeting in
Kansas City, Kansas, October 20 to 21,
1970, had before it as docket No. 8 the
appeal from the decision of the acting in-
ternational president, dated May 14, 1970,
in the matter of charges filed against busi-
ness manager secretary-treasurer, Stan.
Petronski, by trustees Bruce Bedard, James
R. Hunter and R. J. Duchesnay of Lodge
128.

In compliance with section 3(b), article
17 of the constitution of the international
brotherhood, the international president
absented himself from participation in the
meeting of the executive council during
consideration of docket No. 8 and interna-
tional vice-president, John Sender acted as
chairman.

A subcommittee of the executive council
was appointed to review the file and re-
port to the executive council, and you are
advised that it was the decision of the
executive council that:

Action to be taken— The appeal from the
decision of acting international president
Buoy and the charges filed by the trustees
of Lodge 128 against business manager
secretary-treasurer Stan. Petronski be deni-
ed and that the decision of the acting
international president be sustained.

Fraternally,

Harold Buoy.

The trustees had come to the end of the
road. There was nothing more they could
do. They couldn't believe that crooks could
take over a union in this way and they could
do nothing about it. They appealed to the
Department of Labour, which for some rea-
son—apparently because the law is so word-
ed—found there is no action they could take.
Finally, at that point, they came to me and
said: "What can be done?"

It was then I went to the AFL-CIO leaders
who, may I say, I believe were as appalled
as I at the evidence which I presented to
them.

Let me stress at this time that the vast
majority of unions are straight and are honest

MARCH 10, 1972

261

and do not have this type of problem but,
obviously, this can occur.

It isn't just in this union. I have got an-
other union here where something very simi-
lar is taking place. This is good old Charles
Irvine's union. You may remember my talk-
ing about him when we were discussing
the Mafia last year. I will come to that in a
moment, but obviously there is a problem
in these small craft unions where the money
and the membership are under the thumb
of the persons in charge.

Some form of supervision or remedy is re-
quired from our Department of Labour. In
a situation like this the membership should
be able to go to the Department of Labour
and have an audit forced. They should, if
necessary, have a trustee sent in, not from
the international, because obviously the In-
ternational doesn't give a damn how much
money is being stolen. They should have
some remedy.

Let me say right now, I know I'm giving
aid and comfort to the enemy in this speech,
which gives me some regret. I disagree ab-
solutely and completely with everything that
has been said on this subject by the member
for Scarborough Centre. I disagree absolutely
and completely with the bill which he has
brought in.

It would result in the crippling and the
impotence of the unions in this country to
cut them off from the parent unions in the
United States, while at the same time the
international companies here can still get
help from their parents in the United States
when there's a strike here. When an inter-
national union here strikes an international
corporation, what the member for Scar-
borough Centre would do is cut off the aid
that that international would extend to our
unions. He wouldn't do anything about cut-
ting off the aid that comes from the parent
corporations.

He didn't suggest in his bill that there be
a law passed forbidding the sending of Cana-
dian money to these international parents.
What he suggests is no Canadian money
should be sent from unions to the union
parents which, in theory, is great if you do
the other side. But you don't lop off one ad-
versary's head and say to the other side:
"Go to it, fella, fix 'em." This is the voice
of big business speaking. I would have ex-
pected better from that member.

However, this doesn't mean that every-
thing in unions is perfect. Obviously there
are problems and these problems have to be
cleared up— not by chopping off their heads

as the Conservatives would do; not by
chopping off their power to strike back and
fight back against the big international corpo-
rations, as the member for Scarborough Cen-
tre would do; but by bringing in some aid
through the Department of Labour so that
when a crooked situation like this develops
they can get some help.

There's another one. I want to take a
moment and talk about good old Charlie
Irvine. Remember him and his machinations
with the Labourers' Union, with the Mafia?
Just two weeks ago I got a letter from several
people who work in his field— it's in the
plastering field— who unfortunately are mem-
bers of his union. They wrote to me as
follows; perhaps I should leave out some of
the adjectives:

Dear Dr. Shulman:

Due to the [blank— blank] behaviour of
Charles W. Irvine, international vice-presi-
dent of the Operative Plasters, we, the
undersigned members in good standing of
the Operative Plasterers Union, are forced
to ask for your help in solving a problem
created in this union. The following letter
is a description of the events leading up
to our present action.

We spent a portion of 1971 plastering in
New York City. Part of the union plaster-
ers' pay packet in New York City were
stamps worth $2.05 per hour. Ordinarily,
these stamps are turned into the plastering
industry welfare and pension trust fund.
The out-of-town plasterers can obtain a re-
fund, after due process, by the PIW and
PIP. During 1963 and 1964 we obtained,
directly, our own refunds after working in
New York City.

However, starting in 1970 the Canadian
union hierarchy decided to distribute these
refunds through the oflBce of Local 117 in
Toronto after proper deductions were
made. Our return to Canada in July 1971,
has allowed plenty of time for the refund
processing. Each of us has over $1,000 due
in refunds. We are very anxious to receive
this money as we have been out of work
since January 3, 1972, and have not re-
ceived any unemployment insurance what-
soever. In Local 117's oflBce, February 8,
1972, we were assured everything was in
order. The only thing needed was Charles
W. Irvine signing the cheques. He was
not in his oflBce that particular day.

After a delay of 10 days we went to
Toronto to see Irvine in person. Upon en-
tering the union headquarters, Irvine's
opening statement was: "There is no use

262

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

talking to me, as I do not speak Italian."
We are not Italians and we couldn't under-
stand his comment. Before we could reply,
he left us and closed the door to his inner
office. During our morning's wait for an
afternoon appointment we came to the
conclusion the office procedure was a farce.
After informing E. W. Russell, the busi-
ness agent of Local 48, of our conclusions,
he finalized a series of insults by saying:
"Get the — [there is a four-letter word]
out of this office." Please inform us if you
can help accelerate the payment of these
stamp refunds. It would also help a large
number of plasterers in Toronto who are
having the same problem.

Your attention to this matter would be
greatiy appreciated.

Yours truly.

It was signed by two union members in
Brantford. I am afraid to use their names
because I am told that if I do they will be
blacklisted and would be unable to get work
in the industry.

I wrote to Mr. Irvine immediately and I
asked him if he would please look into it
because these men really needed their refunds
very badly.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): They're
going to be very hard to trace after that
anonymity the member promised them.

Mr. Shulman: He knows who they are now
but if their names are made public— appar-
ently you're allowed to do something as long
as your name doesn't get in the paper. If
your name gets in the paper you've had it.

Incidentally, regarding the other union I
spoke about before. Local 128, I have a letter
of theirs here too in which they sent out to
the hiring halls a list of men who were not
to be hired for the following reasons. One
reason was they thought they were Commun-
ists, so that is all right I think. Reason No. 2
is because they are troublemakers, and that
is all right I think. But reason No. 3 is be-
cause they have been involved in strikes, and
I found that rather strange for a union. Any-
way, that is Local 128. Somehow I have the
feeling that the people who run that union
are more interested in the corporations than
the union members.

Anyway, Mr. Charles Irvine wrote me a
letter on Feb. 29.

Dear Sir:

Your letter of Feb. 28 regarding un-
signed cheques. Please be advised that
any and all cheques emanating from New

York which have required, as you say, my
signature, have been handed to the princi-
pals involved or mailed to them at their
homes immediately on receipt of same from
New York with no complaints to this office
as of this date.

Yours truly,

Charles W. Irvine.

I found that in come contradiction to the
facts. I wrote Mr. Irvine immediately on
March 2.

Dear Mr. Irvine:

Thank you for your letter of February
29. I understand the following individuals
have been unable to receive the moneys
owing to them.

And I gave him the names of three persons.

Furthermore, I am told on their last

attempt to do so two of these men were

ordered out of your union's Toronto Office.

May I hear from you again.

Yours sincerely.

That was over a week ago but there has been
no reply. I checked with the men and they
still haven't got their money.

There has to be somewhere these people
can go and the answer obviously isn't just in
setting up a Canadian union as some of the
Conservatives have suggested, because one of
the worst possible unions is a Canadian
union. The one we had mixed up with the
Mafia last year, which was making the deals
with the construction people, was a local
Canadian union.

The problem doesn't come from American
affiliation. In a few unions— and let me stress
again, very few— the crooks are in charge and
something has to be done about it. This has
to go to the Minister of Labour. We have a
new Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon)

I am sorry that the member for Armourdale
(Mr. Carton) lost the job. He was really a
magnificent Minister of Labour, if I may say
so. He couldn't have been better unless he
had come from labour ranks himself; he had
a feeling for the human beings who were in-
volved.

I am going to tell you a story about him
in a minute; I think this praise is due to him.
I have to criticize so often here and I want
to say something nice about someone. Un-
fortunately, the new Minister of Labour— and
I say this with all kindness— is a lovely gentle-
man. I don't think there is a nicer gentleman
in this whole House than the member for
Stormont. I have the greatest personal affec-

MARCH 10, 1972

263

tion for him and I can't imagine a more
decent human being. But quite honestly, I
don't think that his training and his back-
ground and his ability are such as to fit him
for this particular post.

I would have hoped that the Premier (Mr.
Davis) would have placed him in one of many
other fields which, I am sure, he would
handle with distinction. But in the field of
labour where he really has no background
and no knowledge, I fear we are going to
have a few very bad years of labour strife
because he is just not qualified to handle the
problems that are going to develop.

I am digressing just for a moment. I want
to tell you about the problems that can
develop. There was a firm out my way that
went on strike late last summer. It was a
small company at the corner of Dundas and
Runnymede and employed perhaps 85 people.
The men went out for reasons they felt were
legitimate, asking for more money and better
working conditions. The owner of the busi-
ness, who had built that business up from
nothing, was an immigrant. He felt very
paternal and took this, their striking, as a
personal slight and he swore he would break
the strike.

He hired this terrible Canadian Driver
Pool, who sent in their strikebreakers, their
trucks, their photographers, their thugs, and
in effect they broke the strike. They put that
company back to work. They hired men, most
of them new immigrants who weren't aware
of the situation, and, gradually, over a period
of months, the company began to approach
normal production and the men out on the
picket line became desperate.

Many of those men are patients of mine.
They are all of very modest means. It began
to dawn on them that they had lost the strike.
The Department of Labour had been unable
to do anything about it.

I went to the president of the company
and asked: "Please give the men an offer
they can live with. You have beaten them,
let them at least come back to work." The
offer that had been given was: "We will hire
you back under the terms we offered you
before, except we are not going to hire you
all back. The following men we are never
going to hire back because they have been
too active on the union picket line." They
gave a list of the five union leaders. Well,
no man could go back with self resepect
under those terms and they had to refuse it.

I went to the president of this company
and I begged him, literally I begged him; it
was just before the election. I said: "Please,

as a human being do this." I said: "There
is just an outside chance that the NDP might
win this election and if they do people like
you are going to be in trouble." He said:
"Let's wait and see for a week or two." He
stalled until October 22 and then he decided
there was no need to make an offer to the
men and he went on a holiday somewhere.

It looked like those men were just out of
work, out of luck. A lot of them had worked
there 20 years.

I have to give tribute to the then Minister
of Labour (Mr. Carton). I phoned him up
and he said: "Come and see me." I went
down and I told him this story. I said that
as the member for High Park, as the member
representing that area, and speaking for these
men, if as a personal favour, for no other
reason, do something for these men— get them
back at work.

I don't know what he did, but I have to
give him a tip of the hat, because the very
next day he phoned and he said: "There is
going to be an offer made to the union by the
company tomorrow. For goodness' sake make
sure they don't haggle on it."

I phoned up the union leader and I said:
"You are going to get an offer and it is
going to be a decent offer. Don't try to
change a comma. Grab it, because the com-
pany would like you to reject it. They would
like you to haggle so they can turn it down."
The union men were desperate and said:
"Don't worry, we will accept it."

That offer came through and it was a
decent offer. They hired everyone back; they
gave them a reasonable raise in pay. My head
is still swimming and believe me, as long as
the member for Armourdale stays in politics,
I will be one of his great supporters.

He did something that a Labour minister
should be able to do in a situation like that.
He was able to step in and I don't know
what pressures he was able to exert, but
whatever they were, he exerted them. He
literally saved the lives-the financial lives
and the home lives— of some 85 men and their
families.

It is not too often we get something great
coming out of the opposite side but when it
does come out, credit should be given. The
minister did a great job there; I am sorry
he was moved out of the post.

To come back to these two unions. My
appeal to the present Minister of Labour—
and I trust he will hear my appeal wherever
he is— is that some further control has to be
put on to the craft unions particularly, as to

264

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

their financial handling of funds. There has
to be an annual audit required as a minimum.
A report must be filed with the Department
of Labour and when obvious evidence of
crookedness is produced, the department
should be able to step in.

I would like to leave that and move on to
a matter affecting the minister-
Mr. Speaker: Order please!
If I might, the conversation at the console
is quite audible. I wonder if they could just
speak a little lower so we can hear the hon.
member.

Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to turn to a matter in the field
of apples. I am sorry the Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food (Mr. Stewart) isn't here be-
cause he is the one I would like to talk to on
this particular subject.

I came here to this House five years ago
and I knew nothing about farming. I still
know nothing about farming. I knew nothing
about the marketing of food; I am learning a
little about that. Periodically— as recently as
last week I believe the seconder of the
Speech from the Throne gets up and says
something about marketing boards and
marketing commissions and that we've got
to do something to push the price of eggs up,
we've to do something to strengthen the
position of the farmers in the peach field or
the pear field or whatever it is.

Quite honestly I didn't really have any
knowledge of what this was all about whatso-
ever. But my curiosity has now been piqued
and I have been looking at this particular
field. It surprised me that in these five years,
although we hear a great deal from the
people representing the farmers in this House
about their particular problems, no one has
ever spoken up for the consumer— and per-
haps it is time someone did. Since I represent
very few farmers in my riding and most of
my people are consumers, I think it is only
fit and fair I should do this.

I don't want to set myself up as an expert
on marketing; I still haven't even looked in
most fields. I began, of all places, witli apples,
which is a relatively simple field— they are
marketed in a relatively simple way without
any processing being required— and what I've
seen boggles my mind from the consumer's
point of view.

I think it's been generally accepted by all
parties and all governments for many years
that the farmer needs certain protections and
certain aids. I accept without question that if
there is unfair dumping of manufactured

goods from Japan, we should put duties on
those manufactured goods to protect our
manufacturers. I accept the same if there is
unfair dumping of grown products on our
farm market; there should be duties to pro-
tect the farmers. I accept the fact that if
subsidies are needed for mines in order to
keep the men working in those mines, we
give the subsidies.

Similarly, if there are subsidies necessary
to keep our farmers farming economically,
we should give those subsidies. But I do not
accept the insane way that our money as
consumers is being wasted in at least this one
particular field, which I would like to go into
in detail.

Two months ago a man came to my oflBce.
He sells apples; he goes around to farmers
and buys the apples, then trucks them up to
northern Ontario and sells them. He said:
"I've received a letter from the Ontario Apple
Producers Marketing Board saying I'm selling
my apples too cheaply, and I'm not making
enough profit. I have to charge more or
they're going to take me to court, and I
might go to jail for as long as five years."

I said: "You've got to be putting me on;
that can't be right." But, by golly, he produced
the correspondence— I have it here— and they
did actually accuse him of selling the apples
too cheaply— not to the consumer, because
there's no law about how cheaply you can
sell to the consumer, but to the stores.

Now what they've done— and get this— is
they have not set a minimum price that must
be paid to the farmer. Apparently you can
pay the farmer as little as you want; to buy
the apples for as little as you can is perfectly
okay. But there is a minimum price that the
retailer must pay the middleman. Figure that
one out!

What that means in effect is that we are
not safeguarding the farmer but the middle-
man, the packer, the guy who trucks it
around, the guy who acts between the farmer
and the retailer. Once the retailer has it, he
can sell for anything he wants. He can sell
for less than cost, more than cost, mark it up
double; that doesn't matter. But there is a
minimum price that retailer must pay.

This seemed a httle strange, and I got in
touch with the secretary-manager of the
Apple Producers Marketing Board— his name
is Mr. W. E. Bond— and I said: "This sounds
a little nuts." He said: "Well, everybody is
happy with the board. It isn't just the apple
middleman and the apple grower w'ho are on
the commission; we have representatives of
the retailers on the commission and, not only
that, of the consumers."

MARCH 10, 1972

265

I said: "Really? Who is the representative
of the consumers?" He said, "Why, we have
someone from the Consumers Association of
Canada, a Mrs. W. Brechin, who sits on the
board. Everybody is happy on the board.
Nobody has objected at all, and obviously if
nobody objects there can't be anything wrong
with our system."

I found this a little strange, so I got in
touch with Mrs. Brechin. She was attending
a consumers' conference down in Ottawa,
and I finally got her down there, and she
said:

"Well, quite frankly all marketing boards
are against the best interests of the consumer,
and I sit on it as a representative of the
consumer in the hope of least getting our
viewpoint across and I hope that my input
in some way aflFects the actions that they
take. But quite frankly," and I quote her
now, "the apple Marketing Board is an
illogical system that has built up over the
years. After 3^A years I still don't understand
it. Frankly, the whole concept of a market-
ing board is contrary to the consumers'
interests and approach."

I gathered at this point that everyone
wasn't completely happy with the commis-
sion. But then, I found something that really
surprised me. There are four grades of ap-
ples. They start with Canada fancy, and they
go down through Canada commercial to C
grade, which is good only for making juice.
And retailers must be charged the same
minimum price for apples regardless of which
grade it is.

So I said: "How could that be?" I mean,
obviously, if an apple is full of worm holes
and is a C grade, or is badly deformed, is
crushed, and you can't sell it, it shouldn't
be worth as much as an apple that is highly
polished and in perfect condition.

I couldn't quite figure that one out, so I
got in touch with the Minister of Agriculture
and Food and he said: "Well we tried that.
You know it does sound logical, perhaps
reasonable, that if an apple is a second we
should charge less for it, but we found it
didn't work. You see, unfortunately, we found
that some firms would go and pack apples
and call them A grade and they were really
C grade; and the system didn't work."

You know, that's strange, they do have
inspectors who go around and they grade
these things. I went down to the Queensway,
to the place where they sell these apples
and these little inspectors were there nm-
ning around and chopping away at the apples

and looking at them saying: "That's A grade,
that's C grade, that's fancy." And his answer
left a little bit to be desired, but apparently
what it finally boiled down to his department
was so inefficient that they were unable to
grade the apples. Figure that one out.

Well, all right. We debate with the Min-
ister of Agriculture and Food, but it's a
losing battle since he knows his subject far
better than we do. He is a farmer and we
are poor consumers. Besides, once he starts
talking, he talks a lot and by the time he
comes to the end of it we have forgotten
what the original question was anyway. So
I saw no point in continuing the debate with
him.

But here is a situation where the apples
are graded all right, and then the retailer
is told he must pay the same price whether
he buys the good ones or the bad ones. Well,
this causes a little confusion to the retailer.
But if you think this is bad wait till you hear
the corker.

The Ontario Apple Marketing Board has
passed a law saying there is a minimum price
that must be paid for apples by any retailer
in Ontario, unless— and this is the real corker
—unless the apple is grown outside of On-
tario, in which case there is no minimum
price.

Now this big apple in Ontario is the Mc-
intosh, and fortunately, or unfortunately for
our growers, we grow Mclntoshes that look
exactly the same on this side of the border as
grow in Quebec. The Mclntoshes here look
exactly the same as the ones that grow in
New York. So what happens is, because
apples are so much cheaper in value than the
minimum price set by our board— now, be-
cause the Ontario apples cannot be sold to
the retailers— people truck the apples in from
Quebec. So we buy Quebec apples. This,
of course, helps our growers a great deal.

I went down to Mr. Bond's oflBce and said
that this boggles the mind. "How can you
people be so stupid? All you are doing is
ruining the market for the Canadian growers,
for the Ontario growers and the Ontario
farmers. What is happening is, the chains will
bring in apples from Quebec, which can be
brought in for half the price of the Ontario
apples, the same apple, and they will sell
them here and you are just going to put our
farmers out of business."

He sa